

#1
Posted 02 April 2016 - 05:51 PM
I understand not introducing the BJ-2 when we first got the Chassis, but now that we are at or very near timeline (3052, right?) for it, isn't it about time we got it in the game?
For one, its a unique loadout/hardpoint set-up, both from its other variants, and most other mediums.
Stock has 2ER Large Lasers and 4 Streak SRM-2s, in case anyone is wondering. Lasers high arm mounts, missiles about where the torso lasers are on other BJs.
A 4M 2L hardpoint set-up is something we don't get until the 55 tonners, having a 45 tonner with this is hardly game-breaking, but would fill a nice niche in tonnage options. It would still be slower than the Griffin 3M, and the Kintaros that can do this, so it would not likely be a 'better in every way' situation.
Also, this is much easier to add now, with many of the art components for weapons being universal assets.
I would certainly be happy to add it to my arsenal, and I imagine so would others.
Anyone have a opinion on this missing variant?
#2
Posted 02 April 2016 - 05:54 PM

#3
Posted 02 April 2016 - 05:55 PM
Eric Portenelli, on 02 April 2016 - 05:51 PM, said:
I understand not introducing the BJ-2 when we first got the Chassis, but now that we are at or very near timeline (3052, right?) for it, isn't it about time we got it in the game?
For one, its a unique loadout/hardpoint set-up, both from its other variants, and most other mediums.
Stock has 2ER Large Lasers and 4 Streak SRM-2s, in case anyone is wondering. Lasers high arm mounts, missiles about where the torso lasers are on other BJs.
A 4M 2L hardpoint set-up is something we don't get until the 55 tonners, having a 45 tonner with this is hardly game-breaking, but would fill a nice niche in tonnage options. It would still be slower than the Griffin 3M, and the Kintaros that can do this, so it would not likely be a 'better in every way' situation.
Also, this is much easier to add now, with many of the art components for weapons being universal assets.
I would certainly be happy to add it to my arsenal, and I imagine so would others.
Anyone have a opinion on this missing variant?
my real question is what numpty fool would produce a Mech called the BJ-3...when no BJ-2 "existed" yet? And why a Mech produced after the 3 would then retroactively be called a 2? It'd be one thing is they were in near simultaneous development, and one beat the other to the punch, but we're talking 25 years difference. Or again, if the 3052 BJ was the birth or rebirth of an old SLDF era BJ or something that was out of production due to the Succession Wars. But neither apply
The baggage of more Battletech retcon nonsense, possibly?
Edited by Bishop Steiner, 02 April 2016 - 05:57 PM.
#4
Posted 02 April 2016 - 06:16 PM
Bishop Steiner, on 02 April 2016 - 05:55 PM, said:
The baggage of more Battletech retcon nonsense, possibly?
no no no you don't get it!
3 is higher than 2, and the mech designers were trying to impress! Who would be interested in buying a BJ-2? 3 is higher than 2! So, they called it the BJ-3. Problem is, buyers were confused by the lack of a BJ-2, so eventually they had to make one.
For real though, I suppose there are some instances of weird numbering... American F-series jets have numbers all over the place, right? I believe they are grouped in terms of role rather than order developed...
Probably just some retcon nonsense though.
#5
Posted 02 April 2016 - 06:23 PM
Chimera11, on 02 April 2016 - 06:16 PM, said:
no no no you don't get it!
3 is higher than 2, and the mech designers were trying to impress! Who would be interested in buying a BJ-2? 3 is higher than 2! So, they called it the BJ-3. Problem is, buyers were confused by the lack of a BJ-2, so eventually they had to make one.
For real though, I suppose there are some instances of weird numbering... American F-series jets have numbers all over the place, right? I believe they are grouped in terms of role rather than order developed...
Probably just some retcon nonsense though.
actually, they tend to be numeric, with most gaps from failed prototypes and such. But the Air Force seems to have stepped away from their own designation process. But it's a lot easier to understand Gaps when it's the rule, not the exception (like with Fighters).
Even so, my neuro-atypical mind finds it as yet another annoying exhibit of the lack of cohesive logic that exemplifies the neurotypical world.
I do believe the Vulcans would have been more inclined to go to war with Humans than the Klingons or Romulans, to prevent our species illogical nature from spreading and further tainting the galaxy.
#7
Posted 02 April 2016 - 07:36 PM
#8
Posted 02 April 2016 - 07:39 PM
Bishop Steiner, on 02 April 2016 - 05:55 PM, said:
The baggage of more Battletech retcon nonsense, possibly?
I would almost apply the "Winamp" rule here.
Sometimes going backwards a little is better than the cluster**** that happened first.
#9
Posted 02 April 2016 - 07:39 PM
#11
Posted 02 April 2016 - 07:53 PM
Bishop Steiner, on 02 April 2016 - 06:23 PM, said:
Maybe if Vulcans were more consistently logical they would've...though I suppose that's the fault of them being written by illogical Humans.
#13
Posted 02 April 2016 - 09:25 PM
Bishop Steiner, on 02 April 2016 - 07:42 PM, said:
Think quad ASRM4's instead. 4xML + 4 ASRM4 will make quite the impression, considering squeezing in endosteel and an XL is easily doable.
#14
Posted 02 April 2016 - 09:33 PM
wanderer, on 02 April 2016 - 09:25 PM, said:
It will also make the Vindi even sadder since it would ruin any potential the Vindi had of getting hardpoint inflation to SRM brawl and make it unique.
#15
Posted 02 April 2016 - 09:39 PM
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 02 April 2016 - 09:33 PM, said:
VND been sad ever since they ganked it at birth with such limited Hardpoints.
#17
Posted 02 April 2016 - 09:46 PM
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 02 April 2016 - 09:33 PM, said:
The Vindicator has been getting it's face kicked in by Blackjacks since day 1, which is doubly ironic considering the bad rep the 'Jack has canonically while the Vindi is considered a sturdy, solid design.
#18
Posted 02 April 2016 - 10:54 PM
They jumped numbers #3, #4 and #5 to make foreign powers think there were 3 other Seal teams out there.
The number designations for blackjacks could serve some similar devious purpose.
Although I'm still wondering how canyon network is a map with "41% water".
#19
Posted 02 April 2016 - 10:56 PM
Edited by Monkey Lover, 02 April 2016 - 10:56 PM.
#20
Posted 02 April 2016 - 11:14 PM
wanderer, on 02 April 2016 - 09:46 PM, said:
Canonically, the Blackjack was never actually bad. Its bad rep was just hearsay; it was a solid combat vehicle.
And on a personal level, every single humanoid 'Mech should be getting its face kicked in by something with a clearly superior design in its weight class even within the constraints of the source.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users