Going back to how much armor for the OP, something nasty like a Red Kite has only 62 armor. The turret is amazing, the speed is great, the weapons are great. But that 62 armor (Not including it turret its only 46) is so low, you can only take hits from 1 damage LBX fire a few times. SRMs, or infernos to the side, or even a few medium lasers will kill the vtol through the armor. For 835 BV, it would be better served with less ammo or 1 less gun and better armor.
Since I have the above limitation of 6 units, each unit is replacing a potential mech. So something with 46 armor on the main frame is worse then a dasher in terms of survivability. Now on the init sink vtols like the ferret or sprint, who dont see combat, then yeah I suppose you dont need armor if the goal is to spot in double blind from far away. But if its something like a Mantis, that weak armor of only 40 points means you die to a single 10 point hit in the flank. The mantis isnt a bad vtol, seeing how many vtols have even less then 40 armor, but its a liability in combat when flak/precision AC ammo and large pulse lasers/targeting computers are around providing accurate ground fire. Sending it in for a small laser strike means risking its death, though you can play it as an expensive init sink like a ferret and only commit it versus exposed enemies who cant shoot back.
With something longer ranged, you can kinda get away with less armor by using ranged sniping, which is the only reason the yellow jacket at a mere 56 armor gets a pass... its armor is good at trading long ranged gauss attacks versus ground based gauss platforms efficiently for the BV, and it can shoot outside of LB10x range.
I find the Mantis is optimized for something OTHER than ground attack-it's a good unit for killing other VTOLs, and really I don't consider it much use for any other role.
With your habitual restrictions, Devian, I wouldn't TAKE a VTOL. the advantages don't line up, not even for a Jellowbucket-there are other methods that, in my admittedly limited abilities, tend to work BETTER.
Did I mention I get bored quickly with static slugging fests?
The VTOL 'Problem' is that like most vehicles, your motive system is the biggest hit box you've got, means most incoming IS goig to the rotors, and unlike a Tank, losing those rotors means you don't even get to be a bunker.
a tank stalled on the hillside is still a bunker until the guns are silenced. Infantry can move through terrain that stops everything else, and can fort up in buildings, making up for their speed and firepowere deficiency and the sheer number of ways they can die if you have friendly terrain. There IS NO friendly terrain for a VTOL. With something slow in campaign, you want to be close to the ground, because you're going to be meeting it soon, and dead pilots don't advance. (falling from L1 or L2 is very much more survivable than falling from L5 to L11.)
In a phone booth map with limited force sizes, it's better to go with optimizing an average or even below-numbers force of 'mechs, than taking a VTOL of
any sort-as I've said before, a force optimized to make a Yellowjacket (or similar slow moving VTOL) useful, is generally better off without that VTOL than with it-you can buy better P/G skills, or run better 'mech designs that make its single trick
Irrelevant.Four or five 'mechs within your imposed BV limit works
better than having something like a Yellowjacket on the roster.
This is really because Combined Arms is more of a battle than a Duel. The rules you laid out? those are duelist rules, and nothing duels as well as 'mechs.
With VTOLs and other niche units, those are Campaign/Battle play, asymmetric and wide ranging because movement and objectives matter more than body count, and you can actually WIN a campaign battle or scenario without needing to rely on killing everything else on the map.
They're for VICTORY CONDITIONS fights.
but they don't really work particularly well in YOUR style of play (based on my observations) either-beaus as I said, slow VTOLs are something that you have to build your whole force around to make them useful, and at that point, you find out that force you just built, works better if you don't take the slow VTOL.
Try it, make the direct comparison, then reverse the armies and play against it with someone who
really wants to win. (Not Princess). I suspect you'll find whatever grouping you're using with your slow VTOLs? works even BETTR if you put that point value into Piloting or Gunnery, specialist munitions, or better configurations.
(I've 'initiative sunk' with FEWER units before, initiative sinking is nothing more or less than allocating your units to your best advantage and having a plan, even with the 'stock' initiative order.)
Some design philosophies, in MY experience, are points-legal and not very useful. IOW it's possible to build something that just...isnt' an asset without HEAVY handed restrictions on the scenario expressly built for the most part to make such units somewhat useful.
but again, that's MY experiences, and clearly not yours. It would be interesting to see what the difference is on the table in a head to head, or better, to see it tested out by people who don't habitually roll 2's and 3's more often than 8's and 9's. (I lose initiatives so often I had to develop tactics to DEAL WITH losing initiative on a constant basis. Part of my 'constant motion' is to force the other player to use his initiative advantage to REACT to me...instead of carrying out his own plans.)