HOME | DD

TheCentipede — Ubico Assault Tank Trundles Along by-nc-sa

Published: 2012-03-28 17:49:26 +0000 UTC; Views: 2064; Favourites: 30; Downloads: 50
Redirect to original
Description While generally apolitical, TME Industries did have a soft spot for the Lyran Commonwealth for reasons never officially (or even unofficially) defined. Most simply thought that perhaps it had something to do with the political sympathies of the founders, except that said founders were Capellans of the Tikonov region whose operations were nationalized by the Confederation; others theorized that the Lyran sympathies were a simple matter of the Lyrans usually having the money to buy the Industrials' top-shelf products.

In any case, around 3056 these sympathies lead TME Industries to brand a planned heavy assault tank--centered around prototype FedCom autocannon the Industrials had 'acquired' in a friendly manner--on the matriarch most directly responsible for the founding of the Federated Commonwealth, Katrina Steiner. The first one. While this FedCom-friendly branding did risk commercial contacts in the rest of the Sphere, particularly amongst Houses Liao and Marik, the first Katrina was sufficiently universally respected that the impact would not have been too severe.

Then the then-Regent Katherine went a few bridges too far in 3057 and took the 'Katrina' label for herself. While TME Industries were certainly Lyran-aligned, this alignment was notable for its mildness and Industrial recruiting from across the Sphere had made it much more cosmopolitan. The ideal of the Federated Commonwealth as a peaceful union was a sign of hope amidst the Succession Wars and its effective usurpment and sundering threw away a carefully-planned charm offensive by Marketing. The Katrina Steiner tank immediately disappeared from TME Industries catalogs to be replaced with, after consulting a few books on the meanings of names and translation dictionaries, the identical Ubico.

The Ubico basic configuration and design were actually set when an engineer discovered some fictional speculative tanks in the Terran Hegemony culture archives on Tinker's World. She decided to take the impressive slab-sided images she'd found and make them 'less stupid' by adding such important things as suspensions, since the original artists must not have known anything about how tracked vehicles actually worked (or, at least, not beyond the most basic of World War I principles).

The Ubico's 100-ton design was built to last, with twenty-three tons of standard armor protecting it, and centered around three basic attributes: first, a 300-rated extralight to ensure it kept up with other tanks in its class; second, an at-the-time novel dual turret layout; and finally, equally novel sponson. These, combined with the prototype rapid-fire assault autocannon in the main turret, the lightweight medium autocannon in the sponson, and the Thunderbolt light missile launcher ensured that the Ubico would be expensive and relatively difficult to maintain due to its inherent complexities. Due to these factors and a series of gentlemen's agreements with the Federated Commonwealth (arranged both before and after the naming fiasco) where TME Industries would be very selective about producing and selling the Ubico, it was not until late 3068 that the Ubico-0000 reached full production.

The first model to actually see standard production, therefore, was the unusually designated Ubico-A1A. The first 'A' designated it as using a variant primary turret mounting a Long Tom artillery cannon; the '1' indicated that it dropped the turret's box launcher; and the last 'A' meant that it was the 'simplified' version that dropped the sponson, replaced the forward turret by putting the large laser in a simple forward-hull casemate, and replaced the extra-light engine with a standard model. The combined result cut the price of the Ubico by nearly two thirds and produced a respectible support tank.

Variants quickly followed in the Ubico-__A series: the -B1 used another variant turret with no box launcher to mount a Gauss rifle with targeting computer-assisted aiming; the -C made a simple modification to the never-seen 'standard' -0 turret so it would carry a standard 20-class autocannon with an attached six-rack short range missile box launcher; and the -D offered the fire-support capability of the -A in a more conventional fashion with sixty long-range missile tubes in a box-launcher turret. All except the -B1 were compatible with various light box launcher modifications: the -_1 was of course no launcher, as described above; the -_2 mounted a six-rack of short-range missiles, the -_3 carried a ten-rack of medium-range missiles; the -_4 carried a five-rack of long-range missiles; and the 'standard' -_0 of course carried the single five-class Thunderbolt tube.

While all this variation would have normally played happy hell with production and maintenance, the parts commonality between Ubicos and their simple construction meant that it was often surprisingly inexpensive to maintain a mixed force even if the Ubico-C2A was a short-ranged brawler, the Ubico-B1A was a long-ranged sniper, and the Ubico-D3A was a scorched-earth missile boat with box launchers comically mounted to bigger box launchers.

As the FedCom Civil War heated up, the Ubico saw moderate use on both sides. The tank's ruggedness resulted in self-competition not entirely unlike the Outlaw and Ranger; as extra-light engines started moving out of assault 'Mechs and into vehicles, the more advanced 'standard' chassis became economically viable and so the Ubico-__0_s started rolling off the production line. Since the lightweight autocannon weren't authorized for full production yet due to FedCom agreements and both the -___0 and -___1 sponson variants were taken with the available classes of lightweight cannon, the first sponson were actually of the -___2 variant mounting 'retrotech' medium rifled cannon. When ammunition demand for these unusual weapons couldn't keep up, TME Industries began building -___3 sponson with twelve short-range missile tubes each, -___4s with ten long-range tubes, and even -___5s with forty rocket tubes each (which often had ground clearance issues). Perhaps unsurprisingly, by the end of the Civil War there were all different kinds of Ubicos rolling around, from the Ubico-A0A to the Ubico-DU405, with a near infinity of field variants and retrofits inbetween, including a -_U__ production variant that took weight from wherever it could to mount a bulldozer blade for urban operations, which again hearkened back to the source material.

The confusion was mostly a problem for logistics officers; on TME's side, all the Ubicos used effectively the same parts so Aftermarket absolutely loved the revenue the tank kept pulling in.

By the time the Ubico-0000 finally came out in 3068, there was mounting pressure to Omnify the tank since that would reflect the reality of its usage. TME Industries agreed, but its engineers noted that adding Omnitechnology to the chassis, even with design experience from the Uhlan-DO and field experience from the alphabet-soup Ubicos, would add complexity and difficulties not easily modeled on paper, as the ongoing (at the time) Robur-AO project had shown. Management therefore conferred with Contracts and, after negotiations with interested buyers in Houses Steiner, Davion, Marik, and Liao (the last two brought in by wanting in on the action after seeing results from the Civil War), were able to get it into the contract that the OmniTechnology would be constrained by the presence of turrets and sponson or not. This simplified the design parameters but, after several false starts, it still wasn't until January 3072 until the high-tech OmniUbico-O00 and OmniUbico-O0A were ready for trials.

Just to confuse people even further, the OmniUbico-O00 and -O0A were sold as bland, unconfigured Omnivehicles. Pre-equipped OmniUbicos retained the classification schemes of their non-Omni forebears except for the modified name and the addition of an 'O' in the first modification letter. It was feared that having from OmniUbico-0O000 to OmniUbico-DOU4A would perhaps cause confusion and hurt the sales of the now "budget" Ubico-__0_ and "bargain basement" Ubico-__A families, but luckily Inner Sphere customers had dealt with nonsensical designation schemes for centuries and were therefore not particularly taken aback, especially when the four basic types (unhelpfully labeled Omni XL, Omni Standard, Standard XL, Standard Standard) were kept under separate headings.
Related content
Comments: 24

Carrier2 [2021-07-30 20:42:48 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheCentipede In reply to Carrier2 [2021-07-31 23:27:18 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Voidlord1 [2013-01-18 08:02:14 +0000 UTC]

It reminds me of a Leman Russ Battle tank to an extent

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheCentipede In reply to Voidlord1 [2013-01-18 12:35:34 +0000 UTC]

That's quite intentional.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

xelanesque [2012-04-30 19:39:11 +0000 UTC]

I really love the detail and info you put in your drawings

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheCentipede In reply to xelanesque [2012-04-30 19:50:21 +0000 UTC]

I enjoy putting them in -- and thanks for the favorites!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ArdanBlade [2012-03-31 16:49:38 +0000 UTC]

The tank itself is pretty sweet, perhaps a bit too angular for my tastes, but looks to be a solid concept for main battle operations. Your real selling point has to be the story!

Just the sheer volume of information starting with political leanings, the company's basis, their bias, and how they adjust sales is staggering. I love how detailed and well thought out the descriptions are, as well as the research that went into fitting together the rather tumultuous politics of the 3050's.

Then, after I would think you could go no further, there is the massive amount of design and tactical data amassed on the various variations of the tank, the reasons for each of the design choices, and even the industrial/logistical reasons for each decision.

This is definitely getting a fav!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheCentipede In reply to ArdanBlade [2012-03-31 17:10:32 +0000 UTC]

Well, there's a very good reason why it's so angular: it's based on something that's based on a mishmash of tanks from the World War interbellum period.

I mean, uh, simplified production techniques. <_<

Wait, no, I mentioned that in the description so it is canonically based on something that's based on a mishmash of tanks from the World War interbellum period.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ArdanBlade In reply to TheCentipede [2012-04-01 16:41:53 +0000 UTC]

Heh, I don't mind that much, just a thought. ^^

Besides, all the story behind it was quite worth it!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Colourbrand [2012-03-29 11:18:19 +0000 UTC]

Cricky! What a story!!!

Love the detail of nonsensical designations - sounds about right...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheCentipede In reply to Colourbrand [2012-03-29 13:35:02 +0000 UTC]

It happens to pretty much all classification schemes once they start getting pushed out of their scope... "Model" is the base designation, "Model-A" is the first major variant which renames the base "Model-0", "Model-A1" is the first minor variant of the first major variant... but now we've got a de-rated version and the major and minor variants are already taken. Stick on another letter, "Model-A1A." But there are minor variants that can be independent of one another (in this case, turrets and sponson), and there's no real reason to mix one with another, so... "Model-A1A1." Which of course means the original model goes back to "Model-0000" to 'zero out' all the modifications that have been made. Oh, and of course specialized variants based on major variants have been standardized (like Robur-AO and Uhlan-DO) so one could reasonably have "Model-AO1A1" (or, in this case, "Model-AU1A1") but the "AO" part is really only one designate (since A != AO) and so we can pretend it's just one letter.

In real life (which I always use as a guide) there's always things like however the US Army decides to designate things. The M4 tank is not the M4 carbine, though there's no way to tell purely by designation (and when it comes to modifications, the M4A3E2 tank is not the M4A1 carbine). The Navy has Class-Mark-Mod-Block, and the Tri-Service Aircraft Designation System of relatively simple [modified role][basic role]-[model number][variant letter] is now [status][modified role][basic role][type]-[model number][variant letter] Block [iterated design] and can give such silly results as the made up YBRQ-20X Block 73 prototype recon drone modified to be a bomber in its 73rd iteration of the 24th series of the 20th model or the completely real (for a short period) CC-130H which was a cargo plane comically modified to be a cargo plane.

And this is just when the designation schemes are actually followed, as opposed to when people just start making stuff up (SR-71, F/A-18, etc).

Meanwhile, Battletech just leetspeaks whatever the name is and throws in letters and numbers for grins.

Banshee? Um... BNC-3E. Wasp? WSP-1A. BattleMaster? BLR-1G. Davion variant of a BattleMaster? BLR-1...D. Job done.

"But that makes the BLR-1D a variant coming after, BLR-1G." Don't think too hard about it, son. Drink another PPC.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Colourbrand In reply to TheCentipede [2012-03-29 20:21:26 +0000 UTC]

"But that makes the BLR-1D a variant coming after, BLR-1G." Don't think too hard about it, son. Drink another PPC."

Well put - never understood those recce names either - sounded rather stupid!

Thought I was the only one!

Thanks for the feedback on this!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheCentipede In reply to Colourbrand [2012-03-29 20:55:43 +0000 UTC]

Nope, it was been a nitpick of mine for ages before I decided that the imaginary designation scheme for imaginary giant stompy robots really wasn't worth nitpicking about.

So that's how I learned to stop worrying and love the BMB-12D Bombardier.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Colourbrand In reply to TheCentipede [2012-03-29 20:58:50 +0000 UTC]

LOL!!! No - nitpick - keeps it real!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheCentipede In reply to Colourbrand [2012-03-29 21:10:56 +0000 UTC]

Well, there's the "I'll make fun of it when I write my own stuff up" sort of nitpicking, and then there's the nerdrage "OMG IT'S NOT A PROPER SYSTEM LIKE THE TRI-SERVICE SCHEME OR WHATEVER THE BRITISH CALL THEIR MISSION-DOT-NUMBER SYSTEM" sort.

I think I'll stick with the former.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Colourbrand In reply to TheCentipede [2012-03-30 06:33:14 +0000 UTC]

Agreed - do the people who actually make this stuff REALLY care that their fans have hissy fits? Nah, I would be embarrassed if fans went that nuts.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheCentipede In reply to Colourbrand [2012-03-30 17:04:33 +0000 UTC]

Well, it ain't working out too well for BioWare right now.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Colourbrand In reply to TheCentipede [2012-03-31 07:56:08 +0000 UTC]

Someone got the hump?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheCentipede In reply to Colourbrand [2012-03-31 16:56:08 +0000 UTC]

Well, BioWare promised just a wee bit more than they delivered in Mass Effect 3, and by "wee bit" I mean "a very great deal." When a game series that differentiates itself through plot, internal consistency, and player interactivity in the plot absolutely botches the ending by making it a railroading section full of obvious plot holes and less-obvious fridge logic...

...well, the customers attracted by that differentiation--and not even necessarily just the crazies--tend to get very annoyed very quickly. As that differentiation was Mass Effect's primary draw--throughout the series it's a comparatively poor shooter and even worse RPG--the disgruntled percentage of the customer base is very high. Usually, no matter what you do in anything, there will be about 20% of people who don't like it and 1-2% within that 20% will make a lot of noise about it. It's the Pareto Principle and it has unusually broad anecdotal support (and when there are two obvious options, like in American politics, then you've got the built in 1% Radical/19% Democrat/60% Effectively Independent/19% Republican/1% Reactionary split everyone sees more and more of these days).

In Mass Effect's case, the percentage of people who have been openly complaining on BioWare's forums were about 5% of sales, last time I saw numbers. That's huge because there is also the grumbling plurality (the rest of the usually 20%) who would just get mad then never trust BioWare again but not make a big fuss about it. I doubt it scales linearly, but if it does, that means that anywhere between 40% and 80% of customers are dissatisfied. I'd estimate the dissatisfaction rate is probably closer to 40-50% than 70%-80%, but how it breaks is dependent upon the gamer demographics and the breakdown between who were playing it for the shooting aliens (generally satisfied) and who were playing it for the plot (generally highly dissatisfied).

The plural of anecdote is not data but informal polls of the people I hang out with who played Mass Effect 3 came out with a 100% dissatisfaction rate, tending towards highly distracted (defined as the consumer can't even really see why the producers even thought it was a good idea). Of course, they're all plot gamers which is why it's not data, but as the Mass Effect series' marketing was driven primarily by touting the epic plotline...

Yeah, bad news for them.

It's basically the Fallout 3 ending brouhaha all over again ("What do you mean I have to sacrifice someone in the radiation chamber? I can tell the code to my loyal Super Mutant buddy who is canonically completely immune to radiation and is standing right there, she walks in, types in the code, walks back out, Wasteland saved, big happy ending that's perfectly possible and acceptable but is being illogically driven out of the solution space due to developer fiat towards forcing a 'moral choice'") and we all know how that turned out.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Colourbrand In reply to TheCentipede [2012-04-02 17:23:56 +0000 UTC]

In short, they screwed the public by selling a franchise with the promise of something big, and then trying to ignore the complaints. Hmmm where have I heard that before....

Sounds like modern films to me.

However there is a validness to this - I take it these games are not cheap, that they demand a lot of time and energy.

Fair to say they are pissing on the audience again? With that, people will be reluctant to trust this line and rightly so.

Sounds like a hype-rotwheiler to me.

Having said that, some can take it to heart, but there is the valid reasons above, and blind devotion.

Good comeback - sorry I took so long to reply, wanted to do so with some form of intelligence

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheCentipede In reply to Colourbrand [2012-04-02 17:39:08 +0000 UTC]

Hey, take your time. Last time I checked there's no races or time trials going on.

But yeah, "pissing on the audience" is more or less right. The big question, which has so far remained unanswered by the developers, is whether they thought the cut-and-paste different-colored endings were actually a good idea (and thus their artistic intent) or they were rushed for time and threw something together. They've been defensive so far, but people always get defensive when under siege so I don't read very much into it. Right now the devs are taking the "artistic vision" stance, which is valid... but it loses a great deal of validity when player input is explicitly called for; that implies that the vision is shared and therefore a broadly unpopular ending by producer fiat is less defensible.

Luckily, when I saw the rushed state of the demo, I went "hmmm, when things are rushed, endings are the first thing to go in RPGs" and decided to wait and let the first wave of buyers reconnoiter for me. That was a really good decision; I saved myself fifty bucks in direct costs and who knows how much in indirect costs from disappointment and perhaps anger.

BioWare has pretty much lost this round, I think. They were planning Mass Effect DLC (and had quite a bit on day one, which ruffled feathers) but I think they've just blown up their market. "At least it was a better ending than Mass Effect's" is now a trending meme and if BioWare doesn't pull out a mea culpa in the immediate short term--say a month--it'll become simply engrained in Internet culture and that's the culture which makes up their market.

Hell, I made an off-the-cuff variation of the meme on Rogue Baron's April Fool's reveal ("At least it was a better plot twist than the Catalyst being the Star Child") and despite it being a bit more contrived and definitely more exclusive by relying on details, it still got traction.

It's a damn shame, really, since the explosion (DOHOHOHOHOHO PUNS) of fan art, fan fiction, and fan plot dedicated to fixing the ending shows that people still love the universe even if the franchise itself is just waiting for the coroner to sign the certificate. There is money--lots and lots of money--to be made there but without a proper "mea culpa" (not just a "we have taken criticism under consideration and are producing more DLC") BioWare's not going to see half as much of it as they arguably should for all the honestly good work they've done so far to build that market.

Ah well. One "gotcha" is worth twenty-five "attaboys," as they say.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Colourbrand In reply to TheCentipede [2012-04-08 13:55:06 +0000 UTC]

Someone summed up the end of this as "the allies of WW2 finding the plans of a superweapon and for it to work it has to be shoved up Hitler's bottom" or something like this.

It smells of Corporate - the cavalier attitude to fans and devotees, as well as those who shell out a fortune to play their product. Treating folk like they do the disgruntled worker in one of their sweat shop factories in China.

I just hope they do not try a Bobby Ewing shower sequence to rectify this catasrophe. And thanks to the net, BioWare has rightly lost a lot, as you said. Hence why the F***s are now out to try and curb the net because there is a lot of lovely money they cannot grab combined with a lot of money they are losing.

Sorry, piss on your audience, expect to be punched in the bollocks. You think they would learn? Maybe, maybe seeing thr reaction to this, maybe others will see that they should make their products more worth while and treat the players, the buyers, and the fans with more respect.

As you say and its shown, a lack of respect leads to a lack of buyers.

The fact so many dedicate art to it shows people DO give a monkies.

Learn you Corporate Asses!

Thanks matey!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheCentipede In reply to Colourbrand [2012-04-08 19:05:26 +0000 UTC]

"Sorry, piss on your audience, expect to be punched in the bollocks."

I'm totally going to have to use that in conversation now.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Colourbrand In reply to TheCentipede [2012-04-08 20:01:27 +0000 UTC]

DO!!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0