Re-calculated for math. I hate math.
Well, still bored. So, the Catapult sitting unused in my Legendary Founder's garage has been staring at me forlornly.
I'm not a huge fan of piloting a support mech, but I sure as hell love it when people on my side are. It's not difficult to see that the catapult was intended as a workhorse support mech, and the stock variant fills that role admirably. But could it be better?
Before I can answer that question, I need to know what is meant by Support. Everyone seems to toss that term around, but what does it mean? I'm of the opinion it comes from the term
Fire Support. The interesting point here is the quote "...
is used to shape the battlefield or, more optimistically, define the battle."
Well that certainly makes the support role sound important. The application of firepower from a distant point allows the individual directing the fire to shape the battle. But how?
Well if you can hit your enemy, and he can't strike back at you, you have just forced your enemy to make a decision. He has to either retreat, advance to a range he can retaliate from, or sit there and take it. Congratulations, you have just shaped the battle. Of course, picking the right target will be critical, and the right location to fire from also.
So how could the stock catapult be made more effective in a fire support role? It's already pretty effective, but it does have some shortcomings. Primarily it lacks the ammunition for a protracted engagement. 8 salvos and you are empty. Also the armor is disturbingly light. 160 out of a maximum of 211.
Assuming a
1:1 hardpoint ratio we take the mech sitting in our garage and strip off all the weapons and equipment:
65 - 16 tons (2 LRM 15 + 2 Tons ammo) - 4 tons (4 Medium Lasers) - 5 tons (heatsinks) - 4 tons (jump jets) leaving us with a 36 ton chassis, with 260 standard engine giving 4/6 movement and the original armor load of 10 tons (160 armor points).
The three primary considerations of any armor unit (mechs included) are speed, firepower, and armor. A speed of 4/6 seems reasonable for a support role. Any slower and it will be difficult to maintain a position to fire from, any faster and the main consideration in a support role, firepower, could be compromised. Weight can be saved by going to an XL engine however, if we want the added risk of increased vulnerability. Since firepower is again, the foremost concern:
260 STD fusion engine 13.5 tons vs 260 XL fusion engine 7 tons
A savings of 6.5 tons seems like a reasonable decision. (right up until our left or right torso gets breached).
Substituting the XL engine makes our stripped down chassis now weigh in at:
36 - 6.5 = 29.5 tons.
Armor is also a consideration, but again in a support role, we are supposed to be firing from a position of
relative safety. Still 10 tons is rather light and armor is relatively cheap with regards to tonnage. Lets increase the armor by 1 ton, giving us an extra 16 points of armor. This allows us to max our armor on the left and right torso (to guard the vulnerable XL engine) from 19/8 (front/rear) to 22/8 each, and upgrade the rather lightly armored arms from 13 armor each to 18 of a maximum of 20 armor each.
So 29.5 + 1 ton of armor = 30.5 tons.
The primary consideration for fire support is of course firepower, and if we can bring enough of it to bear on a target we can change the course of a battle without ever having to move our lazy *** off the couch... I mean hill. Considering that we are working under a 1:1 hardpoint ratio however, it severely limits the configurations we can consider. Twin LRM 20's is of course the maximum we can consider, but given our current weight allowance of 34.5 tons, that would eat up 22 tons of it, and only give us enough ammunition for 6 salvos, with almost nothing left for discouraging close range attacks. This is less than optimal. Remaining at twin LRM 15 launchers is certainly a viable option at this point, but we could punch harder.
1 LRM 20 RA + 1 LRM 15 LA is a good compromise. Weighing in at 17 tons without ammo it gives us room to boost the ammunition levels for a sustained firing role. 4 tons of ammo for the LRMs gives us 480 missiles, enough for 13 shots of the LRM 20 (260 missiles) and 13 shots of the LRM 15 (210). (An
interesting question arises at this point- what happens when you have 10 missiles left over and no LRM 10?)
So 30.5 + 17 (weapons) + 4 (ammo) = 51.5 tons.
With our remaining 13.5 tons we can do a lot to discourage close in attackers. With 4 energy hardpoints the concern is a good balance of range and damage vs heat. I personally will opt for 1 large laser mounted in the center torso, and 2 medium lasers mounted in the left and right torsos.
51.5 + 5 (Large Laser) + 2 (Medium Lasers) = 58.5 tons
This leaves us with 6.5 tons left over. This is primarily due to upgrading our engine, so again it seems like a good decision (right up until we lose a left or right torso). With the demands of a large laser we will need more heatsinks to make the best use of it, as we now have direct fire capability out to 450m.
5 heatsinks will give us 15 heat dissipation, which will allow us to remain cool while firing LRMS, and also allow us to fire the Large Laser and Medium Lasers for a period of time against anyone encroaching on our firing position.
But we still have 1.5 tons left. And since the best solution is to enemy encroachment on our firing position is to remain undetected as long a possible, it is fortunate that a
Guardian ECM Suite weighs in at exactly 1.5 tons.
58.5 + 5 (heatsinks) + 1.5 (ECM) = 65
So to recap, we now have a catapult with the same movement rate, no jumpjets, more vulnerable torsos, the same number of heatsinks, slightly enhanced armor, and more firepower with the ammunition to sustain the firepower longer.
There's no way to know for sure if the build actually works better (or worse) that the standard catapult, but we can re-examine our assumptions.
The first assumption that jumps out is the lack of jumpjets. (sorry, bad pun) We are obviously assuming that they are not needed in a support role. Useful yes, but necessary? The assumption is that the increased weapons load and ammunition is going to be more useful.
The second assumption is that the increasing one LRM 15 to an LRM 20 is worth the tonnage. With only 5 more missiles per salvo one could easily argue that twin LRM 15's was a better loadout, and we could have gotten even more ammunition. Or conversely twin LRM 20's and less ammunition. All I can say is that it seems like a reasonable compromise, and only testing can determine if it works and how well.
3
Khobai, on 19 July 2012 - 12:16 AM, said:
If you’re thinking that the PPC’s 3 critical slots must be filled with 3 medium lasers, then no, you don’t have to do that.
