BattleMech 10: Cicada
#241
Posted 09 May 2012 - 04:25 PM
#242
Posted 09 May 2012 - 04:43 PM
#243
Posted 09 May 2012 - 04:43 PM
#244
Posted 09 May 2012 - 04:49 PM
EDIT: I meant -3C
Edited by Hawk3y394, 10 May 2012 - 12:47 PM.
#245
Posted 09 May 2012 - 04:51 PM
AdamBaines, on 09 May 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:
No such thing as an "Ugly" mech. Some are just "big boned."
I am working furiously on my time machine so I can leap into the future and play this...anyone got any dilithium?
#246
Posted 09 May 2012 - 04:56 PM
#247
Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:09 PM
The Cicada is a mech I don't think I'll pilot much before upgrading it to the PPC hauler variant. The base loadout is just too weak. On the other hand, if there is charging damage here, then 40 tons moving at 129kph will ruin someone's day...This constitutes a guided missile.
#248
Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:13 PM
#249
Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:17 PM
SquareSphere, on 09 May 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:
... wait... the 3M wasn't introduced until 3050! Does that mean we'll have some variants that from the "future" ie we're in 3049 at launch.
Broad5ide, on 09 May 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:
#250
Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:21 PM
Confession time: Did not see this coming. How do you pronounce Cicada anyway?
Garth Erlam 8 hours ago, said:
Chick-ah-dah.
WaZzA Now hours ago, said:
Pronunciation "tends" to be: See-kaa-daa.
Np.
Edited by WaZzA, 09 May 2012 - 05:22 PM.
#251
Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:24 PM
Kifferson von doober, on 09 May 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:
Akaryu has a point though, what about physical size. On table top it didn't matter but here it might. I mean is it gonna be a bigger target to aim at than the jenner?
its a medium odds are is that it will be bigger then a light mech thus the advantage of its speed means nothing and its just a big fast target that when push comes to shove wont be able to take a hit or defend itself properly. way i see it leave scouting scout destroying sabotage and harrasment to light mechs as they are small enough and quick enough and have enough electronics to do there job well.
#253
Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:28 PM
#254
Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:32 PM
#255
Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:32 PM
#256
Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:38 PM
Ensign Expendable, on 09 May 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:
hope you dont mind getting hit then in your new medium mech thats armed like a light but almost twice the size! hope i made my point dont like to be too whiney. but fellow light mech pilots do your research this thing isnt a light mech its a medium mech that is armed like a light mech and given the engine and armor of a light mech.
Edited by Akaryu, 09 May 2012 - 05:39 PM.
#257
Posted 09 May 2012 - 06:05 PM
#258
Posted 09 May 2012 - 06:26 PM
Damnit FD, you always Got 2 Go Fast or you are not doing it right... VGS
Edited by Cattra Kell, 09 May 2012 - 06:27 PM.
#259
Posted 09 May 2012 - 06:39 PM
I guess it makes sense as a "heavy recon" unit (I'm guessing at this point that we'll see threeish of each Role represented in our theoretical dozen launch 'mechs), but I admit I'm surprised we didn't get something like the Hermes (II) or the Assassin instead.
I do have to wonder what the Cicada brings to the table that the Jenner doesn't. Both pack four tons of armor and the Jenner has more firepower and Jump Jets, for only slightly less speed (in practical experience, the difference between 118 km/h and 129 km/h is negligible except over very long distances). The additional five tons is all eaten up (and then some) by the engine for no real advantage.
I like the look of the design, but it feels misplaced among a lineup of generally more-capable machines. Give us the 3C or 3M and it's a different story (since long-range strike capability on a fast platform is something we currently lack), but the 2A just seems incongruous.
EDIT:
Actually, despite the fluff piece describing a 2A, this is a 3M we're looking at. I see a Small (pulse) laser lens in CT under the cockpit and both Mediums on the side torsos. That triple-barrel thing in the LT has to be the UAC/5.
So, interesting to see that we will have some proper 3050's tech available to us at launch, then. The design also implies to me that lighter autocannons are going to be of the "machine gun" variety that will spit small shells at a high rate for as long as you hold down the trigger. At least, I hope so. I can't figure how a triple-barrel arrangement would make sense otherwise.
Edited by Straylight, 09 May 2012 - 06:50 PM.
#260
Posted 09 May 2012 - 06:47 PM
9 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 9 guests, 0 anonymous users