VHT Canopy - Redux - Now a Poll!

[MikelAmroni]

My first blush on the issue would be that in battloid mode they have enoaugh screens around to actually replace sight for incoming threats. There is nothing I can remember (for a basic hovertank and pilot) that suggests that they have a HUD in their visor. Sure they get audible alarms (incoming missiles, collision, etc), but in Transport and Tank mode they likely rely quite a bit on sight for keeping their view of the battlefield and approaching targets. After all, the Mk 1 Eyeball is always a good way of keeping a look out for things.

Penalty wise I'd give them a -2 to all perception checks (maybe harsher), but give them more protection (at least equal to the pilot's compartment when in battloid). You'd think that with more flat space you could have more screens to counteract it, but the simple fact is the cameras aren't deployable in tank or transport mode. so all those extra screens can show is what the basic sensors can show. While it may be better than nothing, given the option, most tankers would keep the top down in that situation.

Or something Sounds good enough to work from.

[Tiree]

I am thinking it may be more of a PR thing for the 15th ATAC. I am not sure if they were supposed to perform Garrison Duty, and some police actions. If that is the case, I can definitely see them wanting to have a public face.

But then there is also the fact that it is easier for the pilot of a non-canopy VHT to get in and out of the tank.

Benefits and/or Penalties, I would say it is moot and the only benefit is a reinforced pilots compartment available in tank mode.

[Beatmeclever]

No canopy on the VHT! This is simply because the ASC Tanker is wearing a suit of MDC armor. He can take a hit or two before he dies. The first hit should be his signal to get the flock out of Dodge.

The designers simply took the armor into account while they were building the VHT. No canopy allows the tanker to rely on his own senses while enhancing those through the use of Radar, Lidar, and even Magnetic Resonance Imaging (all displayed on the HUD and dash screens).

[jedi078]

It makes sense for the space mission but on the ground, what would be its purpose? It wouldn’t give you protection from attack and would be lost the first time you changed into battloid mode, right?

The canopy would protect the pilot in transport mode from shell fragments, small arms fire, snipers etc. Furthermore who is to say the canopy won't fall off during transformation?

[jedi078]

What makes you think the canopy would provide protection from anything but the elements?

If there is a canopy in use for zero G ops then it would have to protect the pilot from debris floating around in space. That said if you used the same canopy while planet side it too would also protect the pilot from small arms fire, snipers etc etc etc.

Where do you think the canopy would go in battloid mode?

Looking at the transformation sequence, mounted on the back.

In the end having the canopy makes more sense then NOT having it. Just look at the up-armored HUMVEE’s being used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Look at how much has been done to protect the gunner from sniper fire and shell fragments.

[glitterboy2098]

going by the footage, it seems the VHT in transport and cannon mode have minimal displays. and we see in the space deployments the canopy doesn't seem to have much of any additional display features, instead being basically just a box to protect the pilot. since it makes no sense to create a new canopy if an existing one is available (which we are speculating here), i'd say that the space canopy is the optional canopy, and the reason all the tankers we see on screen don't use it is that while it protects them from explosions and such, it so sharply reduces their battlefield awarness that they would be less effective than without it.

from a battlefield perspective, the canopy isn't really needed. the VHT seems to have been designed to fight mainly in two ways. up close, as a trooper battloid, or at range, as an artillery cannon platform. transport mode is just the fast conveyance mode. in battle, i suspect ASC tankers are expected to only use the transport mode to get to the battlefield, before changing into cannon mode for overwatch support fire, or battloid mode for direct conflict. in all probability it was presumed by the designers that the ASC would have air superiority (given their extensive conventional and veritech airforce and extensive space force), and the tankers would be supported by conventional armor and mecha in any battle. against the zentreadi this probably would have worked. but the more mobile conflict caused by the master's deployment of bioroids, bioroid sleds, and bioroid transports as a team seems to have really screwed up tactical doctrine. that most of the early ground battles occured as the result of patrols or garrison forces stumbling over smaller units of masters troops conducting covert actions, and later were seige actions against an entrenched enemy defending it's downwed mothership (which was more than capable of fending off airborne assualts) meant the kind of combined arms battles the hovertank would work so well in never really occured.

[Beatmeclever]

*SNIP*
The MDC stats will just have:
Detatchable Pilot Canopy: X
*SNIP*

I wasn't saying that it shouldn't be written up and published; just that it shouldn't be of any use in any situation other than as we see it used in the show -- for transit in vacuum.

I just think that with the introduction of MDC armor like the ASC uses, the need for the same enclosed pilot's compartment as modern tanks have will have been thought to have gone away. After all, 1) this is a one "man" crewed TANK! We don't have those in the modern world so why should we limit the VHT with modern armor requirements? 2) This is more of a tank destroyer than a tank. And 3) iirc, in all of the engagements seen in the show, we never see the canopy but for the one instant when the 15th was crossing through vacuum.

I guess we will just have to wait to see what HG and PB think after the Master's Saga Sourcebook comes out.

[Beatmeclever]

But, then again, looking at the canopy, it could be that it is retractable like a convertable car roof? Or it could fold back into a space (much like a cyclone storage bay in an Alpha. It seems to be pretty thin from the look of it, but it could be made of the same stuff as a VF or Alpha canopy.

So, I hereby retract my earlier arguments and eagerly await the book to see what HG thinks.

[Jefffar]

Here's some self propelled assault guns/tank destroyers with a lack of protection for the crew.

This one has no top armour.

No top armour on this one either. On the next in the series, not only did they have no top armour, but they ditched the rear armour too. Same with the third in this family- though towards the end of the production run they did add a bit of rear armour - not much, just enough to stop the occasional stray bullet.

Looks like this design didn't beneft from top armour ether.

This one has limited side armour and no top or back armour.

Another one where the crew is uprotected from attacks from above, to the rear and even to the side.

Oh and before you think that all those examples being from the loosing side in the war mean that a direct fire AFV must have all around armour to succeed, let's see a few examples from the winning side. No top armour here or here. None here or here either.

Heck, you think they might have learned something during World War II, but hey check out this sweet little self propelled anti-tank/assault gun from after the war. The gun crew has no protection from above, the rear or even the sides.

Of course I could be facetious and point out the lack of armour on this self propelled anti-tank gun, but I think I've proven my point that more than a few direct fire artillery weapons carried less than complete armoured protection for their crew, msot of which were relying on the speed and agility of the vehicle to provide protection.

Seeing as the VHT is highly mobile, can fling it self 80 feet with the press of a button and responds to the pilot faster than any modern armoured fighting vehicle, it's quite possible that the designers felt that a lak of fixed crew armour was not a signifigant disadvantage.

[glitterboy2098]

If there is a canopy in use for zero G ops then it would have to protect the pilot from debris floating around in space. That said if you used the same canopy while planet side it too would also protect the pilot from small arms fire, snipers etc etc etc.

I am not following. Why does it "have to" do this? For all we know it is simply there to provide a sealed enviroment for the pilot.

The fact that we don't see them in use outside of space missions is simply more telling than any assertions you can make.

it's called protecting the pilot from standard enviromental hazards. in this case, space debris. even today, there is enough space junk up in orbit to cause some serious harm. flecks of paint hit with the power of pistol bullets up there due to orbital velocities. the modern space shuttle more or less counts as an armored vehicle due to this, with it's windows and fuselage made to withstand impacts. and this is just normal operations, we have to route it around anything screw/bolt sized or bigger. a single freefloating nut can punch through the shuttle or kill a sattelite.

now consider this. thats now. the situation since the 1970's. in robotech, you have the debris from millions of destroyed zentreadi ships. while most of the really big peices would have been removed from orbit, all the nuts, bolt,s screws, bits of wire, flecks of paint, nicknacks and so on would have been too numerous to clean up.

now add to this that by that point in the war, hundreds of southern cross ships had been destroyed, even more mecha from both sides had been destroyed. now imagine how much other junk is flying around in orbit from all that, over an above the stuff from the early days of space exploration and the stuff left over from the zentreadi invasion.

now consider that the mecha are going to be flying into battle, where they will be shot at, be close to missiles exploding, mecha being shot up, starships being destroyed, bits of debris being scattered everywhere.

it would be criminal of the southern cross to not use a canopy on it's mecha that could at least shrug off the lighter stuff.

[Jefffar]

A paint bomb would be an effective weapon against a Tanker driver hanging out in the breeze, let alone mega-weapons.

Would work quite well against the optic sensors of an armoured cover too.

[Jefffar]

Seeing as the VHT is highly mobile, can fling it self 80 feet with the press of a button and responds to the pilot faster than any modern armoured fighting vehicle, it's quite possible that the designers felt that a lack of fixed crew armour was not a signifigant disadvantage.

Significant disadvantage to fighting what? 40ft aliens and Battlepods that will always be able to peep into the cockpit?

I know the OSM VHT designers didn't take into consideration 40ft aliens. They had the Zor to worry about. But I'm just trying to make Robo-sense out of the design.
I'm just throwing it out there that it was probable that the Mecha *had* a Canopy built in. It was used in EVA missions in the anime. Anyone who drew a Hovertank in action, outside the animation, threw a canopy on it.

1) I don't recall the VHT depictions in the older RPG books showing canopy in place - including an action images in the Strike Force. So I don't think your final statement is entirely accurate.

2) Again those lightly armoured vehicles I pointed out were designed around the idea that the proper agility (conferred by less weight spent on armour) was as good or better protection in their role than thick armour. Given the agility the VHT displays in combat - perhaps the designers of the mecha felt that a strike on a relatively small section of a mecha that bounces around like the VHT does was extremely unlikely and that provideing a layer of armour over that location was unecissary. Of course in Battloid mode - intended for close range engagements where a hit on the pilot was much more likely - the pilot is seated fully armoured compartment.

So I think the apparant absence of a standard issue armoured cover for ground combat might not be as bad an oversight as it seems on first blush and may actually be quite intentional.

[Jefffar]

A paint bomb would be an effective weapon against a Tanker driver hanging out in the breeze, let alone mega-weapons.

Would work quite well against the optic sensors of an armoured cover too.

Indeed, but with a canopy the backup plan is to engage the beeper and use the rear camera to reverse out of there.... or pop the canopy.... or flick to Battloid mode.

Without one, the pilot would have to take his paint-plastered helmet off to fumble around his paint-filled cockpit and even when he flicked to Battloid mode the cockpit readjustment means the puddled paint would slosh around and potentially blind the pilot's exposed eyes in the process.

However the sensors blinded by the first paint bomb are likely the same sensors relied upon by the battloid configuration to look around. Also, a tank backing out of a fight is just as removed from the battle as one that has had the pilot shot out of his chair. In either case it's a mission kill.

[Jefffar]

The intention of this thread was not to argue the existence of a canopy...it's right there in the anime, but to ask what y'all thought was the "default" configuration and if there were any bonuses to be had in either.

The only definite thing we have about the canopy was that it was deployed in space combat. To my knowledge it is never seen elsewhere in the series.

So we don't know for sure if the covering for the pilots's compartment was

1) A common fitting for ground combat
2) A space only module that could be installed when needed
3) A hastily put together one-off lashup only ever used to get the 15th onboard the mother ship.

We also don't know if it was

1) Retractable so it could be redeployed later.
2) Something that had to be jettisoned prior to transformation.

Finally, we only ever see it used on a transport mode vehicle, so we don't even know if it could be used in Guardian mode.

Now it seems to me that some here think that the TV series provides answers to these unknowns - but so far, in my vewings of the seiries, these quesions go unanswered.

So if someone have answers from the series, please share them, so I might know what to look for next time I get a chance. Until then it's just hypotheticals and suppositions.

[glitterboy2098]

Side note from skimming through the posts wasn't danas tank upgraded to the new ion cannon so you can't say the VHT main gun was energy we just know that danas was upgraded to energy and that was after they found out how the masters fought.

just my .02

hellbound

'tis a good point Hellbound. Most of us are assuming that the VHT cannon is an energy weapon.

If it turns out the VHT was robo-designed with Indirect Fire in mind then the canopy has less relevance.
I hope this means Gideon is writing up a tonne of variants with Funky cannon shell loadouts.
And that freakin Ion Cannon had better have some awesome punch to it, in order to offset the fact Dana can't lob the fire into the enemy.

from the show it looks like all the VHT's could be called either way. the things they fire look like energy beams, but behave like projectiles.

myself, i like the idea that they were projectile weapons usuing an electroplasma propellant. a solid or liquid propellant converted to plasma instead of exploded. the result would be a higher velocity gun for less mass, and the plasma would stream behind the shell looking like a energy weapon. since all the VHt's shoot this way in the show, i attribute Dana's "new hovertank" to be a newer production model than the rest in the unit, not a new weapon system. a comparison could be made to a F-15C being assigned to a squadron of F-15A's. the capabilities of the two models are basically the same, but the -15C is just newer built with only minor improvements to the systems.

Finally, we only ever see it used on a transport mode vehicle, so we don't even know if it could be used in Guardian mode.

actually, since the seat does a 180 when going from transport to cannon mode, the canopy we see used in space would not be useable in guardian. the back of the canopy is non-transparent, which would mean the pilot would not be able to see out of it. and since there is no evidence of additional display screens in the canopy at all...




in regards to the whole canpy issue...
Robotech.com infopedia

Also, late in the Second Robotech War, many Hovertanks were refitted with armored closed cockpits and with rocket pods for use in space against the Robotech Masters' fleet. These versions became known as the VHT-1A2 (refitted -1) and VHT-1A3 (refitted -1A1).

The main drawback of the Hovertank is the open pilot position in Hovertank and Guardian modes. Aside from making the pilot vulnerable to enemy fire, this is also unpleasant and tiring in inclement weather.

aparrently Harmony Gold has decided the hovertank did not have a canopy. until the kludged space refit.

[Jefffar]

Thanks GB2098.

It only directly indicates the space mission for the canopy (along with some funky rocket pods), but at least we know it was a common enough refit that they actually created a designation for it.

Still doesn't tell us if it was used on the ground or if it could be used throughout the transformation sequence.
Doesn't tell us if it offered more than just an extra layer of environmental protection.

As for the suits being air conditioned or not - probably had a fair bit of internal climate control, especially in the extreme climate units - but an enclosed canopy would have done a better job of it.

[Sgt Anjay]

This is what can be seen from the footage (aside the fact, of course, that the refit is only used in space for the boarding action):

The back of the canopy does not look transparent, and there appear to be no screens on it whatsoever.

Zor Prime's canopy cracks when a bioroid on its hoversled flies by too close.

The rocket pods can be seen ejecting when Dana goes from transport to battloid. The angle makes it impossible to see exactly what happens to the canopy.

The backs of the battloid-mode VHTs are seen several times very clearly after that; the canopy isn't there and there does not appear to be anything extra.

When the 15th transform out of battloid mode after they get inside the Mothership, the canopies are henceforth gone.

[Jefffar]

Those observations would suggest that the canopy is apparently fairly fragile and likely is jettisoned during transformation.

[devillin]

Just a funny side note to this discussion. I've run two different Robotech campaigns, my current Phase World crossover campaign, and an old Invid Invasion one back in high school. In both campaigns my players quickly got tired of the lack of canopies on the VHT. In my original Robotech campaign, the group decided to raid an old Zentraedi junkyard, find a bunch of old fighter pods, and retrofit the directional shields from those onto their VHTs to protect their pilots. In my Phase World campaign, in the only example I can really think of when they did something without prodding that helped the other NPCs on their ship, the players took money out of their pockets and bought and installed Naruni Super Heavy Forcefields on the entire squadron of VHTs. They didn't get new armor or weapons for the Destroids, but they spent a buttload of cash buying those shields because they realized that it was rediculous that the tanks were coming through their fights with nary a scratch, but they were losing 2 or 3 pilots every battle. (By the end of the first part of the campaign and 3 battles, 3 VHTs took 100 points of damage or so, but they had lost 7 of their original 12 tanker crew.)

[green.nova343]

Robotech.com infopedia

The main drawback of the Hovertank is the open pilot position in Hovertank and Guardian modes. Aside from making the pilot vulnerable to enemy fire, this is also unpleasant and tiring in inclement weather.

aparrently Harmony Gold has decided the hovertank did not have a canopy. until the kludged space refit.

That description also precludes the Southern Cross armour from being Air-conditioned Which was a bit of a bug-bear of mine.

Doesn't preclude the armor from being air-conditioned. But it'd be comparable to driving a convertible in the rain while wearing a hazmat/biohazard protective suit. Yeah, you can still drive... but you've got rain (or worse, ice/snow/sand) collecting on your seat & on the instrumentation, making your job that much harder.

[taalismn]

Where Gideon can have his fun is designing the shell types
I'm hip with that.

You should see my shell types, they're spectacular. I pretty much do all my mecha design from RT.com and Robotechreferenceguide.com and just sort of extrapolate on deployment dates and flavor text. So yeah, I went with the 105mm Rheinmetal clone and later a 220mm (I think) energy cannon.

'Spitball of Doom' shell?
'Slapshot From an Angel' shell?
'Fist of an Angry God' shell?
'Gotcha Name On It' shell?
'Wish You'd Stayed in Bed Today' shell?
'You Can Do Nothing But Stand There Like an Idiot and Watch Your Doom Loom Ever Closer' shell?

[AuroraKet]

Robotech.com infopedia

The main drawback of the Hovertank is the open pilot position in Hovertank and Guardian modes. Aside from making the pilot vulnerable to enemy fire, this is also unpleasant and tiring in inclement weather.

aparrently Harmony Gold has decided the hovertank did not have a canopy. until the kludged space refit.

That description also precludes the Southern Cross armour from being Air-conditioned Which was a bit of a bug-bear of mine.

Doesn't preclude the armor from being air-conditioned. But it'd be comparable to driving a convertible in the rain while wearing a hazmat/biohazard protective suit. Yeah, you can still drive... but you've got rain (or worse, ice/snow/sand) collecting on your seat & on the instrumentation, making your job that much harder.

You know, when I read that, the first image that came to my mind was of a hovertank parked out in a rainstorm, and the tanker having to bail all the water out of the pilot position with a bucket before driving it. Such a nice tub, to catch all the rain water...

[Rabid Southern Cross Fan]

i attribute Dana's "new hovertank" to be a newer production model than the rest in the unit, not a new weapon system.

It was established during the trash compactor scene during The Trap that the main gun on Dana's Spartas was a beam weapon. Otherwise the resulting projectile would not have bounced 3 times before striking the area beneath her hovertank (which was not made of the same kind of armour).

You should see my shell types, they're spectacular. I pretty much do all my mecha design from RT.com and Robotechreferenceguide.com and just sort of extrapolate on deployment dates and flavor text. So yeah, I went with the 105mm Rheinmetal clone and later a 220mm (I think) energy cannon.

Looking forward to nuclear-tipped shells myself.

[tobefrnk]

Looking forward to nuclear-tipped shells myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khyZI3RK2lE (Nuclear Rifle)

Oh yeah. Although to be consistent with Robotech, they would probably be Reflex warheads. I like to use some home brew Reflex shells in my MAC IIs, erm Monsters in Macross.

[green.nova343]

Doesn't preclude the armor from being air-conditioned. But it'd be comparable to driving a convertible in the rain while wearing a hazmat/biohazard protective suit. Yeah, you can still drive... but you've got rain (or worse, ice/snow/sand) collecting on your seat & on the instrumentation, making your job that much harder.

You know, when I read that, the first image that came to my mind was of a hovertank parked out in a rainstorm, and the tanker having to bail all the water out of the pilot position with a bucket before driving it. Such a nice tub, to catch all the rain water...

Then you apparently jacked into my psyche, because that's the imagery that made me post in the first place.

[MikelAmroni]

Well lets assume it was at least as advanced as a 1940s jeep and has drains built in so the water doesn't collect

[The Artist Formerly]

A paint bomb would be an effective weapon against a Tanker driver hanging out in the breeze, let alone mega-weapons.

Would work quite well against the optic sensors of an armoured cover too.

Yeah but now you have to go and get all the cameras, and the armor cover could well have windshield wipers.

Think of it like this Jefffar. A anti-unification rebel posing as villager suddenly tosses a IUD into the tank next to the pilot. The villager/terrorist is attacking from surprise and he wins initive. He rolls a fourteen on his roll to strike. It's surprise attack so the pilot is denied any defensive actions. It's an SDC weapon, does 2d6x10 SDC. The anti-unification player rolls well on damage, a five and a six. That's 110 SDC or 1 MDC to lets say a four foot area of effect. As a GM, in your opinion what kind of shape are the controls in? After that kind of damage, what shape is the harness that holds the pilot in his seat? For that matter, we've seen VHT pilots not wearing their harnesses, while inside a Robotech Master ships no less, is, in your opinion as the GM, the pilot ejected from the tank?

[Beatmeclever]

A paint bomb would be an effective weapon against a Tanker driver hanging out in the breeze, let alone mega-weapons.

Would work quite well against the optic sensors of an armoured cover too.

Yeah but now you have to go and get all the cameras, and the armor cover could well have windshield wipers.

Think of it like this Jefffar. A anti-unification rebel posing as villager suddenly tosses a IUD into the tank next to the pilot. The villager/terrorist is attacking from surprise and he wins initive. He rolls a fourteen on his roll to strike. It's surprise attack so the pilot is denied any defensive actions. It's an SDC weapon, does 2d6x10 SDC. The anti-unification player rolls well on damage, a five and a six. That's 110 SDC or 1 MDC to lets say a four foot area of effect. As a GM, in your opinion what kind of shape are the controls in? After that kind of damage, what shape is the harness that holds the pilot in his seat? For that matter, we've seen VHT pilots not wearing their harnesses, while inside a Robotech Master ships no less, is, in your opinion as the GM, the pilot ejected from the tank?

SDC weapons do not damage MDC material. The pilot is fine inside his armor. There are no rules telling us if the controls inside the cockpit are SDC or MDC, but I'd assume that, since everything else in this new system seems to be MDC, so are the controls. So no damage to anything yet.

Perhaps the same latches that hold the backpacks in place also hold the pilots in their seats? Those, too, are MDC. So, your IED fails on all points. Sorry.

PS: An "IUD" is a contraceptive, not a bomb.

[Jefffar]

Yeah but now you have to go and get all the cameras, and the armor cover could well have windshield wipers.

Think of it like this Jefffar. A anti-unification rebel posing as villager suddenly tosses a IUD into the tank next to the pilot. The villager/terrorist is attacking from surprise and he wins initive. He rolls a fourteen on his roll to strike. It's surprise attack so the pilot is denied any defensive actions. It's an SDC weapon, does 2d6x10 SDC. The anti-unification player rolls well on damage, a five and a six. That's 110 SDC or 1 MDC to lets say a four foot area of effect. As a GM, in your opinion what kind of shape are the controls in? After that kind of damage, what shape is the harness that holds the pilot in his seat? For that matter, we've seen VHT pilots not wearing their harnesses, while inside a Robotech Master ships no less, is, in your opinion as the GM, the pilot ejected from the tank?

You know, on a prankster's website I know of, they recomended a combination of absaive and super glue for throwing on the windshileds of cars they don't like. The abrasive would stick to the wipers and scratch the heck out of the windshield making it really hard to see through while at the same time wearing away the rubber in the wipers so it wouldn't be as effective at cleaning. Add to that some opaque pigment and hey, the cover is going to be blinded anyway.

As for the camera's, you jsut need to get the ones covering the forward arc and the pilot is no longer capable of aiming his weapons or doing anythign other than backing out of there (which with the cameras is still not an easy procedure). With the cover design suggested, it looks like a camera is necissary for reversing anyway.

Okay, as for the scenario - I've never heard of an IUD that is capable of megadamage.

Now on the chance that it is an IED there are a couple of ways I'd play that out - depending on the game mood I was trying to play.

Cinematic: The tanker may have a chance to push the IED out of the cockpit before detonation. Failing that it would be damage as listed and I may assess a few penalties related to damaged controls.

Gritty: It wasn't an SDC explosive and the pilot's remains are going home in a spare ration tin.

[The Artist Formerly]

SDC weapons do not damage MDC material. The pilot is fine inside his armor. There are no rules telling us if the controls inside the cockpit are SDC or MDC, but I'd assume that, since everything else in this new system seems to be MDC, so are the controls. So no damage to anything yet.

Perhaps the same latches that hold the backpacks in place also hold the pilots in their seats? Those, too, are MDC. So, your IED fails on all points. Sorry.

PS: An "IUD" is a contraceptive, not a bomb.

SDC explosives that deal damage above 100 SDC, inflict mega-damage.

IED, I meant. Hehe.

[The Artist Formerly]

You know, on a prankster's website I know of, they recomended a combination of absaive and super glue for throwing on the windshileds of cars they don't like. The abrasive would stick to the wipers and scratch the heck out of the windshield making it really hard to see through while at the same time wearing away the rubber in the wipers so it wouldn't be as effective at cleaning. Add to that some opaque pigment and hey, the cover is going to be blinded anyway.

As for the camera's, you jsut need to get the ones covering the forward arc and the pilot is no longer capable of aiming his weapons or doing anythign other than backing out of there (which with the cameras is still not an easy procedure). With the cover design suggested, it looks like a camera is necissary for reversing anyway.

That's a lot of sensors/Cameras to cover over. Which means more then one paint balloon, which is all it would take for a open cockpited machine. That's the thing, it's the idea that one dumb ass student protestor with a grudge and a paint balloon could screw up a 100 million credit machine.

Okay, as for the scenario - I've never heard of an IUD that is capable of megadamage.

Yes, my typo is funny. But I would point out, SDC explosives that total more then 100 SDC, inflicts Mega-damage.

Now on the chance that it is an IED there are a couple of ways I'd play that out - depending on the game mood I was trying to play.

Cinematic: The tanker may have a chance to push the IED out of the cockpit before detonation. Failing that it would be damage as listed and I may assess a few penalties related to damaged controls.

Gritty: It wasn't an SDC explosive and the pilot's remains are going home in a spare ration tin.

Again, we have a simple and effective way for one throw away suicide bomber to disable or atleast screw up a 100 million credit machine.

[Beatmeclever]

You're right. I got carried away. SDC explosives that do more than 100 points of damage do inflict MDC damage, but you did ONE point of damage to armor that is likely to be up around 50 points like in the first edition. So, your IED tosser better have A LOT of IEDs to toss and he better hope he's not gunned down in the meantime.

As for the controls... make up your own damage capacity for them. If they too are MDC, then they are probably fine; but if they are SDC, then your pilot is &%#ed since no matter how good he is, it is hard to pilot anything without controls.

I mean, listen, I voted for the first option, but I refuse to accept that an SDC IED is really considered a threat to the VHT. Maybe if the IED tosser used the shell from a MAC II (like Iraqi IEDs are normally Howitzer shells that are modified into cell phone-detonated roadside bomb) say the MPAT round; but then it would have to be planted next to the road since it probably weighs A LOT. MPAT would be nice since it does 2d6x10 damage to a 100-foot radius.

I would throw a 55mm HEAP round (that is a 2.2 inch round) from a GU-11. That would do 2d6 MDC. I don't know about you, but if I was wearing armor that could take a lot of damage and someone threw a weapon that barely scratched it I would be so upset; but if somebody threw one that ripped large sections off, I would leave town quickly!

[Jefffar]

TAF, the bottom line on this is that offically the VHTs weren't designed with the canopy and the only ones with the canopies were retrofits and may or may not have been useful outside of transport mode, may or may not have been able to transform with the mecha and may or may not have been issued to ground forces.

There are reasons why the designers might not have felt the lack of the canopy was a huge disadvantage (especially since it would mostly be the Bioroids dealing with civil defence/counter insurgency issues). There are also potential reasons why the designers may have felt it an advantage (increased field of vision, made it easier to design the transformation system, etc).

I agree it's a dangerous weak point - probably someone on the design team did too, but the designers had their reasons for proceeding with out one.

[The Artist Formerly]

You're right. I got carried away. SDC explosives that do more than 100 points of damage do inflict MDC damage, but you did ONE point of damage to armor that is likely to be up around 50 points like in the first edition. So, your IED tosser better have A LOT of IEDs to toss and he better hope he's not gunned down in the meantime.

The trick isn't to kill the pilot or total the tank, the trick is to turn a very expensive bit of robotechnology into a lawn orniment. One doesn't have to disable the MDC of the mainbody to do so, just ****ing up the controls should be more then enough.

Better still, if one can use the force of the explosives to dismount the pilot, then the terrorist and his four wack job buddies can grab him and put him on a video tape of him renouncing the Southern Cross while threatening to behead him. In the episode where the 15 is cruising around the downed master's ship, one of the tank drivers has to ditch his ride in an extream hurry, he's not encumbered by a safty harness, another noteable feature that seems to be missing.

These are design flaws that GMs and PCs who aren't playing ASC characters should be thinking about exploiting.

The whole point of this excise isn't to destroy the tank, it's to disable it. To force the ASC to have to go back and rethink deployment, to have to rebuild and repair tanks. These are the moves of freedom fighters and terrorists, after all.

As for the controls... make up your own damage capacity for them. If they too are MDC, then they are probably fine; but if they are SDC, then your pilot is &%#ed since no matter how good he is, it is hard to pilot anything without controls.

I mean, listen, I voted for the first option, but I refuse to accept that an SDC IED is really considered a threat to the VHT. Maybe if the IED tosser used the shell from a MAC II (like Iraqi IEDs are normally Howitzer shells that are modified into cell phone-detonated roadside bomb) say the MPAT round; but then it would have to be planted next to the road since it probably weighs A LOT. MPAT would be nice since it does 2d6x10 damage to a 100-foot radius.

Differant tactic, for a differant solution to a differant problem. It's not to kill the tank, just **** it up, raise the ASC's operationing costs. That's what the paint balloon is about. To force screw with the tanker's ability to do his job. A good terrorist could easily get 12 to 14 year old kids to toss them into VHTs. And if the ASC opens fire on children with balloons, imagine the damage to the ASC's image after it's broadcast on across the web and TV networks.

I would throw a 55mm HEAP round (that is a 2.2 inch round) from a GU-11. That would do 2d6 MDC. I don't know about you, but if I was wearing armor that could take a lot of damage and someone threw a weapon that barely scratched it I would be so upset; but if somebody threw one that ripped large sections off, I would leave town quickly!

Terrorist rarely have that kind of fire power. The trick is low tech solutions to mucking up high tech problems.

[The Artist Formerly]

TAF, the bottom line on this is that offically the VHTs weren't designed with the canopy and the only ones with the canopies were retrofits and may or may not have been useful outside of transport mode, may or may not have been able to transform with the mecha and may or may not have been issued to ground forces.

There are reasons why the designers might not have felt the lack of the canopy was a huge disadvantage (especially since it would mostly be the Bioroids dealing with civil defence/counter insurgency issues). There are also potential reasons why the designers may have felt it an advantage (increased field of vision, made it easier to design the transformation system, etc).

I agree it's a dangerous weak point - probably someone on the design team did too, but the designers had their reasons for proceeding with out one.

Across the board, these are design flaws. The weren't exploited in the series because the RT masters were scripted not to. The tanks were open topped so that the viewer could identify a given character at a glance. That's what the unique armor designs for differant levels of command were all about. We learned in Vietnam that making it so your officer's stand out is an incredibly dumb idea. Any kind of non-standard combatant will target them first to reduce C3 elements.

As a GM running terrorist antagonists, or a player character working against the ASC, looking for those kinds of advantges is the first thing you think of.

[Beatmeclever]

The trick isn't to kill the pilot or total the tank, the trick is to turn a very expensive bit of robotechnology into a lawn orniment. One doesn't have to disable the MDC of the mainbody to do so, just ****ing up the controls should be more then enough.

This is why I said that the controls are not stat'ed out for us. We don't know if they have MDC or SDC. The paint bomb would cover them all up pretty good, but when I was in the service I was expected to know where and what each control was even if I couldn't see it or read the label. Paint can be wiped off a gauge or screen. Tankers in Robotech seem to operate in groups so that if one is disabled or damaged the others can cover for this.

Better still, if one can use the force of the explosives to dismount the pilot, then the terrorist and his four wack job buddies can grab him and put him on a video tape of him renouncing the Southern Cross while threatening to behead him. In the episode where the 15 is cruising around the downed master's ship, one of the tank drivers has to ditch his ride in an extream hurry, he's not encumbered by a safty harness, another noteable feature that seems to be missing.

Here is where the backpack connections I mentioned come into play. The tanker climbs in, flips a switch, the electromagnatic clamps grab the backpack connections, the tanker goes on mission; when he gets back to base or to his destination, he flips the same switch, the clamps let go and he climbs out of the cockpit. This same system has an "emergency release" that allows rescue personnel to extract a downed pilot from the mecha. This, too, is not officially part of the story, but it explains the lack of harnesses. Make up your own if you want, but who would really design a combat vehicle without giving the crew a proper restraint system?

Besides, say you get him out of the tank, in order to cut off his head you have to remove the helmet. Again, we are not given the method by which the helmet is secured to the rest of the suit, so we will all just have to argue about whether or not you could get the helmet off to cut his head off. Most methods will end up with his decapitation as part of this. That would remove quite a bit of the emotion that is required in those vidoes being effective. Let's debate.

These are design flaws that GMs and PCs who aren't playing ASC characters should be thinking about exploiting.

The whole point of this excise isn't to destroy the tank, it's to disable it. To force the ASC to have to go back and rethink deployment, to have to rebuild and repair tanks. These are the moves of freedom fighters and terrorists, after all.

Covering the controls in paint will not disable the tank, just slow it down for a couple of seconds. His groupmates will run cover for that time. The best targets for a terrorist are the joints (which are not given stats either) or the base of operations for the tank (which houses the maintenance crew and the parts store for the group). Throw tar or an adhesive into the joints then give it a few minutes to become sticky. Throw it into a barrel or into the cockpit and then you are doing what you wanted the paint to do. Paint can be removed from the control screens too easily.

*snip*Differant tactic, for a differant solution to a differant problem. It's not to kill the tank, just **** it up, raise the ASC's operationing costs. That's what the paint balloon is about. To force screw with the tanker's ability to do his job. A good terrorist could easily get 12 to 14 year old kids to toss them into VHTs. And if the ASC opens fire on children with balloons, imagine the damage to the ASC's image after it's broadcast on across the web and TV networks.

Agreed, good move against the homefront, but it will not really slow down well-trained tankers.

I would throw a 55mm HEAP round (that is a 2.2 inch round) from a GU-11. That would do 2d6 MDC. I don't know about you, but if I was wearing armor that could take a lot of damage and someone threw a weapon that barely scratched it I would be so upset; but if somebody threw one that ripped large sections off, I would leave town quickly!

Terrorist rarely have that kind of fire power. The trick is low tech solutions to mucking up high tech problems.

As we have seen in the last six years in Iraq, insurgents and terrorists can get their hands on just about anything to be used against the people they want to attack. And a High-Explosive shaped charge (55mm HEAP round) is much more effective against a tank than a paint balloon would be. Even if the explosive misses its intended target, it will do damage to the tank. This damage will cause the tanks to either slow down to compensate or speed up to escape. If the tank that was damaged is hit so it is forcibly slowed, the others cannot run without leaving the tenker and his vehicle behind (this is frowned upon in ALL armies of the world). If it is not, they can run all they want; it means they know they have lost any element of surprise they might have had -- Surprise being one of the most important elements in a successful attack, they will have to re-evaluate their plan of attack.

BTW, "terrorists" don't attack armies, they attack the people (unarmed civilians) of a given group ("Americans" or "French," for example); "armed civilians," "insurgents," and "non-aligned hostiles" attack armies. These are all terms that have been agreed upon by the international community, look them up.

Terrorist n. a person who engages in terrorism

Terrorism n. the use of force and threats to frighten people, governments, etc. into cooperating

The use of the word "Terrorist" for the insurgents in Iraq is a misnomer on the part of the media and a deliberate misleading by the government. "Terror" is not effective against people who are supposed to be attacked, but it can devistate civilian populations. No one has EVER been accused of terrorizing an army -- terrorizing a people is fairly common, however.

But since you are playing that kind of game, put all the weaknesses you want into the VHT. Have fun!

[MOrab46019]

Ok lets look at this way. I had a game where my PCs had to take VHTs back from a group. I mixed up the time lines and one person in my group had VR-041 with the open top and ambush which my player won used the flying speed of the VR-041 and CADS system to behead the VHT pilot. SO I would go with Canopy.

[Rabid Southern Cross Fan]

So, yeah. Looks like you can see through the canopy. As for them retracting, that's mostly proven by footage from around 11:00 into the episode where you see Dana and Bowie in their tanks in a ship's hangar with the canopies retracted but the frame of the thing still installed in the tank. Looks like they roll back in sections like a roll-top desk. I'm not sure if this is useful to the argument, but it's interesting.

There actually shouldn't be any problems with the transformation sequence if the cover was the actual driver's compartment (instead of the driver's chair moving/swiveling, the entite compartment would change direction). Like having high peformance fighters painted candy apple red, it was probably viewed as 'cool anime mecha action' to have the driver in the open instead of under a cover. Its anime logic.

Spartas transformation sequence

Presumably, the cover on the AAA variant would slide back during transformation instead of having the entire driver's section swivel (since it would be more difficult as the rear of the mecha is not open like on the Spartas).

One more thing, according to a recent poll among Tank 'enthusiasts' the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 (or S Tank as its commonly known) placed #6 in The Greatest Ever Tanks show on The Discovery Channel. And it has the driver and gunner 'exposed' for most of its mission (they button up when about to fire, which is no different than the Spartas going to Battloid mode).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-tank

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4eL1G8y ... re=related

[Jefffar]

1) The S-Tank is not a TD, it's a tank without a turret. There is a difference in roles there.

2) On most tanks the crew rides around with the hatches open and their heads out until they get into combat - once there they get that armour between them and the rest of the world. On the VHT the crew is exposed in most of the modes. This si the perceived design flaw.