Author Topic: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???  (Read 5659 times)

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7149
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« on: 21 March 2017, 02:28:53 »
So, I had one of those bizarre ideas tonight, and I got to thinking: how well would a Quetzalcoatl work as a base of operations for a unit of LAMs?  You have berths for up to twelve LAMs, plus 327 tons of cargo space.

Thoughts?
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

Sharpnel

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13414
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #1 on: 21 March 2017, 04:08:13 »
The Quetzacouatl should be sufficient for raids due to the limited cargo space.
Consigliere Trygg Bender, CRD-3BL Crusader, The Blazer Mafia
Takehiro 'Taco' Uchimiya, SHD-2H Shadow Hawk 'Taco', Crimson Oasis Trading Company

"Of what use is a dream, if not a blueprint for courageous action" -Adam West
As I get older, I realize that I'm not as good as I once was.
"Life is too short to be living someone else's dream" - Hugh Hefner

Frabby

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4252
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #2 on: 21 March 2017, 07:46:15 »
The Quetzalcoatl class is the worst fighter carrier ever.
It's really a stillborn design outside of extreme needs meeting unusual circumstances. The only reason for it to exist was that the CapCon apparently didn't have any domestic production of classic CV DropShips such as the Leopard CV or the Achilles, yet at the same time had a Scout with a wrecked hardpoint available.

As it's a JumpShip, the Quetzalcoatl cannot be used as a raider. It is not maneuverable enough to approach a planet, except perhaps by using some arcane near-orbit pirate jump point (in which case the probability to lose the craft in a misjump dramatically adds up over time).

If you're thinking space raider, well yes that could theoretically be done, but the Hamilcar DropShip already does it way better and any fighter carrier DropShip surpasses the Quetzalcoatl by leaps and bounds.
Sarna.net BattleTechWiki Admin
Author of the BattleCorps stories Feather vs. Mountain, Rise and Shine, Proprietary, Trial of Faith & scenario Twins

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7149
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #3 on: 21 March 2017, 09:57:56 »
By the time the Hamilcar exists, LAMs are essentially extinct, with the exception of the Jihad era Word of Blake.  You really only have three options for fighter carriers late Succession Wars: the Leopard CV, the Vengeance, and the Quetzalcoutl.
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

snewsom2997

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2187
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #4 on: 21 March 2017, 11:32:00 »
By the time the Hamilcar exists, LAMs are essentially extinct, with the exception of the Jihad era Word of Blake.  You really only have three options for fighter carriers late Succession Wars: the Leopard CV, the Vengeance, and the Quetzalcoutl.

Isn't there also a modified Union IIRC?

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7149
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #5 on: 21 March 2017, 12:07:57 »
Mentioned briefly in the Corsair entry in TR3025, but no official Union CV ever got published.

Of course, LAMs could use a standard Union just fine.
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

Frabby

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4252
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #6 on: 21 March 2017, 12:45:07 »
By the time the Hamilcar exists, LAMs are essentially extinct, with the exception of the Jihad era Word of Blake.  You really only have three options for fighter carriers late Succession Wars: the Leopard CV, the Vengeance, and the Quetzalcoutl.
But keep in mind that the Overlord carries six ASF bays on the sidelines, as much again as a Leopard CV. A Behemoth not only features a whopping 20 small craft bays, and the cargo space to keep 20 fighters or combat small craft fuelled, armed, and generally combat ready.
Sarna.net BattleTechWiki Admin
Author of the BattleCorps stories Feather vs. Mountain, Rise and Shine, Proprietary, Trial of Faith & scenario Twins

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40825
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #7 on: 21 March 2017, 13:21:22 »
A force of QuetzaLAMs would not be the most efficient way to deploy such forces by a long shot, but it definitely sounds like a lot of fun as a commerce or station raider. O0

You'd only need to deploy a couple such ships before the other guy would be forced to beef up his defenses around developed jump points, forcing him to thin out forces at other jump points and in-system, making it a bit easier for conventional raids to slip through.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7149
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #8 on: 21 March 2017, 13:27:50 »
But keep in mind that the Overlord carries six ASF bays on the sidelines, as much again as a Leopard CV.

Yeah, because as a battalion-level BattleMech transport, it's an extremely valuable strategic asset that needs its own air cover, whether it's the Third Succession War or the Clan Invasion. Yes, I could see potentially cramming LAMs into those bays, especially as LAMs increasingly become more rare and, therefore, another strategic asset you'd like to concentrate in one place, but I can't see one used solely as a LAM carrier unlike, say, the Hamilcar, which probably got stolen often enough by the Word of Blake for that role, but that came to late for everyone else.

Quote
A Behemoth not only features a whopping 20 small craft bays, and the cargo space to keep 20 fighters or combat small craft fuelled, armed, and generally combat ready.

Yeah, this strikes me as more attention than you want paid to your Behemoth, though, especially since it's a rare bulk transport DropShip, somewhat fragile, and prohibitively expensive. I could easily see using a LAM or two to supplement defenses and do double duty moving cargo around or even aiding external repairs like a flight-capable WorkMech, but it strikes me as a bad idea as either a static defense or raiding platform.

Quetzalcoatls, meanwhile, don't appear to be purpose-built much, if at all. They mainly seem to come from Scout-class DropShips that have had their docking collars break down instead.  While they're still JumpShips and, therefore, have some value, they've lost a great deal of their utility as transport JumpShips, and are probably considered more expendable than a Behemoth.  No doubt they're somewhat limited in where they can go, thanks to low acceleration and limited fuel bunkerage, but they can engage in the occasional pirate point assault, and probably work well as a jump point picket or commerce raider.
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7149
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #9 on: 21 March 2017, 14:01:14 »
A force of QuetzaLAMs would not be the most efficient way to deploy such forces by a long shot, but it definitely sounds like a lot of fun as a commerce or station raider. O0

You'd only need to deploy a couple such ships before the other guy would be forced to beef up his defenses around developed jump points, forcing him to thin out forces at other jump points and in-system, making it a bit easier for conventional raids to slip through.

Yep. Two ships I considered for the role are the Aquilla and the Quetzalcoatl.  The Explorer almost works, but is just too small, and limited in carry capacity.  The Quetzalcoutl seems to be perfect for a late Succession Wars pirate...erm, I mean commerce raider, while the Aquilla, thanks to either lacking DropShips entirely (XTRO version) or being limited to outdated DropShuttles (IO construction example) has capacity, is limited in its value as a commercial transport, but would still make a decent pirate.
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

Karimancer

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 106
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #10 on: 21 March 2017, 17:09:28 »
How effective would the LAMs themselves actually be? Don't LAMs have piss poor fuel endurance?

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12026
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #11 on: 21 March 2017, 17:33:13 »
How effective would the LAMs themselves actually be? Don't LAMs have piss poor fuel endurance?
they do. unless you spend tonnage on additional tankage (which none of the canon variants do) or a bomb bay to carry external tanks (which only two variants do, both of which need it for firepower) your limited to about a ton of internal fuel. which is good if your in atmosphere or just going from surface to orbit and vice versa, but is so limited in Delta-V for space use you can't really maneuver much.

a Quetzal is better thought of as a self deploying Defensive space station than a Carrier. it is all but immobile, and while it's fighters and smallcraft are good for patrolling a Jump Point, they will suck at anything else.

and LAM's just have too short of legs to be used to patrol a jump point.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40825
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #12 on: 21 March 2017, 20:47:55 »
If you're using this ship as an offensive tool, they just need to go as far as the jump point station(which we know stays close enough that JumpShips can get there reasonably quickly), or as far as other Jumpers at the point. Not that far at all.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

JenniferinaMAD

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 492
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #13 on: 22 March 2017, 07:48:56 »
I'm not really sure why you'd place LAMs on a jump ship. Even at .2g, is this thing fast enough to approach planets? Otherwise, wouldn't actual ASFs be a superior choice for its complement? If you're not getting near a planet, the mech and airmech modes are a waste.

I would base LAMs on Leopards myself. Due to the conversion ability, they're essentially removing the distinction between a standard and a CV Leopard, making telling the difference even harder for enemy tracking stations.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40825
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #14 on: 22 March 2017, 08:37:05 »
I'm not really sure why you'd place LAMs on a jump ship. Even at .2g, is this thing fast enough to approach planets? Otherwise, wouldn't actual ASFs be a superior choice for its complement? If you're not getting near a planet, the mech and airmech modes are a waste.

The mech mode is the whole point of using them in space. You use fighter mode to get past the station or JumpShip's fighter screen(fortunately, most heavy birds are likely stationed in ground support wings, so the stuff the LAMs will face won't outclass them too badly), get in the station's hex as quickly as possible, then transform to mech mode and land on the hull. The station can now do nothing, unless they have ground troops of their own to go out on the hull as well.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

I am Belch II

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10156
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #15 on: 22 March 2017, 09:54:47 »
Protect the jumpship was the plan of the Quetzalcoatl. The Jumpship was a sitting duck with out its dropship if another force came in.
Walking the fine line between sarcasm and being a smart-ass

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7149
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #16 on: 22 March 2017, 10:44:34 »
Protect other JumpShips, maybe. It's not going to be carrying DropShips of its own, after all.
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

Karimancer

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 106
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #17 on: 22 March 2017, 14:19:23 »
Protect other JumpShips, maybe. It's not going to be carrying DropShips of its own, after all.
Wait, Quetzals can't carry DropShips? Then what the hell is the point of them?

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40825
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #18 on: 22 March 2017, 14:40:00 »
To carry fighters, and thus have a combat force at a jump point.

The origins of the Quetzalcoatl-class was a Scout whose docking collar had been damaged somehow. The damage was not repairable, so they pulled it completely and filled the room with fighter bays so they could keep getting productive use out of what was otherwise a perfectly functional JumpShip.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Karimancer

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 106
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #19 on: 22 March 2017, 14:43:55 »
I guess I can see that. It's basically a hoopty, Succession Wars WarShip knockoff.

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7149
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #20 on: 22 March 2017, 16:21:16 »
Yep, that's exactly what it is.  Can you use it like an oversized Explorer class JumpShip, an even smaller ship with no docking collar and four shuttles?  Sure, and there's Battlecorps fiction, Echoes of the Void, where a Quetzalcoatl does exactly that, carrying multiple unidentified small craft.

The basic point of a Quetzalcoatl, though, is to have a warship knockoff during the Third or Fourth Succession War by turning it into a fighter carrier.
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8392
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #21 on: 23 March 2017, 04:52:58 »
Yeah, this strikes me as more attention than you want paid to your Behemoth, though, especially since it's a rare bulk transport DropShip, somewhat fragile, and prohibitively expensive. I could easily see using a LAM or two to supplement defenses and do double duty moving cargo around or even aiding external repairs like a flight-capable WorkMech, but it strikes me as a bad idea as either a static defense or raiding platform.
How good are LAM's in AirMech mode in space?

Quetzalcoatls, meanwhile, don't appear to be purpose-built much, if at all. They mainly seem to come from Scout-class DropShips that have had their docking collars break down instead.  While they're still JumpShips and, therefore, have some value, they've lost a great deal of their utility as transport JumpShips, and are probably considered more expendable than a Behemoth.  No doubt they're somewhat limited in where they can go, thanks to low acceleration and limited fuel bunkerage, but they can engage in the occasional pirate point assault, and probably work well as a jump point picket or commerce raider.
Wait, there's more then one of these?

Frabby

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4252
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #22 on: 23 March 2017, 06:27:42 »
Wait, there's more then one of these?
Although essentially a variant of the Scout, the Quetzalcoatl class is widely considered a class in its own right. Interstingly, the exact carrying capacity seems to vary between individual ships. As originally described, a Quetzalcoatl couldn't berth and deploy several small craft yet that's exactly what the Voidjumper III, explicitly described as a Quetzalcoatl-class vessel, does.
Sarna.net BattleTechWiki Admin
Author of the BattleCorps stories Feather vs. Mountain, Rise and Shine, Proprietary, Trial of Faith & scenario Twins

snewsom2997

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2187
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #23 on: 23 March 2017, 15:49:43 »
Although essentially a variant of the Scout, the Quetzalcoatl class is widely considered a class in its own right. Interstingly, the exact carrying capacity seems to vary between individual ships. As originally described, a Quetzalcoatl couldn't berth and deploy several small craft yet that's exactly what the Voidjumper III, explicitly described as a Quetzalcoatl-class vessel, does.

Since these are not factory builds I would expect some variation, but several small craft would simply weigh too much to have that and 12 ASFs.

Arkansas Warrior

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9210
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #24 on: 23 March 2017, 17:14:50 »
Although essentially a variant of the Scout, the Quetzalcoatl class is widely considered a class in its own right. Interstingly, the exact carrying capacity seems to vary between individual ships. As originally described, a Quetzalcoatl couldn't berth and deploy several small craft yet that's exactly what the Voidjumper III, explicitly described as a Quetzalcoatl-class vessel, does.
You can't fit a <100 ton small craft in a fighter bay?  I thought you could.
Sunrise is Coming.

All Hail First Prince Melissa Davion, the Patron Saint of the Regimental Combat Team, who cowed Dainmar Liao, created the Model Army, and rescued Robinson!  May her light ever guide the sons of the Suns, May our daughters ever endeavour to emulate her!

Karimancer

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 106
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #25 on: 23 March 2017, 17:18:48 »
Yes and no. While it may technically fit in a fighter bay, said fighter bay isn't really built to handle small craft. It's like how you can, technically, put a Mech in a vehicle bay (or vice versa), but it's not really built for it and makes things a pain in the ass for everyone involved.

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7149
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #26 on: 23 March 2017, 20:04:41 »
snewsom2997, you'd have small craft bays instead of fighter bays.
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12026
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #27 on: 23 March 2017, 20:44:53 »
IIRC the "defualt" quetzal pulled the small craft bay along with the docking collar when finding room for the fighters. though they also had to pull the cargo bay to fit the 1800 tons of fighter bays it would need.

i could see a version that say, dropped down to 6 fighters, kept the Scout's normal smallcraft bay, and added a few more smallcraft bays. such a variant would actually work very well as a customs enforcement platform for jump points, the smallcraft would allow it to perform inspections and boarding, etc. also would allow it to resupply easier in the field.

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7149
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #28 on: 23 March 2017, 21:10:20 »
Dropping 6 fighters gives room for 4 small craft and another 100 tons of supplies.  That would let you carry one fighter squadron, two boarding shuttles, a supply shuttle and one emergency shuttle.
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

snewsom2997

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2187
Re: Quetzalcoatl + LAMs = ???
« Reply #29 on: 27 March 2017, 12:58:10 »
snewsom2997, you'd have small craft bays instead of fighter bays.

Small Craft bays weigh more. You couldn't fit 12 on a Quetzalcaotl, maybe 6 tops.