[Heavy Gear 2e/Tactical] Vehicle Discussion: Kodiak & Cobra

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Smilodon_UP**

For those folks not interested in NuBlitz, if you were to diverge from the fluff/game, thoughts on what role and what equipment the Kodiak or King Cobra should have and what other Gears they would best be fielded alongside?

Albertorius wrote:
Smilodon_UP wrote:
One of my favorite designs of the 2e Gears is the Kodiak, which likewise has a strange equipment loadout compared to others of it's type, as the damage types/potenial of the particle accelerator and light guided missiles are more suited for anti-Gear work rather than how it is fluffed.

I just can't see those weapons being all that useful versus ground vehicles equipped with tiered active and passive defensive systems. The Destroyer variant kind of fixes that, but not a whole lot.
Still, at least either aren't like the King Cobra in carting about a kitchen sink. You'd think too many machines would be getting knocked off whilst the pilot decides which delivery system to use in a situation.
Well, the regular Kodiak's LPA worked well against terranovan tanks, actually, due to its inherent +1 and Haywire, which was quite nice back in the day (rolling twice for damages was kind of a big deal).
Against HTs, though... eh, I got nothing. Not sure either how it was supposed to be good against them.

**gearheadwhat**

Basic equip should have been a vhac, and atms instead of lpa and agms.

That said, missiles in HG should be done more like the ones in JC and I'd be happy.

Two of those, a standard grizzly for medium range support, and then an arrow jag to screen off any intercepting/flanking forces.

**Albertorius**

Smilodon_UP wrote:
For those folks not interested in NuBlitz, if you were to diverge from the fluff/game, thoughts on what role and what equipment the Kodiak or King Cobra should have and what other Gears they would best be fielded alongside?

Right now both designs are a kitchen-sink of badly realized ideas, and designs that don't really know what they are for.

Personally, I think they could fill a variety of different roles, depending on how you redesign them:

1- Command unit: The ultimate "combat commander" ride. In this one I'd emphasize survivability, C3, anti-gear and anti-infantry defensive capabilities and anti-gear weaponry, so as to be able to fend off attackers if it gets caught without its bodyguards.
2- Ultimate Anti-tank Gear: As the tin says, the ultimate tankhunter in Gear form. That should have the biggest, meanest AT guns it could find and the means to use them.
3- "Top of the food chain" Gear: This would be a Gear designed to make the lives of every other Gear in the field as miserable as possible. A "hero" machine, if you will.
4- Propaganda machine: Just keep it like it is I guess

5- CEF deterrent: That would be interesting; a Gear designed for the sole purpose of fighting HTs and GRELs. Which would mean it would need to be as fast as humanly (gearerly?) possible (or able to be where the HTs wouldn't be able to use their speed advantages), it would need to have weaponry powerful enough to crack HTs open, and it would also need the means to fight GRELs and survive their attacks.

I think that every role would evolve very different machines, personally, but were I to choose, I would probably be inclined to make them to fill roles number 1, 3 or 5, myself.

**Smilodon_UP**

Any reason for their size/cost/complexity/newness that the Kodiak & King should be slower [walking] than a Hunter or Jäger, to perhaps better differentiate them from the support types?

I'm not sure the Grizzly & 'Spit should be slower [walking] either, but that can be set aside for another discussion.

gearheadwhat wrote:
That said, missiles in HG should be done more like the ones in JC and I'd be happy.

Elaborate?

But yes, nobody feel that they have to restrict themselves to the 2e/Sil weapon lists.

_
_

**gearheadwhat**

Missiles had their own attack profile separate from the gunner. Fire and forget vs rockets. Heavy gear used target designator and positive accuracy to do it, where jc had smart rules, and drone rules. Because really, no matter how skilled I am as a weapon operator, I don't do much other than push a button for missiles.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I personally feel a Kodiak should be to a grizzly, as a Jaguar or even hunter commando is compared to a stock hunter.

Kodiaks really are NOT impressive machines whatsoever. Their large price tag was merely too many expensive and ill matching weapons.

**IceRaptor**

Albertorius wrote:

1- Command unit: The ultimate "combat commander" ride. In this one I'd emphasize survivability, C3, anti-gear and anti-infantry defensive capabilities and anti-gear weaponry, so as to be able to fend off attackers if it gets caught without its bodyguards.

I think they probably make the most sense as either the Command Unit, or as a dedicated Assault unit, in the vein of the Rabid Grizzly. You can probably justify the cost of a different platform for commanders since good ones are a limited resource - but the difference in armor isn't that great and you're painting a big red 'shoot me' mark if you go that route. Adding special electronics to justify the cost of a completely different platform probably works in this case to give the unit a purpose.

Personally though, I'd rather see them become very-heavy assault units, designed to take on other gear squadrons rather than tank units. If you take the premise that Gears are ubiquitous and assume that heavier vehicles aren't common, then having the Kodiak and King Cobra be heavily armored enough to serve as a spearhead makes sense. You could use them to hold against very light hovertanks when you don't have dedicated anti-tank, but I can't imagine them as anti-tank units myself. Logistically something like a Blitz Jager makes more sense - just bolt on anti-tank to your most common platform and go from there. I'd have to think that anti-tank weapons are significantly cheaper to produce and attach than making an entire new logistics chain.

But then I think HG falls fails to exploit the humanoid form of Gears sufficiently - why don't they have the Gear equivalent of a Dragon guided missile launcher? Fire once and forget about it. I mean, if you're going to go with a concept - run with it all the way.

**Albertorius**

Ok, I think having the original stats here would probably be a good idea (I'm going to post the Kodiak, but really, the KC is basically the same):

HACS-10HG-AST Kodiak

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Smilodon_UP wrote:
Any reason for their size/cost/complexity/newness that the Kodiak & King should be slower [walking] than a Hunter or Jäger, to perhaps better differentiate them from the support types?

Size would probably be the main reason. A Kodiak is about twice as heavy as a Hunter, and much bigger and wider. Even though that, by itself, wouldn't necessarily imply they should be slower, per se, it would be much more difficult to pull off. Ground pressure would be a problem in the specific case of walker movement, too.

If I were to speed them up, I think I would be doing it by upping their SMS ground speed, and probably adding Unstable to it to account for all the added weight/inertia/height.

I'm not sure the Grizzly & 'Spit should be slower [walking] either, but that can be set aside for another discussion.

It would certainly depend on the assumptions made, yes.

But yes, nobody feel that they have to restrict themselves to the 2e/Sil weapon lists.

Up to a point. If possible, I'd prefer to use the current list, but only because I prefer standarization instead of dozens of basically the same weapons. That said, I'd would be all for reworking the current A*Ms and make them as they are in JC.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

gearheadwhat wrote:
Also, I personally feel a Kodiak should be to a grizzly, as a Jaguar or even hunter commando is compared to a stock hunter.

Kodiaks really are NOT impressive machines whatsoever. Their large price tag was merely too many expensive and ill matching weapons.

Agreed, up to a point. Kodiaks aren't really all that different to Grizzlies, no, but Hunter Commandos aren't all that different to regular Hunters either. I mean, Kodiaks have better comms, better sensors, better armor and all around armor over the regular Grizzly, after all.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

IceRaptor wrote:
I think they probably make the most sense as either the Command Unit, or as a dedicated Assault unit, in the vein of the Rabid Grizzly. You can probably justify the cost of a different platform for commanders since good ones are a limited resource - but the difference in armor isn't that great and you're painting a big red 'shoot me' mark if you go that route. Adding special electronics to justify the cost of a completely different platform probably works in this case to give the unit a purpose.

If you take out the silly missile back turret they aren't really that much different from a regular Grizzly, all told, particularly when adding the variants, so I'm not sure it would be that much more of a problem than for the regular Kodiak, but it's something to take into account.

Personally though, I'd rather see them become very-heavy assault units, designed to take on other gear squadrons rather than tank units. If you take the premise that Gears are ubiquitous and assume that heavier vehicles aren't common, then having the Kodiak and King Cobra be heavily armored enough to serve as a spearhead makes sense. You could use them to hold against very light hovertanks when you don't have dedicated anti-tank, but I can't imagine them as anti-tank units myself. Logistically something like a Blitz Jager makes more sense - just bolt on anti-tank to your most common platform and go from there. I'd have to think that anti-tank weapons are significantly cheaper to produce and attach than making an entire new logistics chain.

Seeing as the original Kodiak even has the "AST" right there in the name, I'd say that was the original idea, too. Also, a Gear made to work very well as a linebreaker against infantry and Gears should probably be at least competent against GRELs and light HTs, I'd say.

But then I think HG falls fails to exploit the humanoid form of Gears sufficiently - why don't they have the Gear equivalent of a Dragon guided missile launcher? Fire once and forget about it. I mean, if you're going to go with a concept - run with it all the way.

I think that probably because, for all the supposed scifi, most of the game works like WWII?

Yes, something like that would probably work. How about this: stabilized HATM launcher, and taking advantage of the humanoid form to position and hide itself for maximum wreckage. It would even be legal under 2nd edition rules, as long as you don't give him more than 2 missiles.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK, let's try this out... what would you think about something like this for a first draft at a Command variant?

Spoiler:

**Smilodon_UP**

Albertorius wrote:
Smilodon_UP wrote:
Any reason for their size/cost/complexity/newness that the Kodiak & King should be slower [walking] than a Hunter or Jäger, to perhaps better differentiate them from the support types?
Size would probably be the main reason. A Kodiak is about twice as heavy as a Hunter, and much bigger and wider. Even though that, by itself, wouldn't necessarily imply they should be slower, per se, it would be much more difficult to pull off. Ground pressure would be a problem in the specific case of walker movement, too.
If I were to speed them up, I think I would be doing it by upping their SMS ground speed, and probably adding Unstable to it to account for all the added weight/inertia/height.

Rough estimate of ground pressure based on NVC 1 approximate measurements/scale:

Kodiak:
Full contact area - (230cm * 43cm + (103cm * 36 * 2) *2 = 34,612cm2) -> 10,485kg / 43, 612cm2 = 0.303 kg/cm2 [29.714 kPa or 4.309 psi]
SMS treads - (230cm * 43cm * 2 = 19,780cm2) -> 10,485kg / 19,780cm2 = 0.530 kg/cm2 [51.975 kPa or 7.538 psi]

Increase to [x] on a step:
Full contact area - 10,485kg / 17,306cm2 = .605 kg/cm2 [59.331 kPa or 8.6 psi]
SMS treads - 10,485kg / 9,890cm2 = 1.06 kg/cm2 [103.952 kPa or 15.100 psi]

Hunter:
Full contact area - (85cm * 85cm + (40cm * 17cm) *2 = 15,810cm2) -> 6,627kg / 15,810cm2 = .419 kg/cm2 [41.091 kPa or 5.960 psi]
SMS Wheels - (40cm * 17cm + (45cm * 19cm) *2 = 3,070cm2) -> 6,627kg / 3,070cm2 = 2.159 kg/cm2 [211.729 kPa or 30.700 psi]

Increase to [x] on a step:
Full contact area - 6,627kg / 7,905cm2 = .838 kg/cm2 [82.181 kPa or 11.900 psi]
SMS Wheels + xxx - 6,627kg / 1,535cm2 = 4.317 kg/cm2 [423.360 kPa or 61.400 psi]

For comparison:
Human on Snowshoes: 3.5 kPa (0.5 psi)
Human male (1.8 meter tall, medium build): 55 kPa (8 psi) -- A walking human will exert more than double their standing pressure.
Adult horse (550 kg, 1250 lb): 170 kPa (25 psi) -- A galloping horse will exert up to 3.5 MPa (500 psi).
Passenger car: 205 kPa (30 psi)
Wheeled ATV: 240 kPa (35 psi)
Adult elephant: 240 kPa (35 psi)
Mountain bicycle: 245 kPa (40 psi) -- The ground pressure for a pneumatic tire is roughly equal to its inflation pressure.

BMD-3 airborne IFV [narrow tracks]: 47 kPa (.48 kg/cm2, 6.8 psi) -- [broad tracks] 31 kPa (.32 kg/cm2, 4.5 psi)
M551 Sheridan airborne tank: 47 kPa (.48 kg/cm2, 6.8 psi)
M2 Bradley IFV: 54 kPa (.55 kg/cm2, 7.8 psi)
XM1108 tracked universal carrier (M113 family) [combat loaded]: 59 kPa (.60 kg/cm2, 8.6 psi)
T34/76 medium tank: 63 kPa (.64 kg/cm2, 9.1 psi)
M5 Stuart light tank: 84 kPa (.856 kg/cm2, 12.2 psi)
T-72 MBT: 88 kPa (.90 kg.cm2, 12.8 psi)
M4 Sherman medium tank: 94 kPa (.962 kg/cm2, 13.7 psi)
Pzkpfw MK VI Tiger heavy tank: 103 kPa (1.05 kg/cm2, 15 psi)
M1 Abrams MBT: 103 kPa (1.05 kg/cm2, 15 psi)
M1126 Stryker APC: 201 kPa (2.05 kg/cm2, 29.15 psi)
M977 HEMT 8x8 transporter [unloaded]: 276 kPa (2.81 kg/cm2, 40 psi) -- [max load] 437 kPa (4.46 kg/cm2, 63.4 psi)

Spoiler:

_
_

**IceRaptor**

Albertorius wrote:
Ok, I think having the original stats here would probably be a good idea (I'm going to post the Kodiak, but really, the KC is basically the same):

You should totally have protected those with a spoiler tag - that's a honking block of text!

Albertorius wrote:

Seeing as the original Kodiak even has the "AST" right there in the name, I'd say that was the original idea, too. Also, a Gear made to work very well as a linebreaker against infantry and Gears should probably be at least competent against GRELs and light HTs, I'd say.

GRELs are a bit of an oddity, but yeah - I think the role for the Kodiak is probably best served as a heavy assault unit. A pair of Rabid Grizzlies and Kodiaks would be fairly powerful linebreaker, if they focused on heavy saturation firepower and the takedown of Gear units. VHACs, MRPs, HGLs, etc - all good examples of weapons I would associate with the Kodiak as a line-breaker. Precision weapons probably remain in other units hands.

I wouldn't tend to think of the King Cobra in the same respect, for what it's worth. I'd think that the Southern doctrine would push it towards that 'Hero' unit - basically an upgrades Spitting Cobra with a bit more 'oomph' and prestige. But not necessarily that radically different from the Spit.

Albertorius wrote:

Yes, something like that would probably work. How about this: stabilized HATM launcher, and taking advantage of the humanoid form to position and hide itself for maximum wreckage. It would even be legal under 2nd edition rules, as long as you don't give him more than 2 missiles.

Pretty much what the doctor ordered. If that can be fielded by size 6, why doesn't every Gear section come with an entire truckload of those? Screw a Naval aller - a squad of Hunters with disposable launchers and scout guidance would be a serious threat to any armor force that came within range. I can't imagine that such a weapon would be expensive enough to limit its usage, either.

Albertorius wrote:

OK, let's try this out... what would you think about something like this for a first draft at a Command variant?

Works fairly well, but still has dome oddities about it. Why the 'Improved Rear Defense' (for a command model)? That seems a bit out of place. And the armor feels a bit high - 25 is pretty strong compared to a Grizzly or even Rabid Grizzly. Maybe drop the armor to 20 and Improved Front to 3 or so? That still puts it 2 points over the Rabid and quite a bit lower than a light tank. I do like the loadout though - I think that works nicely!

**Albertorius**

IceRaptor wrote:
You should totally have protected those with a spoiler tag - that's a honking block of text!

Absolutely true ^^. And done.

GRELs are a bit of an oddity, but yeah - I think the role for the Kodiak is probably best served as a heavy assault unit. A pair of Rabid Grizzlies and Kodiaks would be fairly powerful linebreaker, if they focused on heavy saturation firepower and the takedown of Gear units. VHACs, MRPs, HGLs, etc - all good examples of weapons I would associate with the Kodiak as a line-breaker. Precision weapons probably remain in other units hands.

Heh. It kinda reminds me of the loadout I'd expect to see on a Spitting Cobra...which taking all into account is not that surprising.

...and is also the main problem I have with the Kodiak/King Cobra right now: I'm not sure they are different enough compared with Grizzly/Spit variants to exist.

I wouldn't tend to think of the King Cobra in the same respect, for what it's worth. I'd think that the Southern doctrine would push it towards that 'Hero' unit - basically an upgrades Spitting Cobra with a bit more 'oomph' and prestige. But not necessarily that radically different from the Spit.

While that's more or less true in the case of the SRA, I'd say it is much less so in the rest of the South. Then again, the KC is mainly a SRA thing, so...

Pretty much what the doctor ordered. If that can be fielded by size 6, why doesn't every Gear section come with an entire truckload of those? Screw a Naval aller - a squad of Hunters with disposable launchers and scout guidance would be a serious threat to any armor force that came within range. I can't imagine that such a weapon would be expensive enough to limit its usage, either.

There's always been some oddities in the Gears loadouts. Which is funny, because even without using the full weapon creation rules from JC/SilCORE, the 2nd edition VCS had more than enough tools to fix the problem.

For example: a Hunter AT sniper. Take a regular Hunter, strip all weapons if you want to (probably logical in-setting), give it camo netting/Stealth. Now make a bigass sniper AT rifle: A LFG, with the following mods: -1 Min Size, -1 Damage, -1 Base Range, Stabilized, Sniper System and FF fire arc. there you have it, 5 shots, Size 6 weapon.

Works fairly well, but still has dome oddities about it. Why the 'Improved Rear Defense' (for a command model)?

Mainly two reasons: because it was already there in the original Kodiak, and because there should be some reason for a commander to jump into a Gear and direct a battle from there instead of from a cozy command car with thier staff. I chose protection.

That seems a bit out of place. And the armor feels a bit high - 25 is pretty strong compared to a Grizzly or even Rabid Grizzly. Maybe drop the armor to 20 and Improved Front to 3 or so? That still puts it 2 points over the Rabid and quite a bit lower than a light tank. I do like the loadout though - I think that works nicely!

The reasoning was the same as above, and I also wanted to differentiate it from the Grizzly, and survivability might be the ticket.

As for the loadout, I kinda liked, but it's certainly for company commanders at the very least, I'd say, and probably that should be battalion at least.

**warboss**

This conversation is well above my paygrade (and fluff knowledge level) but, at the risk of sounding like Shrek walking into a grand library and burping, I'd like to contribute that the large bazookas look really cool on models the size of the King Cobra and Kodiak. That is all. *burp*

**IceRaptor**

Albertorius wrote:

...and is also the main problem I have with the Kodiak/King Cobra right now: I'm not sure they are different enough compared with Grizzly/Spit variants to exist.

I think you can - with a bit of a massage - give them a role. The Kodiak becomes the next 'line of development' from the Mauler Bear and Rabid Grizzly. It's essentially the the replacement for the Rabid Grizzly, possibly a UMFA 'glamor child' that's competent for a very narrow role. If you were to fit the Dark Kodiak's airdroppable onto the frame this would be a more natural fit, but I'm not sure how you think about that. It becomes a 'heavy assault' Jaguar effectively.

Albertorius wrote:

While that's more or less true in the case of the SRA, I'd say it is much less so in the rest of the South. Then again, the KC is mainly a SRA thing, so...

In my head, the KC is basically tied to the SRA. I don't see many of them outside that organization, so it naturally becomes a command / hero type chassis. I'd probably expand it in that line, retaining the 'all-rounder' aspect and command aspect. I might be tempted to give them AGMs as a standard upgrade - maybe make them a hybrid between a Spit and a Fer de Lance?

Albertorius wrote:

There's always been some oddities in the Gears loadouts. Which is funny, because even without using the full weapon creation rules from JC/SilCORE, the 2nd edition VCS had more than enough tools to fix the problem.

Albertorius wrote:

As for the loadout, I kinda liked, but it's certainly for company commanders at the very least, I'd say, and probably that should be battalion at least.

On final thing I forgot to mention was that for a command vehicle, autopilot probably makes some sense. But overall I think it works!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

warboss wrote:
I'd like to contribute that the large bazookas look really cool on models the size of the King Cobra and Kodiak.

Wait wait wait... are you one of those 'rule of cool' folks?

**gearheadwhat**

I don't have the ability to do a full reply but:

I see a Kodiak with maneuver 0, same speeds as a hunter, unstable, strip off the weapons except the hmg.

Give it a real missile system other than the agms. Give them longer ranges that make more sense. A hbzk should probably be it's standard weapon. A HAC might make a good backup.

I honestly forget the armor it had. But it probably needed more on the front.

The Kodiak to me should be seen as something meant to take on fast heavy armor. Like hover tanks and break through armored columns. Which also makes it perfect as a linebreaker.

If it can't tackle hover tanks it shouldn't exist since that was the reason it was made in the first place. It's the Gundam to the GM in a way if you think of it in that frame almost.

**Albertorius**

warboss wrote:This conversation is well above my paygrade (and fluff knowledge level) but, at the risk of sounding like Shrek walking into a grand library and burping, I'd like to contribute that the large bazookas look really cool on models the size of the King Cobra and Kodiak. That is all. *burp*

Wouldn't really be in me to disagree

I usually have more of a problem with the back turret (Yo dawg...).

IceRaptor wrote:I think you can - with a bit of a massage - give them a role. The Kodiak becomes the next 'line of development' from the Mauler Bear and Rabid Grizzly. It's essentially the the replacement for the Rabid Grizzly, possibly a UMFA 'glamor child' that's competent for a very narrow role. If you were to fit the Dark Kodiak's airdroppable onto the frame this would be a more natural fit, but I'm not sure how you think about that. It becomes a 'heavy assault' Jaguar effectively.

gearheadwhat wrote:I see a Kodiak with maneuver 0, same speeds as a hunter, unstable, strip off the weapons except the hmg.

Hm... this is actually an interesting proposition, even if we'd be rethinking more than a bit the whole idea of the Gear (or at least, its rules realization, which I'm not really all that opposed to).

If we take this two (perfectly valid) ideas and merge them with a dash of the Panda project (which, honestly, can go die for all I care) we could transform the Kodiak's role into the North's next generation heavy assault/linebreaker unit, and giving it airdropping capabilities, combined with the Kodiak's bigger frame, would allow the North to better support its air deployed units, and it would at the same time allow us to make assault/FS/AT variants meant to be airdropped, which would give it a clearer niche (incidentally, it would also give us the means to actually differentiate between the Kodiak and the King Cobra, which can't be a bad thing).

So, how about this, then: Maneuver +0 (per gearheadwhat's suggestion), Airdroppable (per IR's one), with Armor around the values of the Rabid Grizzly (a point more, at most) and all around armor (which makes a lot of sense in an assault unit, and much more in paratroopers). We could even give it more speed, but I'm not entirely sold on that (tracks don't strike me as too fast).

In my head, the KC is basically tied to the SRA. I don't see many of them outside that organization, so it naturally becomes a command / hero type chassis. I'd probably expand it in that line, retaining the 'all-rounder' aspect and command aspect. I might be tempted to give them AGMs as a standard upgrade - maybe make them a hybrid between a Spit and a Fer de Lance?

That sounds cool, actually.

On final thing I forgot to mention was that for a command vehicle, autopilot probably makes some sense. But overall I think it works!

Nice

, and you're absolutely right.

gearheadwhat wrote:Give it a real missile system other than the agms. Give them longer ranges that make more sense. A hbzk should probably be it's standard weapon. A HAC might make a good backup.

Right now, I'd say that the loadout we give it would be entirely dependant on the actual role we want it to fill.

I honestly forget the armor it had. But it probably needed more on the front.

The system advices against giving a unit more than triple its size in regular armor, so the original one is already almost at that limit.

The Kodiak to me should be seen as something meant to take on fast heavy armor. Like hover tanks and break through armored columns. Which also makes it perfect as a linebreaker.

Personally, I think I see that more as a variant ala Kodiak Destroyer, rather than as the regular unit. The North already has a lot of affordable AT units.

If it can't tackle hover tanks it shouldn't exist since that was the reason it was made in the first place. It's the Gundam to the GM in a way if you think of it in that frame almost.

Hm... not sure I like that analogy, actually, but as above, it would be entirely dependant on if we want its main purpose to be HT hunting.

**Smilodon_UP**

Given the estimated ground pressure for [Walker] mode, [MAN 0] and Hunter speed [42kph] would seem reasonable.

I would point out giving all or else select Kodiak variants a parachute/ramchute/whatever should mean the missiles have to go where the MRP is located, and in all probability the necessary air-landing gear would be too large to allow any engine mounted systems.
Being airmobile though would kind of make it the successor to the Dingo outside the WFPA and an interesting adjunct to the Koala, both of which certainly seem to set a reasonable precedent.

Having a missile option is interesting for the KC, but would they replace the HRP or MRP system, or just be an option to replace either as desired?

_
_

**Albertorius**

Smilodon_UP wrote:
Given the estimated ground pressure for [Walker] mode, [MAN 0] and Hunter speed [42kph] would seem reasonable.

Did you take into account height for the estimated ground pressure? And how did you come to those measurements? (using the technical drawings?)

Other than that, I certainly can see the MAN 0 if we're going all out for the "elite" feel. The speed, I'm not so sure.

I would point out giving all or else select Kodiak variants a parachute/ramchute/whatever should mean the missiles have to go where the MRP is located, and in all probability the necessary air-landing gear would be too large to allow any engine mounted systems.

I'd say that fluff wise you'd be entirely correct.

Having a missile option is interesting for the KC, but would they replace the HRP or MRP system, or just be an option to replace either as desired?

Good question. Were I to "merge" the KC and the FdL ideas, I'd probably toss the RPs entirely, and I'd put a AGM launcher over the shoulder, I think.

**Smilodon_UP**

Albertorius wrote:
Smilodon_UP wrote:
Given the estimated ground pressure for [Walker] mode, [MAN 0] and Hunter speed [42kph] would seem reasonable.
Did you take into account height for the estimated ground pressure? And how did you come to those measurements? (using the technical drawings?)
Other than that, I certainly can see the MAN 0 if we're going all out for the "elite" feel. The speed, I'm not so sure.

Yes, in NVC 1; to top of the head for the Hunter and top of the missile pack for the Kodiak.

Height doesn't play too much of a part in ground pressure, it's force delivered per amount of contact area, and usually the faster a vehicle goes does not affect that force because they're designed to always have their method of suspension touching the ground.
But for bi/whatever-pedal machines speed would seem to matter quite a bit, as each step while running/walking/skating only uses half/whatever of the available contact area while the force may be significantly increased.

Most folks have never used snowshoes, so instead imagine this example of your weight affecting your own ground pressure:
At the beach, the sand is all the same.
But right at the water it's quite loose and you may begin to sink just standing still, while up higher it's dry but just as loose and you have difficulty walking.
In between however is a narrow band of damp sand that packs itself, where walking you may not leave much of a print at all, as well as allowing you to run with little hindrance.

Your weight does not change, but your movements directly affect how the sand (ground cover) supports that weight/force.

It kind of illustrates I think, not just for myself, why many folks have long questioned the assumption that the SMS can function across any type of terrain and not bog down.

_
_

**IceRaptor**

Albertorius wrote:

So, how about this, then: Maneuver +0 (per gearheadwhat's suggestion), Airdroppable (per IR's one), with Armor around the values of the Rabid Grizzly (a point more, at most) and all around armor (which makes a lot of sense in an assault unit, and much more in paratroopers). We could even give it more speed, but I'm not entirely sold on that (tracks don't strike me as too fast).

This makes the Kodiak resonate more for me. I'd have to go lookup the manufacturer, but I can see this 'Kodiak Paratrooper' coming out as a UMFA marketing ploy. You throw a unit of Kodiaks with Hunter Commandos as a fast response team, able to be dropped in to shore up a position but not useful for long recon or extended deploys. That gives the units a very specific niche that's not generalist, which plays to the stereotypes that are commonly associated with the North and South. Throw in a Klemm variant that's anti-Gear and air-droppable and you have the makings of a specialized regiment / fighting group that would be uniquely north.

Albertorius wrote:

That sounds cool, actually.

Yeah, I'd basically take the concepts from the Fer de Lance and the Command Jager to build the King Cobra. Maybe steal the LLC from the Hooded variant as the base-line equipment, and shuffle around the missiles as you indicated. Maybe give it AGM pods a-la the Slashing Cobra, and leave the LGM on it, so the weapons load-out becomes LLC, AGM(x4?), LGM. Throw on a Sat Uplink and good Comms, with heavy armor and the various perks (emergency medical, etc) that are common on the Sidewinder and the other Hero variants. If the LLC is too much, swap for a Snipered HRF - or alternatively, swap back to the VHAC + AGM combo and leave the LGM off. I think there's more room to play with the KC here, but I'd see it as a mashup of the Sidewinder, Hero Jager, Fer de Lance and Command Jager. Take a proven, durable platform that gets a field-refit kit to 1) bring up its armor 2) improve the servos 3) fit the equipment to a battalion C&C role or higher. That bypasses some of the costs of the Fer de Lance while still getting rock-solid gears out there.

The one major flaw with that approach is that such a gear would suck for Dueling, so depending on how you think of the command class in the SRA that may make the concept DOA from the start. Still, it's fun to think about!