|
Member Review - ralgith : 04-Sep-2011 14:17 |
|
|
0 out of 0 users (0.00%) have found this review useful
|
|
|
| Rating: |
1.00 |
| Comment: |
I've never been impressed with the Cicada, and this model even less so. Too many flaws, many of them listed already in other reviews. Would have been so much better with an ERLL or LPL over that stupid Ultra AC/5 |
| No topic has been started for this review [Start Topic] |
|
|
|
|
|
Member Review - Sleeping Dragon : 05-Aug-2007 07:57 |
|
|
0 out of 0 users (0.00%) have found this review useful
|
|
|
| Rating: |
1.50 |
| Comment: |
Not the best Idea the FWLM ever had. Yes, the Cicada is a showpiece of new tech, but the application is far from perfect. XL engine on lightly armored chassis turned the design that was meant to at least outlast the old Locust to a very expensive clone of the Hussar. Nothing against the UAC, which at least allows the 3M Cicada to strike from beyond typical combat range (I guess that it was designed to fight the enemy armed with standard ACs and PPCs, not modern ER weaponry), but the addition of double heat sinks is hard to explain. Perhaps they were paranoid, and feared that Liao infantry will use Infernos or something like that... The pulse lase is another strange decision, since when the 'Mech was created it was next to useless. At least it can deal with infantry now, but before TW rules the rating would be even worse for that. Another design feature that I'm not sure whether it's a flaw or an asset is the amount of ammo carried. The UAC consumes it rapidly, but with this armor it may be a life saving thing. There is some potential here, but investing to mass production of this may be an act that you will regret. |
| No topic has been started for this review [Start Topic] |
|
|
|
|
|
Member Review - Knightrunner : 04-Feb-2006 00:00 |
|
|
0 out of 0 users (0.00%) have found this review useful
|
|
|
| Rating: |
1.50 |
| Comment: |
For a long time I had assumed this was a Davion design; who else would shove an autocannon in a little mech that moved 8/12?
But, it's not really terrible for a harrasser mech, no worse than the Sentinel (ith whom it shares many flaws). It just would have been much, much better if it used the 11+ tons it gained (very expensively) to another use. Any other use. |
| No topic has been started for this review [Start Topic] |
|
|
|
|
|
Member Review - Rudel Gurken : 28-Jun-2005 00:00 |
|
|
0 out of 0 users (0.00%) have found this review useful
|
|
|
| Rating: |
1.50 |
| Comment: |
Putting a XL into a Cicada is a great idea but why did they take a UAC for the weight?
It makes no use from it´s superior heat sinks and retains the old inferior armor. (The "upgrade" of the can-opener seems to be a sort of odd tech-humor!)
Ripp out the UAC and the SL for a LrgPL and beef up the armor! |
| No topic has been started for this review [Start Topic] |
|
|
|
|
|
Member Review - Blackhand : 10-Sep-2004 00:00 |
|
|
0 out of 0 users (0.00%) have found this review useful
|
|
|
| Rating: |
1.50 |
| Comment: |
A useless refit... I'd rather take anything else over this design though.
The xl in this case gets an AC 5 which is an under powered weapon for light mechs with DHS. |
| No topic has been started for this review [Start Topic] |
|
|
|
|
|
Ultra AC/5 5. Gyro 5. Ultra AC/5 (Ammo 20)
6.
Ultra AC/5 6. Gyro 6. CASE
Ultra AC/5 3. XL Engine 3. Empty
4. Empty 4. XL Engine 4. Empty
5. Empty 5. Small Pulse Laser 5. Empty
6. Empty 6. Empty 6. Empty
Left Leg Right Leg
1. Hip 1. Hip
2. Upper Leg Actuator 2. Upper Leg Actuator
3. Lower Leg Actuator 3. Lower Leg Actuator
4. Foot Actuator 4. Foot Actuator
5. Empty 5. Empty
6. Empty 6. Empty
Write Review