Practical Robot

Juggernaut

Plasma Bomber added 4 months ago

The 'Juggernaut' is a dedicated Flying Fortress Bomber, and takes the principles of the 'Goldrunner' and cranks the 'tanky' aspect to eleven.

Offense:
- 6x Devastators (good forward and bottom firing arcs)
- 4x Hornets (rear and side firing arcs)

Defense

- A super-sturdy damage-routing chassis
- Double forward and rear strut-shielding
- High wing redundancy

/\/\/\

The 'Juggernaut' is relatively simple and this lends to its toughness. It is designed to take a beating and with an overall health of approximately 3 million, it is about as close as you're going to get to a flying tank.

This is a toughness level where most rail shots tickle, teslas have a mouthful, and even flak needs more than a moment or two of Freejam-programmed-stack-abuse to cripple this super tanky plane.

In spite of its higher weight, it is still reasonably agile in the air and this further enhances its survival odds.

It is reasonably good at capturing points as well as holding them - although its weapons payload does make it less suitable for such than many ground bots.

No, the 'Juggernaut' prefers to remain airborne and fares better in Team Deathmatch style battles where its toughness can come into its own. If the enemy team is lacking in dedicated anti-air units then you can expect to be an ever-looming threat - and it can take a severe amount of damage before being crippled.

It can keep flying with half its wings torn off but it doesn't appreciate losing an entire row of wings, the shifting balance sometimes resulting in a nose-up. This is due to the wonky physics system of Robocraft - where a weight on the nose (such as a prop) counter-intuitively encourages a nose-up. This gripe aside, it does require very heavy damage almost exclusively to the rear of the plane.

In response to feedback gained on other planes in my collection. the 'Juggernaut' features a set of rear-mounted 4 hornets. As the configuration suggests, these are designed for more defensive purposes such as threats posed by chasing flyers - although it has also proven to be useful in either tagging foes to prevent auto-heal or to fire at certain enemies that plasma shots are less likely to connect with.

In terms of mobility - this plane is a little slower and more sluggish to control than other designs - and its pure VTOL take-offs are slow - but it remains quite maneuverable nonetheless.

/\/\/\

From a technical standpoint - every chassis is reworked from the ground up, and while some elements will remain similar, each plane chassis is thusfar unique to the plane concerned.

/\/\/\

So - to recap:

Toughness: Super-Tanky is its element

Offense: Decent against ground, very modest against air.

Maneuverability: Very Decent, all things considered.

Weaknesses: Faster flyers, Flak.

Favorites 1
Robot Statistics
Views
471
Comments
15
Ratings
7
Practical Rating
8.6
Creative Rating
7.7
Last Updated
Never
View Ratings

Robot Ratings

Function rating by Zalera9.0
Creative rating by Zalera6.0
Function rating by Momal948.5
Function rating by Chaotictanker8.0
Creative rating by Chaotictanker8.0
Function rating by Husky7779.0
Creative rating by Husky7778.0
Comments and Ratings
Husky777
2 months ago
Very stout build

Ratings 9.0 practical and 8.0 creative0
Avestron
2 months ago
Thank you for the comment and ratings. :c)

It was certainly very stout - stout enough that I considered it flak-resistant.

And then the thruster-nerf came along and put it into that unsavoury category of 'too slow to compensate for weight-compromised maneuverability (compared to lighter plane designs)' and 'everything' started to butcher it. ¬_¬;;;

Like all of my plane fleet from back then this has been retired for being murdered-by-update...

...I should really start to post some of my newer designs.
Husky777
2 months ago
That's the RC flyer life x_x

Ratings 9.0 practical and 8.0 creative0
Chaotictanker
4 months ago
Nice bomber? Not ugly as sin either. I've struggled to make good planes recently.

Ratings 8.0 practical and 8.0 creative0
Avestron
4 months ago
Thank you kindly, both for your comment as well as your ratings. :c)

Making a 'good' plane isn't difficult.

Be mindful of how heavy your plane is coming and well-overcompensate for it (I'd say that weight x1.5 is a healthy target lift). Also ensure that damage to a destroyed wing doesn't convey directly to the adjacent wing(s) (use damage routing). Oh - and a good plane 'needs' a healthy amount of speed boost.

As for weapons - covering ground and air targets is optimal. Most of my designs focus on ground targets and so depend on team-mates to cover it in the air. ProtoSeekers and LOMLs work well better than lasers for air-to-air.

Thanks again!
Momal94
4 months ago
I have a plane like this, it works well

Ratings 8.5 practical0
Avestron
4 months ago
Thank you for the comment and rating! :c)

I really wanted to check your bot but its not uploaded to this platform yet. :cP If its similar then its probably pretty tough too. ^_^
Momal94
4 months ago
I am bad, when it comes to build bots, they are bricks with guns. Flying bricks, brickopters, sprinting bricks, tank bricks, hoverbricks etc lol

Ratings 8.5 practical0
Avestron
4 months ago
Ah. Well the current game doesn't really punish 'brick' core users.

You should experiment with your brick cores ^_^ Even if it ends up performing little better or maybe worse than a solid brick, you'll feel the satisfaction of having 'designed it' yourself.

While this bot mostly hides its internal construction thanks to the prop struts, the 'Crimsonite' is a plane that is more revealing of whats going on inside it.

Also - while many of my planes share similar characteristics - each and every chassis is built anew - and they each vary from each other to some degree. My most recent experiments feature a total rethink and the results have for the most part been promising.

Which is good news! There are many ways to make a good plane. What is 'your' way going to be like? ^_^
Momal94
4 months ago
Indeed, but I have troubles when it comes to design things, my ideas are good, the result stinks :/

I'll try to build something if I find any courage in my soul !

Ratings 8.5 practical0
Avestron
4 months ago
It took me a good four attempts to make my first sorta viable plane (and several more failed attempts thereafter) - but it used to be a rewarding endeavor to make things work.

Good luck - when you get around to it. :c)
Zalera
4 months ago
Where are the C6 thrusters :'(
Mix a sandwich with a cola can, here you go, all things considered maybe you could get rid of 2 wings for more guns idk ^^

About the design, you should have turned your wings 180° so it would have done this shape /ll\ instead of this /l/l (see what i mean ?), but still it's not that ugly, it almost looks like an electric condensator somehow.

Ratings 9.0 practical and 6.0 creative1
Avestron
4 months ago
I have a tendency of not including C6 thrusters unless I run out of the regular ones. I like my designs to be more accessible on CRF. ^_^;

Oh yes - this plane can certainly be heavily customized to one's wishes and can mostly afford to lose 4 wings (it can fly with 8 gone). In that scenario one could upgrade other aspects of it.

Inverting wings to that configuration has never occurred to me. To me it just seems natural to point wings forward (even if they may very well be backwards). Agreed that such would be a visual improvement.

Thank you kindly for the ratings and suggestions. ^_^
Zalera
4 months ago
Oh... the CRF, I think I don't need it anymore... that's probably why i'm using cosmetics everywhere ahah ! ^^'

A design based on hit n run strategies don't need many guns anyway so it's okay, but a bit more redundancy would be nice to fit my gameplay, it just depends on the pilot I guess. Also, flags and trails are good looking on flyers, don't be grasping with these :p

Ratings 9.0 practical and 6.0 creative0
Avestron
4 months ago
Eh. Its not for the robbits. :c) Rather its for the visibility and recognition. ^_^

With fewer wings and more thrusters this would be suitable for hit-and-run strategies... but I have to admit that the 'Crimsonite' or 'Boomer' would make for more suitable planes for hit-and-run tactics. ^_^

With trails and flags I'd 'normally' be worried about assisting with the enemy's aim - but for a flying tank it 'would' help draw fire upwards and let other players do their jobs with less opposition. Interesting.

Thank you very much for the feedback!

Constructive Points

Constructive points are what you get when other users mark your reviews (comment+ratings) as constructive.

When should you mark a review as constructive though?

If you answer yes to at least three of these questions you should definitely mark it as constructive; is the review..

  1. friendly?
  2. helpful?
  3. encouraging?
  4. well structured?
  5. fair relative to the CPU used?

Why do I want these points?

After receiving X amount of points you will get a chance of being promoted to "trusted reviewer". This promotion is done by a moderator if (s)he thinks your comment and rating behaviour is reasonable.

Trusted reviewer?

As a trusted reviewer you no longer need to write a comment when rating a robot. If you add a comment you will receive extra points. Trusted reviewer is not necessarily permanent, continous bad behaviour or lack of comments might get you demoted.

Constructive Voting

Hey, seems like you're about to place your first constructive vote. That's awesome! I just wanted to inform you a bit about it before you jump into voting though. You can vote on any comment accompanied with a rating as a "Constructive Review". This will give the reviewer a "Constructive Point".

When should I vote a comment as constructive though?

If you answer yes to at least three of these questions you should definitely vote it as constructive; is the review..

  1. friendly?
  2. helpful?
  3. encouraging?
  4. well structured?
  5. fair relative to the CPU used?

Why do one want these points?

After receiving about 100 total amount of votes the user will get a chance of being promoted to "Approved Reviewer". This promotion is done by a moderator if (s)he thinks your comment and rating behaviour is reasonable.

Approved Reviewer?

As an approved reviewer you no longer need to write a comment when rating a robot. If you add a comment you will receive extra points. Approved reviewer is not necessarily permanent, continous bad behaviour or lack of comments might get you demoted.

Ok, got it! I want to place my vote now.
  • 4 items
1 page