Where's the pseudo-anglicism in that?
that's a perfect german translation for air tank.

*Blinks* Really? Wow.

I just took Luftwaffe and Panzer and crushed 'em together in the hopes of getting something right.

'Course, I did look up what Luftwaffe translated as properly first. And also found the full name for a "Panzer". I think I posted the full name earlier in the thread.

German IS easy sometimes ^^

Yeah, languages make my "Your head assplode".

*nods*
i've ben told i should have taken several languages in school . . i seem to have a knack for language stuff . .
too bad i'm this damn lazy, or i could be cursing fluently in 6 languages by now <.<

Okay, you're a great artist, so I'll be as nitpicky as I can not to turn it into "everything is cool forever".
Mixcoatl lacks a representation of Sun Cell upgrade - after all, Sun Cell is not just a couple of panels, pretty much the whole drone's body should be covered by it. Also, the landing gear raises eyebrows.
Paynal looks very cool, but it's a vectored-thrust craft, and I somewhat doubt if those primary thrusters can rotate all the way back till facing the horizon without hitting the stabilizers.
Centurion makes you wonder if it can be balanced with the thrusters moved that far from the center of mass. Still, we don't see the nozzles, so I guess could be ok. Also, could use some representation of that Smart Armor upgrade.
Woodstock we've discussed on your DA page.
Arbalest's tail fins look to be a bit asymmetric.
Popocatepetl raises questions of where the landing gear is hidden, - its wings look pretty thin.
Ahuitzotl, again, looks like its center of mass is somewhere around the letter Y in the company's name, and it's about to tip forward some 40 degrees to accommodate for that.
Huitzilopochti... hmmm, I don't even know about what to nitpick. Hm. Maybe the turret shape? Half-domes went out of fashion a good deal of time ago; and there could be a bit more sensors on an automatic combat platform.

Sorry to answer a question with a question but did you use Corel Painter on this project? Just curious...

I use classic pen sketches and photoshop (yes, you can paint with photoshop, too) gg

Thanks for the feedback on the new designs - i will take a detailed look into this and give a likewise detailed answer when i am down to somewhere below 39 degrees celsius fever

Man, getting sick right in the middle of moving to a new appartment sucks big time...

AAS

i feel your pain . . literally . . got my fever clocked in at 39,1°celsius too right now <.<

Hey, I'm in the middle of pneumonia right now, do you see me complaining? :ь
We should start an Ill Club or something. Healthies not welcome.

I've been sick enough that I haven't worked in three years.

What... or who?... do you eat, then? O_o

I'm on the Dole. Disability. Keeps me in cheap food, rent, and Internet.

And with all that free time you still haven't been able to find a SR game?
I have an IRC server in dire need of SR GMs for you

Can't GM any more. Burnout from running for my group.

I want to PLAY.

Don't look at me like that, I don't GM in English :ь
My meat is also rather fat, and sour too!

Whut.
Phalanx has 1 point higher damage then heavy autocannon (still does less damage as the autocannon uses minigun rules and as such fires 15 rounds full-auto) and 2 less AP.
I would say heavy autocannon is better then phalanx in pretty much every way, especially considering you can get 2 of them for the same price as one phalanx.

Yes it's better then light autocannon, but thats to be expected from a weapon that cost 8 times as much.

You see, in that thread on simulating CIWS, we agreed that autocannons from Arsenal are basically meant to represent those.
As for minigun rules, frankly, it just seems that the writers forgot to mention that - Phalanx sure has a rate of fire high enough to warrant the quality. If so, its higher base damage compared to newer weapon systems doesn't make much sense. If not, that ruling doesn't make much sense.
This way or another, the stat block is badly thought through - not as badly as expected after War!, but still...

This is kind of complaint i really can't understand.
This is pretty much like saying "An old battlerifle shooting 7,62mm NATO shouldn't do more damage then a state of the art assault rifle shooting 5,56mm NATO, it just doesn't make any sense"

Just think of the phalanx as a super heavy autocannon, then it doing more damage then a heavy autocannon makes perfect sense.
Seriously phalanx cost 2 times as much a heavy autocannon, it should do more damage or there's no reason for anyone to ever buy one.

A SOTA assault rifle shooting 5.56 is supposed to have other qualities making it better, like effective range or reliability, or, I dunno, recoil compensation.
What do Arsenal autocannons have that Phalanx doesn't? Minigun rules? It makes no sense for Phalanx not to have them.

The AK would like a word with you about reliability.

Note the "supposed" up there.

Half the price.

So, 70 years of weapon development result in guns that are worse in pretty much every meaningful characteristic but price?
Cool.

The same could be said nowadays about cars... Most of them are POS's compared to years ago.

Your wierdly assuming that the autocannons in arsenal are totally new and not about 30 years old desings and that the phalanx in millspec tech is exactly the same weapon we currently have, even thought it very clearly says "the Phalanx has been kept up to date through a variety of different manufacturers’ eforts"

Also, i know this isn't part of the rules for any vehicle weapons,but i envision that the phalanx is much bigger piece of weaponry then the autocannons from Arsenal.
As such there are many vehicles i wouldn't have any problem with someone installing a heavy autocannon into, but i would have a problem with someone trying to install phalanx into those same vehicles.
Seriously, i see phalanx as a next step in size after the heavy autocannon, thinking it like that makes it having higher damage code make perfect sense.

EDIT: added some lines, instead of making a new post

Compared to the cars of the 30ies? Oh you don't say.
Besides, while the planned deterioration is harsh, the motors now provide much higher power per unit of volume and per gallon of fuel; passive safety has made a huge step, as has the active one, with all those electronic toys cars have nowadays.
Hell, even the navigators alone make cars today much more user-friendly.

And if you compare the weapons we used 70 years ago and use today, the difference is rather staggering. They are not in any way getting cheaper and worse.

That's because Arsenal mostly consists of up-to-date designs. And even the description in the MilSpecTech says that Phalanx is obsolescent at best.
There's a limit to updating guns and vehicles. Look at it that way - sure, you can try and upgrade a T-55 using the modern technologies, but unless you replace everything but the basic chassis, you're not getting anything comparable to T-80.

The framework? Sure. But most car engines are more reliable and more economic than the ones 30-40 years ago.
While cars' frameworks were changed completely to use cheaper less durable materials.

And yet I would buy a Classic Car from the early years (Say a 1939 Mercedes Benz 540 K Saloon Sedan, should I be able to afford it) over most of the cars of today. The fact that I can afford neither is a bit of a disapointment, however.

@Fatum: As for weapons, I still have a Hunting Rifle that was manufactured in 1884, and is still functional, and still QUITE capable of killing prey... As well as one made in the 50's, one in the 60's, and one in the 70's... so 40, 50 and 60 years old respectively. In some cases, they do not make them like they used to, with all the cheap materials that are prevelant now days.

LOL, there aren't many thinks in Arsenal that are actually new and i'm not sure if we're reading the same description of phalanx so ill quote it here and just underline that part that says exactly the opposite of what your reading from it.

If you have the money to buy one of those you surely have the money to replace the engine for a SOTA one. I'm just saying that the new vehicles in general are better than the older ones.

Have you tried reading the whole description? I heard that helps.

Mass-produced weapons have always been made as cheap as possible. So I doubt that you'd enjoy using, say, a Mosin-Nagant without some major work on it to make it actually capable of functioning.
Oh, and similarly I doubt that you'd enjoy driving your 1939 Mercedes to work daily. Taking it for a drive once in a while - sure. Using it as an everyday car? Who's making that much?

Perhaps, but then it is no longer a Classic. Alas, My tastes far exceed my Budget.

Played with a Mosin-Nagant once... Loved it, but it was indeed "worked upon" by the loving hands of a concerned gunsmith.

As for the car, alas, my tastes far exceed my budget by many levels. But I would much prefer the Older car to those crappy new things. LOTS of Electronics and gadgets are not a Feature in my book. I prefer classic and elegant to modern every day. Give me something that I can work on, compared to something that requires 5 mechanics, an electrician, and a computer expert for repairs.


And as for your comment that the Phalanx is Old Tech. It may be, but it is not outdated tech. Firearms too are Old Tech using the quote that you provided. After all, the basic design has only slightly changed since they came about...

Well, that's a common problem. I believe the source of it the current world economic system. But let's not discuss politics and economics here.

Sure enough it's not outdated per se, if there are SOTA systems based on the same principle. It's just the system itself is obsolescent compared to those in Arsenal (yet still has better stats).

I know i said this earlier, but have you considered that maybe phalanx is just a heavier weapon then the heavy autocannon in Arsenal

I know hunters that use SMLEs and Ross Rifles from WWI with only a minor visit to their gunsmiths as parts wear out. Ammunition is still made, and is quite common. The only modification needed was replacing the magazine (Which is designed to be detachable, so can be done without gunsmithing skills if you buy the new type) to comply with Canadian Firearms Laws (5-Round Capacity for Rifles. A stock SMLE magazine is 10-Rounds.).

Mauser Gewehr 98s and Kar 98Ks are also common, the same deal applies with gunsmiths and ammunition.

Some of those weapons just hit their 100th birthdays this year, and a few years ago.

A famous comparison for "Old Vs. New" is the AK-47 and M-16, the two Standard Issue weapons of the Cold War. Bad idea to compare them in my mind, as they're design concepts are radically different. Apples and oranges time here. But, I digress. The AK family is cheap to make, easy to learn to use and clean, and reliable as hell. The M-16 (AR-15 family, actually) is light weight, you can carry more ammo, and is more accurate.

Really, when it all comes down to it, "The Right Tool For The Right Job". Just... Don't say that to Shadowrunners, they'll take offense to you calling them a bunch of "Tools".

As for new cars versus old... Oh man, the amount I can write on that. But I will put it this way: How many old cars had engines designed to die if the timing belt wore out, which can happen at any time? I can name one new car that was designed this way, and it's sitting in my garage right now.

The present day Phalanx system uses a Vulcan M-61 for its business end, which is the standard autocannon used by all American fixed wing aircraft. It's nothing special. The controls make it special.

And yet you're talking about 70 years in the future.

Surely everything will stay exactly the same after 70 years. It's quite impossible to even conceive of any other possibility.

Not at all. I however don't see a much of a use for developping a higher-end autocannon specifically for the Phalanx system, while other systems wouldn't benefit from this. If the Phalanx is heavier, so should the "average" autocannon, since again, the gun component in a Phalanx system is really nothing special, and pretty much has no need to be. It needs to spew massive ammounts of lead fast.
Plus, as has been mentioned, it's old tech. Putting an entirely new gun in would make it new tech.

Don't forget the major research and development smackdown that Crash 1.0 put on everything.

As one novel put it, "Why do you think we're not as advanced as we should be?"

My point, obtuse as it was, is that weird shit happens all the time. Usually for completely inexplicable and random reasons. It's a far better idea to try and rationalize why the rules are as they are than constantly put yourself and others into a bad mood bitching about how "unreal" it is. This isn't hardcore speculative fiction delving into the detailed minutae of every conceivable possibility in an exacting fashion as humanly possible. It's an over-the-top fantasy game with flamethrowers, rocketlaunchers, magic, and dragons and shit. It's only a few steps more realistic than movies like Sucker Punch are.

Speaking of Sucker Punch, has anyone seen it yet? Is it any Good? It looks awesome from what I have seen.

Nope, got to wait till April I guess.

Its definately on the to watch list though.

Mine Too...

A good setting maintains inner consistency. And yes, in my book, that involves weapon descriptions that match the stats, and the stats that make sense compared to the ones in the previously published works.
The reason they don't? The reason "weird shit happens all the time"? Fairly simple: the writers do not do their research, hoping that SR books will be bought just because of being a part of Shadowrun franchise, regardless of quality.
Hell, you can try to think of a justification for the stats, if you really try: like Phalanx is still named Phalanx while not really being Phalanx anymore, whatever. But why do Arsenal, That Old Drone, War! and MilSpecTech use four different notations to describe standard vehicle upgrades (while Core, Arsenal and Augmentation maintain more or less a single one for all upgrades and options)? Why are vehicle costs not in the least consistent, and why do the stats for APCs in Arsenal 2070 and MilSpecTech differ almost by an order of magnitude? I can go on and on.
Frankly, I see no reason not to point out things like that, because I see them all as links of one chain. Or, if you will, as signs of the publisher's approach to the franchise.

There's countless of examples in real life of engineers, weapons designers, and militaries doing weird crap that defies common logic. Who's to say that in, I dunno, 2032, General Gordon Chumway decided that he wanted the new Phalanx system to defy standards for some seemingly random reason like to avoid terrorist groups from being able to acquire it and use other systems for spare parts. I don't know, I suck at analogies. The point, however, is that there's any number of reasons for things to wind up the way they do by 2070. Bitching about it and making yourself angry over a work of fiction in an over-the-top science fantasy setting is absurd, especially when you can come up with reasons to explain it.

But as the saying goes, haters gonna hate.

*Sings in the key of off* They see me rollin' (In my MPUV) they be hatin' (My MPUV)...

So now, I'm back. Sorry for the Absence, but I managed to fuck up a very important test and had to scramble to pass a last ditch grant and convince my uni to not kick me out, so I had a lot on my plate and little time to actually read MST. Here's the promised review.

1) Artwork. This is the most impressive part of the PDF. I really like the artwork here, it brings back memories and manages to look a lot better than the linework it's based on (some was decent, like the Fields of Fire stuff; others made me cringe in remembering, like the Lobo). The Lobo probably is the most impressive example of what coloring can make of a not very well done linework (comparison to be found here.). Great work with the paint job here. The Harpy's also nicely upgraded, but the painting pattern is weird (is it trying to camouflage itself as a tropical fish?). The Arabian Air Force EFA mage me chuckle slightly, even though Shadowrun's Middle East looks really old and backward now. Also, the Moonlight Avenger is back! It was sorely missed. Some of the new stuff's also good - though everyone who buys the German books will recognise the Hound - notably Blitz, Woodstock (those names ...), Popocatepetl, Ahuizotl, Camaxtli and Mixcoatl. The Paynal looks a bit roughly drawn compared to the others but is a nice design using vectored thrust like we have seen in many more modern shooters and not to lift huge tanks, props for that; the others unmentioned are okay too, no artwork strikes me as seriously bad. If CGL keeps this up, SR has finally something like a higher standard than their Giant Robots line, whose artwork alternates between meh and horribad (had a look at the tech manuals - Ugh). Some designs, well ... but that's not the artist's fault (the Shadowrun Eurofighter just looks a lot more like the TKF 90 concept than the real thing) - and the closeness to canon they show here cannot be overrated, especially given CGL's recend clusterfucks there.

2) Content. Well, I am a bit annoyed that ESPRIT now is an Aztech company, showing again a disregard for canon in SR, but allright, it's not that big a mistake and the writers are new and have to do the Line Dev's work for him. The Catalogue theme is sustained and the Aztlan focus in the ESPRIT catalogue a nice contrast to the Ares-American-centric weapons books of old (and the first part of this book). Sadly, this means this book acknowledges the fact there is a war which Aztlan takes part in more than WAR! does (food for thought among the authors, maybe?). The same rules problems permeate as with War!, as Mega Damage generates all kinds of wonkiness becuase the SR4/SR4A system was never menat to simulate it, but this is not the PDF's fault.

3) Errata/Nagging/Food for TJ to troll: The Appaloosa seems a bit undervalued compared to earlier editions, putting it on par with a Bison with some armor added. It's also rather slow. And while there's already been some discussion there (I am NOT reading the backlog, but there was even before I had to drop out for a few weeks), the late decision about putting in descriptive labels with the art, while immensely adding to the feel of the book, generates more than a few missingstandard upgrades (hopefully this will be fixed for the PDF eventually).

I could go into a lot more depth now, but this probably has already been said time and again, so why repeat it. Anyway, here's the review I promised waaaay back up.