> Well, what if you made the Colossus a Warlord variant?
> 2xHeavy=
Weapons Vattery + Heavy Barrage + MegaCannon? Mind you, this
> makes them=
spendy, yet very easy to find a cost for. :) To make up
> for the lack of=
versatility compared to Imperial Titans, the
> MegaCannon can have its ran=
ge increased 15cm for no additional cost.
> Keep the critical damage table =
the same, with name changes.
While I do see your point, Mark, there are se=
veral differences you've
overlooked.
1) Artillery. A Warlord's weaponry do=
esn't have the arty ability, while
the Mega-Cannon and Hvy. Barrage on a Co=
lossus would. (Minor point,
really.)
2) Speed. Using the Leviathan as base=
stats, a Colossus moves just 10 cm.
3) Damage Capacity. While I wouldn't =
really mind having 12 DC on my
Colossus, I don't really see it as that much=
more difficult to demolish
than a Leviathan. (Though it is something to c=
onsider.)
4) Assault Factor. No way in Hell would a SHV have a 30 AF, much=
as I
would like it to be comperable to its old strength in CC vs. a Warlor=
d.
And that would drop the points significantly....
Actually, I don't have=
a probelm with the Collossus haveing a high DC and AF. I thing is should h=
ave an AF in the twenties and a high damage capacity. These are supposed to=
by city block size vehicals. How about Dc of 12 and AF of 25. As for the =
move, i don't see this as a problem, if it had mostly 45 cm weapondry it wo=
uld be a sort of mobile strong point. More of a defensive weapon.
Jus=
t some thoughts.
----------------------------------------------------------=
----------------------------------------------------
"Your incorrect assump=
tions are threefold."
"You assume law still reigns in the Five Galaxies"
"Y=
ou assume that we would be bound by precedents and precepts from the last 1=
0 million years."
"But your most incorrect assumption of all is to assume t=
hat we care."
-David Brin, Infinity's Shore
------------------------=
-----------------------------James Nugent----------------------------------=
------
- application/ms-tnef attachment: stored
Received on Tue Jun 10 1997 - 11:32:22 UTC