Page 1 of 1

Practicality of the Broadsword's Design

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 4:33 pm
by Phantasm
Just yesterday I got my Broadsword tank and it's already painted up, but its size left me wondering just how practical the design would be in a real-life scenario (real life involving jellyfish aliens and whatnot).

While powerful, the Mythslayer railgun is almost as long as a Gladius, and an average tank could easily fit under it if right next to the Broadsword. Given the sheer speed of Scourge grav-tanks and Resistance bikes and ATVs in the lore, this could prove problematic. Especially in the latter case, as the Broadsword has no secondary armament. A swarm of grav-tanks could easily overwhelm even a squadron of Broadswords, as each only puts out one shot in a 'turn' and if that shot misses, then that's the real-life equivalent of nine inches closer those jellyfish tanks can get.

Also, the Broadsword is a very long tank and I don't imagine it being fun trying to turn one in a dense urban environment, especially while under fire. Also there's a picture of one in the phase 2 book where the front section has fallen down a hole in the road. The Broadsword would have to waste time reversing if this happened.

Re: Practicality of the Broadsword's Design

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 10:26 am
by Ljevid
Nice to see I’m not the only one thinking about fluff and the practical aspects of the designs.

My personal problem child is the Ferrum - a towering construct, difficult to hide, with an awful center of gravity and probably unable to cross slopes/bumps..

Compared to the Ferrum – the 2-part main hull is a huge improvement and should allow the tank to traverse difficult ground.

The huge gun seems to be designed for open areas with open fields of fire. I can see the Broadsword advancing in a throng of smaller vehicles and infantry that keep smaller enemy units at bay, while the Broadsword targets pesky huge targets, like walkers and command units.

I would have liked an addition to the rules that makes the ability of the huge gun to smash through shields and heavy armor stand out more…

Fluffwise: In the typical DzC urban setting the Broadsword seems very one-sided and vulnerable. It can pretty much only keep major roads clear and a narrow street or even a very sturdy lamp post should render it unable to traverse the gun.

+ as you already said the length of the vehicle makes it pretty much impossible to turn and limits it’s movement to forward and reverse.

In a real life scenario this tank would only make sense as a rolling fortress with swarms of other vehicles around. Somewhat like a battering ram.

Re: Practicality of the Broadsword's Design

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 10:36 am
by Phantasm
Ljevid wrote:Nice to see I’m not the only one thinking about fluff and the practical aspects of the designs.
I would have liked an addition to the rules that makes the ability of the huge gun to smash through shields and heavy armor stand out more…


It's still just a more powerful railgun projectile, so it'd be vulnerable to countermeasures. Now, if we were to talk about something much more powerful, say the Shaltari Particle Cannon... *grumbles about unfair Shaltari*

Re: Practicality of the Broadsword's Design

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 3:00 pm
by wowskyguy
My pet peeve on the Broadsword is the asymmetrical turret. Love the design. It looks great! Not very practical. Even railguns have recoil. Such large and powerful railgun would have a hella recoil. On a asymmetrical turret it means it would turn while firing.

On the Death Fridge side of things:
crawler_tour2_cover.jpg
Crawler
crawler_tour2_cover.jpg (77.77 KiB) Viewed 2943 times

Awful center of gravity?

Cheers,

Re: Practicality of the Broadsword's Design

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:40 pm
by Phantasm
wowskyguy wrote:My pet peeve on the Broadsword is the asymmetrical turret. Love the design. It looks great! Not very practical. Even railguns have recoil. Such large and powerful railgun would have a hella recoil. On a asymmetrical turret it means it would turn while firing.

Cheers,


The Falcon B entry mentions them being 'gyroscopically-stabilised' or some pseudoscientific thing, which would probably be applied to much of the UCM's other technology. But I think we've come to a conclusion that the Broadsword definitely not work in real life.