Lam's

[wellspring]

All assuming that the foe doesn't have the aerospace forces to oppose you. In space, even lighter ASFs can beat a LAM, and once you're in the atmosphere, then just like all other aerospace units you're vulnerable to the whim of the lawn dart gods, so even conventional fighters can be a threat.

If you go to ground to avoid the aerospace, then that's a mission kill as they've prevented you from taking whatever action you'd intended, and at worst you could be pinned until ground forces are brought up to flush you out or destroy you.

The counter may be that your own aerospace and ground forces can in turn engage the foe in the appropriate environment, but those LAMs have to come from somewhere. For every one that you have, that's one less ASF or Mech, and let's not forget the superiority of ASFs and Mechs in direct combat in their own environments.

As a small unit raider, scout or other spec ops role, then yes, but as something to build a large scale force around, you're asking for bad news.

You're absolutely right... except that this isn't intended as a line unit, but as a supplementary unit. Think about how the soviets used tank destroyers. Or attack helicopters, for that matter. Undeniably vulnerable and suboptimal for most situation, but very useful in a specialist role, so every higher-level commander gets a small unit (say, a company for every regimental commander, or a battalion for every divisional commander). So I'm not building force around LAMs, I'm using LAMs to supplement and enhance my ASF and especially mech forces.

Let's look at each scenario:

Insertion: Normally, I send in some ASF's to clear a route to either land my transports or orbitally drop my Mechs. Instead, here I replace a small number of my fighters and mechs with LAMs. The LAMs arrive with the aerospace fighters, but mostly ignore the furball and punch towards the LZ. On the ground, they secure the location for the dropships to land; alternatively, facing organized resistance, they redeploy to an alternate LZ (something mechs can't do unless your "alternate" is within a few km of the primary). They're relieved by the main force. It's essentially a hedge against a drop site ambush, something that in BT history often produces big casualties even when the attacker has a force advantage.

Combat engagement: I have a large force fighting along a multikm line. I accept that I'll have slightly fewer Mechs, but suddenly, a lieutenant reports he's making progress on one map square. So I deploy a company of LAMs, all of which hit that square and reinforce it. Faced with a sudden rush of overwhelming force, the enemy there collapses and I can either penetrate or divide or roll him up, depending on the situation. A force commander with only Mechs and ASF can't concentrate his ground forces as quickly, and can't hold ground with air support alone. Higher overall force tallies don't matter if I can defeat him in detail.

Operational flexibility: I'm in an invasion scenario and am hitting several objectives at once, perhaps separated by hundreds of km. Again, I use a conventional assault but I keep my small LAM force together, balled up like a fist, and they hit my objectives one by one. A very fast Mech moves at 10/15. A slow LAM (bigger but similar in armament) in ASF mode is crossing multiple mapsheets every turn. Whose reinforcements arrive first?

It's worth noting here that while my LAM force is clearly inferior to the specialist units, they also can swing roles, so the difference in numbers isn't quite as big as initially appears. Say I have six ASFs and 12 mechs. Now I replace a lance of Mechs and a flight of ASF with LAMs. So now I have 4 ASFs, 8 Mechs, and 6 LAMs. In fighter duels before landing, I can deploy 10 airframes (most of them crappy, admittedly, but numbers do count). Then on the ground I have 14 mechs. So the hit you take in numbers and capability vs specialist units is real (not all those LAMs will make it to the ground) but not quite as bad as it appears at first glance. And the toy example above is way more LAMs than I'd take in a line force of that size.

Finally, there's a forced withdrawal. My forces are on the way off-world, with enemy units pressing them hoping to over-run the drop zone. With no LAMs, either my Mechs have to fight as they're loaded aboard (something that happens all the time in the fiction) or my dropships take a shellacking from enemy ground forces as they try to lift off. Or both. I could try to hold a perimeter, but then I leave Mechs stranded to die after lift off. With LAMs, I harass the enemy pursuers in airmech mode, then hold a perimeter in mech mode while the last Mechs board their droppers. Then after the droppers lift off, my LAMs can transform and accompany them into orbit. Somewhat doable with normal fighters, comparatively easy with LAMs.

I'm not disagreeing with you that LAMs are extremely limited. Just that their strategic mobility makes them very useful in a wide variety of roles, so long as you don't try to use them as a major arm of service.

[Gehad99]

if you look at the WD's they had one for messages/ scouting in the command lance if i rember and the kell hounds had a full lance of them in a long range recon lance in the 2nd BN they fill there roles perfectly

[Archangel]

Insertion: Normally, I send in some ASF's to clear a route to either land my transports or orbitally drop my Mechs. Instead, here I replace a small number of my fighters and mechs with LAMs. The LAMs arrive with the aerospace fighters, but mostly ignore the furball and punch towards the LZ.

What good is having an LZ if the reduced number of fighters results in them being overwhelmed by the defenders and the defenders then turning on the DropShips and blowing them out of the sky or forcing them to withdraw?

On the ground, they secure the location for the dropships to land; alternatively, facing organized resistance, they redeploy to an alternate LZ (something mechs can't do unless your "alternate" is within a few km of the primary). They're relieved by the main force. It's essentially a hedge against a drop site ambush, something that in BT history often produces big casualties even when the attacker has a force advantage.

While the LAMs might be able to redeploy fairly easily, it is for more difficult for DropShips to alter their landing trajectory.  That close to the planet most have the flight characteristics of a proverbial brick.

Combat engagement: I have a large force fighting along a multikm line. I accept that I'll have slightly fewer Mechs, but suddenly, a lieutenant reports he's making progress on one map square. So I deploy a company of LAMs, all of which hit that square and reinforce it. Faced with a sudden rush of overwhelming force, the enemy there collapses and I can either penetrate or divide or roll him up, depending on the situation. A force commander with only Mechs and ASF can't concentrate his ground forces as quickly, and can't hold ground with air support alone. Higher overall force tallies don't matter if I can defeat him in detail.

Those ASFs that you dismiss so casually can not only intercept your LAMs but can stall a breakthrough by focusing their attacks on the 'Mechs breaking through.  Getting showered with heavy fire by fighter after fighter isn't something any MechJock wants to experience.

Operational flexibility: I'm in an invasion scenario and am hitting several objectives at once, perhaps separated by hundreds of km. Again, I use a conventional assault but I keep my small LAM force together, balled up like a fist, and they hit my objectives one by one. A very fast Mech moves at 10/15. A slow LAM (bigger but similar in armament) in ASF mode is crossing multiple mapsheets every turn. Whose reinforcements arrive first?

LAMs don't have unlimited fuel reserves, combat operations are likely to force them to return to their home base for refueling sooner rather than later.

Update:  Barring a LAM replacing a bomb bay with one ton of extra fuel, all LAMs have a maximum of 80 points of fuel.  Even the 20-ton Clan Bashkir and 20-ton IS Trident have 240 points with many having 400 points of fuel.

It's worth noting here that while my LAM force is clearly inferior to the specialist units, they also can swing roles, so the difference in numbers isn't quite as big as initially appears. Say I have six ASFs and 12 mechs. Now I replace a lance of Mechs and a flight of ASF with LAMs. So now I have 4 ASFs, 8 Mechs, and 6 LAMs. In fighter duels before landing, I can deploy 10 airframes (most of them crappy, admittedly, but numbers do count). Then on the ground I have 14 mechs. So the hit you take in numbers and capability vs specialist units is real (not all those LAMs will make it to the ground) but not quite as bad as it appears at first glance. And the toy example above is way more LAMs than I'd take in a line force of that size.

Unless you are talking about a raiding force the switch doesn't seem to be that much of an improvement to me.  Perhaps a marginal improvement in the aerospace fighting strength but, unless you are replacing 'Mechs that are weak to begin with, the ground fighting strength is likely to be decreased.

Finally, there's a forced withdrawal. My forces are on the way off-world, with enemy units pressing them hoping to over-run the drop zone. With no LAMs, either my Mechs have to fight as they're loaded aboard (something that happens all the time in the fiction) or my dropships take a shellacking from enemy ground forces as they try to lift off. Or both. I could try to hold a perimeter, but then I leave Mechs stranded to die after lift off. With LAMs, I harass the enemy pursuers in airmech mode, then hold a perimeter in mech mode while the last Mechs board their droppers. Then after the droppers lift off, my LAMs can transform and accompany them into orbit. Somewhat doable with normal fighters, comparatively easy with LAMs.

LAMs are ill-suited for 'hold the line' scenarios especially against a superior foe unless you are ready to sacrifice them.  After all LAMs are likely to sustain sufficient damage that renders them unable to transform before they are disabled or destroyed.

I'm not disagreeing with you that LAMs are extremely limited. Just that their strategic mobility makes them very useful in a wide variety of roles, so long as you don't try to use them as a major arm of service.

Yet you appear to be trying to prove how they can be used in so many roles that they effectively become a major arm of service.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

LAMs are truly the Masters Of None in the BTU.

[jklantern]

LAMs are truly the Masters Of None in the BTU.

I thought that was the [Faction of Your Choice Here].

[FedComGirl]

According to ER:2750 the SLDF use LAMs as Special Forces to hit targets behind enemy lines. The FWL deployed them in battalions and used them as rapid-reaction and fast strike forces. The others used LAMs as scouts to get in and out of difficult to reach places.

In those kind of missions LAMs are very difficult to beat. Modern technology comes close. Units can be very fast or hard hitting but they cost way more and still can't match a LAMs speed.

[wellspring]

According to ER:2750 the SLDF use LAMs as Special Forces to hit targets behind enemy lines. The FWL deployed them in battalions and used them as rapid-reaction and fast strike forces. The others used LAMs as scouts to get in and out of difficult to reach places.

In those kind of missions LAMs are very difficult to beat. Modern technology comes close. Units can be very fast or hard hitting but they cost way more and still can't match a LAMs speed.

Exactly. At least in the games I've seen, it's very common to stage a tonnage/numbers-balanced game. Those are precisely the situations where the LAM is in deep doo-doo. And while the mobility is useful in a TW game, it doesn't really shine until you're in the operational level, where you can concentrate force and redeploy very fluidly. So the LAM ends up being perfect in the kind of scenarios that you don't usually see on the tabletop.

[FedComGirl]

Exactly. At least in the games I've seen, it's very common to stage a tonnage/numbers-balanced game. Those are precisely the situations where the LAM is in deep doo-doo. And while the mobility is useful in a TW game, it doesn't really shine until you're in the operational level, where you can concentrate force and redeploy very fluidly. So the LAM ends up being perfect in the kind of scenarios that you don't usually see on the tabletop.

Wouldn't that depend on the tabletop? Even in small games the presence of a LAM can dictate tactics. Their ability to get behind the enemy so fast forces themselves to cover their rear areas. That's less firepower aimed forwards towards your main forces. It also keeps them bunched to keep the LAM from zipping in to attack the rear. That makes them easier to hit with area effect weapons.

[wellspring]

Wouldn't that depend on the tabletop? Even in small games the presence of a LAM can dictate tactics. Their ability to get behind the enemy so fast forces themselves to cover their rear areas. That's less firepower aimed forwards towards your main forces. It also keeps them bunched to keep the LAM from zipping in to attack the rear. That makes them easier to hit with area effect weapons.

Yeah. I'm just speaking in general. Your map sheets will vary of course. The thing is, in most games I've played, you want a fair fight at the tactical level. But the goal of good strategy is to avoid fair fights and engineer fights to be as lopsided in your favor as possible. LAMs' flexibility and mobility help in that regard, but since we try for game balance on the table, that capability doesn't manifest in most games.

[Weirdo]

Wouldn't that depend on the tabletop? Even in small games the presence of a LAM can dictate tactics. Their ability to get behind the enemy so fast forces themselves to cover their rear areas. That's less firepower aimed forwards towards your main forces. It also keeps them bunched to keep the LAM from zipping in to attack the rear. That makes them easier to hit with area effect weapons.

Only if said LAM mounts enough firepower to be a one-turn threat, which rules out most except the Blakist models and certain Phoenix Hawks. For any others, simple preparation means you can maneuver as normal and when that LAM does get behind you, accept the hits you're going to take, and blow him away with your AA unit to make sure he doesn't do it again.

[FedComGirl]

Yeah. I'm just speaking in general. Your map sheets will vary of course. The thing is, in most games I've played, you want a fair fight at the tactical level. But the goal of good strategy is to avoid fair fights and engineer fights to be as lopsided in your favor as possible. LAMs' flexibility and mobility help in that regard, but since we try for game balance on the table, that capability doesn't manifest in most games.

Cool. And I agree in most games LAMs aren't going to be compatible in every game especially when trying for balance. But that isn't all games. In some LAMs will work.

Only if said LAM mounts enough firepower to be a one-turn threat, which rules out most except the Blakist models and certain Phoenix Hawks. For any others, simple preparation means you can maneuver as normal and when that LAM does get behind you, accept the hits you're going to take, and blow him away with your AA unit to make sure he doesn't do it again.

It doesn't have to be a one turn threat. Even an Atlas can't keep taking hits from the rear. And the 3025 Stinger and Phoenix Hawk LAMs have enough fire power to breach a rear torso section. The Wasp LAM almost does. It could also fire infernos or other munitions which would give the opponent a hard time. They'd have to turn to deal with the threat and when they do they expose their rear to the main force. Or they have a body guard, preferably a AA unit with flippable arms.
But AA units aren't as much help if the LAM is on the ground or WiGE behind terrain. And they're also not firing forward at the main force. Which helps you, like I said.

[Weirdo]

Or they have a body guard, preferably a AA unit with flippable arms.

If nobody brought any AA, they deserve every implausibly concentrated strike those LAMs deliver, and I hope all their TACs float.

But AA units aren't as much help if the LAM is on the ground or WiGE behind terrain.

If an AA unit convinces an air unit to take cover, it has justified every point/cbill/whatever used to bring it to the field.

And they're also not firing forward at the main force. Which helps you, like I said.

Wait, AA is there to shoot down air targets, but shooting at air targets is doing it wrong? Whahuh? ???

[Dreammirror]

I need to brush up on the latest rules I guess for LAMS--back when I was playing, we allowed LAMS to carry extra fuel if they had cargo allocated for that.   Still one of my favorite strategic pieces, if not prefect for most tactical games. 

[sillybrit]

They'd have to turn to deal with the threat and when they do they expose their rear to the main force. Or they have a body guard, preferably a AA unit with flippable arms.

Or just torso twist and shoot the weapons in one arm, without having to expose rear armor. There's a lot of designs without flippable arms where that's a viable method due to the level of firepower concentrated in one or both arms. For those who like combined arms, there's then vehicles with turrets that can again leave their front pointed towards the main threat, plus the possibility of infantry and battle armor that have a 360 degree field of fire, although there can be range/mobility/firepower issues with those depending upon the design/organization and course of the battle. Alongside flippable arms, all this can be allocated during the weapon attack phase as and when needed.

All that's not to say that a backstabbing move by a LAM is pointless, just that the potential for a LAM to make one doesn't necessarily mean that the LAM's opponents are somehow forced to hold back forces just in case.

[FedComGirl]

If nobody brought any AA, they deserve every implausibly concentrated strike those LAMs deliver, and I hope all their TACs float.

:) I agree. Then again not every game has air units so I can't fault them if they don't. But I can fault them for not bringing fire support units which AA units are also good for.

If an AA unit convinces an air unit to take cover, it has justified every point/cbill/whatever used to bring it to the field.

True. But the fact the air unit is depriving the enemy of fire support also justifies it's cost. They'd cancel each other out except AA units tend to have a lot more fire power than LAMs.

Wait, AA is there to shoot down air targets, but shooting at air targets is doing it wrong? Whahuh? ???

No it isn't wrong. But most AA units are also fire support units. If they're not shooting at air targets they're shooting at ground targets. By keeping the AA unit occupied you keep the fire support unit occupied depriving the enemy its fire support. Also LAMs can convert and fight on the ground nullifying the AA targeting bonus. If operating under the MaxTech rules AA units even get a penalty against ground units. Either way, LAMs can fight on the ground or in the air keeping the AA unit busy.

[FedComGirl]

I need to brush up on the latest rules I guess for LAMS--back when I was playing, we allowed LAMS to carry extra fuel if they had cargo allocated for that.   Still one of my favorite strategic pieces, if not prefect for most tactical games.

They can carry external fuel tanks in the bomb bays. I can't remember if they can mount liquid cargo bays like other mechs. I think the result would be the same though.

Or just torso twist and shoot the weapons in one arm, without having to expose rear armor. There's a lot of designs without flippable arms where that's a viable method due to the level of firepower concentrated in one or both arms. For those who like combined arms, there's then vehicles with turrets that can again leave their front pointed towards the main threat, plus the possibility of infantry and battle armor that have a 360 degree field of fire, although there can be range/mobility/firepower issues with those depending upon the design/organization and course of the battle. Alongside flippable arms, all this can be allocated during the weapon attack phase as and when needed.

True but torso twisting does expose your back to the rest of the enemy. Flippable arms are great. So are turrets and infantry and battle armor.

All that's not to say that a backstabbing move by a LAM is pointless, just that the potential for a LAM to make one doesn't necessarily mean that the LAM's opponents are somehow forced to hold back forces just in case.

True but no force can afford to ignore an enemy at their rear for very long.

[Weirdo]

Then again not every game has air units so I can't fault them if they don't.

I can, and will. NO mercy for the unprepared.

True. But the fact the air unit is depriving the enemy of fire support also justifies it's cost.

Oh, I get it! You prefer to RP cash-strapped units that are forced to combine fire support with AA duties!

For my response to that, go back my my treatment of people who are unprepared. If you have to rely on your AA units for ground suppression, that's just as much your fault as not bringing any AA at all. Again, no mercy or pity. >:(

[sillybrit]

True but torso twisting does expose your back to the rest of the enemy.

Incorrect. TW p119: "To determine which side of a ’Mech is hit, use the facing of a standing ’Mech’s feet to determine its front side, regardless of torso twist."

True but no force can afford to ignore an enemy at their rear for very long.

Except by flipping, twisting, turret rotating or 360ing, you're not ignoring them, and they're all something you can do as a reaction. Ultimately you're still getting to shoot at an enemy unit, just that it's a LAM thataway, instead of the same LAM or another unit over there. Given that backstabbing is so often done at short range, in addition you're quite possibly going to get better target numbers vs the backstabbing LAM instead of the alternative target.

Of course, the downside is that you're still getting a unit backstabbed, which is generally a bad thing for that unit (although intensely amusing when you get into position for a rear shot and you roll to hit arms and legs lol. The RNGods giveth and the RNGods taketh, with Murphy always waiting too.)

EDIT: I forgot to add that when it's custom LAMs, then the situation can change wildly. Rare is the custom LAM that doesn't have the speed, armor and a battery of SLs/MLs or their ER/Pulse kin, or sometimes SRMs, that make them a far more dangerous backstabber compared to the canon designs.

[Archangel]

True but no force can afford to ignore an enemy at their rear for very long.

Nothing that can't be achieved with standard light or medium 'Mechs, many of which can bring more firepower to the dance.  Hitting the enemy's rear isn't the sole domain of LAMs.

[wellspring]

You know, I always thought it would be a cold day in hell when I read something by sillybrit that I thought was wrong. Nearly so for Weirdo, too.

I'm still waiting for that to happen.

I actually agree that on a tactical level LAMs have a major disadvantage. FedComGirl is suggesting several excellent ways to mitigate that disadvantage, but as the Word of Blake found out, the disadvantage is a genuine issue. AA is a major, major threat (especially in the era of AA artillery, AA AC munitions, and the HAG).
There's simply no way to get around that.

With that said, I don't think it detracts from the strategic applications of the LAM. While zipping from side of the map to the other is convenient, that's not what I mean when I say strategic. Nor, when I talk about hitting them in the rear, do I mean the rear armor of a front-line unit. I'm talking about moving fluidly from one zone of battle to another, using concentrating their numbers to fight lopsided battles, then fading away to avoid counterattack.

You can't hold a mass-and-maneuver battle line with a LAM anymore than you can in RL using modern helicopters (also an expensive and very fragile but very fast unit type) . But what you can do is throw your LAM force decisively into play, either on the main battle line in support of Mechs and vehicles that do hold the line (direct fire support), or in hit-and-fade attacks on soft strategic targets in the enemy rear zones. In other words, whereas you spread out your tanks and mechs to cover a front and protect from artillery, you keep your LAMs packed together so you can spam them in a very small area where they can concentrate their firepower on a very small number of units.

Now the point about AA is a good one, but to me it anticipates the answer to another natural question, "Isn't this what aerospace fighters are for?" After all, they have a high degree of strategic mobility, can hit the same kinds of targets, and bring far more maneuverability and firepower to the table than a LAM. Or, let's take VTOLs, far less effective than ASF's but capable of covering for two key ASF weaknesses: sustaining an attack on a map sheet and holding ground. Both are cheaper and better armed than LAMs. So why not just up your air power? And that's where AA comes in. Both unit types are highly vulnerable to it, and so are LAMs, but a LAM can convert to Mech mode and move in on the ground.

We're not talking about using LAMs to clear SAM Alley, but the kind of moderate SAM support that's enough to deter a strafing run or a VTOL assault isn't going to faze a LAM squadron.

There have been two attempts to use LAMs in canon. The Word of Blake tried to use them as a wonder weapon, a line of battle unit that would try to beat mechs and fighters at their own game-- and failed dismally. With the SLDF, I haven't seen any stories that feature LAMs in the Hegemony Campaign, but whether they were used effectively or not, they lost their viability in the general technological decline of the Succession Wars. To me, that's not an indictment of the LAM concept, just another case of "right weapon wrong doctrine" that we've seen throughout history.

[Archangel]

With the SLDF, I haven't seen any stories that feature LAMs in the Hegemony Campaign, but whether they were used effectively or not, they lost their viability in the general technological decline of the Succession Wars. To me, that's not an indictment of the LAM concept, just another case of "right weapon wrong doctrine" that we've seen throughout history.

Its been noted that the SLDF usually deployed their LAMs in group formations rather than individually where their numbers would help overcome their individual weaknesses.  I would imagine that they rarely deployed them in formations smaller than company size into the field.  A single LAM appearing in your rear minor nuisance, a company of LAMs appearing in your rear is another thing entirely.

[wellspring]

Its been noted that the SLDF usually deployed their LAMs in group formations rather than individually where their numbers would help overcome their individual weaknesses.  I would imagine that they rarely deployed them in formations smaller than company size into the field.  A single LAM appearing in your rear minor nuisance, a company of LAMs appearing in your rear is another thing entirely.

Which sounds exactly like the doctrine I'm talking about. I'm at work without my sourcebooks but what was it, like a battalion with every SLDF division?

I'd be interested to see if there's anything out there on how they were used and whether the doctrine was successful. With the size of military units in the IS, there's less call for LAMs at the current point in the timeline, but I'd love to see them make a comeback.

[Weirdo]

I'm at work without my sourcebooks but what was it, like a battalion with every SLDF division?

I doubt they were found in every division, but I imagine they were highly prized parts of any Jump Infantry Divisions that got them, as well as any Striker Regiments.

[sillybrit]

The TOE chart for a Regular Army Mech Division on p138 SLSB shows a divisional recon/cavalry battalion with three companies of LAMs (plus two companies of vehicles). We don't know if that's still valid, or if it's the standard for every Mech Division, or for Infantry Divisions as well, but the possibility is there. Notably, in FM:3145 LAMs do get mentioned in association with Jump Infantry Divisions, but whether these are from this divisional recon battalion or from lower echelon units isn't clear. At least one such division is noted as having more than the usual number of LAMs.

At the regimental level, the SLSB provides more detail about Striker regiments than what we see later in FM:SLDF. According to SLSB, and repeated in TRO3085, every Striker regiment has a recon company of LAMs. However, we don't know for certain just how many Mech regiments are Striker regiments. Given their similar roles, I would have though that the independent version of the Striker regiments, the Light Horse regiments, would have also been assigned LAMs.

For a long time, I've also had a vague recollection of the CAAN Regiments using a lot of LAMs, but not sure if that was from a canon source or not as I haven't stumbled across it again. Or I might be senile. Not sure.

[FedComGirl]

I can, and will. NO mercy for the unprepared.

 ;D

Oh, I get it! You prefer to RP cash-strapped units that are forced to combine fire support with AA duties!

Depends on my mood but I usually try to have a bit of everything. Canon wise though AA units are often used for fire support.

For my response to that, go back my my treatment of people who are unprepared. If you have to rely on your AA units for ground suppression, that's just as much your fault as not bringing any AA at all. Again, no mercy or pity. >:(

 O0

Incorrect. TW p119: "To determine which side of a ’Mech is hit, use the facing of a standing ’Mech’s feet to determine its front side, regardless of torso twist."

That's good to know. I was going by older rules.

Except by flipping, twisting, turret rotating or 360ing, you're not ignoring them, and they're all something you can do as a reaction. Ultimately you're still getting to shoot at an enemy unit, just that it's a LAM thataway, instead of the same LAM or another unit over there. Given that backstabbing is so often done at short range, in addition you're quite possibly going to get better target numbers vs the backstabbing LAM instead of the alternative target.

Yes.

Of course, the downside is that you're still getting a unit backstabbed, which is generally a bad thing for that unit (although intensely amusing when you get into position for a rear shot and you roll to hit arms and legs lol. The RNGods giveth and the RNGods taketh, with Murphy always waiting too.)

EDIT: I forgot to add that when it's custom LAMs, then the situation can change wildly. Rare is the custom LAM that doesn't have the speed, armor and a battery of SLs/MLs or their ER/Pulse kin, or sometimes SRMs, that make them a far more dangerous backstabber compared to the canon designs.

True and True.

Nothing that can't be achieved with standard light or medium 'Mechs, many of which can bring more firepower to the dance.  Hitting the enemy's rear isn't the sole domain of LAMs.

True. LAMs can just get behind them quicker and take advantage of more terrain.

You know, I always thought it would be a cold day in hell when I read something by sillybrit that I thought was wrong. Nearly so for Weirdo, too.

I'm still waiting for that to happen.

I actually agree that on a tactical level LAMs have a major disadvantage. FedComGirl is suggesting several excellent ways to mitigate that disadvantage, but as the Word of Blake found out, the disadvantage is a genuine issue. AA is a major, major threat (especially in the era of AA artillery, AA AC munitions, and the HAG).
There's simply no way to get around that.

Thanks. And the way around AA is to not be in the air like you say later on.

With that said, I don't think it detracts from the strategic applications of the LAM. While zipping from side of the map to the other is convenient, that's not what I mean when I say strategic. Nor, when I talk about hitting them in the rear, do I mean the rear armor of a front-line unit. I'm talking about moving fluidly from one zone of battle to another, using concentrating their numbers to fight lopsided battles, then fading away to avoid counterattack.

You can't hold a mass-and-maneuver battle line with a LAM anymore than you can in RL using modern helicopters (also an expensive and very fragile but very fast unit type) . But what you can do is throw your LAM force decisively into play, either on the main battle line in support of Mechs and vehicles that do hold the line (direct fire support), or in hit-and-fade attacks on soft strategic targets in the enemy rear zones. In other words, whereas you spread out your tanks and mechs to cover a front and protect from artillery, you keep your LAMs packed together so you can spam them in a very small area where they can concentrate their firepower on a very small number of units.

Now the point about AA is a good one, but to me it anticipates the answer to another natural question, "Isn't this what aerospace fighters are for?" After all, they have a high degree of strategic mobility, can hit the same kinds of targets, and bring far more maneuverability and firepower to the table than a LAM. Or, let's take VTOLs, far less effective than ASF's but capable of covering for two key ASF weaknesses: sustaining an attack on a map sheet and holding ground. Both are cheaper and better armed than LAMs. So why not just up your air power? And that's where AA comes in. Both unit types are highly vulnerable to it, and so are LAMs, but a LAM can convert to Mech mode and move in on the ground.

There it is. Being on the ground. And technically, the Airmech can walk and run. It's just slower. It's also smaller so it can take advantage of more terrain.

We're not talking about using LAMs to clear SAM Alley, but the kind of moderate SAM support that's enough to deter a strafing run or a VTOL assault isn't going to faze a LAM squadron.

Well, if a bunch of LAMs went in with the other air units and the converted to hit the SAMs on the ground, I think the AA units would have a problem. Ignore the LAMs and be attacked on the ground. Target the LAMs and be bombed and strafed.

There have been two attempts to use LAMs in canon. The Word of Blake tried to use them as a wonder weapon, a line of battle unit that would try to beat mechs and fighters at their own game-- and failed dismally. With the SLDF, I haven't seen any stories that feature LAMs in the Hegemony Campaign, but whether they were used effectively or not, they lost their viability in the general technological decline of the Succession Wars. To me, that's not an indictment of the LAM concept, just another case of "right weapon wrong doctrine" that we've seen throughout history.

I'm not sure about stories but there are examples of how they were used. Many of those examples taking place during the Succession Wars so LAMs were still viable. How often they were viably used is a different question. Like you said, "right weapon, wrong doctrine". Some of the time.

[sillybrit]

That's good to know. I was going by older rules.

You'd have to go back to BattleDroids in 1984 to find torso twisting effecting the hit location of incoming fire. Ever since the game became BattleTech in 1985, hit location has been judged by the direction of the feet, regardless of any torso twisting.

[FedComGirl]

You'd have to go back to BattleDroids in 1984 to find torso twisting effecting the hit location of incoming fire. Ever since the game became BattleTech in 1985, hit location has been judged by the direction of the feet, regardless of any torso twisting.

Huh.   ???  I started with Battletech Manual and that's how we played. Either they didn't explain correctly or they snuck in a house rule.   :-\

[Weirdo]

Happens to everyone. I'd actually been playing Battletech for many years before I learned that holding the high ground negates partial cover. Turns out the bit about 'mechs always getting cover from hills they're adjacent to(regardless of the other guy's elevation) was a house rule that my group had been using since long before I first joined, not an actual rule. :-[

We still play that way, but at least now I know what to expect when playing with other groups. O0

[mdauben]

Happens to everyone. I'd actually been playing Battletech for many years before I learned that holding the high ground negates partial cover. Turns out the bit about 'mechs always getting cover from hills they're adjacent to(regardless of the other guy's elevation) was a house rule that my group had been using since long before I first joined, not an actual rule. :-[

A number of years ago I gamed briefly with a new BT group I met at a local con.  The first game I played with them, it seemed every time I was ready to lay a good hit on one of their mechs, they'd pull some "house rule" out of their... ahem, and tell me I couldn't do that!   After a whole game of running afoul of one undocumented house rule after another (as far as I knew, they could have been making this stuff up on the spot) I packed up my mechs and found another group to play with.

House rules can be fun and help tailor the game to your groups taste, but you can't expect con goers or new memeber of the group to play them blind.   ::)

[mike19k]

Huh.   ???  I started with Battletech Manual and that's how we played. Either they didn't explain correctly or they snuck in a house rule.   :-\

Kind of fun seeing how many of these there are, and how many were house rules to "fix" something or just the group did not understand the rules. One of my old groups thought that flipping of arms was based on each arm, so you could flip one, even if the other was not allowed to (example unit like the Victor).