Updated First RW Mecha in the Sentinels campaign.....

[Seto Kaiba]

Apart from their demonstrable absence, you mean?

It hasn't been touched formally, but they do have room to insert it to a degree (more with "fresh" designs, instead of existing ones for any given period). [...]

Unless, of course, they're sticking with their presently-established line that railguns were a new and uncommon weapon at the time Vince appropriated the VR-057 test article for his personal use in 2044 (RTSC core book, pg161).

The HRG-70 writeup in the 2E RPG does give the impression Railguns are rare among the UEEF, and given the lack of projectile-type weapons in the UEDF/ASC they likely don't use them much either (some of the beam weapons do display trajectories one might expect from a projectile).

Not just rare... it flat out says that "railguns are still a new weapon for the Expeditionary Force". The Silverback platform's described as being developed in 2034, but it doesn't say when it was introduced or when it acquired its railgun mounts... it is asserted that the Silverback's armament is highly variable, so it was likely a later addition. Admittedly, if you sit down to work out the ballistics behind the railgun they use, it may be rare because it's actually kind of rubbish.

(Working it out, if the HRG-70 uses a 20mm round as described, which is close to the baseline for 20mm AP rounds today at about 1,580.3gr, and working back from the muzzle energy stated in AotSC, it's only providing an 11% improvement over an entirely conventional 1980s-era PGU-28/B 20mm ammo. Making it so readily quantifiable kind of digs a huge crevasse in the general perception of mega-damage as being beyond normal technology.)

I think they can fire railguns, the real issue is having a viable rate of fire, since the mecha (or at a facility) could charge capacitors (or flywheels or other methods) for energy storage.

Well, from the 2E RPG it appears that a capacitor or other energy storage cell isn't enough... the railguns need their power supplied directly by the mecha's engines. (pg166)

Fire rate is actually not an issue at all... a railgun mechanism doesn't need to be charged for each individual shot unless it has a fixed armature that needs to cycle. They just need to sustain a consistent voltage across the rails and then its fire rate is entirely down to how fast the feed system is.

The RT SotA RG though is man-portable, the M2 Destroids most certainly aren't. It's like comparing the main gun (105/120mm on M1A1) of a tank to its secondary gun(s) located elsewhere (M1A1 has x2 7.62mm machineguns and a 3rd 12.7mm with option for a 4th) that can also be used by infantry (or variants of the 2ndary guns).

That's kind of my point, man... we know that the UEEF can produce massive, starship-grade railguns driven by a ship's own reflex furnaces, and that protoculture-powered mecha can support an underwhelming light railgun, but it's doubtful that the very limited power generation capabilities of RT's fusion and protoculture power systems could meet the energy demands to fire the massively destructive railguns on the Defender EX or its cousins (which, when appropriately scaled, are basically an assortment of "Puff, it dies" guns putting out thousands of mega-damage per shot).

We should be seeing intermediate sized railguns between the capital ship and man-sized infantry, just like we have examples of beam weapons and other assorted ordnance.

If railguns were a thing that the UEDF or UEEF use... which we're told they don't, until very recently.

[ShadowLogan]

Unless, of course, they're sticking with their presently-established line that railguns were a new and uncommon weapon at the time Vince appropriated the VR-057 test article for his personal use in 2044 (RTSC core book, pg161).

But there are ways to keep Vince's statement true, it really comes down to Vince's POV and keeping them specific to a few platforms.

We know the UEDF/ASC used Railguns before the UEEF. That makes the "new" aspect incorrect form an overall human tech standpoint, meaning "new" is more limited in scope (UEEF, Cyclones, etc). The tech would still be uncommon even clarifying the VHT-1 "high velocity cannon" into a Railgun since nt-Bs (4), VFs (2), VHT-2, and numerous conventional platforms (10+) still wouldn't use them (1 type out of 24 types in RPG book for ASC is still uncommon)

Not just rare... it flat out says that "railguns are still a new weapon for the Expeditionary Force".

Emphasis on the Expeditionary Force. That would leave room for the UEDF/ASC (TMS/TRM era) to utilize the technology in their mecha since we know those two groups also used the technology in their ships unlike the UEEF.

Well, from the 2E RPG it appears that a capacitor or other energy storage cell isn't enough... the railguns need their power supplied directly by the mecha's engines. (pg166)

You are forgetting Lunk's cannon is a Railgun (by RAW) that uses a single PC canister. So they do not need to be supplied directly from the mecha, since the Cyclones can use the gun, so can ASC PA and regular people (w/appropriate setup) and it isn't hooked up directly to them for power.

Fire rate is actually not an issue at all... a railgun mechanism doesn't need to be charged for each individual shot unless it has a fixed armature that needs to cycle. They just need to sustain a consistent voltage across the rails and then its fire rate is entirely down to how fast the feed system is.

That sustainment of voltage is what I am referring to as that would be a factor in determining the rate of fire (no power = no shoot), it wouldn't come down to just the feed mechanism for the projectiles.

That's kind of my point, man... we know that the UEEF can produce massive, starship-grade railguns driven by a ship's own reflex furnaces, and that protoculture-powered mecha can support an underwhelming light railgun, but it's doubtful that the very limited power generation capabilities of RT's fusion and protoculture power systems could meet the energy demands to fire the massively destructive railguns on the Defender EX or its cousins (which, when appropriately scaled, are basically an assortment of "Puff, it dies" guns putting out thousands of mega-damage per shot).

I think you are missing mine.

The Railguns in use by the Silverback/Cyclone are analogous to the secondary guns on the (real) M1A1 tank, but the M2 Destroids are analogous to the main gun on the M1A1 tank. There respective roles and performance are different, even on the M1A1. You are comparing known examples in an apples/oranges type of way.

And the PC powered mecha in question actually have the smallest amount of potential energy available. They use 1 or 2 PC cells, an Alpha/Beta by comparison use 16 or 32 PC cells. We can't say for certain with PC/fusion ratio, but the IMUs suggest the VHT-1/2 (RPG description puts them at the same output) and AGAC are comparable to 8cells worth each. And those examples have unlimited payload for their (baseline) connected beam weapons (non-gunpod), so they clearly have the capacity for a railgun, one that has the potential to be more potent than the Cyc/SB could ever hope to power.

We should also be seeing intermediate levels on the Railgun before the "man-portable" version. The Cyclone/Silverback are mecha, but they are in a completely different "weight" class of mecha (for lack of a better analogy) than I am looking at and that you are comparing them to.

[Seto Kaiba]

But there are ways to keep Vince's statement true, it really comes down to Vince's POV and keeping them specific to a few platforms.

It's not Vince saying that the railguns are new to the UEEF... it's 2E.

We know the UEDF/ASC used Railguns before the UEEF.

On a completely different scale, with the benefit of protoculture-driven reflex furnaces to power them...

Emphasis on the Expeditionary Force. That would leave room for the UEDF/ASC (TMS/TRM era) to utilize the technology in their mecha since we know those two groups also used the technology in their ships unlike the UEEF. [...]

Two significant problems with this idea... the first is that the UEDF/ASC is fairly explicitly established to have had its "tech level" rather lower than the bleeding-edge gear used by the UEEF/REF. If the UEEF has only recently started to implement viable railgun tech on a mecha level, it's pretty much a given that the lower-tech UEDF never had them. Secondly, one of the consistent traits associated with every railgun in Robotech thus far is that they're all protoculture-powered, that may mean that non-protoculture power systems are insufficient to meet the energy requirements of a railgun.

The Railguns in use by the Silverback/Cyclone are analogous to the secondary guns on the (real) M1A1 tank, but the M2 Destroids are analogous to the main gun on the M1A1 tank. There respective roles and performance are different, even on the M1A1. You are comparing known examples in an apples/oranges type of way.

Again, you're still missing my point... the point I've been laboriously driving at here is that adding something like a destroid from Macross II with its advanced, incredibly high-powered railguns would be inconsistent with the tech levels in the Robotech universe... partly because railguns are very new, bleeding-edge weapons, and partly because the type of railgun used almost certainly exceeds the energy requirements that any power system in RT can provide for.

[Jefffar]

The ammount of power that Protoculture provides can be best quantitatively described as somewhere between 'enough' and 'plenty'. The Robotech franchise rarely gets into good, quantitative measurements for things like power output once we step away from figures provided by the Macross portion of the OEM. Instead Protoculture just sort of seems to do what is asked of it, each and every time the call is made, until it is gone. So trying to come up with a specific point about how much power it has or doesn't is more or less impossible.

That being said, I don't like the concept of a big Railgun toting destroid for the UEEF. In fact most of the artillery destroids a I would axe for the UEEF as they are large, heavy and largely redundant to a force that has the firepower of starships immediately available. Think of the modern US marines who have forgone heavy self propelled fire support in favor of naval gunfire and carrier based aircraft.

As for the battle type destroids, the Condor Battloid more or less replaces them in UEEF use. In particular the Spartan becomes redundant with the development of the Condor. If the Spartas is a part of the UEEF that more or less replaces the Tomahawk.

I think that the most glaring gaps in the UEEF TOE is not the big guns, those are on the spaceships, but light fire support and air defense systems prior to the introduction of the Silverback. These don't need large, heavy and long ranged systems like we see on the destroids, but instead smaller, lighter systems could be used with the fleet and the veritechs doing the heavy lifting. The large quantity of missiles in the Condor does help it pick up the slack in this case, but something dedicated is still needed here. I'd suggest either a Condor variant or a conventional vehicle.

If you absolutely positively need a fire support mecha, I would suggest something akin to the Mini-Monster from Strike Force. It is able to provide fearsome direct and indirect fire support with its heavy beam cannons and missile battery. If teamed up with the right air surveillance and tracking hardware it could also do decently in the air defense role.

[ShadowLogan]

On a completely different scale, with the benefit of protoculture-driven reflex furnaces to power them...

I know that is on a completely different scale. The thing is there are intermediate scales between capital ship and human-size that we should be seeing but aren't. That the human-size version is on a mecha is noted, but mecha come in a variety of scales themselves (though where the scales start/end is arbitrary could go in smaller or larger increments, but the point is they can be put in at different scales) and so are not a one-size fits all description.

you've got >=50ft-ers: TMS Destroid (Monster)
You've got ~30-45ft-ers: TMS VF-1, TMS-Destroids, NG Beta, NG Condor
you've got ~15-30ft-ers: VHTs, ASC Battloids, Logan, REF Bioroid, Alpha, AGAC
you've got =<~15ft-ers: Cyclones, ASC PA, Silverback (baseline)

If they did miniturize the weapon technology from above this to the smallest possible category, there should logically be intermediate steps that they can produce (either contemporary or in the past).

If the UEEF has only recently started to implement viable railgun tech on a mecha level, it's pretty much a given that the lower-tech UEDF never had them.

Just because the UEEF is slow to implement railgun technology does not mean the UEDF (ASC & RDF) would be. Look at Stealth Technology in the US Military. The Air Force has been flying (high degree) Stealth aircraft for decades, but the Army, Navy, and Marinies don't have anything with that level of stealth in service (officially) during those periods. The Army's RAH-66 Stealth Attack Chopter was canceled before production (10+years of testing). The Navy's A-12 Avenger was canceled before production (no test flight articles either AFAIK). While the Navy and Marines are part of the Stealth Fighter F-35 program it still hasn't been entered operational deployment yet. A known example of slow adoption of cutting edge technology, even by service contemporaries.

Secondly, one of the consistent traits associated with every railgun in Robotech thus far is that they're all protoculture-powered, that may mean that non-protoculture power systems are insufficient to meet the energy requirements of a railgun.

I disagree. From the RPG perspective look at the IMUs utilizing ASC mecha at the core that have been converted over to PC from fusion. They aren't losing performance, so the mecha have PC-level output on the larger end of the mecha, even without a PC power plant. Even in real-life energy weapons and railguns aren't in dissimilar power requirement categories and we know those fusion powered mecha are using energy weapons.

Where PC power seems necessary (and I don't dispute) is on the small scale end to the point the weapons are (or easily made into) man-portable.

The Monster Destroid does have dialogue connecting (or can be seen as doing so) it to using a Reflex Furnace (FoA) and PC ("Broken Heart"). That would allow one mecha to use the tech prior to the UEEF even if one wanted to impose a PC requirement on larger mecha (I don't support PC as requirement on larger mecha).

the point I've been laboriously driving at here is that adding something like a destroid from Macross II with its advanced, incredibly high-powered railguns would be inconsistent with the tech levels in the Robotech universe...

Now I know you have your own fan-version of the stats for M2, but I am looking at RAW for M2 and RT2E. By RAW the M2 railguns on those Destroids are comparable to the RT 2E ones on the UEEF PA (range, damage, though RT's are far more burst efficient). Which puts a damper on the inconsistency from an RPG perspective.

Outside of the RPG, those intermediate steps I am advocating is for the basic technology so they do not need to have the same potency either as M2 does in every case. As the known examples show, RT Railguns come sized for a variety of missions beyond just anti-starship. Which would allow other RT railguns to be sized for non anti-starship use (including the 105mm on the VHT-1).

partly because railguns are very new, bleeding-edge weapons, and partly because the type of railgun used almost certainly exceeds the energy requirements that any power system in RT can provide for.

Railguns are bleeding edge weapons on the man-portable side I would not dispute, but they are not overall bleeding-edge weapons given known examples that are far older on a different scale(s; 220mm and 420mm vs the 20mm).

The Railgun power requirements I would also dispute since the railgun could still be used to fire an explosive round. No where is it written that Railgun projectiles have to depend on their raw kinetic energy to deal damage. And a railgun that only fires a 10.5cm or 40cm round not much faster than a conventional version, would still mean that the platform could carry more rounds at the same lethality.

[ArmySGT.]

I actually don't use any railguns on anything smaller than the SDF-1 and the Tristar. All other references to such weapons are changed to being energy weapons instead. I don't buy that the weapon Lunk used was a railgun, anymore than I can accept the sudden appearance of a Rifts like burst fire railgun on the Super Cyclone and Silverback.

I don’t have the books and resources everyone is quoting back and forth ……….. So my answer is ……. The weapon is comparable to the enemies systems. Good enough for plot and action…….. Keep it balanced.

As for upgrades to UNDF era Destroids, I marginally boost the MDC in 2025-2028, but after that, I retire them all form service. The gun clusters on the Tomahawk typically get replaced by single pulse beam guns from the "failed" VF-4, and later the EP-13S, and the missile racks become a pair of fifteen tube SRM launchers instead, and the large over the torso rack becomes a six pack of MRMs. Other than that, no real changes are needed honestly.

Myself, I envision an increase of 25% to 50% in the armor capacity to resist damage without an increase in mass. Additionally a 20% increase in speed… This reflects improvement and advances in technology. The searchlight I never understood on something that has a complete set of Low light, infra red, and thermal camera systems. That gets removed and a Close in Weapon System (CIWS) goes in its place. Because the initial mission is to Tirol with an expectation of encountering Zentraedi loyal to the Masters adding counter missile features make sense as a design upgrade. A year into combat with the Invid and this would be swapped for something like a ROV-10. The 12.7 MGs in the head I swap for VF-1 head lasers, as those are much more effective on Zentraedi light infantry. The TZ-III Gunclusters I swap for a combination of auto cannon and lasers, dropping the MG, flamethrower, and 180 grenade launcher. Two linked ACs and Two linked lasers per gun cluster. The SRMs are replaced by Minimissile racks……. There for close in anyway, often used as counter missile defense and to overwhelm an immediate or close in attack such as in urban, canyon land, or forested terrain. Thus 30-40 MMs per launcher meets the original design requirement and keeps the Destroid in the fight longer before exhausting weapons load out. The MRM load over the right shoulder remains, the medium missiles will have undergone their own upgrades. I simply cap that with a more capable battlefield radar system combining millimeter wave and lidar to counter poor visibility situations that would blind thermal sights and infrared.

The same SRM rack and gun cluster swap out to a EP-4/EP-13S happens for the Spartan, and the laser turret on top gets a slight boost in power and range. I normally have the 1st Edition RPG GU-12 gunpod retained, but I treat is as a caseless 105mm weapon with somewhat limited ammunition instead, comparable to the main weapon of the earlier VHTs. Another favored element is a Destroid body shield with holding racks for Demolition Charges (yes, Destroid hand grenades...) and a Battle Mace or Close Assault Defense Sword (Not initially a vibro like weapon, but later on it gets updated, usually on an individual basis.) An increase in MDC, but again, not a huge amount.

I love the shield idea and the demolition charges….. however, I don’t see the point in swords. The opponent is operating mecha so a cut or thrust with a blade isn’t going to sever arteries or cut muscle. The mace makes sense and does the same thing a medieval mace would do, crush and distort the armor.

The Phalanx doesn't need not have the room for most upgrades. The only ones I use are the OSM (I think) minigun mod in place of the unneeded spotlight stack, and later a UEDF inspired defense laser instead. Note that I use 44 MRMs instead of LRMs, and have an alternate LRM rack that rarely sees use that carries only seven such weapons. 44 missiles with up to a range of 80 miles and their increased combat power is sufficient in most situations. Another increase in MDC, and once again, not a whole lot really.

I agree with the minigun head swap, and that is supported by the shows themselves…. I think later variations would see other head types either as secondary weapon stations with lasers or particle beams or as sensor platforms with radar, and camera clusters……. Since a destroid optimized for long range engagements needs a radar with a detection and tracking range equal to or greater than the range of the missiles on board. Though weapons mounted to the exterior of the missile pods go a long way toward giving the Phalanx something to do after all the missiles have been launched. Some of the head lasers from the VF-1 perhaps mounted at the 12, 3 or 9, and the 6 o’clock positions depending on which pod.

The Defender also needs very little in the way of upgrades, because quite simply PFG-966s are the scariest guns in the game right now. Range a whole lot, damage, typically more than you, anti aircraft and antimissile capabilities, quite a bit of ammunition, highly accurate in almost all cases, and when they aren't accurate enough, you put a burst of air burst frag rounds into the air above a target and behind its cover, making this one of the scariest weapons you can face really. I mean, look at it, its current range is actually greater than any short range missile but more than half, so an Alpha can't even respond to one of these things! (Ran into one of these in a game at a con, there were at least two IMU's of some sort with a pair of these, and I had an Alpha, a Silverback, and a pair of Cyclones...we got so freaking schooled...) So other than a modest increase in armor at the same time as the others, there aren't very many reasons to modify it.

The problem for a Defender is 200 rounds per gun and a cyclic rate of 500 rounds per minute….. Every effort would have gone into making this an energy only system or as has been bandied back and forth a rail gun…. Just to increase the munitions pay load… As a pure Air Defense system in a conventional sense it does alright…. Modern fighters using jet fuel rush in, fire their weapons, and rush back out. The engagement is over in seconds, or a minute. Once the problem of fuel is removed though, pilots can hang around, this draws the engagement out and the Defender becomes defenseless when the onboard ammunition runs out. Attacks by Zentraedi Gnerl fighters that have energy weapons and a the fusion powered propulsion system had to have driven this point home in Space war one.

And as for the MAC II, it was obsolete when it was built, and there isn't any thing it can't do that a couple Phalanxes or a ship in orbit can't accomplish anyhow. It's a bit like having self propelled artillery pieces being a part of a Marine amphibious landing force. The closest to modifying it I have ever come is welding a few simple platforms for Cyclones to stand on and act as point defense and close range defense units.

I disagree….. As we know from developments here in our real world the application of lasers is shaking the foundations of military planning. The airborne laser system was well on its way (before cancelation) to engaging and downing ballistic missiles in the boost phase. The Chinese have demonstrated a ground based laser that has engage satellites in low earth orbit. That attack left the satellites blinded. Currently, there is significant working into fielding lasers that will engage rockets, artillery shells, and missiles in flight.

What I am saying is the Air Defense Motto is becoming a military maxim “if it flies, it dies”. Anything breaking cover of the horizon becomes a target. Though it is much cooler, and far more theatrical, the fact is a Destroid on the ground stands a much better chance of surviving an engagement than a veritech in the air… Moving MAC IIs into position using a Zentraedi landing pod solves their mobility issue. Nothing sucks like having to sit there and take it when the other guy is shooting at you and you can’t shoot back.

The Marine Corps learned this lesson in the later stages of the island hopping campaign… The Imperial Japanese Army changed doctrine and no longer tried to hold of enemy forces at the beach. Common sense over ruled Pride, the IJA was losing men and material trying to hold the beach and being decimated by naval artillery. The IJA moved inland (island size permitting) and this separated the Marines from their naval artillery support and tanks. Desperate the Marines demanded and got M7 Priests and M8 gun carriages.

A lesson that is going to be learned by the Corps again when the US goes up against a foe with technological parity in the future.

[Seto Kaiba]

The ammount of power that Protoculture provides can be best quantitatively described as somewhere between 'enough' and 'plenty'. [...]

Based on the available information, protoculture's chief advantage seems to lie in long-duration low-level power generation rather than obscene levels of output. The output protoculture cells provide for the few human-built protoculture powered mecha is not terribly impressive, except in the duration of operation ascribed to them (by the RPG).

The Robotech franchise rarely gets into good, quantitative measurements for things like power output once we step away from figures provided by the Macross portion of the OEM. [...]

Let's not leave the MOSPEADA OSM out in the dark, it has some good detail to that effect as well.

I know that is on a completely different scale. The thing is there are intermediate scales between capital ship and human-size that we should be seeing but aren't.

The question there becomes "is a power plant on that scale capable of generating enough energy to make using a railgun there viable?". Prior to the introduction of light railguns on small ground mecha like the Cyclone and Silverback, it appears that the answer was "No".

Just because the UEEF is slow to implement railgun technology does not mean the UEDF (ASC & RDF) would be.

True, but since the UEDF is said to have been technologically lagging behind the UEEF by a not-inconsiderable margin, and the newly-introduced railguns represent the bleeding edge in 2044...

I disagree. From the RPG perspective look at the IMUs utilizing ASC mecha at the core that have been converted over to PC from fusion. They aren't losing performance, so the mecha have PC-level output on the larger end of the mecha, even without a PC power plant. [...]

In all honesty, I don't think the IMU rules are something that should apply here... we're talking about purpose-built mecha, not improvisations, and the IMU rules are kind of wonky as-is. They seem to assume that mecha parts are plug-and-play, for the most part.

Even in real-life energy weapons and railguns aren't in dissimilar power requirement categories and we know those fusion powered mecha are using energy weapons.

True, but energy requirements may not be the only issue to be overcome... material strength requirements may also be a factor. (Rail erosion is a serious hurdle to be overcome in the application of a military railgun.)

Now I know you have your own fan-version of the stats for M2, but I am looking at RAW for M2 and RT2E. By RAW the M2 railguns on those Destroids are comparable to the RT 2E ones on the UEEF PA (range, damage, though RT's are far more burst efficient). Which puts a damper on the inconsistency from an RPG perspective.

It's not really a "fan" version if what I'm using for my material is the official spec produced by the creators of the show... though I would say that one should always exercise caution when referencing the Macross II RPG because there's a hell of a lot more incorrect than correct in that book. It's honestly in "what show were they watching" territory.

The Railgun power requirements I would also dispute since the railgun could still be used to fire an explosive round. No where is it written that Railgun projectiles have to depend on their raw kinetic energy to deal damage. [...]

While it's theoretically not impossible, the treatment of railguns in sci-fi in general and both Robotech and Macross II in particular indicates that they ARE relying purely on the kinetic force of an armor-piercing projectile. That data we have, courtesy of Tommy Yune, for the only quantified-performance railgun in RT indicates muzzle energy alone as the one factor for determining its effectiveness. (I, for one, would not want to try running ultra-high voltage current for any rapid fire railgun like the plasma armature type... it's just ASKING, nay, BEGGING for rounds to explode in the barrel.)

[Seto Kaiba]

I don’t have the books and resources everyone is quoting back and forth ……….. So my answer is ……. The weapon is comparable to the enemies systems. Good enough for plot and action…….. Keep it balanced.

This can be corrected.

[jaymz]

I don’t have the books and resources everyone is quoting back and forth ……….. So my answer is ……. The weapon is comparable to the enemies systems. Good enough for plot and action…….. Keep it balanced.

This can be corrected.

I'm working on it I'm working on it geez

[ArmySGT.]

I don’t have the books and resources everyone is quoting back and forth ……….. So my answer is ……. The weapon is comparable to the enemies systems. Good enough for plot and action…….. Keep it balanced.

This can be corrected.

I'm working on it I'm working on it geez

Drop zone is clear, 300 x 200 meters, oriented on 180 magnetic, perimeter secure, markers are lit. Beacons are active at 198.7 GHz, 191.3 GHz, 182.6 GHz, 199.8 GHz on a .37 second rotation. Pings sound to the tune of "Shave and a haircut". Recommended approach, east to west relative magnetic north.

You are clear for approach. Squawk IFF at 25 kilometers relative.....

[ShadowLogan]

It's not really a "fan" version if what I'm using for my material is the official spec produced by the creators of the show... though I would say that one should always exercise caution when referencing the Macross II RPG because there's a hell of a lot more incorrect than correct in that book. It's honestly in "what show were they watching" territory.

I know how you came to your version, but from a RAW perspective it would be a "fan" version of the RPG. That the RAW is inaccurate I'm not going to get into, but it is best to have everyone on the same page which means RAW.

The question there becomes "is a power plant on that scale capable of generating enough energy to make using a railgun there viable?". Prior to the introduction of light railguns on small ground mecha like the Cyclone and Silverback, it appears that the answer was "No".

The answer is "Yes" not "No" because railguns have similar energy demands as beam weapons and we know that some of those platforms can power beam weapons. Power isn't the issue for the larger scale platforms.

True, but since the UEDF is said to have been technologically lagging behind the UEEF by a not-inconsiderable margin, and the newly-introduced railguns represent the bleeding edge in 2044...

I am not saying the UEDF would have railguns sized for the portability/scale the UEEF is shown to implement them on. So the UEEF is still introducing a cutting-edge weapon based on it's size and portability, but the UEDF eras would have bigger and bulkier versions in comparision in the few uncommon instances they use them.

A 20mm weapon is still smaller and more portable than a proposed use on a 105mm weapon, or the 220/420mm actual weapons.

In all honesty, I don't think the IMU rules are something that should apply here... we're talking about purpose-built mecha, not improvisations, and the IMU rules are kind of wonky as-is. They seem to assume that mecha parts are plug-and-play, for the most part.

The rules are vague (plug-play parts are possible), but I'm pointing to the "standardized IMUs" in print which make them close to purpose-built given they have what amounts to "production runs" as opposed to non-existent guidelines for converting powerplants over.

True, but energy requirements may not be the only issue to be overcome... material strength requirements may also be a factor. (Rail erosion is a serious hurdle to be overcome in the application of a military railgun.)

Materials involved may be a factor however it may not be a show stopper at all.

UEDF:RDF Monster Destroid mounts x4 400mm Cannons. The SDF-1 uses 420mm cannons. That is pretty close to the Monster's cannons, which would allow the Monster to upgrade to 420mm cannons (3-4 depending on how much room for barrel growth there is) if they could not produce slightly smaller 400mm railgun barrels (talking ~5% difference). And the existing Monster Barrels can only fire an average of 90 times (2E RPG, 30 from the Infopedia), so barrel life is not a show stopping factor for the Monster setting precedent for other mecha with regard to barrel life even without Railguns.

While it's theoretically not impossible, the treatment of railguns in sci-fi in general and both Robotech and Macross II in particular indicates that they ARE relying purely on the kinetic force of an armor-piercing projectile. That data we have, courtesy of Tommy Yune, for the only quantified-performance railgun in RT indicates muzzle energy alone as the one factor for determining its effectiveness. (I, for one, would not want to try running ultra-high voltage current for any rapid fire railgun like the plasma armature type... it's just ASKING, nay, BEGGING for rounds to explode in the barrel.)

You could put have the round sectioned off, with a section that is insulted from the current.

An alternative is to introduce COILGUNs, which are similar to Railguns, but would not have the drawbacks of wear on the mechanism and using the projectile to complete a circuit. Coilguns have no specific precedent in the show, but then neither do railguns based on Dialogue in the 85ep.

[glitterboy2098]

personally i append an extra 6mm to the monster's cannons.. 406mm = 16inch guns.
lots of ammo types available for those, even before getting into alien enhanced tech. Armor Piercing-Capped (a perpetrator round with HE filler), the mk8 Armor Piercing-Capped, high capacity (basically a heavier mk5, with more HE), a pure HE round for bombardment purposes.. even the W23, a 15 kiloton Nuclear fission warhead

for Robotech, replacing the Armor piercing/HE anti-ship rounds with a tougher cap and case (to penetrate the tougher armor) and stronger HE (for extra oomph...) is an obvious upgrade. or you could invest in long rod penetrators and high velocity propellents for some purely kinetic anti-starship work. or really massive HEAT rounds.. or if you really want to be nasty, make 10-15kt 'casaba warhead' shaped nuclear charge warheads and start splitting enemy warships like eggs using lances of superhot radioactive plasma...

[ArmySGT.]

Has anyone come up with their own "Command" upgrade for Destroids and Battloids.........

Always a one that has a second seat of course......... I envision one with a much, much higher end battle computer....... one that can process more than 1000 targets........ additionally that battle computer can link with the battle computers on other destroids or battloids...... Thus the command model receives and sees what another destroid or battloid is detecting with onboard radar and other systems.... Extending the capability of a commander to "See" the battlefield.

lastly, the Command model can "Synch" the battle computers of other destroids and battloids, by synching them the others combine targeting data and no targets are ignored while another is engaged multiple times.

[jedi078]

Has anyone come up with their own "Command" upgrade for Destroids and Battloids.........

Always a one that has a second seat of course......... I envision one with a much, much higher end battle computer....... one that can process more than 1000 targets........ additionally that battle computer can link with the battle computers on other destroids or battloids...... Thus the command model receives and sees what another destroid or battloid is detecting with onboard radar and other systems.... Extending the capability of a commander to "See" the battlefield.

lastly, the Command model can "Synch" the battle computers of other destroids and battloids, by synching them the others combine targeting data and no targets are ignored while another is engaged multiple times.

In my games the Tomahawk, and Spartan both have a second seat. This can be an observer, a dedicated gunner (probably somebody from the Company's maintenance platoon), or a second fully qualified Destriod pilot (rare).

I ended up making a specific MECT for WSO's and EWO's so that those second crewmen who are not fully qualified mecha pilots are not limited to just their H2H stat block.

As for a 'command' variant for a destriod the bonuses would probably be similar to (or exactly the same) that when the VF-1S or Gulag has.

[Jefffar]

There is also the command Spartas and Command Salamander for inspiration.

[Seto Kaiba]

I know how you came to your version, but from a RAW perspective it would be a "fan" version of the RPG. That the RAW is inaccurate I'm not going to get into, but it is best to have everyone on the same page which means RAW.

But how many of us actually USE RAW? Not many, I'd wager.

The answer is "Yes" not "No" because railguns have similar energy demands as beam weapons and we know that some of those platforms can power beam weapons. Power isn't the issue for the larger scale platforms.

That's not exactly a supportable assumption (within the context of RT, anyway)... it's not exactly safe to assume that all beam weapons are created equal, or that the railguns in-series are operating near the same power class. I'm flipping thru the core book for 2E right now and, apart from some interesting contradictions WRT the "removability" of the railguns, it's worth noting that the beam weaponry on the vehicles that also mount railguns are internally powered, not drawing on the mecha's reflex power system... so there does appear to be some sort of disparity there.

[...] but the UEDF eras would have bigger and bulkier versions in comparision in the few uncommon instances they use them.

Based on 2E and the present canon, I honestly don't think that's supportable... if it was, we'd have seen some form of the railgun in mecha-scale applications prior to the Silverback or Super Cyclone. It's possible the lower tech scale of the UEDF prevented them from building them altogether, I guess.

UEDF:RDF Monster Destroid mounts x4 400mm Cannons. The SDF-1 uses 420mm cannons. That is pretty close to the Monster's cannons, which would allow the Monster to upgrade to 420mm cannons (3-4 depending on how much room for barrel growth there is) if they could not produce slightly smaller 400mm railgun barrels (talking ~5% difference).

So, we're just ignoring that the latter is powered by a massive, starship-grade reflex furnace and the former... y'know... isn't? Power matters here.

You could put have the round sectioned off, with a section that is insulted from the current.

That's not really a viable option with a plasma armature railgun... if you used a sabot in a conventional railgun it would be a do-able option tho.

even the W23, a 15 kiloton Nuclear fission warhead

Certainly not an idea without official precedent... the Monster Mk.II is described in the OSM as having reaction warheads designed for anti-warship use as a standard part of its armament, particularly in the postwar era. The Monster Mk.I was actually shown using this ordinance in Macross Zero, delivering 4 20kt warheads over Mayan Island.

Has anyone come up with their own "Command" upgrade for Destroids and Battloids.........

Yes and no... I've never had a dedicated "command model", but my corrected stats for the Destroids have always included most of the capabilities you listed. I give every destroid TacNet access, and things like navigation and fire control already had a support AI backing them, so I suppose you could say that in my games EVERY destroid is a command destroid. The only thing I didn't do on your list is go quite so high on the number of targets an individual unit could process at one time. When battles get that large, I usually give them a TacNet backbone of a starship or ELINT/AWACS platform like an EC-33.

I did it that way partly because of canon, and partly for pragmatic reasons. That way if the command unit gets taken out, another can simply take up the reins of the operation right away. I followed the OSM's line that the Tomahawk does sport two seats, though the Defender, Phalanx, and Spartan all only have one.

[ShadowLogan]

That's not exactly a supportable assumption (within the context of RT, anyway)... it's not exactly safe to assume that all beam weapons are created equal, or that the railguns in-series are operating near the same power class. I'm flipping thru the core book for 2E right now and, apart from some interesting contradictions WRT the "removability" of the railguns, it's worth noting that the beam weaponry on the vehicles that also mount railguns are internally powered, not drawing on the mecha's reflex power system... so there does appear to be some sort of disparity there.

I'm not looking at the Mecha that are currently carrying railguns with their beam weapons, I'm looking at the other mecha with beam weapons and do not carry a railgun. Those mecha have more power available than the tiny Silverback and Cyclone given the ability to power beam weapons with an "unlimited" payload..

WRT to the Super Cyclone's RG, I take that means it is still connected to the Cyclone as it would still take ammo from the Cyclone's ammo bin (and a power cable). Vince does take the HRG-70 off the mount when he and Scott rescue JANICE from the Haydonites, as the weapon can be see to be on the inside of his arm (stored on the outside).

Based on 2E and the present canon, I honestly don't think that's supportable... if it was, we'd have seen some form of the railgun in mecha-scale applications prior to the Silverback or Super Cyclone. It's possible the lower tech scale of the UEDF prevented them from building them altogether, I guess.

A VHT with a 105mm would not fit in as bulkier than the Cyclone/SB's 20mm? Or the Monster with 40cm as Bulkier? Or the 420/220mm found on the Capital ships.

So, we're just ignoring that the latter is powered by a massive, starship-grade reflex furnace and the former... y'know... isn't? Power matters here.

Depends if we want the Monster to have the same starship grade potency with those 400mm guns. Or if we include some type of energy storage so the lower grade Reflex Plant can handle the task.

personally i append an extra 6mm to the monster's cannons.. 406mm = 16inch guns.

2E RPG lists it at 40cm, the Infopedia does list it at 406mm. Personally I wouldn't worry about the 6mm difference given conversions and rounding conventions (Truncation method).

[ArmySGT.]

Command Destroid question answered by the RPG tactics kickstarter........

See the Command versions of the Defender and Tomahawk.

[Seto Kaiba]

I'm not looking at the Mecha that are currently carrying railguns with their beam weapons, I'm looking at the other mecha with beam weapons and do not carry a railgun. Those mecha have more power available than the tiny Silverback and Cyclone given the ability to power beam weapons with an "unlimited" payload..

That's an assumption we cannot back up or in any way confirm... because the beam weapons in the later mecha from the Robotech universe also have infinite ammunition when they're built into an airframe, and only those that are external have limited ammunition (e.g. Cyclone weapons, Alpha gun pods, etc.).

Depends if we want the Monster to have the same starship grade potency with those 400mm guns. Or if we include some type of energy storage so the lower grade Reflex Plant can handle the task.

How big is a reflex furnace for a starship? By all indications, pretty big. Probably not the kind of thing you'd fit into even a larger mecha like a Monster. Batteries? Well, it's unknown if battery tech was advanced enough to carry that off prior to the New Generation's designs.

Command Destroid question answered by the RPG tactics kickstarter........

See the Command versions of the Defender and Tomahawk.

They only exist in the tabletop game, ArmySGT., those designs are not present in the Robotech RPG, the series proper, or the OSM.

[Jefffar]

Command Destroid question answered by the RPG tactics kickstarter........

See the Command versions of the Defender and Tomahawk.

They only exist in the tabletop game, ArmySGT., those designs are not present in the Robotech RPG, the series proper, or the OSM.

Well, not yet anyway.

[jedi078]

Command Destroid question answered by the RPG tactics kickstarter........

See the Command versions of the Defender and Tomahawk.

They only exist in the tabletop game, ArmySGT., those designs are not present in the Robotech RPG, the series proper, or the OSM.

Well, not yet anyway.

I pretty much figure if it's in the tactics game it' CAN be in the table top RPG.

[ArmySGT.]

Command Destroid question answered by the RPG tactics kickstarter........

See the Command versions of the Defender and Tomahawk.

They only exist in the tabletop game, ArmySGT., those designs are not present in the Robotech RPG, the series proper, or the OSM.

Previously, now they do.... So care to give them stats?

[Seto Kaiba]

Previously, now they do.... So care to give them stats?

They still only exist in the tabletop game, which is an entity separate and distinct from the RPG, series, and OSM.

Honestly, I don't see a need for 'em myself. I tend to take the OSM view that a dedicated command variant is a target by any other name if its presence is obvious.

[jedi078]

Previously, now they do.... So care to give them stats?

They still only exist in the tabletop game, which is an entity separate and distinct from the RPG, series, and OSM.

Honestly, I don't see a need for 'em myself. I tend to take the OSM view that a dedicated command variant is a target by any other name if its presence is obvious.

Well it is called Robotech RPG tactics, and is meant to be used with the tabletop or as a stand alone game. We see command versions of VF-1's, VFA-6's, Hover tanks, ASC Battliods, so common sense dictates there would be some sort of 'command' destriod

As for a C[sub]3[/sub] unit being a target, again its just common sense to take out enemy leadership first. So while UEDF units will specifically target Gulag Officer Pods first, Zentraedi units will specifically VF-1S's, and command Destriods first as well.

[Seto Kaiba]

We see command versions of VF-1's, VFA-6's, Hover tanks, ASC Battliods, so common sense dictates there would be some sort of 'command' destriod

We don't see a dedicated command unit in the series. The VF-1S is just a different head that is used as an indicator of rank, but is never shown to be a C3 unit (I know the RPG claims it is one though, for no clear reason). The same goes for your other examples. We are never shown a dedicated command unit, save for that EC-33 Lisa uses as a mobile theater command once. Hence, I don't generally do that "command model" thing, and give every unit the ability to function as a command unit.

I think it works better narratively if the unit CO can take a dive, forcing a PC to take the reins and lead the charge.

[Jefffar]

The C3 systems are in the game however, so might as well make use of them.

[Sgt Anjay]

If you’re making your officers targets by giving them visually distinctive mecha, also giving them an advantage in sensors, avionics, and communications at least tries to mitigate that. The OSM already make the officers targets; all the RPG does is try to make up for it by giving them advantages they can use to go along with the extra danger. So yes, having a distributed command capability like you suggest rather than dedicated-node-reliant is advantageous, but the RPG's approach is hardly nonsensical.

Also, the name of the game is Robotech RPG Tactics. It’s based on/converted from the RPG. The interoperability of the RPG and the Tactics game were established day-one. Not to mention that a greater variety of designs is a good thing.

[ShadowLogan]

How big is a reflex furnace for a starship? By all indications, pretty big. Probably not the kind of thing you'd fit into even a larger mecha like a Monster. Batteries? Well, it's unknown if battery tech was advanced enough to carry that off prior to the New Generation's designs.

It is unlikely the starships have a single Reflex Furnace, and the Monster is friggin huge, so it is possible the Monster could have an RF in the right size category on it's own. We don't know how much of the Reflex Furance energy produced (on these starships) is actually used for the railguns (all 4 of them on the SDF-1), which means a smaller RF could do the same job if it was sized right.

Who said anything about Batteries specifically, energy storage need not take the form of batteries. Capacitors could also be used (they discharge faster than batteries) in banks (as real life rail/coilguns use them), and charged from the RF (or any power plant). It would effect the rate of fire, but it would still allow them to fire.

That's an assumption we cannot back up or in any way confirm... because the beam weapons in the later mecha from the Robotech universe also have infinite ammunition when they're built into an airframe, and only those that are external have limited ammunition (e.g. Cyclone weapons, Alpha gun pods, etc.).

Yes I know that the external weapons still retain a payload (even some of the internals on the ASC mecha), but those mecha (in general) have the power to handle "unlimited" payloads for their internal beam weapons meaning that an internally mounted railgun would work for them given energy requirements aren't dissimiliar.

Well it is called Robotech RPG tactics, and is meant to be used with the tabletop or as a stand alone game.

I also thought there was going to be some room for conversion between the two on some level (might just be characters).

And it should be possible to convert between the two given common examples in both until added. Though it is entirely possible they won't use a single standard.

Has anyone come up with their own "Command" upgrade for Destroids and Battloids.........

There are a few EW IMUs in the Franken Mecha thread, not C3 I admit but from that point it would just be installation of hardware. You might want to checkout that thread for ideas on what people have done.

In the 2E RPG the Salamander Battloid has Officer, NCO, and enlisted versions (1E they would be TC Recon the 2 CD units). The first two have varying degrees of command features (the VHT-1 follows a similar 3 rank setup with C3). The ASC PA and Battloids though seem to rely on the Janissary Command Vehicle for C3 functions (1E was in Sentinels RPG though was in TRM saga). So there really isn't much of a formal need for such units in the ASC given the Janissary.

The Phalanx/Defender in the 2E RPG (1E Spartan/Raider-X) can share sensor information specifically with each other (or EC-type aircraft), even without a command version. Zentreadi seem more open to the networking of information, given the Glaug and Regult Scout can share information with other mecha under their command.

I tend to take the OSM view that a dedicated command variant is a target by any other name if its presence is obvious.

Command variants do exist in the OSM for some mecha given the issuance of them to officers specifically (and carried over in RT, VF-1J, VF-1S, VFA-6H). Use of command/officer mecha is not universal, and by the 2E RPG the Phalanx/Defender can share information.

@ in general about Command Destroids/Mecha
And really we have to remember that these mecha where designed in the '80s (from OSM perspective) when networking of platforms wasn't as common/prevalent/extensive as it is today and in the future. So any attempt to do so, is more of a recton that could differ between RT and OSM counterparts.

[jedi078]

We see command versions of VF-1's, VFA-6's, Hover tanks, ASC Battliods, so common sense dictates there would be some sort of 'command' destriod

We don't see a dedicated command unit in the series. The VF-1S is just a different head that is used as an indicator of rank, but is never shown to be a C3 unit (I know the RPG claims it is one though, for no clear reason). The same goes for your other examples. We are never shown a dedicated command unit, save for that EC-33 Lisa uses as a mobile theater command once. Hence, I don't generally do that "command model" thing, and give every unit the ability to function as a command unit.

I think it works better narratively if the unit CO can take a dive, forcing a PC to take the reins and lead the charge.

What if that commanding officer is a player character?

[Sgt Anjay]

Heck, if you use the Tactics game to play out combat, it's now easy for all the PCs to be COs.

[Seto Kaiba]

The C3 systems are in the game however, so might as well make use of them.

Yeah, but instead of being an upgrade to enhance a particular model, it's more like Palladium deliberately crippled the other variants to make one look better by comparison.

If you’re making your officers targets by giving them visually distinctive mecha, also giving them an advantage in sensors, avionics, and communications at least tries to mitigate that.

I'd totally be on board with that, if the improvements weren't thinly disguised downgrades to the other variants like what's stated in 2E's Macross Saga sourcebook. However, the Robotech series doesn't seem to actually go in for the notion that there should be a dedicated "command model" of any given design. What we actually have are more like a set of ace custom variants, which are never shown to offer any kind of C3 capabilities above and beyond the regular units.

The OSM already make the officers targets; all the RPG does is try to make up for it by giving them advantages they can use to go along with the extra danger.

Well, yes and no... the OSM's officer-issue units tend to be more along the line of slightly higher-spec tuned units issued to veteran pilots, and don't actually sport any kind of C3 capability above and beyond what the bog standard unit does. With what's in the OSM, there are advantages to offer that don't involve kneecapping the other units. The Macross VF-1S sports a slightly enhanced avionics suite and uptuned engines, so it compensates for its conspicuous appearance with more agility (though the "upgrades" worked into it were swiftly adopted into all variants in subsequent production blocks). Other designs, like Southern Cross's Spartas, make the difference between models so minor and hard to spot that one could be forgiven for missing their existence entirely, though they seem to be purely cosmetic. MOSPEADA's Legioss, in the same tradition as Macross, has a veteran issue-unit for squad leaders, but it offers no improvements over the version issued to grunts.

Yes I know that the external weapons still retain a payload (even some of the internals on the ASC mecha), but those mecha (in general) have the power to handle "unlimited" payloads for their internal beam weapons meaning that an internally mounted railgun would work for them given energy requirements aren't dissimiliar.

But, as we cannot guarantee that the energy requirements aren't dissimilar (RT beam weaponry is kind of anemic in most respects) it's hard to say if a large-scale railgun could be supported by them.

I tend to take the OSM view that a dedicated command variant is a target by any other name if its presence is obvious.

Command variants do exist in the OSM for some mecha given the issuance of them to officers specifically [...]

As noted above, the specific examples cited are not actually "command" variants in any sense of the word. None of them possess any kind of enhanced C3 architecture beyond what the bog standard version has. The VF-1J is, specs-wise, just about identical to the VF-1A in all respects, and the VF-1S's enhancements have nothing to do with operational command. The AFC-01H seems to belong to the same category as the unit leader Spartas variant, in that the difference is purely for cosmetic purposes and has zero effect on performance.

What if that commanding officer is a player character?

Then I wouldn't, for narrative purposes, have him take a dive... but with every unit able to function as a unit leader, if he should happen to be disabled, another member of his team could take over, or he could even transfer to another unit and pick up right where he left off without difficulty.

[ShadowLogan]

As noted above, the specific examples cited are not actually "command" variants in any sense of the word. None of them possess any kind of enhanced C3 architecture beyond what the bog standard version has. The VF-1J is, specs-wise, just about identical to the VF-1A in all respects, and the VF-1S's enhancements have nothing to do with operational command. The AFC-01H seems to belong to the same category as the unit leader Spartas variant, in that the difference is purely for cosmetic purposes and has zero effect on performance.

I agree their is no indication of C3 type command hardware, but generally those mecha are issued to people in command positions making it a command mecha in a general sense.

But, as we cannot guarantee that the energy requirements aren't dissimilar (RT beam weaponry is kind of anemic in most respects) it's hard to say if a large-scale railgun could be supported by them.

I think the consistent problem here is you are hung up on having the large-scale railgun capable of anti-captial ship use, when it could be intended for anti-tank/aircraft/mecha or simple artillery duty that would have lower energy requirements than wanting to penetrate starship hull.

For the UEDF:RDF, the Monster's 40cm cannons as railguns could be intended as anti-giant-tank armor instead of blasting capital ships if implemented during the 10year SDF-1 re-building phase. And a main-battle tank intended for 40ft crewer would certainly have thicker armor than a vehicle for human-scale operators, requiring a bigger gun.

For the UEDF:ASC, the VHT's 105mm could follow a similar line. Intended for anti-tank use in human-human conflicts, but also capable of anti-mecha use and artillery.

Neither of those roles would require the Railguns to perform at Anti-capital ship levels.

[Sgt Anjay]

If you’re making your officers targets by giving them visually distinctive mecha, also giving them an advantage in sensors, avionics, and communications at least tries to mitigate that.

I'd totally be on board with that, if the improvements weren't thinly disguised downgrades to the other variants like what's stated in 2E's Macross Saga sourcebook.

Don’t see where this is in evidence.

However, the Robotech series doesn't seem to actually go in for the notion that there should be a dedicated "command model" of any given design.

Robotech.com entry for the VF-1S: “The VF-1S "Skull Leader" is a unique fighter based on a prototype platform of the VF-1 specially designed for commanding officers of Veritech squadrons. Only a dozen of these units had been manufactured by the time the Zentraedi attacked Macross Island in 2009.” Of course, there’s the scene where Dana points out to Sean that the hovertank he’s sitting in is for “officer use”. The RPG has always included the notion of officer mecha. Anyone wanna check the novels? I’m pretty sure I know their stance on the matter, especially since that line from Masters Saga would be in them, but completeness can be useful.

So tell me again about these notions that are missing from Robotech.

The OSM already make the officers targets; all the RPG does is try to make up for it by giving them advantages they can use to go along with the extra danger.

Well, yes and no... the OSM's officer-issue units tend to be more along the line of slightly higher-spec tuned units issued to veteran pilots, and don't actually sport any kind of C3 capability above and beyond what the bog standard unit does. <snip>

Which doesn’t contradict that the OSM made officer units stand out, and the RPG is dealing with that fact, whereas you implied that not only was there no apparent reason the RPG give these visually distinctive mecha command capabilities, but that it was giving them these capabilities that made them stick out as targets to the enemy to begin with.

[Seto Kaiba]

I agree their is no indication of C3 type command hardware, but generally those mecha are issued to people in command positions making it a command mecha in a general sense.

I'm not so sure that only giving the leader variant the decent IFF is such a good idea though... or having it be the one that has to manage the data link.

I think the consistent problem here is you are hung up on having the large-scale railgun capable of anti-captial ship use, when it could be intended for anti-tank/aircraft/mecha or simple artillery duty that would have lower energy requirements than wanting to penetrate starship hull.

Remember, what got us on this particular tangent was the suggestion of adopting the Macross II destroids as updated or upgraded versions of the original models for RT's setting... those are principally equipped with such large-scale anti-ship railguns. The issue of other types of railgun being present isn't really an issue at all, because we know they're not there in Robotech proper until the Silverback and Super Cyclone variants seen in Prelude and RTSC.

Don’t see where this is in evidence.

The IFF and other "enhanced" systems on the VF-1S, for starters.

(Admittedly, in their other systems the "leader" models aren't improvements at all, which is more consistent with the line in the OSM, possibly an artifact of where the information for 2E originally came from.)

Robotech.com entry for the VF-1S: “The VF-1S "Skull Leader" is a unique fighter based on a prototype platform of the VF-1 specially designed for commanding officers of Veritech squadrons.

That doesn't mean it's a C3 unit, it just means that it's a variant put together for elite pilots... the "ace custom" approach, rather than the "command variant". Apart from the "based on a prototype" part, RT.com's coverage doesn't really diverge much from the OSM line... though I'll confess to having a (very) minor hand in that.

Of course, there’s the scene where Dana points out to Sean that the hovertank he’s sitting in is for “officer use”.

True, but that doesn't state, explicitly or implicitly, that the hover tank in question is in any meaningful way different from the standard models her men use. There are very subtle differences in head ornamentation, but that's it... and that might just be an indicator of rank, like the ornateness of the Arming Doublet's helmet. You would not, of course, permit the buck private to march into battle with markings indicating he's an officer.

(It's a crying shame too... Charles would've been a much better lead character than Jeanne, IMO. One of the only two of the Southern Cross cast I actually liked... the other being poor, put-upon Sgt. Slawski.)

So tell me again about these notions that are missing from Robotech.

C'mon man, you know full well that when I talk about RT I mean the current, official continuity materials... not the novels, the old comics, etc., because those did their own thing and are not (technically speaking) part of Robotech proper... for the purposes of the ongoing story and merchandise, anyway.

[ShadowLogan]

Remember, what got us on this particular tangent was the suggestion of adopting the Macross II destroids as updated or upgraded versions of the original models for RT's setting... those are principally equipped with such large-scale anti-ship railguns. The issue of other types of railgun being present isn't really an issue at all, because we know they're not there in Robotech proper until the Silverback and Super Cyclone variants seen in Prelude and RTSC.

I've never said all railguns need to be in the same M2 power cateogry for RT, but the technology itself is available for use on mecha (which come in a a wider variety of sizes than M2) prior to the Cyc/SB and would not result in the continuity issue you claim when compared to the one the Cyc/SB uses (HRG-70). The HRG-70 (and Lunk's gun) is still cutting edge when you consider that it is practically man-portable. All that is required to keep from causing continuity issues is:
1. avoid man-portable status (105mm and 40cm are hardly what one would consider for humans)
2. not necessary, but can have it as a larger caliber (>20mm) to tie in with #1
3. have it uncommon (Monster and VHT-1 fit the bill in the overall equipment inventory)

[Sgt Anjay]

Don’t see where this is in evidence.

The IFF and other "enhanced" systems on the VF-1S, for starters.

How does that prove your “downgrade” assertion?

Robotech.com entry for the VF-1S: “The VF-1S "Skull Leader" is a unique fighter based on a prototype platform of the VF-1 specially designed for commanding officers of Veritech squadrons.

That doesn't mean it's a C3 unit, it just means that it's a variant put together for elite pilots... the "ace custom" approach, rather than the "command variant". Apart from the "based on a prototype" part, RT.com's coverage doesn't really diverge much from the OSM line... though I'll confess to having a (very) minor hand in that.

And here we get to the meat of it. You assume…actually, insist is probably a better term...it has to be “ace custom” rather than “command variant” not because of anything in Robotech, but because of the OSM. I’m going to go with a printed Robotech product rather than a fan’s preference for the OSM.

Of course, there’s the scene where Dana points out to Sean that the hovertank he’s sitting in is for “officer use”.

True, but that doesn't state, explicitly or implicitly, that the hover tank in question is in any meaningful way different from the standard models her men use.

But again, the RPG adding to the officer-use mecha capability that is useful to officers is an entirely valid approach. It contradicts nothing and deals with the issue of them being bigger targets visually that the series inherited from the OSM.

(It's a crying shame too... Charles would've been a much better lead character than Jeanne, IMO. One of the only two of the Southern Cross cast I actually liked... the other being poor, put-upon Sgt. Slawski.)

As my handle suggests, Andrzej “Anjay” Slawski is by far my fave, though I’ve more than enough fondness for the whole of the 15th, with Louis and Charles probably next in line. And, certainly, Charles as the lead would’ve been the more conventional choice…which is rather the point, since Southern Cross wasn’t going for conventional.

So tell me again about these notions that are missing from Robotech.

C'mon man, you know full well that when I talk about RT I mean the current, official continuity materials... not the novels, the old comics, etc., because those did their own thing and are not (technically speaking) part of Robotech proper... for the purposes of the ongoing story and merchandise, anyway.

Which in no way precludes me from pointing out that what you’re criticizing the RPG for containing is in no way contradictory to the current version of Robotech, deals with an aspect of the series it inherited from the OSM, and has been a part of many versions of Robotech right from the beginning, and so is entirely justifiable despite the current version of Robotech’s silence on what constitutes the officer-use mecha.

[Seto Kaiba]

I've never said all railguns need to be in the same M2 power cateogry for RT, but the technology itself is available for use on mecha (which come in a a wider variety of sizes than M2) prior to the Cyc/SB and would not result in the continuity issue you claim when compared to the one the Cyc/SB uses (HRG-70). [...]

Again, we're told that railguns were a new technology introduced to the UEEF on the Super Cyclone and Silverback, and the designs in question (or, in the latter case, the railgun-equipped variant) seem to both be newly developed units when we're introduced to them in 2044. That, in conjunction with what we're told about the UEDF lagging behind the UEEF in tech, is a pretty definitive way of ruling out the presence of mecha-scale railguns.

The HRG-70 (and Lunk's gun) is still cutting edge when you consider that it is practically man-portable.

One has to wonder if Lunk's alleged railgun is actually a true railgun though, or if it's using some manner of chemical assist like the SSL-9B Dragunov from Macross Frontier.

[Seto Kaiba]

Smeh. Any refitted First RW mecha would use mecha sized energy weapons to replace ammo based guns, [...]

I agree wholeheartedly... that would be the most consistent with the content and direction of Robotech as a whole. To me, the sudden introduction of railguns just doesn't make sense in a setting where humanity has basically abolished the bullet entirely except for the technologically backward inhabitants of Earth under the Invid occupation.

[ShadowLogan]

Again, we're told that railguns were a new technology introduced to the UEEF on the Super Cyclone and Silverback, and the designs in question (or, in the latter case, the railgun-equipped variant) seem to both be newly developed units when we're introduced to them in 2044. That, in conjunction with what we're told about the UEDF lagging behind the UEEF in tech, is a pretty definitive way of ruling out the presence of mecha-scale railguns.

And again the UEEF is not the sole candidate organization using the technology. If it really was completely "new" technology, the UEDF: ASC & RDF would not have working examples on their starships. And a mecha-scale railgun is too broad in scope given the wide variety of sizes Robotech mecha come in at.

The Monster already has 40cm cannons, so it can mount a 42cm Railgun from the SDF-1. It may or may not be as potent as the SDF-1, but it could still mount it and qualify as a mecha scale railgun. At a later date the Monster could be updated with the ASC's 22cm version.

The Tri-star (uses 22cm) did use Railguns, and was part of the UEEF/REF (Infopedia and 2E RPG). The RPG even gives the UEEF ships when they left with their Tok's (a ship that was home for 15years in 2029). If the UEEF launch is still sticking to the 2022 date with the SDF-3 (RT.com timeline and 2E RPG), the design is already in service (no mention of period replacement). It does look like the "new" aspect is more limited in its meaning.

To me, the sudden introduction of railguns just doesn't make sense in a setting where humanity has basically abolished the bullet entirely except for the technologically backward inhabitants of Earth under the Invid occupation.

Well it isn't a sudden introduction as Railguns have been in use prior to the HRG-70. Admittedly on a completely different sizes to what the UEEF introduced (2cm), but they where in service at 40cm and 22cm sizes.

The return of the projectile does make sense if targets are more vulnerable to kinetic impact or has some resistance to beam weaponry. Don't forget RT does have such materials as "laser resistant ceramic", so against material like that a straight kinetic impact would be preferable from an effectiveness standpoint over laser beam weapons. Other types of energy weapons may also have foils requiring a variety of options to be available.

[Seto Kaiba]

And again the UEEF is not the sole candidate organization using the technology.

They're the sole candidate using it on mecha, that's a fact.

The Monster already has 40cm cannons, so it can mount a 42cm Railgun from the SDF-1.

Okay, I don't have my Macross Saga sourcebook on hand at the moment (I'm on vacation, actually), but 40cm is way, WAY off the actual size of the railguns on the SDF-1. Try 178cm, the correct size. Those guns are over 100m long, there's just no freaking way you're going to get that onto a Monster. If railguns were a viable option on the Monster, they would have been a part of its armament from the word "go", but they're using conventional cannons instead.

[ShadowLogan]

Okay, I don't have my Macross Saga sourcebook on hand at the moment (I'm on vacation, actually), but 40cm is way, WAY off the actual size of the railguns on the SDF-1. Try 178cm, the correct size. Those guns are over 100m long, there's just no freaking way you're going to get that onto a Monster. If railguns were a viable option on the Monster, they would have been a part of its armament from the word "go", but they're using conventional cannons instead.

That is the size listed in the 2E RPG (420mm SDF-1, 220mm Tri-star). The Infopedia doesn't list the size of the railguns (either ship).

The Monster could sport barrels of shorter length though (it's barrels are already what 30m long roughly, ~20m length w/o barrels, ~40m w/barrels, and the barrels start approximately mid way). That would either require more acceleration on the round in a shorter distance to keep the same stopping power or take the hit for reduced acceleration time and power or some mix of the two.

I disagree that the Railguns need to be part of the design from the word "go". Initial Monsters could be said to be produced with conventional 40cm rounds, but then later updated to railguns at some point post FoA or Ep36.

They're the sole candidate using it on mecha, that's a fact.

As far as we know. It also leaves room for the UEDF: RDF/ASC to mount them on more conventional platforms (which depending on what definition of mecha one uses, would include them and ships).

[Seto Kaiba]

The Monster could sport barrels of shorter length though (it's barrels are already what 30m long roughly, ~20m length w/o barrels, ~40m w/barrels, and the barrels start approximately mid way). That would either require more acceleration on the round in a shorter distance to keep the same stopping power or take the hit for reduced acceleration time and power or some mix of the two.

Assuming, of course, that the Monster's power plant was up to the task and that materials of sufficient durability are readily available and light enough to use on the Monster chassis without overloading it. Present information suggests that power is probably the more damning of the two concerns... as only protoculture-driven units are equipped with them.

I disagree that the Railguns need to be part of the design from the word "go". Initial Monsters could be said to be produced with conventional 40cm rounds, but then later updated to railguns at some point post FoA or Ep36.

Unless the railgun is firing at such a low power level that it offers no advantage over a conventional cannon, the Monster's design would need to be modified and reinforced to accept them as an alternative weapon. There is, thus far, no basis for suggesting the Monster would be upgraded with railguns, as the technology was not applied to mecha until the 2040s, and the 1st War destroid units seem to have been abandoned entirely after the war.

(As a side note which, knowing Tommy, may apply to Robotech as well... the OSM's development histories for both of the known HWR-00 marks indicate that linear cannons were originally the planned armament. The planned main armament, four 50cm linear cannons, was scrapped due to durability issues and the on-board reactor being insufficiently powerful for continuous firing, hence the adoption of the smaller 40cm liquid-cooled conventional cannons.)

They're the sole candidate using it on mecha, that's a fact.

As far as we know. It also leaves room for the UEDF: RDF/ASC to mount them on more conventional platforms (which depending on what definition of mecha one uses, would include them and ships).

All things considered, we have relatively comprehensive coverage of the RDF/ASC mecha and none of them are using any form of linear weaponry... that does, by default, tend to rule out the idea that the RDF/ASC are using railguns.

[jedi078]

And again the UEEF is not the sole candidate organization using the technology.

They're the sole candidate using it on mecha, that's a fact.

Nope, per the Macross Saga book on page 173, the Gulag Officer Pod has 44mm rail gun in the lower arms.

So as far back as 2009-2011 the UEDF had access to mecha sized rail guns and could have copied them or improved upon the design. Since humanity apparently has a knack for taking alien technology (the SDF-1, and the veritechs are clear examples) and improving it the Gulags rail guns were most likely copied and improved upon.

[Seto Kaiba]

Nope, per the Macross Saga book on page 173, the Gulag Officer Pod has 44mm rail gun in the lower arms.

Humans didn't build the Glaug... or use them, for that matter.

So as far back as 2009-2011 the UEDF had access to mecha sized rail guns and could have copied them or improved upon the design.

The UEDF did not, however, have the ability to produce mecha-scale protoculture power plants until some time after (well... according to the RPG, anyway). Exactly 100% of the mecha-scale railguns we've seen are protoculture powered. Only the UEEF uses protoculture fuel, and they didn't adopt railguns until the 2040s.

[jedi078]

So as far back as 2009-2011 the UEDF had access to mecha sized rail guns and could have copied them or improved upon the design.

The UEDF did not, however, have the ability to produce mecha-scale protoculture power plants until some time after (well... according to the RPG, anyway). Exactly 100% of the mecha-scale railguns we've seen are protoculture powered. Only the UEEF uses protoculture fuel, and they didn't adopt railguns until the 2040s.

A rail gun doesn't necessarily need to be powered by protoculture. We see plenty of mecha in the 2E RPG that are not (per the RPG) protoculture powered and yet utilize energy weapons. Those same power systems that power energy weapons can easily be used to power a rail gun.

[glitterboy2098]

railguns would actually require less power than a energy weapon of equivalent ability to impart damage.

[jedi078]

railguns would actually require less power than a energy weapon of equivalent ability to impart damage.

My point exactly....

[Seto Kaiba]

A rail gun doesn't necessarily need to be powered by protoculture.

Yet all of those we see in RT are confined to protoculture-powered mecha. That speaks to there being other factors beyond basic power consumption requirements.

That there are non-PC mecha with energy weapons means nothing, because not all energy weapons are created equal or have identical energy requirements.

[Jefffar]

A rail gun doesn't necessarily need to be powered by protoculture.

Yet all of those we see in RT are confined to protoculture-powered mecha. That speaks to there being other factors beyond basic power consumption requirements.

That there are non-PC mecha with energy weapons means nothing, because not all energy weapons are created equal or have identical energy requirements.

We also see them as infantry weapons with independant power supplies as well.

Also, at one point the MACs guns actually were Railguns (McKinneyism of course, but it was there). But of course it will be pointed out that's not what they actually are currently listed as.

I don't think any of the above indicates that its technically unfeasible to refit the MAC with an upgraded power plant and some heavy Railguns to improve its capabilities as a firesupport and anti-ship platform.

I do think that they wouldn't do so as the MAC is highly volume and mass intensive for what it brings to the table and the UEEF is better off relying on the weapons of the fleet plus some conventional self propelled gun mountings.

[ShadowLogan]

Unless the railgun is firing at such a low power level that it offers no advantage over a conventional cannon, the Monster's design would need to be modified and reinforced to accept them as an alternative weapon.

Given that the round would be smaller, that would allow the Monster to stay in the fight longer by carrying more rounds, so I would call that an advantage over the conventional cannon version even if the two ended up at the same performance level.

As for the modification and reinforcement, that is likely, but not a show stopper. The amount of both would depend on the power the railgun is going for, but also how much margin the Monster has as part of the design (so reinforcement may not be necessary upto a certain point).

All things considered, we have relatively comprehensive coverage of the RDF/ASC mecha and none of them are using any form of linear weaponry... that does, by default, tend to rule out the idea that the RDF/ASC are using railguns.

I don't think it does.

This could end up being a design(s) created for the express purpose of introducing the weapon type to the setting(s) that we haven't seen yet (in footage) that is added post-OSM (ex. of designs in general are Invid Overlord, UEEF Bioroid, Silverback). It doesn't have to be an existing platform to receive the technology (Lunk's AP cannon/Railgun).

Humans didn't build the Glaug... or use them, for that matte

They don't need to build the Glaug's though. They could salvage or transfer the weapons to a human platform(s), the main drawback here is the commonality of the Glaug.

An organization doesn't need to be able to build a piece of technology in order for them to use it. By your way of thinking, every nation has factories to build every weapon systems it uses completely, but that is hardly ever the case.

Yet all of those we see in RT are confined to protoculture-powered mecha. That speaks to there being other factors beyond basic power consumption requirements.

That there are non-PC mecha with energy weapons means nothing, because not all energy weapons are created equal or have identical energy requirements.

Protoculture is not necessary for powering the basic technology (real world examples after all).

The only thing Protoculture is credited with in connection to RT Railguns is the compact size of the HRG-70 and Lunk's AP RG Cannon (both being of similar size).

Armor Piercing Cannon
Experimental Protoculture-Powered Rail Gun
This is an experimental light anti-tank weapon (LAW) that utilizes miniaturized magnetic rail gun technology. it is only possible to make the rail gun as small and portable as it is due to the use of Protoculture as an energy source....[talks about the round fired and damage]...While this weapon is usually mount on a vehicle or as part of a fortification, it can be used as a large, hand-held weapon by Cyclones, ASC power armor and cyborgs.... [talks about firing the weapon outside of the previous examples]
Note: This weapon is used by Lunk in "Paper Hero."

That doesn't disqualify mecha from using larger and less portable versions.