Role for Non-PWS Assault Dropships

[nerd]

Question for the big brains of the Aerospace side of the house: What role do Assault Dropships that are not equipped with Subcapital Weapons or Capital missiles play in combat?

I can see a role for the ones equipped with extensive fighter bays fairly easily, as well as space for marines. But the small ones, like the Avenger and Claymore, how would those operate?

[AlphaMirage]

Smaller assault dropships are orbital fighter killers and long range dropship interceptors mostly. I wrote some stuff about them in my Guide to Warships. They can also be used to attack lesser warships such as corvette class ones with high acceleration but not a lot of firepower

[Jellico]

Large DropShips are hugely inefficient. Ships like the Noruff remain the most effective anti-ship platforms per ton in the game.

Honestly it is hard to justify anything over 5k tons. Nagasawa is a good example of a small ship designed to operate in front of capital weapons. The armor requirement is the only reason it is that big.

[Daryk]

Another role the original "assault" dropships were supposed to fill was landing closer to actual targets (the Fortress with its installed artillery was probably the best example of that).

[Alan Grant]

ASFs give you the best ton for ton strike firepower. But they go out and come back and then they need to rearm, refuel and so on, pilots get exhausted too. Assault Dropships give you less firepower but better long range sensors, better ECM coverage, longer flight endurance and can just stay on the task or mission longer.

Regardless of the actual firepower the assault dropship carries, they make amazing sensor craft and ECM platforms. If you dig into the rules you'll find they create a big ECM umbrella around themselves and anything flying with them.

In space a really effective mission package is to pair up an assault dropship with a number of ASFs. The dropship provides ECM coverage for the whole group, and long range sensors for the whole group. Once the ASF pilots are exhausted and out of fuel and need to land, that dropship continues to be available and useful.

[Daryk]

That sounds like "Assault Carrier" would be a good role... 

[Alan Grant]

The nice thing about applying something like an Avenger, Claymore, Merlin, etc. to this role is that its expendable.

It's supporting the ASFs or protecting the transports, you can afford and are willing to pay the price of losing the assault dropship if it means the other asset survives.

For that reason it's helpful to have some dropships like this around for space battles. Where no one is depending on them to be a significant carrier or transport in any way.

[Hellraiser]

The nice thing about applying something like an Avenger, Claymore, Merlin, etc. to this role is that its expendable.

It's supporting the ASFs or protecting the transports, you can afford and are willing to pay the price of losing the assault dropship if it means the other asset survives.

For that reason it's helpful to have some dropships like this around for space battles. Where no one is depending on them to be a significant carrier or transport in any way.

I am sort of in this camp.

The other thing to consider is if the speeds match up, doesn't the DS provide better ECM coverage for a fighter group in the same hex?   (I think this is the way the rules work?)

The 5/8 Titan would match well with a Heavy Fighter Group  (or Slower Mediums)
While the 7/11-8/12 Avenger/Achilles work well with "Fast Medium" fighters

Don't want your vengeance to get pasted by Warship fire?

Send in the fighter wings w/ an Avenger Escort.

[Daryk]

The cheaper the better for the pure AWACS (with teeth) role...

[idea weenie]

The nice thing about applying something like an Avenger, Claymore, Merlin, etc. to this role is that its expendable.

It's supporting the ASFs or protecting the transports, you can afford and are willing to pay the price of losing the assault dropship if it means the other asset survives.

For that reason it's helpful to have some dropships like this around for space battles. Where no one is depending on them to be a significant carrier or transport in any way.

For me the problem with using a Dropship for an offensive platform is that each PWS takes up a docking collar, so they would be the lead of the offensive force rather than the primary striking force.  You will need more Jumpships to carry these extra Dropships, but since they are being used for min invasions that should be part of the planning.  They do have very impressive firepower for their size (the Avenger is almost the same firepower as an Overlord, a ~10k transport Dropship), so might be used initially as test-beds, since they range in mass from 1400-2500 tons.

The ideal use for these small Dropships would be compact core vessels carrying them in Dropshuttle bays.  They are small enough that the 5 kton limit is not an issue, and allow larger Dropships to be carried on Docking collars.


Now as a defensive unit, these would be used exactly as you describe.  A planet can receive the PWS as freight and a (large) Machine Shop would be used to assemble/prep them.  There is no DS collar limit for a planet, so even though they would take up room, planetary hangars are likely cheaper than Docking Collars.


Sarna references:
Avenger
Claymore
Merlin

[glitterboy2098]

the smaller assault dropships, that aren't carriers? those are PWS hunters.

assault dropships during the succession wars were for killing other dropships. this hasn't really changed. while PWS's are better for fighting warships, assault dropships still have their old role in taking down transport dropships, and a new one in harrassing and killing PWS's.

the smallest ones also have a role as fire support for fighter units against other fighter units.

[Colt Ward]

ASFs give you the best ton for ton strike firepower. But they go out and come back and then they need to rearm, refuel and so on, pilots get exhausted too. Assault Dropships give you less firepower but better long range sensors, better ECM coverage, longer flight endurance and can just stay on the task or mission longer.

Regardless of the actual firepower the assault dropship carries, they make amazing sensor craft and ECM platforms. If you dig into the rules you'll find they create a big ECM umbrella around themselves and anything flying with them.

In space a really effective mission package is to pair up an assault dropship with a number of ASFs. The dropship provides ECM coverage for the whole group, and long range sensors for the whole group. Once the ASF pilots are exhausted and out of fuel and need to land, that dropship continues to be available and useful.

Best analogy I can think of is ASF are fighters and Assault DS are PT boats . . . which makes some sense since the space combat is based on WWII fighter combat with a few exceptions.  So while your fighters are the combatants, Assault DS are the gunships that take up normal patrolling duties like PT boats did in the island chains- and just like fighters, they are expendable.

[Alan Grant]

I can kinda see that. It's a decent analogy. You could also replace PT boat with navy destroyer and land in about the same place. WW2 destroyers were very expendable (and a lot were expended) and served a lot of the workhorse functions like convoy and taskforce escort and patrol. But they struggled against attacking aircraft.

I saw this on another thread and it clicked for me. ASFs are short range interceptors, assault dropships are long range interceptors.

[Hellraiser]

assault dropships are long range interceptors.

I can see that.  They are also your system patrol ships really.
Something like an Achilles or Leopard-CV are solid ships to patrol a large solar system area & act as interdictors v/s just being local area patrol like fighters attached to a space station.

[Colt Ward]

I can see that.  They are also your system patrol ships really.
Something like an Achilles or Leopard-CV are solid ships to patrol a large solar system area & act as interdictors v/s just being local area patrol like fighters attached to a space station.

Which is why I said patrol ships . . . the long range interceptors would IMO be Lyonis, Aquarius and Condottiere . .

Or maybe they are the PT boat equivalent since they can patrol for a couple of weeks at most, while you could send a assault DS out to patrol a system's moons & asteroids for a couple of months, like a sub/corvette/frigate/destroyer/destroyer escort.  The analogy breaks down there b/c of the vessel's range, though even the PT boats with proper refueling could hop island chains.

Honestly, why would you not have a assault dropship patrolling other worlds' orbits in the Hesperus system?  Especially orbital bodies (say like gas giants w/planetoid moons)  that could frequently generate pirate points?

I think it comes down to PWS are substitute line combatants and are built around that purpose.  Assault dropships would be built for more general purpose use- customs, sensor platform, boarding operations, and combat support.

[Daryk]

Don't forget where the name "Destroyer' came from: "PT Boat Destroyer"... 

[Wrangler]

I have to agree with her one above that essentially as far as in system ships the avenger the Achilles among others are effective platforms as far as non-capital weapon ships go.

3085 updates Old is the new new had some of best updates for dropships.  Interdictor and better yet Dragau are potential hammers. The Republic Border fleet was well armed force in the beginning, is largely disappeared after  3134. The designs were great. Dragau II stands out begin interceptor like dropships that wants to be a fighter without PWS subcaps. If u can manage find one.

[Cannonshop]

Manned missiles, because ramming is the new black.

Standard assault droppers combine fighter weapons with dropship performance at fighter levels of armor but near-warship levels of vulnerability.  This mainly makes them effective against unescorted jumpships, or as a means of ramming other dropships.

because Ramming is KEWL (never mind that it's not survivable).

all the kewl kidz (except Wolf, because they're perfect) use it as their 'go-to'.

On a more practical note, they're basically good for pulling over unaccompanied jumpships, or civilian dropships.  Against anything with actual weapons, you need either a decent fighter complement (Titan, Vengeance, etc.) or you need subcaps/capital guns, because dropships are big, and fragile when they aren't rocking capital-scale armor.  (Speed doesn't help you in aerospace combat under TW or AT2 rules, and most AD's are really pretty slow, only a few of them have any turn of speed at all).

Best applied as a means to either give you the ability to move Aerofighters (Carriers) or as a means to dispose of that annoying cousin's sister's stepbrother who can't hold a job so you enlist him in the Navy and put him on one in hopes he'll ram something and die.

[Jellico]

Wait what?

For starters the Wolves had an entire class of DropShips based around suicidally ramming stuff, and they still fudged it up at a game rule and physics level.

"DropShip" performance? The slowest assault ship mentioned has been a Merlin and that is 6/9. I guess you can point to a Fortress or an Intruder which have been know to pull assault duty.

Finally "speed" is hugely important. High thrust let's you close into conventional weapon range in a turn or two, then slow yourself down to stay there, dancing around an opponent. Heck, a truly quick ship like an Achillies can dance with heavy fighters, using burn, turn, and evade to even overcome a DropShip's initiative limitations. High thrust and evasion allows DropShips to perform in a close ECM role for fighter squadrons.

I generally agree about the weapon and armor limitations. There are roles assault DropShips are better at and worse at than others. But I am not sure where you are getting your physical descriptions from.

[Cannonshop]

Wait what?

For starters the Wolves had an entire class of DropShips based around suicidally ramming stuff, and they still fudged it up at a game rule and physics level.

"DropShip" performance? The slowest assault ship mentioned has been a Merlin and that is 6/9. I guess you can point to a Fortress or an Intruder which have been know to pull assault duty.

Finally "speed" is hugely important. High thrust let's you close into conventional weapon range in a turn or two, then slow yourself down to stay there, dancing around an opponent. Heck, a truly quick ship like an Achillies can dance with heavy fighters, using burn, turn, and evade to even overcome a DropShip's initiative limitations. High thrust and evasion allows DropShips to perform in a close ECM role for fighter squadrons.

I generally agree about the weapon and armor limitations. There are roles assault DropShips are better at and worse at than others. But I am not sure where you are getting your physical descriptions from.

'

I was trotting out the usual stereotypes.  (I wasn't being serious), though I wasn't kidding about the way we usually see them used whenever they're on screen in the canon (as manned missiles and vulnerable targets instead of effective combatants).

[DevianID]

As an aside, since PT boats were mentioned--we do have PT boats equals in small craft.  Small craft with internal bomb bays can carry 6 anti-ship missiles and fire them all at once, for 36 tons of cargo.  The Mowang has a 10 ton internal bomb bay, good for 1 Alamo, for example.  As small craft, they vastly outpace fighter endurance, and with a 6 'torpedoes' they threaten ships of vastly larger size.  Ships like the avenger would fit a destroyer role well, as they can defeat small craft without risking a heavier ship.  Also, dropshuttles aren't compatible with dropships with docking collars--and dropshuttle bays are VERY expensive in their own right, so there is no good transport option for swarms of dropships.  Small Craft fill that role however, as you can load an absurd number of small craft into 1 docking collar.

The Rocinante is a good example of what a combat small craft kitted to be a torpedo boat could look like, since it roughly matches up with a 200 ton spheroid small craft, and has a length and crew requirement in keeping with other btech small craft dimensions.  A btech version would mount 8 antimissile systems and an internal bay for torpedoes--a selection of Alamo, Antiship missiles, or Air Defense Arrow missiles to fill the cargo bay would give mission diversity depending on what level of attack is needed.

[HobbesHurlbut]

Don't forget where the name "Destroyer' came from: "PT Boat Destroyer"... 

Correction Torpedo Boat Destroyer. not Patrol Torpedo Boat Destroyer. Before "destoyers" there were torpedo boats and the destroyer evolved from beefed up torpedo boats that had "more" guns.

[Hellraiser]

As an aside, since PT boats were mentioned--we do have PT boats equals in small craft.  Small craft with internal bomb bays can carry 6 anti-ship missiles and fire them all at once, for 36 tons of cargo.  The Mowang has a 10 ton internal bomb bay, good for 1 Alamo, for example.  As small craft, they vastly outpace fighter endurance, and with a 6 'torpedoes' they threaten ships of vastly larger size.  Ships like the avenger would fit a destroyer role well, as they can defeat small craft without risking a heavier ship.  Also, dropshuttles aren't compatible with dropships with docking collars--and dropshuttle bays are VERY expensive in their own right, so there is no good transport option for swarms of dropships.  Small Craft fill that role however, as you can load an absurd number of small craft into 1 docking collar.

The Rocinante is a good example of what a combat small craft kitted to be a torpedo boat could look like, since it roughly matches up with a 200 ton spheroid small craft, and has a length and crew requirement in keeping with other btech small craft dimensions.  A btech version would mount 8 antimissile systems and an internal bay for torpedoes--a selection of Alamo, Antiship missiles, or Air Defense Arrow missiles to fill the cargo bay would give mission diversity depending on what level of attack is needed.

I don't recognize these names, Are these canon smallcraft?

Either way, I'm not imagining a Vengeance the size of a Colossus packing nothing but Small Craft bays designed to clear a path through a Warship.

Which is funny since I was working on something almost like that but it had like 50/50 ASF to SC ratio.

[Colt Ward]

Rocinante is Expanse, but the other I do not know either.

[Weirdo]

Mowang is a canon small craft, from Handbook Liao.

There is no indication whatsoever that its cargo bay is bomb-capable.

[Daryk]

All it takes is an agreement to apply the Internal Bomb Bay quirk,

[DevianID]

The Mowang Clandestine in TRO Most Wanted has the 10 ton internal bomb bay quirk, good for 1 Alamo missile or 10 rocket pods or a few large fuel air bombs.

[Giovanni Blasini]

Wouldn’t a 10-ton bomb bay be good for 2 Alamos?  The Alamo is 5 tons.

[Liam's Ghost]

The bomb bay quirk requires one ton for every bomb slot the munition would normally occupy.

[Daryk]

IO, page 175 does state Alamos require 10 bomb slots.  But it goes on to say:

Construction Rules: Type II/Alamo nuclear ordnance is treated as
a 5-ton bomb that can be carried either in internalized bomb bays
of equal or greater size, or on external hardpoints such as those
that conventional and aerospace fighters automatically possess.
Beyond this, Type II nuclear munitions have no further impact on
unit construction.

So, praise the lord and pass the Alamos! 

[Wrangler]

IO, page 175 does state Alamos require 10 bomb slots.  But it goes on to say:

So, praise the lord and pass the Alamos! 

So the rules are conflicting or is IO info from previous book?

[Daryk]

I don't think that conflicts... for whatever reason, they take 10 hard points, but only 5-tons of internal bay.  There seems to be something "special" about Alamos...

[Giovanni Blasini]

That seems to be the case for a lot of external ordnance, where external hard points are treated as having a half-ton capacity.  Makes me wonder how LAM internal bomb bays are handled, and if the WSP-100 Wasp LAM can indeed carry one Alamo in its 5-ton internal bomb bay.

[Maingunnery]

That seems to be the case for a lot of external ordnance, where external hard points are treated as having a half-ton capacity.  Makes me wonder how LAM internal bomb bays are handled, and if the WSP-100 Wasp LAM can indeed carry one Alamo in its 5-ton internal bomb bay.

LAM internal bomb bays are generally a raw deal, but this might be an special exception made for the WSP-100 Wasp LAM?

[Giovanni Blasini]

LAM internal bomb bays are generally a raw deal, but this might be an special exception made for the WSP-100 Wasp LAM?

OK, looks like LAMs are limited by tonnage, not by bomb slots.  Here are some rules questions/answers on this specific point:

Re: Fighters and Hard Points (Answered)  and the follow-up reply here.

Though there's also this post here:

LAM Bomb Bays Question

And this question on internal bomb bays in general.

So it sounds like it needs both the tonnage available in your bomb bay and, for LAMs, the number of critical slots, since the Interstellar Operations rules makes clear that 1 ton of bomb bay = 1 slot of bomb capacity.

Now, here's where things get interesting: Alamo munitions aren't 10 tons: they're 5 tons, at least in my copy of IO (page 175), and since 1 ton of bomb = 1 slot, that means that, unless otherwise directed, the Alamo does, indeed, fit in a WSP-100, and a DropShip with a 50-ton bomb bay should be able to carry 10 Alamos, in theory.

[Daryk]

Sounds right to me! 

[Wrangler]

That's a lot of can sunshine waiting to happen if a DropShip with 50-ton bomb bay drops it's payload.

[Daryk]

It certainly gives new meaning to the Avenger's 93 ton dual-use cargo bay... 

[Jellico]

I see your Avenger's 93 tons and raise you a Gorgon's 1000 tons.

[Weirdo]

I see your Avenger's 93 tons and raise you a Gorgon's 1000 tons.

And actually possessing the quirk all of this revolves around.

[Daryk]

So who read the Avenger's fluff and DIDN'T give it the quirk?

[Colt Ward]

Or actions in fiction IIRC . . . have the old dropships even been gotten to?

[Weirdo]

So who read the Avenger's fluff and DIDN'T give it the quirk?

Me. My personal policy is that nothing gets any quirks until explicitly given them by a published source. As a result, the vast majority of spacecraft are quirkless for the time being.

I definitely don't give anything Internal Bomb Bay without official confirmation, given how powerful that one is. At this point, I think that's only the Gorgon and Torrent.

[Daryk]

Given the current focus of TPTB, I fear it will be some time before quirks are given to the older units... 

[Weirdo]

Time gave us Marauders and WarShip AS cards. I can wait.

[Jellico]

Stop encouraging me to give the Sov Soy a bomb bay quirk.

[Cannonshop]

Stop encouraging me to give the Sov Soy a bomb bay quirk.

Why stop there? you KNOW you want to give a Leviathan a Bomb Bay.

 

[Hellraiser]

I really need to get to my books.

DS/JS mentions a bomb bay but I don't recall it being multi-purpose with the Cargo Bay & Sarna even says sometimes they carry Marines too which I also don't recall from any Avenger TRO fluff.

[glitterboy2098]

That's a lot of can sunshine waiting to happen if a DropShip with 50-ton bomb bay drops it's payload.

rules wise they can still only drop 6 bombs per hex. and with no rules for bombs heavier than 1 ton, that limits them.

i'm not sure how the 6 bombs per hex thing interacts with alternate non-bomb munitions that use more than one bomb slot/ton each, like Arrow IV and the AAM's.

so the main advantage of such a large bay being used for bombs during the star league and succession wars is you can either perform a ton of strike missions without having to return to reload, or conduct level bombing runs several kilometers long.

and once rocket pods exist, one heck of a huge Itano circus..

[Giovanni Blasini]

Me. My personal policy is that nothing gets any quirks until explicitly given them by a published source. As a result, the vast majority of spacecraft are quirkless for the time being.

I definitely don't give anything Internal Bomb Bay without official confirmation, given how powerful that one is. At this point, I think that's only the Gorgon and Torrent.

We’re probably going to have to wait for “Technical Readout 3057: Re-Revised (We Really Mean It This Time)”, which I suspect is a super high priority.  Alternatively some Tech Readout with new versions of all those ships built during the ilClan era, like “Technical Readout 3155: Here’s What We’re Ramming Into One Another This Year”.

[Jellico]

DropShips. Keeping medium laser manufacturers in business since 2290.

[Daryk]

We’re probably going to have to wait for “Technical Readout 3057: Re-Revised (We Really Mean It This Time)”,
*snip*

Some one's been watching Honest Trailers... 

[Cannonshop]

We’re probably going to have to wait for “Technical Readout 3057: Re-Revised (We Really Mean It This Time)”, which I suspect is a super high priority.  Alternatively some Tech Readout with new versions of all those ships built during the ilClan era, like “Technical Readout 3155: Here’s What We’re Ramming Into One Another This Year”.

hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahah.  Gio, you made me laugh, and after the day (Night) at work I've had, that's really something to be proud (ashamed) of.

[DevianID]

So yeah you can only fire 6 of anything in an internal bomb bay, and also opening the doors and having extra bombs is bad if you get shot, as the unused bombs all blow up.

I know that IO mentioned 5 tons for the alamo missile weight, so you can pack your reloads into 5 ton cargo bays, but it still requires 10 tons of cargo to fire the thing per the quirk as its 1 ton per bomb slot, not bomb weight...

Yeah the rules are fuzzy, but there is no reason not to use the most consistent rule here requiring 10 tons for an Alamo.  They are good enough that spending 10 tons is a small price to pay, especially as its not like it is worth arguing minute that 5 tons was intended/not intended on a niche interaction.  Plus, we already use the WASP 5 ton interal bay to fire a 1 ton air to air arrow missile that takes up all 5 slots, so its not like this interaction is uncommon.

[Giovanni Blasini]

So yeah you can only fire 6 of anything in an internal bomb bay, and also opening the doors and having extra bombs is bad if you get shot, as the unused bombs all blow up.

I know that IO mentioned 5 tons for the alamo missile weight, so you can pack your reloads into 5 ton cargo bays, but it still requires 10 tons of cargo to fire the thing per the quirk as its 1 ton per bomb slot, not bomb weight...

Yeah the rules are fuzzy, but there is no reason not to use the most consistent rule here requiring 10 tons for an Alamo.  They are good enough that spending 10 tons is a small price to pay, especially as its not like it is worth arguing minute that 5 tons was intended/not intended on a niche interaction.  Plus, we already use the WASP 5 ton interal bay to fire a 1 ton air to air arrow missile that takes up all 5 slots, so its not like this interaction is uncommon.

Where is the "10 ton Alamo" rule published?  The rules in Interstellar Operations which are, as far as I know, the most current rules for it, clearly specify it's a 5-ton weapon.

[Daryk]

The IO page 175 citations are on the last page of this thread.

[Giovanni Blasini]

The IO page 175 citations are on the last page of this thread.

Right.  Which says it’s a 5-ton missile that takes up 10 bomb slots on external hard points.  Where does it say it’s a 10-ton missile?

[Weirdo]

It's just shorthand. People aren't saying that it weighs ten tons, they're saying it takes up ten tons in the cargo bay, because the rules for the quirk are 1 bomb spot = 1 ton of cargo space needed to drop/launch it.

[Wrangler]

Related (sort of) to this, Can Cargo be dropped in the same manner as bombs. But with parachutes from Cargo bays vs like DropPods used by Mechs/BattleArmor, Combat Vehicles?

[Weirdo]

The description says a VDC can be used with inert cargo, though the actual rules don't support it. Everything in the rules as written assumes we're taking about a unit of some kind or other, though such units are allowed to be dropped sans pilots or crew.

I would ask in the Rules Forum.

[Colt Ward]

Air drop supplies?  Do you want to re-enact the scene from A Bridge Too Far?

[Giovanni Blasini]

It's just shorthand. People aren't saying that it weighs ten tons, they're saying it takes up ten tons in the cargo bay, because the rules for the quirk are 1 bomb spot = 1 ton of cargo space needed to drop/launch it.

So, wait, do we have two different types of bomb bays being treated differently?  Because based on the stuff I posted here it looks like LAM bomb bays can carry one ton of bomb per ton of bomb bay, not one slot of bomb, which is where you get the long-standing assumption that the WSP-100’s 5-ton bomb bay can carry an Arrow IV munition. 

[Weirdo]

It still tracks. A 5-ton bomb bay can carry a 5-slot Arrow missile.

Also, yes. The dedicated internal bomb bay of a LAM and the cargo bay of a DropShip being used as an ad-hoc bomb bay are two completely different pieces of equipment.

[Daryk]

It's just shorthand. People aren't saying that it weighs ten tons, they're saying it takes up ten tons in the cargo bay, because the rules for the quirk are 1 bomb spot = 1 ton of cargo space needed to drop/launch it.

I thought the quirk was published prior to IO, meaning IO trumps?

[Weirdo]

You have me totally confused. IO doesn't have quirks rules, aside from at the SBF level.

[Daryk]

The citation of IO page 175 on the previous page of this thread explicitly says an Alamo only takes up 5 tons in an internal bay.  The Internal Bomb Bay quirk was published in an earlier book.

[Weirdo]

That...is weird as pants. My advice would be to ask in the Rules Forum, because I can't resolve that.

[Maingunnery]

Personally I am hoping that LAM internal bays use weight as the primary factor as that is easier and less of a RAW deal that they already have.

[Daryk]

The 5-ton weight of the Alamo seems to be a Rules as Written thing to me.  It doesn't look remotely ambiguous.  If it really needs head canon, think of them as being more volume than "normal" bombs, thus taking up more room as external stores.  Internal bomb bays have indeterminate volume (and I think we want it stay that way).

[Liam's Ghost]

I feel like the massive amounts of space and weight an alamo takes up was an attempt to "balance" something that was never going to be balanced. I mean, it's a nuclear warhead. At best you might be able to bring it to the table in a naval engagement (against capital units) without breaking the whole thing.

Anybody else? nah. It's such a "pour gasoline on the map" item that the balance thing should have been "only if everybody agrees" and leave it at that.

[Daryk]

It's the sort of "last resort" that should be expected when facing Taurians (or the "more Taurain than Taurians" the Lothians were supposed to be).

[Maingunnery]

Nukes are definitely something meant for mutual consent and mutual usage.

[Daryk]

Or the kind of thing a GM brings when trying to discourage the PCs from a REALLY bad idea...

[Giovanni Blasini]

I feel like the massive amounts of space and weight an alamo takes up was an attempt to "balance" something that was never going to be balanced. I mean, it's a nuclear warhead. At best you might be able to bring it to the table in a naval engagement (against capital units) without breaking the whole thing.

Anybody else? nah. It's such a "pour gasoline on the map" item that the balance thing should have been "only if everybody agrees" and leave it at that.

It has bearing on more than just Alamos, though.  Air-Launched Arrow missiles, including Air-to-Air Arrows, are 1 ton but 5 bomb slots.   Anti-Ship Missiles are 2 tons but six slots. 

[Maingunnery]

It has bearing on more than just Alamos, though.  Air-Launched Arrow missiles, including Air-to-Air Arrows, are 1 ton but 5 bomb slots.   Anti-Ship Missiles are 2 tons but six slots.

Exactly, those are some of the reasons that I hope that LAMs can do it by weight.

[Jellico]

I feel like the massive amounts of space and weight an alamo takes up was an attempt to "balance" something that was never going to be balanced. I mean, it's a nuclear warhead. At best you might be able to bring it to the table in a naval engagement (against capital units) without breaking the whole thing.

Anybody else? nah. It's such a "pour gasoline on the map" item that the balance thing should have been "only if everybody agrees" and leave it at that.

An Alamo's bomb slots are so you can't spam them on fighters under 50 tons. Only a hundred ton fighter can carry two.

As for LAMs. It is pretty clear no one wants them carrying bombs. Why add nukes?

[Daryk]

If no one wants them carrying bombs, why was the bomb bay installed in the Wasp? 

[Wrangler]

the bomb bays can be used to hold other things. Like extra fuel.

[Jellico]

If no one wants them carrying bombs, why was the bomb bay installed in the Wasp? 

Okay. I will rephrase that. ASF can carry bombs externally over and above the maximum weight limit of the airframe.

LAMs need to dedicate tons to carry a bomb and make use of the bomb bay quirk.

Bombs are essentially free for an ASF but come at a significant cost for LAMs.

[Daryk]

I think LAM Bomb Bays are actual equipment independent of the quirk.  The quirk is for other units that can't mount a "LAM" bomb bay.  The IO page 175 reference refers to "internal" bomb bays which encompasses both.

[Wrangler]

I think LAM Bomb Bays are actual equipment independent of the quirk.  The quirk is for other units that can't mount a "LAM" bomb bay.  The IO page 175 reference refers to "internal" bomb bays which encompasses both.

That's how i read into it.  They're always internal bay. It's not suppose have negative effects since it's not externally mounted. Then again, my memory of the rules is fading.