1016 replies to this topic

[TheArisen]

LanXang, on 10 January 2017 - 06:01 PM, said:

That first pic by Bishop Steiner...I would probably never use another mech if this came out. It looks awesome, and can do dual gauss. Seems a bit slow, but if you can put a large engine in it to get it above 60KPH it might be tolerable.

The 9FC variant comes stock with a 380xl (400 engine cap easy)

[Edward Hazen]

Yeonne Greene, on 10 January 2017 - 05:37 PM, said:

As someone who also works in engineering, it should scare you even more to know that key design details are often stored only in the heads of people working on the project even today. I mean, even in the real world we are having to reverse-engineer the F1 engines from the Saturn V rocket to figure out exactly why they worked as well as they did.

Yeah, back then there was no Cadcam or databases though. But seriously, to build something as large and complex as a BattleMech would take a team of engineers and many techs and assemblers (although the labor was probably automated to a large extent).

[FLG 01]

S0ulReapr, on 10 January 2017 - 02:52 PM, said:

The mech was not able to be produced from the start of the first secession war until around 3057 because the factory the mech was produced at had been destroyed and the only two engineers who knew the plans were killed. As someone who works in engineering, it is amazing to me that there were no backups of the design documentation available or that no one was capable of reverse-engineering the mech. Yes, I know that in lore the 1st seccession war was all-out with bio warfare and whole planets nuked to rubble, but it is still hard to believe.

In the SW they produced what they could produce. There were still some Nightstars around during the 1st SW and I am pretty sure they could have retooled a factory line to produce a downgraded Nightstar. But why take that risk? The downgrade may well turn out to be useless (as it actually did in a few cases, think of the EXT-4A).
It was far safer to rely on the tested and proven designs and keep producing them.

Btw., some time ago I tinkered with a downgraded Nightstar design:

Spoiler

TheArisen, on 10 January 2017 - 03:52 PM, said:

Right? You'd think ComStar at the least would've reverse engineered it and made a factory for such a powerful mech.

To be fair, ComStar had no need to produce anything until Tukayyid. They not only had enough Mechs to equip their troops but also send vast stocks to the Dracs in '39.
And as far as powerful Mechs are concerned, the Nightstar is not the only contender. They had stuff like the Thunder Hawk, Pillager, or Emperor just in the assault Mech class, plus the updates to the classics. (The Precentor Martial himself piloted an upgraded Atlas).
Also ComStar had very little combat experience. Even if the ComGuards enjoyed some of the best training in the IS, it was hard to tell which one of their top Star League assault Mechs would perform best. Of course, with its dual gauss and ER-PPC the Nightstar was well in line with the Clanbuster upgrades which often tried to improve the ranged combat capabilities.

I for one like pre-schism ComStar just because it has such a wild mix of exotic Star League designs, available in really small numbers only, which by its very nature defies any RAT.

[TheArisen]

FLG 01, on 11 January 2017 - 12:59 AM, said:

In the SW they produced what they could produce. There were still some Nightstars around during the 1st SW and I am pretty sure they could have retooled a factory line to produce a downgraded Nightstar. But why take that risk? The downgrade may well turn out to be useless (as it actually did in a few cases, think of the EXT-4A).
It was far safer to rely on the tested and proven designs and keep producing them.

Btw., some time ago I tinkered with a downgraded Nightstar design:

Spoiler

To be fair, ComStar had no need to produce anything until Tukayyid. They not only had enough Mechs to equip their troops but also send vast stocks to the Dracs in '39.
And as far as powerful Mechs are concerned, the Nightstar is not the only contender. They had stuff like the Thunder Hawk, Pillager, or Emperor just in the assault Mech class, plus the updates to the classics. (The Precentor Martial himself piloted an upgraded Atlas).
Also ComStar had very little combat experience. Even if the ComGuards enjoyed some of the best training in the IS, it was hard to tell which one of their top Star League assault Mechs would perform best. Of course, with its dual gauss and ER-PPC the Nightstar was well in line with the Clanbuster upgrades which often tried to improve the ranged combat capabilities.

I for one like pre-schism ComStar just because it has such a wild mix of exotic Star League designs, available in really small numbers only, which by its very nature defies any RAT.

Yeah you're right CS would have no reason to build new Night stars. They only modified mechs to not give away the good stuff or replenish before and after Tuk.

[Edward Hazen]

Alex would definitely need to do allot of work on the Nightstar. I am not a fan of walking 'blimp' Mechs like the Stalker or Crab, although the Ebon Jag looks much better than the original artwork.

[Metus regem]

S0ulReapr, on 11 January 2017 - 08:25 AM, said:

Alex would definitely need to do allot of work on the Nightstar. I am not a fan of walking 'blimp' Mechs like the Stalker or Crab, although the Ebon Jag looks much better than the original artwork.

Well they did do wonders with the Bushwacker... she had two offical looks after all...



That was from inside the TRO, for the Bushwacker's entry...



That was the cover art for the TRO...

For the record, that's TRO 3058.

[Snazzy Dragon]

Metus regem, on 11 January 2017 - 10:35 AM, said:

Well they did do wonders with the Bushwacker... she had two offical looks after all...



That was from inside the TRO, for the Bushwacker's entry...



That was the cover art for the TRO...

For the record, that's TRO 3058.

I just hope the arm mounts are neutral enough for it to be more of a bushwacker and less of a hillsmacker, personally... fingers crossed

[Metus regem]

Snazzy Dragon, on 11 January 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

I just hope the arm mounts are neutral enough for it to be more of a bushwacker and less of a hillsmacker, personally... fingers crossed

Depends on how meta you want to run, me since I don't rightly care, I use a Super Stock Warhammer, PPC arms and all. I think a more meta build for the Bushwackers is going to be ST UAC/5's or AC/10's... either case is going to be an XL engine build I think.

[TheArisen]

S0ulReapr, on 11 January 2017 - 08:25 AM, said:

Alex would definitely need to do allot of work on the Nightstar. I am not a fan of walking 'blimp' Mechs like the Stalker or Crab, although the Ebon Jag looks much better than the original artwork.

I think everyone that's taken the time to do artwork of the Nightstar has done an amazing job but obviously I'd be mega excited to see Alex's take.

The minis actually put a lot of the mech's mass in big arms so I don't see a blimp like the Stalker.

[Bishop Steiner]

TheArisen, on 11 January 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

I think everyone that's taken the time to do artwork of the Nightstar has done an amazing job but obviously I'd be mega excited to see Alex's take.

The minis actually put a lot of the mech's mass in big arms so I don't see a blimp like the Stalker.

well, at 17 tons of guns, plus structure, armor, etc..those arms should be pretty big.

[TheArisen]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 January 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

well, at 17 tons of guns, plus structure, armor, etc..those arms should be pretty big.

Which leads me to believe the Nightstar would do well with volumetrics.

[Bishop Steiner]

TheArisen, on 11 January 2017 - 12:11 PM, said:

Which leads me to believe the Nightstar would do well with volumetrics.

well, if they actually used them in that manner. Considering their dynamic Weapon Scaling to date, expect nothing.

[TheArisen]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 January 2017 - 01:36 PM, said:

well, if they actually used them in that manner. Considering their dynamic Weapon Scaling to date, expect nothing.

Sad but true. Alex's artwork is also another X factor. I believe Alex would give it arms like the mini and existing artwork but the 3D model is yet another unknown.

[Snazzy Dragon]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 January 2017 - 01:36 PM, said:

well, if they actually used them in that manner. Considering their dynamic Weapon Scaling to date, expect nothing.

I particularly like how the warhawk gets a gauss finger of doom while the marauder IICs get to have them tucked neatly away

[Edward Hazen]

Metus regem, on 11 January 2017 - 10:35 AM, said:

Well they did do wonders with the Bushwacker... she had two offical looks after all...



That was from inside the TRO, for the Bushwacker's entry...



That was the cover art for the TRO...

For the record, that's TRO 3058.

Yeah, I used to own that TRO and the Bushwhacker appeared in the BATTLETECH cartoon also. I think there was even a toy from the cartoon. I had the Ral Partha miniature too.

Edited by S0ulReapr, 11 January 2017 - 04:22 PM.

[TheArisen]

S0ulReapr, on 11 January 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

Yeah, I used to own that TRO and the Bushwhacker appeared in the BATTLETECH cartoon also. I think there was even a toy from the cartoon. I had the Ral Partha miniature too.

Well as Metus said they did a good job with the Bushwhacker. I'm certain they'd nail the Nightstar which has a similarish silhouette. Obviously without the low hanging arms or missile pod.

[Bishop Steiner]

TheArisen, on 11 January 2017 - 06:26 PM, said:

Well as Metus said they did a good job with the Bushwhacker. I'm certain they'd nail the Nightstar which has a similarish silhouette. Obviously without the low hanging arms or missile pod.

Hey, decided to design a 3025 Downgrade version of the Nightstar for you....
Could consider it an Early Succession War downgrade before they went extinct, or a late 3020s attempt to resurrect the design....

Hope you like it, I think it's actually pretty solid!

[TheArisen]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 January 2017 - 09:42 PM, said:

Hey, decided to design a 3025 Downgrade version of the Nightstar for you....
Could consider it an Early Succession War downgrade before they went extinct, or a late 3020s attempt to resurrect the design....

Hope you like it, I think it's actually pretty solid!

Nice! The only thing that'd I'd think about changing would be to have ×3 ac5 instead of the ppc & ac10s just to introduce a variant with unique hard points.

[Bishop Steiner]

TheArisen, on 11 January 2017 - 09:48 PM, said:

Nice! The only thing that'd I'd think about changing would be to have ×3 ac5 instead of the ppc & ac10s just to introduce a variant with unique hard points.

Whole point was to maintain the hardpoints... in either a military downgrade for SLEP or for a rebirth, one would likely keep it as close to the original as technologically feasible. Plus 3 AC5 on a 95 ton mech is pretty limp firepower. One could easily give up 2 of the Heat Sinks though and slap in an AC5 in place of the PPC... which gives you the different hard points without giving up the ac10s punch. With that loadout , even at a full run, you'd only lay out 18 heat, so 15 SHS should be plenty.

[FLG 01]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 January 2017 - 09:42 PM, said:

Hey, decided to design a 3025 Downgrade version of the Nightstar for you....
Could consider it an Early Succession War downgrade before they went extinct, or a late 3020s attempt to resurrect the design....

Hope you like it, I think it's actually pretty solid!

It is a logical downgrade, and I did pretty much same with it almost a year ago (and it was posted just one page ago...).

Bishop Steiner, on 11 January 2017 - 09:52 PM, said:

Whole point was to maintain the hardpoints...

Indeed. TheArisen is just a fan of adding a ballistic HP to an ST.