|
Member Review : 07-Oct-2008 23:33 |
|
|
|
|
0 out of 0 users (0.00%) have found this review useful
|
|
|
| BattleMech: |
Lancer LNC-3R |
| Rating: |
4.00 |
| Comment: |
A very nice design that fits the Marik love of LRMs. As other commentators have noticed, you strike a good balance between speed, weight, firepower and armor. The LRM provides ample long range firepower, and the MLs bring on the hurt up close. The Lancer would be a welcome addition to any quickly moving strike group and could act as firesupport for a Recon/Pursuit Lance.
Bravo! |
| No topic has been started for this review [Start Topic] |
|
|
|
|
|
Member Review : 02-Oct-2008 00:26 |
|
|
0 out of 0 users (0.00%) have found this review useful
|
|
|
| BattleMech: |
Asgardian GZT-ASG-01 |
| Rating: |
4.00 |
| Comment: |
The Asgardian is a solid 3rd Succession War Mech of the line. It is well armored, decently heat-sinked for the era and its energy based main weapons give it staying power in Battle. Although not the fastest or agile design, it fits in with workhorse 'Mechs of the era such as the Centurion or the Enforcer.
My only quibble would be with the flamer and the layout. The flamer does add character to the design - IIRC the only contemporary Battlemech over 50 tons that mounts a flamer in its main configuration would be the Merlin, The BattleMech, however, has a serious blind spot on its left hand side. I'd suggest either moving the Large Laser to the LA or replacing the flamer with a rear facing medium laser, like the aforementioned Centurion. |
| No topic has been started for this review [Start Topic] |
|
|
|
|
|
Member Review : 20-Sep-2008 19:21 |
|
|
0 out of 0 users (0.00%) have found this review useful
|
|
|
| BattleMech: |
Mauler MAL-ZR |
| Rating: |
4.00 |
| Comment: |
A solid refit of the design! You've kept the strengths of the Mauler and eliminated many of its difficulties: weak armor, XL engine and lack of short range punch. Like others have suggested, my only quibble is the CT ammo. Overall a good (and far less expensive) variant of a personal favorite design! |
| No topic has been started for this review [Start Topic] |
|
|
|
|
|
Member Review : 02-Feb-2008 19:49 |
|
|
0 out of 0 users (0.00%) have found this review useful
|
|
|
| BattleMech: |
Rogue Penetrator PTR-6MRP |
| Rating: |
4.50 |
| Comment: |
This is a nice spin on an already strong design. The addition of stealth and ECM make the Rogue Penetrator the ultimate covert raider. Lord knows I wouldn't want a bunch of these mechs wreaking havoc behind my front line. While the two medium pulse lasers will be missed, their loss is hardly crippling. The design still has the ability to do major damage to whatever it chooses to target! Well done! |
| No topic has been started for this review [Start Topic] |
|
|
|
|
|
Member Review : 02-Feb-2008 19:48 |
|
|
0 out of 0 users (0.00%) have found this review useful
|
|
|
| BattleMech: |
Annihilator ANH-6LG |
| Rating: |
3.00 |
| Comment: |
The 6LG is a decent Annihilator upgrade. You've made the sensible switch to double heatsinks and have upped the armor from 12 to a respectable 17 tons. You also have eliminated the older models range issues by switching from Autocannons to Light Gauss Rifles. Over all you've done a better job than any the cannon versions. (Except perhaps the Clan version, but that's a completely different kettle of fish.)
My major issues, however, with your design are the XL engine and the fifth Light Gauss Rifle. I don't think that the increased vulnerability can justify the saving of 4.5 tons. (You can, after all, get 5 tons with endosteel.) Further, I don't really see how the 5th LGR adds much, given the other ways that you could make use of the 12 tons.
For example, you could drop that LGR and use the 12 tons to a) switch to a regular 200 Engine or b) trade up to a 300 XL engine. In either case you could use the additional savings to add additional ammo, medium lasers or armor based on your personal desire.
But as Annihilator was a heavily flawed design to begin with, I think you've made a good attempt to upgrading it. |
| No topic has been started for this review [Start Topic] |
|
|
|
|
