Register Register

Author Topic: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs  (Read 2049 times)

CVB

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1468
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #30 on: 26 May 2022, 18:55:30 »
Although I could never understand

  • why the same bomb on an ASF hardpoints could withstand reentry
  • why an ASF needed quirks to include a bomb bay, but a LAM didn't
  • why a LAM could mount a bomb bay but no cargo bay, while
  • an ASF could mount a cargo bay, but no bomb bay (w/o quirks)





"Wars result when one side either misjudges its chances or wishes to commit suicide; and not even Masada began as a suicide attempt. In general, both warring parties expect to win. In the event, they are wrong more than half the time."
- David Drake

I'm willing to suspend my disbelief, but I'm not willing to hang it by the neck until it's dead, dead, dead!

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25111
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #31 on: 26 May 2022, 19:07:31 »
That's a pretty short list of existing inconsistecies...  ^-^

Lazarus Sinn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 205
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #32 on: 26 May 2022, 21:45:34 »
I simply press my imaginary "I Believe" button and accept the rules as they are written. That is unless I disagree with them. Then I make my own rules. That is the beauty of the game.

As far as LAMs go, I play them by the canon rules with the understanding they have a sort of niche role. My first character was a LAM pilot and I played him for years under the MW1e rules. I knew he could not go toe to toe with either a fighter or a BattleMech of the same weight class and adjusted my tactics accordingly. It was a lot of fun for all.
Foolish consistencies are the hobgoblins of little minds.

dgorsman

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1749
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #33 on: 27 May 2022, 09:52:54 »
Even shorter than that - from memory, you cannot go through re-entry with external ordnance even with aerospace fighters.  At the very least there is a control roll penalty based on the number of external ordnance critical hits.
Think about it.  It's what we do.
- The Society

Thunder LRMs: the gift that keeps on giving.  They're the glitter of the BattleTech universe.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11749
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #34 on: 27 May 2022, 10:10:27 »
The rules at one point did completely forbid ASFs from re-entry with external ordinance and trying would do bad things to said ASF.

Nowadays there is a little more flexibility in that regard but thanks to LAMs carrying bombs internally they have a couple ways to actually be able to carry more munitions than ASFs of the same mass.

DOC_Agren

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3368
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #35 on: 27 May 2022, 13:55:44 »
As far as LAMs go, I play them by the canon rules with the understanding they have a sort of niche role. My first character was a LAM pilot and I played him for years under the MW1e rules. I knew he could not go toe to toe with either a fighter or a BattleMech of the same weight class and adjusted my tactics accordingly. It was a lot of fun for all.
That something that some just don't get, that LAMs were the master of nothing, but make a nice "Spec Ops" drop in/hit target/then get away unit.

Honestly I never expected to get this much feedback to my question, so thanks all who have chimed in...  I expected we will hear more.
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed:And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!"

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25111
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #36 on: 27 May 2022, 15:24:31 »
'Mechs in general are spec ops platforms, but LAMs take it to 11.  Being able to drop from space is a special ability all its own.

DOC_Agren

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3368
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #37 on: 27 May 2022, 16:03:19 »
'Mechs in general are spec ops platforms, but LAMs take it to 11.  Being able to drop from space is a special ability all its own.
8) that not what makes it special, what makes it special is the ability to return to space all on its own.   :thumbsup:
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed:And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!"

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25111
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #38 on: 27 May 2022, 16:07:20 »
That's the "11" I was referring to...  ^-^

Maingunnery

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6398
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #39 on: 27 May 2022, 17:17:12 »
But if there is nobody in orbit to pick them up then it really does not matter.  ;)
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

Fan XTRO: The Society
Nebula Confederation Ships

Syzyx

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 498
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #40 on: 27 May 2022, 19:03:47 »
Well, now we know the story behind the 31st century remake of Major Tom.
But as a matter of fact I was quite busy getting potty-trained at the time and had no time for interstellar politics.- ykonoclast

Lazarus Sinn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 205
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #41 on: 27 May 2022, 21:16:22 »
That something that some just don't get, that LAMs were the master of nothing, but make a nice "Spec Ops" drop in/hit target/then get away unit.

Honestly I never expected to get this much feedback to my question, so thanks all who have chimed in...  I expected we will hear more.

I makes for a phenomenal command Mech. You can be wherever you need to be right now. I was also able to always take advantage of exposed flanks or unguarded supply dumps and convoys. It forced our enemies to keep more combat assets in a static defense or escort role to keep me at bay, which in turn left them with less to take to the fild in engagements.

Used properly it can be a force multiplier by reducing what an enemy can use unless they want to risk unguarded rear areas. This effectively gives you more units to use against them.
Foolish consistencies are the hobgoblins of little minds.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25111
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #42 on: 28 May 2022, 04:49:05 »
The epitome of maneuver warfare!  8)

DOC_Agren

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3368
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #43 on: 28 May 2022, 12:18:29 »
But if there is nobody in orbit to pick them up then it really does not matter.  ;)
If we've lost out dropship    :-X  ... then we touch back down got to the ground as "Rebels" until we can get "transport"
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed:And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!"

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25111
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #44 on: 28 May 2022, 14:02:47 »
LAMs can evade pretty much forever...  8)

Iceweb

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 725
  • Lyran Engineer
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #45 on: 30 May 2022, 10:51:22 »
I makes for a phenomenal command Mech.

That is actually an interesting idea.  Does any one know if a command console is legal to mount on a LAM?

The only other theater type equipment I can think of would be multiple tons of communication equipment.  Which is a bad idea no matter how you slice it. 

I'm also not sure if the initiative boosting gear works in non mech mode.  Air mech might be viable, but fighter mode with a command console might not have an effect. 
Any one know for sure? 

Oh ammo question on LAMs.  Since it is a mech it can load specialty ammo right?  But Fighters can't use anything but default ammo (or ART IV)
What happens if I load infernos or tandem charge ammo into my LAM and it streaks off to the sky to dogfight?

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1417
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #46 on: 31 May 2022, 09:18:40 »
Command Console requires an additiona critical hit slot. LAMs may not use torso-mounted cockpits and cockpits that requires additional critical hit slots.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11749
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #47 on: 31 May 2022, 09:57:26 »
That is actually an interesting idea.  Does any one know if a command console is legal to mount on a LAM?

Already answered but as an addendum there is also an avionics critical that must be assigned to the head on a LAM so the head is too crit packed anyway for a Command Console.

Quote
The only other theater type equipment I can think of would be multiple tons of communication equipment.  Which is a bad idea no matter how you slice it. 

I'm also not sure if the initiative boosting gear works in non mech mode.  Air mech might be viable, but fighter mode with a command console might not have an effect. 
Any one know for sure?

I'll have to check that when I get to books again.

Quote
Oh ammo question on LAMs.  Since it is a mech it can load specialty ammo right?  But Fighters can't use anything but default ammo (or ART IV)
What happens if I load infernos or tandem charge ammo into my LAM and it streaks off to the sky to dogfight?

Specialty ammunition is not allowed on LAMs.  I specifically asked about this in a rules question and the answer was that there is also the additional consideration that it must be legal on ASF and Industrial Mechs too.  ASF specifically prohibit specialty ammunition other than Artemis and Cluster is considered standard ammunition for LB-X.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25111
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #48 on: 31 May 2022, 20:09:46 »
Silly counterpoint... are "Small Cockpits" mountable on LAMs?  Because if they are, you can cram in that Command Console...  ^-^

Syzyx

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 498
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #49 on: 31 May 2022, 20:17:50 »
Small cockpits are allowed, but isn't the command console its own type of cockpit?
But as a matter of fact I was quite busy getting potty-trained at the time and had no time for interstellar politics.- ykonoclast

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25111
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #50 on: 31 May 2022, 20:50:03 »
I'm less sure about that point... I can only hope it works!  :thumbsup:

Lazarus Sinn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 205
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #51 on: 31 May 2022, 21:46:23 »
This was back in the late 80s and early 90s. We did not have all of the detailed rules that exist today. We just added 1-ton of "Command & Decision and Communications" equipment to make a Mech/Vehicle/ASF a command unit.

This equipment was to handle the extra comms channels and extra computing power needed to aid a commander with coordinating a unit. For this all units under the commander's control received a+1 to initiative rolls because they were receiving tactical info and direction from the commander.

Foolish consistencies are the hobgoblins of little minds.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3384
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #52 on: 10 June 2022, 22:05:25 »
There are a lot of inconsistencies with LAMs that really bug me. Many of which have been pointed out like already. Many of the restrictions feel like they only exist just to nerf LAMs. LAMs can't carry cargo but bombs are okay?  ???

The arguments about no equipment in multiple locations doesn't make a lot of sense either. Sure I can agree with no XL Engines and other continuous crit items like weaposn not being split between locations. Then it isn't just the LAM that's converting but the equipment too. However, Structure and Myomer already cross multiple locations. And MASC and TSM confine their bulk to a single location. Why not do that for other items as long as they'd fit? Not all Armor and Structure types take 14 or more critical slots. Plus packing them in a single location is a kind of nerf in itself, so why not? As for locations shifting about so there isn't room for bulky items, sometimes weight is enough of a penalty. Conversion Systems do take 10-15% of the LAMs weight but if bulk is needed, why not have it take a couple conversion slots?.

Then there's things like Avionics, Landing Gear, and Fuel. The first two systems occupy slots in three different locations. The third can can be in as many locations as tonnage and space permit. All three only operate in Fighter Mode. They're crit padding or bombs in the other two modes. Of course there's things we take for granted like weapons. Ammo doesn't have to be in the same location as the weapon. Power lines are also running all over providing energy where needed, so why not allow items that are spread over multiple locations to work even if only in one or two modes? 

Why not allow a command console if a small cockpit is used? There's a free slot. Why make it illegal?

Why not allow LAMs to carry things externally? Right now they can't even pick up and carry cargo in AirMech mode. Which not only goes against their original fluff but aircraft can carry external items and every other unit can use cargo nets. They can also carry things internally so why not LAMs?

And of course there's OMNI Technology. If QuadVees can use it why not LAMs? Speaking of which, why not legal Quad LAMs?

Really there's a lot of tech that could be or used to be available but has been taken away, not so much because of the lawsuit but more I believe to complaints of munchkinism. A valid problem but one that exists for all units. But LAMs get Nerfed. And the targeting modifiers because AirMechs are so fast... :bang:

Really, I am okay with some of the tech restrictions. I'm okay with not using an XL Engine in a LAM or splitting an AC/20 between torso and arm locations. I'm even okay with confining some bulk to a single location but that should apply to all similar items. Likewise items split between locations that only work in one mode. If some items can do that all similar items should.

As for all the fluff nonsense about only the SLDF having the funds to develop LAMs, they didn't develop any. Private manufactures did. The SLDF bought them, or not. It's no different than a country putting out a bid for a new tank or fighter and private companies putting in their designs in hopes of winning the contract. Plus the WoB not only developed three brand new LAMs, with variants, but some how obtained and refurbished and upgraded nearly every LAM in the IS, as well as brought back lost variants. I doubt their pockets were as deep as the SLDFs but the had more LAM types. Not only that but there's some mechs that cost as much as a lance of LAMs so needing a carpet bag of money wasn't necessary. 

Don't get me wrong. I don't mind LAMs being rare and between Comstar and the Succession Wars I can totally see LAM production falling but LAMs should never have gone extinct. With all the new factories and upgrades after the Third Succession War, LAMs should have seem new production, even if limited to a handful a year.

Fortyone

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 218
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #53 on: 14 June 2022, 19:15:56 »
Because if a lot of the advanced equipment types were usable by LAMs, why would anyone build anything but LAMs? They would strategically invalidate the battlemech.

Also, games would devolve into one player flying off the map until the other got into the air, then landing until the other guy got on the ground, ad nauseam. A 1v1 game could take days to play.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25111
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #54 on: 14 June 2022, 19:19:10 »
You can do that with DropShips too...  ^-^

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3384
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #55 on: 14 June 2022, 20:51:34 »
Because if a lot of the advanced equipment types were usable by LAMs, why would anyone build anything but LAMs? They would strategically invalidate the battlemech.

Also, games would devolve into one player flying off the map until the other got into the air, then landing until the other guy got on the ground, ad nauseam. A 1v1 game could take days to play.


Not really. The biggest weight saving item is still XL and XXL Engines which LAMs can't use and I have no problem with. Without these engine types you're not going to get a LAM to hit speeds of 40 hexes without converting to FighterMode. And ASFs are still death to LAMs. AirMech Mode and  FighterMode are still effected by AA as well so even if the LAM used AirMech or Fighter Modes to catch said really fast mech, there's all kinds of counters against it.

Other items are dependent on crit space. If the rules for lumping all the crits into one location is applied to all such items, the list of those items is still very small and generally not available in most eras. That really narrows down what the LAM can be equipped with. Everything else would only function in one mode or two modes limiting their usefulness. And with AirMech Mode, anything physical is half of what it would be in full Mech Mode, so Mech Mode would still be better for that.  Plus the advanced equipment isn't going to shorten the time it takes to train a LAM pilot. So LAMs aren't going to strategically invalidate Mechs. If anything, Mechs are cutting into LAM's strategic importance.

And again, Fighters and AA items. LAMs in Fighter and AirMech Modes don't like them.

DOC_Agren

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3368
Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Reply #56 on: 14 June 2022, 21:16:12 »
Because if a lot of the advanced equipment types were usable by LAMs, why would anyone build anything but LAMs? They would strategically invalidate the battlemech.

Also, games would devolve into one player flying off the map until the other got into the air, then landing until the other guy got on the ground, ad nauseam. A 1v1 game could take days to play.
Not sure how that would work, if you objective is get in raid factory XF40 and either capture "magicmuffin" or destroy it.  The attack team only has so long to complete mission before reinforcements arrive.  Those AC2 Carriers looking for Golden BB AA shot. 

Now your idea works you now have 2 well trained units, because no government should send out Green LAM Pilots into combat, hunting each other on a planet with no "Base" or "Dropships" to return too.


"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed:And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!"

 

Register