Forums of the Megaverse®

ESalter wrote:Because type 52s have better sensors and better armor?

Unlikely to have better armor since a Cyclone is little more than body armor anyway. I also doubtful that the VR-052 has better sensors.

Because GR-103s are dangerous?

Then why make them?

Because type 41s lack fairing hardpoints?

Untrue. Otherwise you could not mount the CADS on them. Which, I might add, is probably the most worthless weapon you could mount on an anti-armor Cyclone like the -041 Grenadier.

jedi078 wrote:What evidence do you have of this?

A typical infantryman would be able to bring 16 armor defeating rocket-propelled grenades onto a target as opposed to the 12 of the 'typical' -041 or the 4 of the 'typical' -052.

ESalter wrote:

jedi078 wrote:

ESalter wrote:

jedi078 wrote:As you can see I have thrown aside the absurd idea that the VR-052 is the standard infantry model.

How is it absurd?

Why would you not field VR-041's with GR-97 forearm launchers as your main front line infantry combat unit?

Because type 52s have better sensors and better armor? Because GR-103s are dangerous? Because type 41s lack fairing hardpoints?

Anyone who thinks that you can't remove the CADS and replace them with GR-97's or any other type of cyclone forearm weapon system lack some serious common sense.

ESalter wrote:

jedi078 wrote:You’d defiantly get a bigger bang for your buck, and your infantrymen would have the firepower needed to storm Invid hives.

What evidence do you have of this?

The same thing RSCF pointed out: More missiles to kill Invid with.

Plus I don't pull any punches in the games I run, which means the PC's in my games need evey advantage they can get.

Rabid Southern Cross Fan wrote:

ESalter wrote:

jedi078 wrote:Why would you not field VR-041's with GR-97 forearm launchers as your main front line infantry combat unit?

Because type 52s have better sensors and better armor?

Unlikely to have better armor since a Cyclone is little more than body armor anyway. I also doubtful that the VR-052 has better sensors.

Well, WRT the sensors, there's something inside the hoods that replace the 41's launchers.

Rabid Southern Cross Fan wrote:

ESalter wrote:Because GR-103s are dangerous?

Then why make them?

Who says they do? Perhaps the model was retired because the GR-103 turned out to be more hazardous than expected. It's jedi078 who says 41s are the standard infantry Cyclone.
Beyond that, perhaps they can be safely used with additional training? I mean, I'm not claiming the GR-103 kills everyone who uses it.

Rabid Southern Cross Fan wrote:

ESalter wrote:Because type 41s lack fairing hardpoints?

Untrue. Otherwise you could not mount the CADS on them.

jedi078 wrote:Anyone who thinks that you can't remove the CADS and replace them with GR-97's or any other type of cyclone forearm weapon system lack some serious common sense.

Sorry, I meant the right torso hardpoint (where the RL-6 is mounted, for instance); it's possible the 41's launchers prevent placement of an additional weapon there.

Rabid Southern Cross Fan wrote:Which, I might add, is probably the most worthless weapon you could mount on an anti-armor Cyclone like the -041 Grenadier.

Personally, I'd have guessed that the 41M is an attempt at a completely self-contained weapon system (as might be used by a downed pilot), rather than an anti-armor unit specifically.

Rabid Southern Cross Fan wrote:

ESalter wrote:

jedi078 wrote:You’d defiantly get a bigger bang for your buck, and your infantrymen would have the firepower needed to storm Invid hives.

What evidence do you have of this?

A typical infantryman would be able to bring 16 armor defeating rocket-propelled grenades onto a target as opposed to the 12 of the 'typical' -041 or the 4 of the 'typical' -052.

How did you determine that sixteen through four is the range of the cutoff of the number of missiles needed to storm Invid hives?

jedi078 wrote:Plus I don't pull any punches in the games I run, which means the PC's in my games need evey advantage they can get.

I'm afraid I don't understand what this has to do with the use of different models of Cyclone within the Robotech universe.

ESalter wrote:Sorry, I meant the right torso hardpoint (where the RL-6 is mounted, for instance); it's possible the 41's launchers prevent placement of an additional weapon there.

Actually a hand-carried weapon (EP-37, RL-6, Valiant et al) can still be mounted next to the handlebar magnetic hardpoint. That means each Cyclone has 3: 2 faring/shield hardpoints and 1 handlebar.

Rabid Southern Cross Fan wrote:

ESalter wrote:Sorry, I meant the right torso hardpoint (where the RL-6 is mounted, for instance); it's possible the 41's launchers prevent placement of an additional weapon there.

Actually a hand-carried weapon (EP-37, RL-6, Valiant et al) can still be mounted next to the handlebar magnetic hardpoint.

Are you quite sure of your evidence? It seems possible to me that it might not be good idea to have missiles firing right adjacent to another weapon, to say nothing of an improperly placed weapon interfering with a hatch.

ESalter wrote:

Rabid Southern Cross Fan wrote:

ESalter wrote:Sorry, I meant the right torso hardpoint (where the RL-6 is mounted, for instance); it's possible the 41's launchers prevent placement of an additional weapon there.

Actually a hand-carried weapon (EP-37, RL-6, Valiant et al) can still be mounted next to the handlebar magnetic hardpoint.

Are you quite sure of your evidence? It seems possible to me that it might not be good idea to have missiles firing right adjacent to another weapon, to say nothing of an improperly placed weapon interfering with a hatch.

Look at Rook on her VR-039 she kept a RL-6 on the handlebar magnetic hard point. Furthermore Scott kept his EP-37 on the same hardpoint. But odds are the weapons mounted on the handlebar magnetic hardpoint was rarely, if ever fired in conjunction with the forearm or chest weapon systems.

As for the rest of your post ESalter you clearly have no sense of common sense, or think outside the box.

ESalter wrote:Are you quite sure of your evidence? It seems possible to me that it might not be good idea to have missiles firing right adjacent to another weapon, to say nothing of an improperly placed weapon interfering with a hatch.

I cannot off-hand remember any time in which either Scott or Rook fired their hard-point hand held weapons while they were in Motorcycle Mode. I doubt seriously if they would even try. Besides, for me, the typical Cyclone Infantryman would be a VR-041 Grenadier w/GR-103's & an EP-40 beam cannon. That gives them good armor-defeating weaponry: 12 rocket-propelled grenades and a heavy-small arms weapon: EP-40.

Rabid Southern Cross Fan wrote:

ESalter wrote:Are you quite sure of your evidence? It seems possible to me that it might not be good idea to have missiles firing right adjacent to another weapon, to say nothing of an improperly placed weapon interfering with a hatch.

I cannot off-hand remember any time in which either Scott or Rook fired their hard-point hand held weapons while they were in Motorcycle Mode. I doubt seriously if they would even try. Besides, for me, the typical Cyclone Infantryman would be a VR-041 Grenadier w/GR-103's & an EP-40 beam cannon. That gives them good armor-defeating weaponry: 12 rocket-propelled grenades and a heavy-small arms weapon: EP-40.

I think the only time a cyclone weapon was used in cycle mode was Rand's EP-40 in the 4th episode....

as far as all the extrapolation and conjecture...we are stuck with it....the series is full of contradictions due to the merging of the 3 series and and trying to fit the writing to the art.

We all have our own ideas on what happened "offscreeen" and we could argu over it til the cows come home...but until we get official word we are all on our own.

Rabid Southern Cross Fan wrote:

ESalter wrote:Are you quite sure of your evidence? It seems possible to me that it might not be good idea to have missiles firing right adjacent to another weapon, to say nothing of an improperly placed weapon interfering with a hatch.

I cannot off-hand remember any time in which either Scott or Rook fired their hard-point hand held weapons while they were in Motorcycle Mode. I doubt seriously if they would even try. Besides, for me, the typical Cyclone Infantryman would be a VR-041 Grenadier w/GR-103's & an EP-40 beam cannon. That gives them good armor-defeating weaponry: 12 rocket-propelled grenades and a heavy-small arms weapon: EP-40.

I can think of two instances where Rand's Cyclone fired it's gun from the hub, in both cases he was out of armor:
-The Ambush at the City where Rand and Scott met Annie
-Point K when the Invid Ambushed them out in the open

Rook IIRC fires off a missile in the Wolf Episode, or is implied to atleast in cycle mode to rescue Rand & Scott. Point K might be another candidate since they where all out of armor.

Lancer IIRC also fired off missiles in the Point K episode, again out of armor.

According to the uRRG NG era Kill report Scott and Lancer each did get a kill in Cycle mode. Scott though when using the Cyclone weapon systems as I recall always went to Battle Armor.

Robot Urchin wrote:From art of RtSC:
* p91 - Claims VR-052 is easier to manufacture than the VR-041, and the VR-052F variant has the arm missiles. Also claims VR-052 is standard issue for third robotech war.
* VR-038 is not mentioned.

From new RPG, deluxe ed:
* p94 - Claims VR-030 series are the oldest cyclones still in service.
* p97 - Claims VR-040 series is a "manufacturing burden" and VR-050 series is cheaper.
* p100 - Claims VR-050 series became standard because infantry needed more armor and firepower.

From the old RPG, book5 invid invasion:
* p36 - The old RPG never says which cyclone came first or which cyclones are more common. It just says that all cyclones are slight variations of each other.

All the talk about the VR-41 being a "manufacturing burden" and "the VR-052 is standard issue for third robotech war" stems from the fact that we see only one VR-041 in the series but many VR-052's. I guess no one ever gave it any thought that the reason we don't see many VR-041 is because the majority (if not all) of the front line combat units (i.e. the infantry) were destroyed in Earth orbit.

The whole bit about the VR-050 series "becoming standard because it has more armor and firepower" is defiantly wrong. We know the VR-41 has more firepower, as it has GR-103's packed with 12 missiles, while the VR-052 can only accommodate four missiles. As for armor, well that's an easy fix for any smart GM to make.

Robot Urchin wrote:

Chris0013 wrote:as far as all the extrapolation and conjecture...we are stuck with it....the series is full of contradictions due to the merging of the 3 series and and trying to fit the writing to the art.

We all have our own ideas on what happened "offscreeen" and we could argu over it til the cows come home...but until we get official word we are all on our own.

Well, with the cyclones, that all comes from MOSPEADA. What was most important was that each different character had a different suit which sold a different toy. Logical explanations came second.

However, on the Robotech side, I don't think they explained why each suit was used within the series. Only art books and RPG books ever addressed that.

From art of RtSC:
* p91 - Claims VR-052 is easier to manufacture than the VR-041, and the VR-052F variant has the arm missiles. Also claims VR-052 is standard issue for third robotech war.
* VR-038 is not mentioned.

From new RPG, deluxe ed:
* p94 - Claims VR-030 series are the oldest cyclones still in service.
* p97 - Claims VR-040 series is a "manufacturing burden" and VR-050 series is cheaper.
* p100 - Claims VR-050 series became standard because infantry needed more armor and firepower.

From the old RPG, book5 invid invasion:
* p36 - The old RPG never says which cyclone came first or which cyclones are more common. It just says that all cyclones are slight variations of each other.

Sorry..the conjecture I meant was the overall stuff...were there colonies, where were they, where all the UEEF personel came from, etc...

jedi078 wrote:All the talk about the VR-41 being a "manufacturing burden" and "the VR-052 is standard issue for third robotech war" stems from the fact that we see only one VR-041 in the series but many VR-052's.

2 VR-041s: Lancer, Nader Jr in Lunk's flashback.

I think the way the 1Ed RPG did the Cyclone assignments was correct with regard to the Battler/Saber Cyclone. Though the fact the Battler also carried the same shoulder launchers helped, if we go with the artwork from the iami files there could also be several tube arrangements available for the Battler:
-3x1x2
-3x2x2 (RPG-1Ed)
-3x3x2

jedi078 wrote: guess no one ever gave it any thought that the reason we don't see many VR-041 is because the majority (if not all) of the front line combat units (i.e. the infantry) were destroyed in Earth orbit.

How would you characterize the Cyclone unit found on the Horizont Rand recovered his Cyclone from? What about the Shadow painted style Battlers seen in (IIRC) Ep83? Wasn't Ep.84's units also Battlers, they all couldn't have been downed pilots.

jedi078 wrote:We know the VR-41 has more firepower, as it has GR-103's packed with 12 missiles, while the VR-052 can only accommodate four missiles.

Do we really know how the GR-103's missiles compare to the GR-97s in the show (RPG we know how they would compare)? According to the uRRG's kill enumeration tables from NG the GR-97, EP-40, and RL-6 EACH get more kills than the GR-103s against Invid targets. The only Cyclone weapon lower is the EP-37 rifle, but I don't think we see that used in very many episodes, unlike the others. FROM THE SHOW it would appear the GR-103 does not bring as much to the table.

Now from the RPG perspective:
1st Ed the Battler has just as much fire power potential as the Saber since they can be configured the same.

2nd Ed the Cyclones bring more firepower to bear using their guns than missiles over the course of a battle. Now the Missiles do have a slight range advantage, and allow for an all out strike, but they are not the true source of their firepower. So by the RPG book config, the GR-103 is not top dog more like tied for 6th with the sidecar.

All Damge is max rolled over the course of the entire payload, non-critical highest to lowest (2E used):
-HRG-40 does 5000points
-Valiant does 3312
-H-90 rifle mode 2988
-EP-40 bring 1920 (Manga Ed. Cyclone Entry).
-EP-37 does 1200 (Manga Ed. Cyclone Entry)
-GR-103 brings 720
-Missile Sidecars are as the GR-103
-RL-6 does 360
-GR-97 does 240

Given the different types of missiles available, I used the strongest available (Plasma) instead of the standard (HEAP). Though it is also possible to equip them with weaker missiles.

It would appear that by standard configurations listed in the book by damage potential the Saber would fall into the #2 or 3 slot depending if it can use the missile sidecar in 2E (1E it is #2) mentioned only in regards to the heavy version of the Battler. Yes I realize the medic version of the Saber has a sidecar, but does the Saber have the ability to control the firing systems of the missile sidecar. The Medic sidecar is extremely simple in comparision to the missile sidecar, opening the possibility that it was built only for the Battler model(s).

Rabid Southern Cross Fan wrote:

ESalter wrote:Are you quite sure of your evidence? It seems possible to me that it might not be good idea to have missiles firing right adjacent to another weapon, to say nothing of an improperly placed weapon interfering with a hatch.

I cannot off-hand remember any time in which either Scott or Rook fired their hard-point hand held weapons while they were in Motorcycle Mode. I doubt seriously if they would even try.

Sorry, I meant when the GR-103 fires; you'd have exhaust wash over your "handheld," and the latter might interfere with the hatch. Hence, the possibility of no "handlebar point" for the 41.

Rabid Southern Cross Fan wrote:Besides, for me, the typical Cyclone Infantryman would be a VR-041 Grenadier w/GR-103's & an EP-40 beam cannon. That gives them good armor-defeating weaponry: 12 rocket-propelled grenades and a heavy-small arms weapon: EP-40.

I want to look at this in more detail, because I think it may help illustrate my point.

According to Lowell Silverman, the EP-40 is the weakest weapon. If the 41 lacks a handlebar hardpoint, it can't carry the (presumably) superior EP-37, at least without sacrificing mobility and autonomy; hence, the type 52 would be built as a replacement.

Of course, this is all very speculative. But I do think it shows that the type 41 is not as obviously superior as has been suggested.

Personally, I suspect that the UEDF never found a Cyclone that was completely satisfactory; they're just too close to the edge of technological feasibility.

ShadowLogan wrote:I think the way the 1Ed RPG did the Cyclone assignments was correct with regard to the Battler/Saber Cyclone. Though the fact the Battler also carried the same shoulder launchers helped, if we go with the artwork from the iami files there could also be several tube arrangements available for the Battler:
-3x1x2
-3x2x2 (RPG-1Ed)
-3x3x2

I have been looking at the variations of Missile types. I think the RPG may need to be more granular with the Mini-Missile systems. To accommodate something like 'Unguided Rockets'

The 3x1x2 look like actual Mini-Missiles, same ones fielded in the forearms. The 3x3x2 look like rockets something akin to fireworks. The 3x2x2 found on the Saber look like micro-missiles. Mini-Missiles without the range.

I can see a logistical standpoint of a resistance cell of only wanting to use unguided rockets, as that would mean easier manufacturing (especially for Lunk who had to build all those Missiles Scott used on the Alpha).

actually, to me the forearm launchers look like LAW rocket type weapons, the rooks cannon thing looks like a light ATGM type weapon, and the chest launchers look more like a "hedgehog" mortar system.

at least, thats the impression i get from show.

glitterboy2098 wrote:actually, to me the forearm launchers look like LAW rocket type weapons, the rooks cannon thing looks like a light ATGM type weapon, and the chest launchers look more like a "hedgehog" mortar system.

at least, thats the impression i get from show.

So the question is: Do we need to get more granular with the missile systems? Is that really needed or wanted?

Tiree wrote:So the question is: Do we need to get more granular with the missile systems? Is that really needed or wanted?

From an immersion stand-point, yes. It would also help to sort out EXACTLY what stuff is and such.

glitterboy2098 wrote:actually, to me the forearm launchers look like LAW rocket type weapons, the rooks cannon thing looks like a light ATGM type weapon, and the chest launchers look more like a "hedgehog" mortar system.

at least, thats the impression i get from show.

A wile a back we scaled an old model of an Alpha I got when i was a kid (i was sold as the gobots Leader 1, in case you were wondering), and we figured the the shoulder missiles were about the same size as a liter bottle or the same size as the forearm launchers. This would make then like TOW's or even the Javelin. This would explain the need for a targeting system and how scott was able to take out both a trooper and an armored trooper each with one missile in ep. 2.

Tiree wrote:So the question is: Do we need to get more granular with the missile systems? Is that really needed or wanted?

I think adding the qualifier that X system uses specialized missile frames in the what ever category would be sufficient. Something like that was present in 1Ed with the Plasma Mini-Missiles, Disrupter Missiles in Strike Force, and IINM even Zentraedi missiles are categorized that way in the Ghost Ship Adventure preventing human teams from recycling the missiles and into their mecha. Even in Rifts one occassionaly finds specailized frames for a given class.

Tiree wrote:I have been looking at the variations of Missile types. I think the RPG may need to be more granular with the Mini-Missile systems. To accommodate something like 'Unguided Rockets'

Well with regard to 1E they where. Most Mini-Missile Launchers could not accomodate the Plasma category, and those that could where speacilized launchers.

And the reality is that if we compare missiles frames across generations, the same thing will appear. The Alpha and VF-1 the SRMS have different body stylings for example. The VF-1 being more of a classic, with the Alpha using a series of cylinders.

ShadowLogan wrote:

Tiree wrote:So the question is: Do we need to get more granular with the missile systems? Is that really needed or wanted?

I think adding the qualifier that X system uses specialized missile frames in the what ever category would be sufficient. Something like that was present in 1Ed with the Plasma Mini-Missiles, Disrupter Missiles in Strike Force, and IINM even Zentraedi missiles are categorized that way in the Ghost Ship Adventure preventing human teams from recycling the missiles and into their mecha. Even in Rifts one occassionaly finds specailized frames for a given class.

Tiree wrote:I have been looking at the variations of Missile types. I think the RPG may need to be more granular with the Mini-Missile systems. To accommodate something like 'Unguided Rockets'

Well with regard to 1E they where. Most Mini-Missile Launchers could not accomodate the Plasma category, and those that could where speacilized launchers.

And the reality is that if we compare missiles frames across generations, the same thing will appear. The Alpha and VF-1 the SRMS have different body stylings for example. The VF-1 being more of a classic, with the Alpha using a series of cylinders.

I've used the missile names from the uRRG, and made specific missiles go with specific missile launching systems.

For example, the GR-103 missiles fire 60mm Recluse missiles which only have HE or fragmentation warheads, with a range of a half mile. I have go so far as to designate which guidance systems are available for each missiles and the platform firing the missile.

While screwing around with the stuff in the IMAI sketches, I decided to take a different tack than the uRRG with regards to the 'Devastator' Cyclone. I dumped the left-side cannon completely (I'm not even certain how a Cyclone Rider could use all the weapons at his disposal in Battloid Mode). The double-barreled beam cannon on the right (which Tommy morphed into the HRG-70 Railgun) I decided would be its own stand-alone weapon: EP-41 'Devastator' Double-barreled 40mm Beam Cannon (which could be mounted to any Cyclone below the magnetic handlebar hardpoint). The 1x3 Scorpion rocket launcher I decided would make more sense as the GR-98 Auto-Grenade Launcher holding circa 18 grenades (6 per launcher) that fires the same 25mm Grenade as the M-25 Wolverine. The 'x3 hand grenades' marked on the page would simply be D-40 Cobalt Grenades carried on a special MOLLE-type mounting that could be added to the greave/shin-guards of either CHR-2 (Colonel Wolfe flashback armour), CBA-2, CVR-3 or CBA-5.

Edit:

The VR-052 Mospeada Doujinshi shows the Cyclone being able to mount magazine pouches on each thigh/upper leg actuator, so I decided that made ALOT of sense. I also noticed that the EP-40 magazine (according to the lineart from the Genesis Climber Mospeada Japanese DVD) appears to hold 120 shots.

So, to whit, the 'typical' Cyclone Infantry in my games is outfitted thusly: VR-041 Grenadier w/ EP-40 (Right) and GR-98 (left). That gives the rider x12 Anti-Armour Rockets, x1 Heavy Small Arms & x18 Anti-Personnel/Light Anti-Armour Grenades plus spare magazines for the EP-40 and x6 D-40 Cobalt Grenades.

ok a couple of questions

one theres how many people in an infantry company

are all of them issued anti tank missle launchers?

ok the ones not issued anti tank missle launchers, are they all issued at least a m-209 type lancher?

or a M-2

no?

the most realistic answer I can come up with is that they frankly just could not keep up the supply of missles needed to supply that many units, and they probably could not also keep up the suppy of spares needed for whatever reason

Drakenred®™© wrote:one theres how many people in an infantry company

Depends if your running with a 13 man (U.S. Marine model) or 9 man (U.S. Army model) squads. Three squads +a HQ section = a platoon. Three Platoons + a HQ platoon = a company. Your looking at about 120 to 160 men.

Drakenred®™© wrote:the most realistic answer I can come up with is that they frankly just could not keep up the supply of missles needed to supply that many units, and they probably could not also keep up the suppy of spares needed for whatever reason

The UEEF by nature seems very dependent upon missiles. That said I don't think missile supply is so much of an issue. Sure it is but it seems with missile dependent weapon systems (i.e. Alpha and Beta VT's, Cyclones etc) you'd have plenty of missiles on hand.

That's assuming you stick with American models, there are alternative formats for an infantry company to have.

For example, using the model of the Japanese Ground Self Defence Force (a logical one for an anime world) we get companies like this


A company HQ of 8 men, has a 7.62 mm machinegun
A machinegun Squad of 7 men with 2 12.7 mm machinguns.
3 Rifle Platoons (Divided into 4 eight man squads each with a 7.62mm machinegun) plus platoon HQ and a team with a pair of rocket launchers)
1 Support Platoon with 2 mortars and 4 jeep mounted anti-tank weapons.

So in each company you'd see 13x 7.62mm machineguns, 2x 12.7 mm machineguns, 6x rocket launchers, 2x mortars and 4x heavy anti-tank weapons.

Robotech is of course an American creation.....but yes a GM could use any of the many infantry company formats out there.

Also there is a big difference between a 7.62 machine gun and a 7.62 assault/battle rifle, and I think the JSDF uses a 5.56mm gun, the Howa Type 89 as it's primary assault rifle.

jedi078 wrote:Also there is a big difference between a 7.62 machine gun and a 7.62 assault/battle rifle, and I think the JSDF uses a 5.56mm gun, the Howa Type 89 as it's primary assault rifle.

I agree, but I didn't mention anything about their rifles, just the heavy weapons they carried.

Anybody have a clearer picture of that flying fortress on page 106?

jedi078 wrote:Robotech is of course an American creation.....but yes a GM could use any of the many infantry company formats out there.

Also there is a big difference between a 7.62 machine gun and a 7.62 assault/battle rifle, and I think the JSDF uses a 5.56mm gun, the Howa Type 89 as it's primary assault rifle.

7.62 MGs and 7.62 Battle Rifles only real difference comes down to 3 things....Ammo capacity (MGs are belt fed and BRs are Mag fed {usually 20 rounds}), Rate of fire, and controlability. A MG has the weight to be able to fire full auto with better contol than a lighter BR on full auto.

Jefffar wrote:That's assuming you stick with American models, there are alternative formats for an infantry company to have.

For example, using the model of the Japanese Ground Self Defence Force (a logical one for an anime world) we get companies like this


A company HQ of 8 men, has a 7.62 mm machinegun
A machinegun Squad of 7 men with 2 12.7 mm machinguns.
3 Rifle Platoons (Divided into 4 eight man squads each with a 7.62mm machinegun) plus platoon HQ and a team with a pair of rocket launchers)
1 Support Platoon with 2 mortars and 4 jeep mounted anti-tank weapons.

So in each company you'd see 13x 7.62mm machineguns, 2x 12.7 mm machineguns, 6x rocket launchers, 2x mortars and 4x heavy anti-tank weapons.

The US Marines are set up differently.

standard rifle platoon is 3 squads with 13 men each.....each squad has3 fireteams with 4 men in each team. Team leader has a M16/m203 combo, SAW gunner has a M249 SAW, A-Gunner and Rifleman each have an M16. Each squad leader as well as Guide, Platoon Sgt and Platoon Commander will have an M16. Attached Navy Corpsman will get a sidearm of 12gauge shotgun IIRC.

That comes down to 9 M16 / M203 combos, 9 M249 SAW, 24 standard M16, and Doc's sidearm or 12 gauge. The M16 and m249 fire the same round (5.56). The M249 is your "heavy" firepower....Beltfed, full auto.

There are 3 rifle platoons in a company with a Weapons platoon that has M240 (7.62 beltfed), Mortars, and SMAWs (anti armor). Your Headquartes guys are a couple or 3 guys that work in the office for the CO, XO, Company Gunny, and Company First Sgt.

These are the numbers from when I was in back in the mid 90's

Pox wrote:Anybody have a clearer picture of that flying fortress on page 106?

IIRC there is a similiar one in the Extras Discs. Not sure if it is as clear as you would like.

Thread necromancy, again.

This time, I'd like to concentrate on a setting idea. My goal here is to construct a plausible scenario by which a sizable ASC contingent could end up stranded on a failing colony world (i.e., Glorie), which would eventually devolve into the "shogunate in space" setting that SDCSC was originally conceived as. I'm thinking of setting the campaign in a "100 years after the fall" timeframe (i.e., mid-22nd century), with a goal of gradually reintegrating Glorie into interstellar society - though to begin with, it'll have more of a "Genesis Survivor Gaiarth" feel to it: robotic "wildlife" (robot horses and falcons) running free and/or being tamed while humans fight each other with vibroblades.

When I finally do get to the point of introducing the interstellar society of the setting, I'm thinking of using some of the early concept art from the Mospeada section of these files as the mecha of said society: e.g., flying cyclones and "vector fighters" that use special-purpose "cyclones" (more like one-man mini-Silverbacks) as their cockpits.

But first, a transitional phase, when a hidden stash of "lostech" (the wreck of a Garfish, loaded with 2030-era ASC and UEEF mecha, including some experimental designs) is discovered - by the wrong people.

So, how might it come to that? How do I get from the Earth of the Masters Saga to the feudal semi-primitive world of Glorie?

nice!!!

on Page 51 it shows the Condor at the same height as the Alpha battloid....how in the hell did Palladium / HG get that nearly 50 foot height in the RPG?

Chris0013 wrote:on Page 51 it shows the Condor at the same height as the Alpha battloid....how in the hell did Palladium / HG get that nearly 50 foot height in the RPG?

I may sound like a troll saying this....but because they're dumb.

In reality it is very possible that HG/Palladium did not know if the existence of that picture when stating out the Condor.

Chris0013 wrote:on Page 51 it shows the Condor at the same height as the Alpha battloid....how in the hell did Palladium / HG get that nearly 50 foot height in the RPG?

Actually... according to the official line art for the AS-C03 Condor from the original Genesis Climber MOSPEADA, it's actually SMALLER than the Legioss (Alpha) by about .65m (2.13ft). (Making it 8.10m tall, according to the notes on the line art.)

jedi078 wrote:In reality it is very possible that HG/Palladium did not know if the existence of that picture when stating out the Condor.

's also possible that they DID know about that art, and decided not to use it as a reference when they wrote the stats for the Condor. There are TONS of head-scratchers like that in the old Macross II RPG, where you have to wonder if they had ever watched the OVA or even looked at the line art while they were writing the book(s).

(My favorite is the Macross Cannon, which the animation shows is HUGE and is clearly made from four of the 4km long Zentradi fleet command battleships... its official size is 6km long, tho Palladium lists it as smaller than a Zentradi scoutship. Off by a whopping 12.3x!)

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Chris0013 wrote:on Page 51 it shows the Condor at the same height as the Alpha battloid....how in the hell did Palladium / HG get that nearly 50 foot height in the RPG?

Actually... according to the official line art for the AS-C03 Condor from the original Genesis Climber MOSPEADA, it's actually SMALLER than the Legioss (Alpha) by about .65m (2.13ft). (Making it 8.10m tall, according to the notes on the line art.)

my point is that they made it nearly twice the size it should be.

Chris0013 wrote:my point is that they made it nearly twice the size it should be.

I know... as part of my response, I was just pointing out that in the process of tracing the art for the RPG, they had to literally be looking at a piece of art with the actual size written right on it in English.

How they got it wrong despite that... well, that's a mystery for the ages.

IMO it seems like the Alpha and Condor were designed around the same time (early to late 2010's). The Alpha being a fighter/attack veritech and the Condor being a bomber/heavy assault (i.e. ship boarding actions) veritech.

Both mecha are roughly the same size, (if you believe in a transformable Condor like I do), share the same transformation sequence and possibly have some parts commonalty.

jedi078 wrote:IMO it seems like the Alpha and Condor were designed around the same time (early to late 2010's). The Alpha being a fighter/attack veritech and the Condor being a bomber/heavy assault (i.e. ship boarding actions) veritech.

Going off the 2E RPG text they where designed around the same time. Personally I think the Condor is just an early Alpha-Battloid in its version of the VF-1's Armored Battloid add-on ("Miss Macross), with the "snout" being a BFG possibly.

In relation to the Condor's size if we get overly specific about the RPG entry it is listed only for -12 Mk2 version, leaving the other versions (-10 and VF-X-5) mentioned in the text the correct size. The question then becomes why the increase in size?

ShadowLogan wrote:In relation to the Condor's size if we get overly specific about the RPG entry it is listed only for -12 Mk2 version, leaving the other versions (-10 and VF-X-5) mentioned in the text the correct size. The question then becomes why the increase in size?

or perhaps the Alpha model it was developed from was larger than the current Alpha -6?

either to handle slightly older and bulkier technology, or created as an early attempts at a 'super alpha' along the lines of the real world super-hornet, but which didn't reach production and unlike the Condor, didn't get chosen for conversion to battloid only use..

glitterboy2098 wrote:

ShadowLogan wrote:In relation to the Condor's size if we get overly specific about the RPG entry it is listed only for -12 Mk2 version, leaving the other versions (-10 and VF-X-5) mentioned in the text the correct size. The question then becomes why the increase in size?

or perhaps the Alpha model it was developed from was larger than the current Alpha -6?

either to handle slightly older and bulkier technology, or created as an early attempts at a 'super alpha' along the lines of the real world super-hornet, but which didn't reach production and unlike the Condor, didn't get chosen for conversion to battloid only use..

I'm not sure that would work for the RPG-version as there is no indication that the Condor and Alpha split from the same project (like the VHT-1 & -2). In fact its RT backstory as a competitor to the VF-X-7 Beta may be the result of its larger size (as opposed to the OSM's Alpha predessor) if it was to meet all the Beta's requirements (aside from the Alpha connection).

There are the "animation error" shots for the giant Shadow Alpha Battloids. If we treat them as non-AE this stretched model might be new, or the latest version. IF it has been around a while, the older technology could give way to more compact versions that would free up space to address short falls (like adding more propellant capacity, and/or more powerful engines, etc). The Alpha text suggests there could be "minor" variants in service next to the "major" ones (H/I/Z).

Older bulkier technology does not necessarily require the Alpha frame to grow externally though, it's possible they sacrificed internal space to keep the size.

Edit: I would add that the Condor as it appears if it transforms would appear to have more in common with the Beta than the Alpha.

Re the oversized AE Alphas: the Vindicator does not exist.

dataweaver wrote:Thread necromancy, again.

This time, I'd like to concentrate on a setting idea. My goal here is to construct a plausible scenario by which a sizable ASC contingent could end up stranded on a failing colony world (i.e., Glorie), which would eventually devolve into the "shogunate in space" setting that SDCSC was originally conceived as. I'm thinking of setting the campaign in a "100 years after the fall" timeframe (i.e., mid-22nd century), with a goal of gradually reintegrating Glorie into interstellar society - though to begin with, it'll have more of a "Genesis Survivor Gaiarth" feel to it: robotic "wildlife" (robot horses and falcons) running free and/or being tamed while humans fight each other with vibroblades.

When I finally do get to the point of introducing the interstellar society of the setting, I'm thinking of using some of the early concept art from the Mospeada section of these files as the mecha of said society: e.g., flying cyclones and "vector fighters" that use special-purpose "cyclones" (more like one-man mini-Silverbacks) as their cockpits.

But first, a transitional phase, when a hidden stash of "lostech" (the wreck of a Garfish, loaded with 2030-era ASC and UEEF mecha, including some experimental designs) is discovered - by the wrong people.

So, how might it come to that? How do I get from the Earth of the Masters Saga to the feudal semi-primitive world of Glorie?

My first reaction/impulse would be 'refugees fleeing post-2nd War Earth', aboard a starship they hijacked with the armor and armament they were originally issued(or grabbed in the chaos), or maybe they use several Tirolian fleet auxiliaries (landed and abandoned by their Tirolian troops, or left with token crews)that have enough power for one or two jumps. Possibly they managed to horde enough Protoculture to power them up. The refugees basically loaded up whatever they could grab, including any Tirolian refugees they took at gunpoint(or maybe not; one mention of the 'Invid are coming!' and they're running), so it's an adhoc mix of equipment with a rough idea of what's needed to survive out there, given what they have of the UEEF Colonization Protocols.
They'll need that stuff. The old starship engines misFold, dumping them nowhere near where they'd hoped, the star formations are strange, the navigational coordinates are wrong. Between not knowing where they are, having no means to communicate with the UEEF(the Tirolian FTL radioes only handle Zentraedi frequencies, making them liable to attract any Zentraedi in the area..or else the comms are fried altogether), the Gorie colonists are all on their own, forced to rely on their ingenuity. Of course, somewhere along the line factionalism begins to break out, as a lot of these colonists(and the military guys holding the guns) aren't exactly stable after the traumas of the 2nd War, and have been thrown together out of convenience, rather than having had colonist psych-evals prior to embarking.
Classic examples of this include Pitcairn Island. And if you read sci-fi, Larry Niven's The Gift From Earth, where a starship crew sets up a dictatorship over the colonists upon arrival. Frank Herbert's Destination Void is another series where the starship crew impose a tyranny over the colonists.

dataweaver wrote:Re the oversized AE Alphas: the Vindicator does not exist.

at least not seen in the footage. once we get to RPG expanded universe of stuff not seen on screen, anything is possible.

i rather like the idea the transformable Condor prototype being to the Alpha what the F/A-18E Super Hornet is to the F/A-18A Hornet. A new aircraft sharing most of the same airframe styling and avionics, larger and with greater fire power...sounds like the Condor prototype to me.

In regards to the Condor it is not just the size....IMHO....the Condor should have been the smaller size but also comparable to the Zentraedi Male Power Armor in terms of performance both in atmosphere and space.

Chris0013 wrote:n regards to the Condor it is not just the size....IMHO....the Condor should have been the smaller size but also comparable to the Zentraedi Male Power Armor in terms of performance both in atmosphere and space.

I agree that for a flight capable battloid derived from a Veritech in Battloid mode it's flight performance sucks. Especially since it was to escort Conbats. Though this performance issue may apply to the -12 Mk2 series rather than the -10A series.

Actually both human flight capable nt-Battloids have poor speed against VF Battloids. The Bioroid Interceptor is the exception, but even it falls short compared to the Zentreadi PA.

glitterboy2098 wrote:

dataweaver wrote:Re the oversized AE Alphas: the Vindicator does not exist.

at least not seen in the footage.

Actually the footage does contain a few instances of the giant shadow Alphas. Currently HG has taken the view that they are simply Animation Errors (in atleast 2 seperate instances?) and can be ignored, but given their "anything in the show is canon" stance that could change easily enough.

The only battloid aside from the Queadluun Rau that could compete with Veritechs was in the old RPG. nothing else came close then or now.

To me the Condor is in the role of Attack Helicopter not Fighter.

ShadowLogan wrote:Actually the footage does contain a few instances of the giant shadow Alphas. Currently HG has taken the view that they are simply Animation Errors (in atleast 2 seperate instances?)....

I didn't know there were that many.

ESalter wrote:I didn't know there were that many.

Check RobotechResearch's article on the Vindicator on their website. They used two seperate screen grabs to show the unit, but mention four scenes that point to it.

Are they all from the same episode? If so, I can buy "animation error".

Macross Saga had an episode where Destroids were depicted out-of-scale: IIRC, they were man-sized. So by the same rationale that would give us the Vindicator, the UEDF ought to have power armor and/or man-sized drones that resemble their Destroids.