Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Black Knight rising
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
FuelDrop
I was looking at the old Ares Air-Supply Drone thread, and pulled out my runner's black book. As I was leafing through it I spotted the Black Knight drone, and did a double-take.

One of the big balance complaint about the Air-Supply was that it had 6 body on a drone under 10k. Then I saw the Black Knight, and it has... 14. Body.
on a 40k drone.
Sure it doesn't have enough standard upgrades to be an off-the-shelf success, but with 14 mod slots (as opposed to most drones 4) I doubt it'll be an issue for anything other than price.
Thoughts?
CanRay
I know I want a few for keeping kids off my lawn. biggrin.gif
FuelDrop
yup. they just don't make them like they used to.
CanRay
For a good reason. Flimsier models need more maintenance, spare parts, replacement... Profit!
pbangarth
A different perspective: it wasn't the Tiger tanks that won WWII, it was the tens or hundreds of times as many Shermans and T-34s rolling like rabbits off the assembly lines.
CanRay
QUOTE (pbangarth @ Sep 10 2012, 11:58 PM) *
A different perspective: it wasn't the Tiger tanks that won WWII, it was the tens or hundreds of times as many Shermans and T-34s rolling like rabbits off the assembly lines.
True enough. Of course, a used Black Knight is like gold with how well it's made and how tough it is.

And, with Used Car Lot's ability to remove that negative quality it has, even up-to-date!
FuelDrop
I think that the real appeal to runners from an investment point of view is both that the Black Knight is made to last (It can take 20 armour and 10 smart armour easily), and potential firepower (It can have two heavy remote turrets with some of the most powerful weapons in the game installed, something that even the best armed lesser drones are struggling to compete with). It's a money sink, sure, but it can give as good as it takes and come back for more, so you're far more likely to be repairing it than replacing it.
After all, it's almost as tough as some troll PCs! (Only almost nyahnyah.gif)

It is literally a small tank, and if your enemy isn't specially equipped to deal with it then you've almost won just by showing up with it.

Of course, the catch is that people tend to notice someone driving a tank through the streets, so the moment you deploy it you can kiss stealth goodbye.
StealthSigma
QUOTE (FuelDrop @ Sep 10 2012, 10:11 PM) *
yup. they just don't make them like they used to.


Yeah. I know. Today's kids just aren't like we were growing up. Noisy. Crazy. Sloppy. Lazy. Loafers.
almost normal
QUOTE (pbangarth @ Sep 11 2012, 12:58 AM) *
A different perspective: it wasn't the Tiger tanks that won WWII, it was the tens or hundreds of times as many Shermans and T-34s rolling like rabbits off the assembly lines.


T-34s were a damned good tank though. IIRC they only lost 4 tanks for every german tank kill, which was fairly impressive given the opponent. I'd like to say the Joe Stalins faired even better, but I don't have my books with me to confirm that.
pbangarth
QUOTE (almost normal @ Sep 11 2012, 10:19 AM) *
T-34s were a damned good tank though. IIRC they only lost 4 tanks for every german tank kill, which was fairly impressive given the opponent. I'd like to say the Joe Stalins faired even better, but I don't have my books with me to confirm that.

Yeah, some great design innovations. And they sacrificed pretty and bells-and-whistles for simple to fix and many... many.... many more. One wonders why modern theorists don't recall the results of that "experiment" pitting high maintenance high tech versus overwhelming numbers. 4 to 1 losses are a win when you produce at 10 to 1.

This is perfectly applicable to Shadowrun, too: massed agents in the Matrix, a faceful of watcher spirits, a swarm of little drones, or that gang of wannabes you paid to bum rush your opponent.
CanRay
"Quantity has a quality all its own." - Stalin
FuelDrop
QUOTE (pbangarth @ Sep 11 2012, 10:39 PM) *
This is perfectly applicable to Shadowrun, too: massed agents in the Matrix, a faceful of watcher spirits, a swarm of little drones, or that gang of wannabes you paid to bum rush your opponent.

I see your gang wannabes and raise you three initiative passes worth of suppression fire/gas grenades/other crowd control tactics...
Mass numbers work if you use them cleverly, but unless your bum-rush is just to keep them pinned while you snipe them then all you're going to be doing against competent opponents with reasonable reserves of ammunition or weapons is increasing your own notoriety... unless you have enough fodder that they'll run out of firepower before you run out of guys. At that point it becomes a great strategy, though not one likely to inspire love and loyalty from your troops.

Moral: If you're going to hammer your foe with superior numbers, pull all the stops and hit them with everything you can beg borrow and steal. there's no point in 'almost' having enough guys to get the job done, after all.
pbangarth
QUOTE (FuelDrop @ Sep 11 2012, 10:48 AM) *
Mass numbers work if you use them cleverly,......
Moral: If you're going to hammer your foe with superior numbers, pull all the stops and hit them with everything you can beg borrow and steal. there's no point in 'almost' having enough guys to get the job done, after all.

I agree wholeheartedly.
FuelDrop
Of course, that's why you never want to REALLY piss off the corps: They can bring superior quality AND quantity to bear against you...
StealthSigma
QUOTE (almost normal @ Sep 11 2012, 10:19 AM) *
T-34s were a damned good tank though. IIRC they only lost 4 tanks for every german tank kill, which was fairly impressive given the opponent. I'd like to say the Joe Stalins faired even better, but I don't have my books with me to confirm that.


7:1 in 1941
6:1 in 1942
4:1 in 1943/1944
1.2:1 in 1945

The 4:1 ratio happened after the disaster at Stalingrad. The T-34s also had some ludicrous maintenance issues which had them running unprecedented non-combat losses. The 4:1 kill ratio really wasn't sustainable in 1943 for the Soviets either so pretty damn good wasn't good enough. It was a bit better in 1944 once the allied bombings of German manufacturing centers slowed their tank production though the Germans could have countered that by producing anti-tank guns instead of tanks which was something around 6 guns for every 1 tank. The German problem was that they always felt they could go on the offensive and did not really accept a defensive option. There were only a few German generals that recognized the value of a defense in the Blitzkrieg era of war.
pbangarth
I didn't realize the ratio changed that much through the years. Can you point me somewhere to read up on it, StealthSigma?
StealthSigma
QUOTE (pbangarth @ Sep 11 2012, 11:01 AM) *
I didn't realize the ratio changed that much through the years. Can you point me somewhere to read up on it, StealthSigma?


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Russian-Tanks-Worl...I/dp/0711028982

There's a couple of things to keep in mind though. The out of combat losses were unprecedented but their crews were also poorly trained and their generals were generally crap thanks to the Soviet purges and the high losses of combat experienced commanders in the early parts of the war.

The Germans were also rather clever about their usage of anti-tank guns as well so I'm not sure how much of that ratio is pure tank vs tank or just a counting up of lost tanks vs killed tanks regardless of kill method. A large part of the Soviet success in 1943+ came from the fact that the German high command still believed they could take the offensive and had a firm belief in not giving up an inch of land when their ability to go on the offensive was practically destroyed thanks to Stalingrad and el Alamein and the land they were trying to hold wasn't the most defensible. I said it earlier, but the Germans could have produce about 6 anti-tank guns for every Panzer they were able to produce and had the shifted their production to less mobile/more defensive material and would yield ground that wasn't easy to defend, they could have held much better on the Eastern Front and in Italy.
almost normal
Americans were of course better at killing tanks then Russians, or even Germans. No tank destroyer grouping ever had more tank losses then the tanks they were facing, which is a fairly impressive streak.
StealthSigma
QUOTE (almost normal @ Sep 11 2012, 11:26 AM) *
Americans were of course better at killing tanks then Russians, or even Germans. No tank destroyer grouping ever had more tank losses then the tanks they were facing, which is a fairly impressive streak.


Oh god yes. The M10 and M36 were remarkable machines and they were the tanks for fighting against armor by US doctrine.
Modular Man
Back to the topic:
QUOTE (FuelDrop @ Sep 11 2012, 08:18 AM) *
It is literally a small tank, and if your enemy isn't specially equipped to deal with it then you've almost won just by showing up with it.

Of course, the catch is that people tend to notice someone driving a tank through the streets, so the moment you deploy it you can kiss stealth goodbye.

Yes, a tank. You'd need very good tactics if you plan on using one of these in a city not owned by you... That is undoubtedly its greatest disadvantage.
Yet it is a great option when somebody really pushes an escalation: This is still a tank!

And then there's the "Assembly Time Improvement" modification for a mere 1000 nuyen.gif smile.gif Rebuild your very own tank in about 70 minutes!

But, well, this is nothing you couldn't do with a stolen heavy car and some basic modifications.
CanRay
Pick-up Truck, make a Technical.

Of course, a Technical has a larger "footprint" than a Black Knight Drone.
StealthSigma
QUOTE (Modular Man @ Sep 11 2012, 11:45 AM) *
Back to the topic:

Yes, a tank. You'd need very good tactics if you plan on using one of these in a city not owned by you... That is undoubtedly its greatest disadvantage.
Yet it is a great option when somebody really pushes an escalation: This is still a tank!

And then there's the "Assembly Time Improvement" modification for a mere 1000 nuyen.gif smile.gif Rebuild your very own tank in about 70 minutes!

But, well, this is nothing you couldn't do with a stolen heavy car and some basic modifications.


Can you make a submersible, flying, spaceworthy tank?
Modular Man
No.
I haven't even finished my idea for a submersible mech. Always running out of slots. Annoys me to no end.
Dreadlord
QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Sep 11 2012, 11:57 AM) *
Can you make a submersible, flying, spaceworthy tank?

LAV? spin.gif
Sengir
QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Sep 11 2012, 02:54 PM) *
The T-34s also had some ludicrous maintenance issues which had them running unprecedented non-combat losses.

Still better than the oh-so great (according to your average Military Channel program) Panthers and Tigers, whose only saving grace is that they are supreme examples of the European tendency for overengineering...well, HyperLAN came close to challenging that role, but failed even in that regard biggrin.gif


@Topic: Reminds me again why I hate having just one attribute for size, soaking, modifiability and some other stuff...
Draco18s
QUOTE (FuelDrop @ Sep 11 2012, 02:18 AM) *
It is literally a small tank, and if your enemy isn't specially equipped to deal with it then you've almost won just by showing up with it.


Don't bring fists to a knife fight.
Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
Don't bring a gun to a drone fight.
Don't bring a drone to a tank fight.

Wait, you didn't have a tank? Oh well. *BOOOM*
almost normal
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Sep 11 2012, 02:14 PM) *
Don't bring fists to a knife fight.
Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
Don't bring a gun to a drone fight.
Don't bring a drone to a tank fight.


Don't bring anything to a mage fight. It'll just get destroyed.
Draco18s
QUOTE (almost normal @ Sep 11 2012, 02:15 PM) *
Don't bring anything to a mage fight. It'll just get destroyed.


That's why I have an acid-proof surfboard. cool.gif
Critias
QUOTE (pbangarth @ Sep 11 2012, 09:39 AM) *
One wonders why modern theorists don't recall the results of that "experiment" pitting high maintenance high tech versus overwhelming numbers. 4 to 1 losses are a win when you produce at 10 to 1.

Because the modern military, at least in most first-world countries where it's an all-volunteer force, refuses to act like "4 to 1 losses" is a good idea. It's not exactly a great recruitment tool or morale boost. If it were just drones or something, sure, we'd probably be okay touting that kind of math. But when you're talking about tank crews dying at a 4 to 1 ratio, it's not nearly as attractive to would-be recruits. wink.gif
almost normal
QUOTE (Critias @ Sep 11 2012, 01:31 PM) *
Because the modern military, at least in most first-world countries where it's an all-volunteer force, refuses to act like "4 to 1 losses" is a good idea. It's not exactly a great recruitment tool or morale boost. If it were just drones or something, sure, we'd probably be okay touting that kind of math. But when you're talking about tank crews dying at a 4 to 1 ratio, it's not nearly as attractive to would-be recruits. wink.gif


Unless of course you let folks know that all losses were made up, and that talking about such suppositional losses is treason against your party.
StealthSigma
QUOTE (Critias @ Sep 11 2012, 02:31 PM) *
Because the modern military, at least in most first-world countries where it's an all-volunteer force, refuses to act like "4 to 1 losses" is a good idea. It's not exactly a great recruitment tool or morale boost. If it were just drones or something, sure, we'd probably be okay touting that kind of math. But when you're talking about tank crews dying at a 4 to 1 ratio, it's not nearly as attractive to would-be recruits. wink.gif


In Soviet Russia, military recruits you!
CanRay
Yeah, things change drastically when draftees are incorporated into a military equation.

"The scum of the earth, enlisted for drink." - Wellington (Misquoted)
pbangarth
QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Sep 11 2012, 10:12 AM) *

Thanks.
pbangarth
QUOTE (Critias @ Sep 11 2012, 01:31 PM) *
Because the modern military, at least in most first-world countries where it's an all-volunteer force, refuses to act like "4 to 1 losses" is a good idea. It's not exactly a great recruitment tool or morale boost. If it were just drones or something, sure, we'd probably be okay touting that kind of math. But when you're talking about tank crews dying at a 4 to 1 ratio, it's not nearly as attractive to would-be recruits. wink.gif

Yeah, you have a point. Even today in places where ideology drives some to the kind of social arithmetic that supports 4:1 losses, face-to-face confrontations between easily produced, untrained combatants and highly trained, high tech personnel drop off once the latter prove their efficiency.

Nevertheless, There still exists a strong argument for numbers versus individual prowess. This argument has endured for centuries.
Lord Ben
Depends on how fast you can churn out tank crews too. The more complex the machine gets the more training to run it the harder to replace crews the less acceptable losses become.

StealthSigma
QUOTE (pbangarth @ Sep 11 2012, 11:26 PM) *
Yeah, you have a point. Even today in places where ideology drives some to the kind of social arithmetic that supports 4:1 losses, face-to-face confrontations between easily produced, untrained combatants and highly trained, high tech personnel drop off once the latter prove their efficiency.

Nevertheless, There still exists a strong argument for numbers versus individual prowess. This argument has endured for centuries.


The numbers argument only work if your production ratio is better than your loss ratio. So if you lose at 5:1 you better be producing at 6:1 or better. If you're producing less than that then you're just digging a ditch.

4:1 was not a sustainable loss even in the figure of numbers. The Soviets, IIRC, were pushing out about 90,000-95,000 vehicles to the German's 26,000-29,000 (I think that was an annual figure). It was only sustainable if the Germans had a second front in which they heavily used armored fighting vehicles and replenished them. Hence why Stalin pushed so much for the Western front to have been opened earlier than July 6th 1944.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012