The Raven Republic Forums

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Morfran)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Armoring Parts:
CICADA (energy)
99UL (0,0,4,6,0)
LORIS (0,7,0,3,0)
L84A (energy)

Internal Parts:
GULL (0,0,5,5) -or- probably VULTURE2 (0,7,3,0)
F73H (sorry, forgot to put it here)
LOTUS (output)
ANANDA (cooling)

Attacking Parts:
GAR2
69M
RA
BP
HP
WRAITH (hanger R)
ELF3 (hanger L)

Optional Parts:
AMINO, ES, EC, LA, 9L+, CODON, MARISHI

Paintjob:
61) Oswald
Head: 120, 140, 140 | 34 | 10 | 200 | 135 |
Core: 40, 45, 45 | 34 | 10 | 200 | 135 |
Arms (L&R) :40, 45, 45 | 34 | 125, 140, 140 | 200 | 170, 200, 200 |
Legs: 40, 45, 45 | 125, 140, 140 | 45 | 200 | 135 |
Weapons: Black-General / White-Arm L[/quote:6b124ec437]

<span style='color:yellow'>Ok I'm wondering what to do with this AC. It's actually just configured for missions, except for the radar which is originally SIREN2... and this is probably the first AC art I posted here lol. Anyway, any help would be appreciated. You could change the head into S4 or S2 if you want better stats. The CICADA is just probably there for no good reason. You could change the boosters into VULT2 for more accel. I suck at designing, lol. Anyway thanks in advance for the help. Oh wait you could probably change the weapons into RL for the right arm and BP to the left, but you'll probably have to stick with the RM. If my design sucks, don't shoot me! Argh

Update:
Changed the Back unit from NYMPHE into 69M</span>

I have a similar design which does pretty well against other people, so I'd say the weapon combo is excelent but needs to be used at mid-close range. Going airborne is also another useful tactic (which should be easy thanks to the leg type) as I find the BP to be accurate as an air-to-ground weapon.

As for the FCS (People seem to forget to put them on their designs now Smile

) ) try the VOLUTE or the F73H. If I were to choose though, I'd use the VOLUTE as it gives a nice square box which will help you keep track of your opponent while flying in the air.

Also, some extra missile defense like decoys would be nice as the design is pretty slow, although my design didn't incorporate them in favor of better missile systems. The back radar is not needed IMO, as heads with built-in radar should be enough (This is a mater of preference though, if you're feeling more secure with the back radar, then keep it).

I can also help you make this PACT legal if you're interested Tongue

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lord_Leperman @ Feb 23 2007, 09:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As for the FCS (People seem to forget to put them on their designs now LOL

) try the VOLUTE or the F73H. If I were to choose though, I'd use the VOLUTE as it gives a nice square box which will help you keep track of your opponent while flying in the air.[/quote:252a121250]
The FCS is actually F73H, sorry I forgot to put it there. I chose F73H because it's nice for using dual guns. I also had to use the F73H so that it could blend nicely with the GAR2. I also tested VOLUTE, but because of the maximum lock, lol I usually had to drop the GAR2 since the NYMPHE usually drains all of its ammo with the maximum lock. You think 69M's gonna work better here?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lord_Leperman @ Feb 23 2007, 09:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Also, some extra missile defense like decoys would be nice as the design is pretty slow, although my design didn't incorporate them in favor of better missile systems. The back radar is not needed IMO, as heads with built-in radar should be enough (This is a mater of preference though, if you're feeling more secure with the back radar, then keep it).[/quote:252a121250]
Done, added 79DD for the inside. I think you're probably refering to CICADA2 Tongue

. CICADA has no built-in radar though, so I had to put the RA. I usually use radarless heads because they usually have lower EN drains and better stats.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lord_Leperman @ Feb 23 2007, 09:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I can also help you make this PACT legal if you're interested Tongue

[/quote:252a121250]
Aww, so LORIS is still banned. Help me, I'm interested 0_0. If I'm actually gonna register this AC for the next PACT, I'll probably change the weapon setup into this:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Weapons Setup @ bleh.)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
NYMPHE
RA
RM
RL
BP[/quote:252a121250]
The hangers have been removed though. 'Mind if you could show me what's a better weapon setup? I'm wondering if I should use this or the one posted with the AC. Salute

EYE3
U2
LEMUR
L84A
GULL
F73H
LOTUS
ANANDA
MEDUSA
GAR
NYMPHE
-
BP
HP
69H
69H (change to a blade if you want)

The design essentialy becomes a flying tank with over 2100+ shell defense and 1700++ EN defense while running at 340 KPH on a full load (IIRC), in contrast with your original design which emphasized speed (running at around 400KPH with the LOTUS + GULL IIRC). This reflects heavily on my design style however, as I have my preference for defense over speed (as long as there's some reasonable levels of compromise between the two).

I like the salvo formation that the NYMPHE + GAR creates, so I'll suggest keeping that instead of downgrading to the 69M (though the 69M does have its advantages).

As for the RL + BP

EYE3
99UL
89AG
L84A
GULL
F73H
LOTUS
ANANDA
-
GAR
NYMPHE
-
RL
BP

Pretty simple while retaining decent defense levels. Try it out, and it looks pretty good as well Tongue

OK, the one you posted is better than mine, LOL. I probably used this AC just for aesthetic purposes. I'm just wondering though. Since I'm not really good with the GAR2+NYMPHE, is it better to keep GAR2 or should I probably change it into RM3?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Goatling @ Feb 25 2007, 01:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'm just wondering though. Since I'm not really good with the GAR2+NYMPHE, is it better to keep GAR2 or should I probably change it into RM3? [/quote:3df4be96c5]
I won't say mine is totaly better, I'd say its my preference. Some people would gladly trade 200 defense points for an extra 50KPH.

Up to you on the missiles. I don't see how one can't be good with the GAR/2 + NYMPHE or the RM3 for that matter, its a pretty basic, and almost fool-proof missile system. I think the GAR + NYMPHE is enough though, as anything more would mean changes in other parts to accomodate the heavier RM3.