Register Register

Author Topic: Attacker ASF designs?  (Read 411 times)

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Attacker ASF designs?
« on: 22 February 2021, 10:37:02 »
What about the attacker ASF, that only cares for CAS and bombing, not the air-to-air dogfight?


What I have come to mind is...

Code: [Select]
Thunderbird TRB-E0A

Mass: 100 tons
Frame: Unknown
Power Plant: 300 XL
Cruising Speed: 54 kph
Maximum Speed: 86.4 kph
Armor: Heavy Ferro-Aluminum
Armament:
     1 ER Small Laser
     4 Anti-Missile System
     11 Medium Pulse Laser
Manufacturer: Unknown
     Primary Factory: Unknown
Communication System: Unknown
Targeting & Tracking System: Unknown
Introduction Year: 3112
Tech Rating/Availability: F/X-X-X-E
Cost: 18,490,875 C-bills

Type: Thunderbird
Technology Base: Inner Sphere (Experimental)
Tonnage: 100
Battle Value: 3,435

Equipment                                          Mass
Engine                        300 XL                9.5
Safe Thrust: 5
Max Thrust: 8
Structural Integrity:         10                       
Heat Sinks:                   15 [30]                 5
Fuel:                         400                   5.0
Cockpit                                               3
Armor Factor (Heavy Ferro)    753                    38

                           Armor   
                           Value   
     Nose                   220   
     Wings                191/191 
     Aft                    151   


Weapons
and Ammo                        Location   Tonnage  Heat   SRV  MRV  LRV  ERV
2 Medium Pulse Laser              NOS       4.0      4      6    0    0    0 
2 Anti-Missile System             NOS       1.0      1      3    0    0    0 
4 Medium Pulse Laser              RWG       8.0      4      6    0    0    0 
Angel ECM Suite                   FSLG      2.0      -      -    -    -    - 
Radical Heat Sink System          FSLG      4.0      -      -    -    -    - 
Anti-Missile System Ammo (24)     FSLG      2.0      -      -    -    -    - 
CASE II                           FSLG      1.0      -      -    -    -    - 
Targeting Computer                FSLG      6.0      -      -    -    -    - 
4 Medium Pulse Laser              LWG       8.0      4      6    0    0    0 
Medium Pulse Laser                AFT       2.0      4      6    0    0    0 
ER Small Laser                    AFT       0.5      2      3    0    0    0 
2 Anti-Missile System             AFT       1.0      1      3    0    0    0 


Safe thrust 5 ensures it can sustain up to 15 bombs and keep safe thrust of 2 to work in ground mapsheet.

Full arrays of medium pulse lasers and targeting computer negates the penalty of striking attacks. Also, radical heat sink ensures to fire all the shots when it needed, for you can't get the chance to aim the enemy every turn. Two AMSs, each on front and rear, protects it from the enemy missiles. A MPL and a ER Small Laser is there for last resort against enemy fighters catch its dead six. Only ammunition on the unit is the ammo for AMS, so it can keep zapping the enemy ground units as long as it ls keep alive and has enough fuel.

And 38 tons of heavy ferro-aluminum makes sure that it can sustain an AC/20 fire and avoid a critical by exceeding the damage threshold.


---------------------------------------

Code: [Select]
Thunderbird TRB-E0AP

Mass: 100 tons
Frame: Unknown
Power Plant: 300 XL
Cruising Speed: 54 kph
Maximum Speed: 86.4 kph
Armor: Heavy Ferro-Aluminum
Armament:
     1 Small Pulse Laser
     4 Small Laser
     2 Plasma Rifle
     2 Centurion Weapon System
     2 Flamer
     4 Anti-Missile System
Manufacturer: Unknown
     Primary Factory: Unknown
Communication System: Unknown
Targeting & Tracking System: Unknown
Introduction Year: 3112
Tech Rating/Availability: F/X-X-X-X
Cost: 21,326,250 C-bills

Type: Thunderbird
Technology Base: Inner Sphere (Experimental)
Tonnage: 100
Battle Value: 3,817

Equipment                                          Mass
Engine                        300 XL                9.5
Safe Thrust: 5
Max Thrust: 8
Structural Integrity:         10                       
Heat Sinks:                   13 [26]                 3
Fuel:                         400                   5.0
Cockpit                                               3
Armor Factor (Heavy Ferro)    704                  35.5

                           Armor   
                           Value   
     Nose                   211   
     Wings                191/191 
     Aft                    111   


Weapons
and Ammo                        Location   Tonnage  Heat   SRV  MRV  LRV  ERV
2 Plasma Rifle                    NOS       12.0     10    10   10    0    0 
2 Anti-Missile System             NOS       1.0      1      3    0    0    0 
Centurion Weapon System           RWG       5.0      4      0    0    0    0 
Flamer                            RWG       1.0      3      2    0    0    0 
2 Small Laser                     RWG       1.0      1      3    0    0    0 
Angel ECM Suite                   FSLG      2.0      -      -    -    -    - 
Radical Heat Sink System          FSLG      4.0      -      -    -    -    - 
Anti-Missile System Ammo (24)     FSLG      2.0      -      -    -    -    - 
CASE II                           FSLG      1.0      -      -    -    -    - 
Plasma Rifle Ammo (20)            FSLG      2.0      -      -    -    -    - 
Targeting Computer                FSLG      4.0      -      -    -    -    - 
Centurion Weapon System           LWG       5.0      4      0    0    0    0 
Flamer                            LWG       1.0      3      2    0    0    0 
2 Small Laser                     LWG       1.0      1      3    0    0    0 
Small Pulse Laser                 AFT       1.0      2      3    0    0    0 
2 Anti-Missile System             AFT       1.0      1      3    0    0    0 


An another weird one. With strip more armor(especially for rear side, but still able to sustain AC/20 and suffer no damage threshold save for aft), it replace the weaponry to a pair of plasma rifles, and Centurion Weapon Systems. Its purpose is to aim the enemy mech and shoot both plasma and centurion to freeze it, although centurion requires the target has high heat already so it needs some good ground forces to already set on fire against the enemy.

-----------------------------------

So what about yours? What will be good design for pure attacker?

Dapper Apples

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #1 on: 22 February 2021, 15:43:04 »
Code: [Select]
Lucifer LCF-A4

Mass: 65 tons
Frame: Unknown
Power Plant: 195 Fusion
Cruising Speed: 54 kph
Maximum Speed: 86.4 kph
Armor: Standard
Armament:
     1 LRM 20
     5 Small Laser
     3 Medium Laser
     1 Arrow IV
     2 Large Laser
Manufacturer: Unknown
     Primary Factory: Unknown
Communication System: Unknown
Targeting & Tracking System: Unknown
Introduction Year: 3045
Tech Rating/Availability: E/X-F-E-D
Cost: 3,202,061 C-bills

Type: Lucifer
Technology Base: Inner Sphere (Advanced)
Tonnage: 65
Battle Value: 1,293

Equipment                                          Mass
Engine                        195 Fusion              8
Safe Thrust: 5
Max Thrust: 8
Structural Integrity:         6                       
Heat Sinks:                   20                     10
Fuel:                         400                   5.0
Cockpit                                               3
Armor Factor                  192                    12

                           Armor   
                           Value   
     Nose                    58   
     Wings                 48/48   
     Aft                     38   


Weapons
and Ammo              Location   Tonnage  Heat   SRV  MRV  LRV  ERV
Arrow IV                NOS       15.0     10     0    0    0    0 
Large Laser             NOS       5.0      8      8    8    0    0 
2 Small Lasers          RWG       1.0      1      3    0    0    0 
Arrow IV Ammo (15)      FSLG      3.0      -      -    -    -    - 
2 Small Lasers          LWG       1.0      1      3    0    0    0 
2 Medium Lasers         AFT       2.0      3      5    0    0    0 


Lucy, with A4 on the nose.  Probably still doesn't have an ejection seat.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #2 on: 22 February 2021, 22:26:08 »
Isn't it an artillery ASF, rather than an attacker? If you imagine A-10 flying high and keep shooting the guided missiles then it would be good to represent that, though. Also shame that it can't have homing ammunition and it must equip it via bomb slot.

Well, it lacks the ejection system so it would be the best for poor lucifer....

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5376
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #3 on: 22 February 2021, 22:31:32 »
What about the attacker ASF, that only cares for CAS and bombing, not the air-to-air dogfight?


What I have come to mind is...

Code: [Select]
Thunderbird TRB-E0A

Mass: 100 tons
Frame: Unknown
Power Plant: 300 XL
Cruising Speed: 54 kph
Maximum Speed: 86.4 kph
Armor: Heavy Ferro-Aluminum
Armament:
     1 ER Small Laser
     4 Anti-Missile System
     11 Medium Pulse Laser
Manufacturer: Unknown
     Primary Factory: Unknown
Communication System: Unknown
Targeting & Tracking System: Unknown
Introduction Year: 3112
Tech Rating/Availability: F/X-X-X-E
Cost: 18,490,875 C-bills

Type: Thunderbird
Technology Base: Inner Sphere (Experimental)
Tonnage: 100
Battle Value: 3,435

Equipment                                          Mass
Engine                        300 XL                9.5
Safe Thrust: 5
Max Thrust: 8
Structural Integrity:         10                       
Heat Sinks:                   15 [30]                 5
Fuel:                         400                   5.0
Cockpit                                               3
Armor Factor (Heavy Ferro)    753                    38

                           Armor   
                           Value   
     Nose                   220   
     Wings                191/191 
     Aft                    151   


Weapons
and Ammo                        Location   Tonnage  Heat   SRV  MRV  LRV  ERV
2 Medium Pulse Laser              NOS       4.0      4      6    0    0    0 
2 Anti-Missile System             NOS       1.0      1      3    0    0    0 
4 Medium Pulse Laser              RWG       8.0      4      6    0    0    0 
Angel ECM Suite                   FSLG      2.0      -      -    -    -    - 
Radical Heat Sink System          FSLG      4.0      -      -    -    -    - 
Anti-Missile System Ammo (24)     FSLG      2.0      -      -    -    -    - 
CASE II                           FSLG      1.0      -      -    -    -    - 
Targeting Computer                FSLG      6.0      -      -    -    -    - 
4 Medium Pulse Laser              LWG       8.0      4      6    0    0    0 
Medium Pulse Laser                AFT       2.0      4      6    0    0    0 
ER Small Laser                    AFT       0.5      2      3    0    0    0 
2 Anti-Missile System             AFT       1.0      1      3    0    0    0 


Safe thrust 5 ensures it can sustain up to 15 bombs and keep safe thrust of 2 to work in ground mapsheet.

Full arrays of medium pulse lasers and targeting computer negates the penalty of striking attacks. Also, radical heat sink ensures to fire all the shots when it needed, for you can't get the chance to aim the enemy every turn. Two AMSs, each on front and rear, protects it from the enemy missiles. A MPL and a ER Small Laser is there for last resort against enemy fighters catch its dead six. Only ammunition on the unit is the ammo for AMS, so it can keep zapping the enemy ground units as long as it ls keep alive and has enough fuel.

And 38 tons of heavy ferro-aluminum makes sure that it can sustain an AC/20 fire and avoid a critical by exceeding the damage threshold.


---------------------------------------

Code: [Select]
Thunderbird TRB-E0AP

Mass: 100 tons
Frame: Unknown
Power Plant: 300 XL
Cruising Speed: 54 kph
Maximum Speed: 86.4 kph
Armor: Heavy Ferro-Aluminum
Armament:
     1 Small Pulse Laser
     4 Small Laser
     2 Plasma Rifle
     2 Centurion Weapon System
     2 Flamer
     4 Anti-Missile System
Manufacturer: Unknown
     Primary Factory: Unknown
Communication System: Unknown
Targeting & Tracking System: Unknown
Introduction Year: 3112
Tech Rating/Availability: F/X-X-X-X
Cost: 21,326,250 C-bills

Type: Thunderbird
Technology Base: Inner Sphere (Experimental)
Tonnage: 100
Battle Value: 3,817

Equipment                                          Mass
Engine                        300 XL                9.5
Safe Thrust: 5
Max Thrust: 8
Structural Integrity:         10                       
Heat Sinks:                   13 [26]                 3
Fuel:                         400                   5.0
Cockpit                                               3
Armor Factor (Heavy Ferro)    704                  35.5

                           Armor   
                           Value   
     Nose                   211   
     Wings                191/191 
     Aft                    111   


Weapons
and Ammo                        Location   Tonnage  Heat   SRV  MRV  LRV  ERV
2 Plasma Rifle                    NOS       12.0     10    10   10    0    0 
2 Anti-Missile System             NOS       1.0      1      3    0    0    0 
Centurion Weapon System           RWG       5.0      4      0    0    0    0 
Flamer                            RWG       1.0      3      2    0    0    0 
2 Small Laser                     RWG       1.0      1      3    0    0    0 
Angel ECM Suite                   FSLG      2.0      -      -    -    -    - 
Radical Heat Sink System          FSLG      4.0      -      -    -    -    - 
Anti-Missile System Ammo (24)     FSLG      2.0      -      -    -    -    - 
CASE II                           FSLG      1.0      -      -    -    -    - 
Plasma Rifle Ammo (20)            FSLG      2.0      -      -    -    -    - 
Targeting Computer                FSLG      4.0      -      -    -    -    - 
Centurion Weapon System           LWG       5.0      4      0    0    0    0 
Flamer                            LWG       1.0      3      2    0    0    0 
2 Small Laser                     LWG       1.0      1      3    0    0    0 
Small Pulse Laser                 AFT       1.0      2      3    0    0    0 
2 Anti-Missile System             AFT       1.0      1      3    0    0    0 


An another weird one. With strip more armor(especially for rear side, but still able to sustain AC/20 and suffer no damage threshold save for aft), it replace the weaponry to a pair of plasma rifles, and Centurion Weapon Systems. Its purpose is to aim the enemy mech and shoot both plasma and centurion to freeze it, although centurion requires the target has high heat already so it needs some good ground forces to already set on fire against the enemy.

-----------------------------------

So what about yours? What will be good design for pure attacker?

a slow ASF is still a slow moving target for ground fire.  this is like, the fundamental problem with trying to design a Battletech version of the A-10-the systems just don't support the tactic as being viable.

Every manuever requires thrust points, every turn, every  climb and every dive.  this is most unlike real aircraft which can climb, bank, and even glide with the engines off or throttled down.

thus, you can't get that sweet-sweet canyon-carving CAS profile without lots of potential thrust (which also beefs up your warload.)

Typically if I'm assigning for dedicated ground-attack, I grab designs with LOTS of thrust, average armor, and enough tonnage to pack a useful bomb-load, as opposed to trying to make something 5/8 or 3/5 useful as a cornrow bomber.
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #4 on: 23 February 2021, 07:14:25 »
Is the faster ASFs actually have the better chance of survival against AA fires? The thrust does not gives any to-hit modifier against ground units. Although any hits requires them the control roll....

maxcarrion

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 340
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #5 on: 23 February 2021, 10:19:49 »
A slow 100T XL engine monster is a very expensive lawn dart if you use it for close air support and a 5/8 frame loaded with underwing ordinance will struggle to even stay airborne and will get swarmed down by interceptors or knocked out by ground fire in short order and the poor ground forces waiting for their air support will be waiting a lot longer.

Lighter, faster and cheaper would all be beneficial, get your bombs/missiles on target quickly and should you crash, lose a lot less. 

I think Fireangel's "Silverbrick" fighter makes a pretty good ground attack craft iirc and costs about 1/5th of the c-bills
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/aerospace/repost-silverbrick-goldbrick-asf/msg367397/#msg367397

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #6 on: 23 February 2021, 12:35:37 »
Still I don't get the advantage of faster aircraft in CAS. It is indeed good on dogfight or tactical movement, but is it actually do something in ground mapsheet? Especially when you have enough air superiority fighters to cover them.

An another problem is damage threshold. Yes it may crash whenever it hits, but lighter fighters are not able to have enough damage threshold to withstand most guns.

Although always roll for a control whenever you hit is a real pain for them, and that would be a reason for suggesting the more numbers of cheaper fighters instead of big one....
« Last Edit: 23 February 2021, 12:37:29 by PuppyLikesLaserPointers »

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5376
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #7 on: 23 February 2021, 23:32:46 »
Still I don't get the advantage of faster aircraft in CAS. It is indeed good on dogfight or tactical movement, but is it actually do something in ground mapsheet? Especially when you have enough air superiority fighters to cover them.

An another problem is damage threshold. Yes it may crash whenever it hits, but lighter fighters are not able to have enough damage threshold to withstand most guns.

Although always roll for a control whenever you hit is a real pain for them, and that would be a reason for suggesting the more numbers of cheaper fighters instead of big one....


Let's start with the obvious then:  Slower fighters carry fewer bombs while still being able to remain airborne.  Underwing ordnance reduces your cruise speed, see? and it's not proportional.  This means you can get more with a lighter, faster airframe (within limits) than with a heavier, slower airframe.

basically, An SL-15 carries more bombs than a Chippewa.

It also carries them to the target faster.

You need to understand: the game rules were created to prevent someone from designing an aircraft in the vein of the A-10 or the Skyraider, so they tied bomb load to both airframe weight, and base airframe speed.

It's one of those rules setups that was required to keep Battlemechs king of the mapsheet.

Because of the golden bb rule *(which actually does translate into reality for much of the Jet Age) and the necessary MP to remain airborne, if your plane can carry enough bombs to keep it from taking off or staying airborne, it's effectively less useful than a plane that is lighter, can carry a similar load, but CAN remain airborne (*because it has enough movement points with a full load to take off and land.)



The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #8 on: 24 February 2021, 06:50:18 »
A 100 tons 5/8 fighter can carry up to 15 bombs with keep 2/3, or 10 bombs and 3/5. It can have up to 40 tons of Heavy Ferro-Aluminum which is sufficient to raise damage threshold to sustains AC/20 hit.

And a 75 tons 5/8 fighter can carry the same bombs with the same speed, but it can only have up to 30 tons of armor, and it is barely sustains gauss hit. Also it has less remaining tonnages to do something else than a 100 tons ASF with same speed.

That makes me hard to get to the same point. Also whatever it has 2/3 or 7/11, on the small ground mapsheet(perhaps around 128x136 at best?) the difference seems not that much. If you want to take account the time to scramble and get to the battlezone then the speed does matters seriously, but what if they are alreay prepared to support the ground force? Also all ASFs are VSTOL capable so it seems they can get resupply fairly easy just behind of the frontline....

As I said always roll for control whenever you hits is a serious problem to utilize attackers, though.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #9 on: 24 February 2021, 06:56:53 »
And, what if Advanced Atmosphereic Control rolls(on SO) is allowed? With this tanky ASFs are less likely to suffer the control rolls during CAS, although it makes ASFs with such designs too powerful, and it is only optional for the discussion at best.

Atarlost

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 365
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #10 on: 24 February 2021, 15:56:16 »
And, what if Advanced Atmosphereic Control rolls(on SO) is allowed? With this tanky ASFs are less likely to suffer the control rolls during CAS, although it makes ASFs with such designs too powerful, and it is only optional for the discussion at best.

You've plainly already decided what you want and don't want to actually discuss it. 

In my opinion the Stratops armor scaled control rolls as written are appallingly abuseable and should never be used with custom ASF and only with a gentleman's agreement to avoid armor focused official unless you're GMing for one or more people who want the giant stompy robot equivalent of the Temple of Elemental Evil experience. 

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5376
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #11 on: 24 February 2021, 17:04:31 »
And, what if Advanced Atmosphereic Control rolls(on SO) is allowed? With this tanky ASFs are less likely to suffer the control rolls during CAS, although it makes ASFs with such designs too powerful, and it is only optional for the discussion at best.

Back in the day when there was BMR(R) and there was Maximum Tech, *(a home for all the 'officially optional rules') we used to call the latter "Munchtek".

Why? because optional rules are optional rules mainly because they're ridiculously easy to abuse, and often grossly unbalanced exceptions, or were thought up, but went untested.

Sources like unbound and Munchtek were developed because they'd sell, but they were isolated from most league play and official events specifically because they tossed even ideas of balance out the window and made for a Palladium like experience where each subsequent product invalidates through overpower the previous. (anyone who's had to adjudicate a Rifts game with strangers can probably attest to the mountains of books some people would buy just to have an indestructible immortal one-shot machine for a character.)

The rule you quote, falls into that range-it's buying a win, not developing tactics or strategy.  We used to call it 'gamestore proficiency' and the people who practiced it too often we'd call 'Munchkins' (and it wasn't a compliment).

If your objective is to get others to keep playing with you, you need to stay aware of the need to rein in your powergamer/munchkin/gamestore proficiency, or you will find you're largely theorycrafting alone on the internet.

Trust me, I found this out the hard way many years ago, only there was barely an internet at the time and things like Megamek weren't even in development back then.

Apply the KISS principle: seek maximum effectiveness, using a minimum of rulebooks and lookups, generally by using the core books as your guide unless the format REQUIRES the supplements (like, say, Warship battles do).

This will make you more effective even when someone DOES trot out the unbound and the munchtek.




The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Atarlost

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 365
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #12 on: 24 February 2021, 17:44:38 »
Apply the KISS principle: seek maximum effectiveness, using a minimum of rulebooks and lookups, generally by using the core books as your guide unless the format REQUIRES the supplements (like, say, Warship battles do).

The TW aerospace rules have some bizarre abstractions that I don't think were in earlier Aerotech editions and some of the StratOps optional rules are to roll them back, which is less munchkinry and more wanting the old game back, but atmospheric control rolls are a balance element that I'm pretty sure has always been around. 

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10858
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #13 on: 24 February 2021, 19:12:04 »
You've plainly already decided what you want and don't want to actually discuss it. 

In my opinion the Stratops armor scaled control rolls as written are appallingly abuseable and should never be used with custom ASF and only with a gentleman's agreement to avoid armor focused official unless you're GMing for one or more people who want the giant stompy robot equivalent of the Temple of Elemental Evil experience. 

No way to say it without being borderline rude or mean but it's not like the detractors of the OP's view points have been doing a good job of explaining their position.

Especially within the rules as presented by TW.


Let's start with the obvious then:  Slower fighters carry fewer bombs while still being able to remain airborne.  Underwing ordnance reduces your cruise speed, see? and it's not proportional.  This means you can get more with a lighter, faster airframe (within limits) than with a heavier, slower airframe.

basically, An SL-15 carries more bombs than a Chippewa.

It also carries them to the target faster.

You need to understand: the game rules were created to prevent someone from designing an aircraft in the vein of the A-10 or the Skyraider, so they tied bomb load to both airframe weight, and base airframe speed.

It's one of those rules setups that was required to keep Battlemechs king of the mapsheet.

Because of the golden bb rule *(which actually does translate into reality for much of the Jet Age) and the necessary MP to remain airborne, if your plane can carry enough bombs to keep it from taking off or staying airborne, it's effectively less useful than a plane that is lighter, can carry a similar load, but CAN remain airborne (*because it has enough movement points with a full load to take off and land.)

Which brings me to this.

The rules are -1 thrust for every 5 bombs or fraction thereof.  So yes a 3/5 ASF will never be able to carry more than 10 bombs but to carry more than 10 bombs anyway would also require the ASF to mass 55 tons or more as well.  Overthrust is calculated off the new safe thrust.

So a 100 ton ASF carrying 20 bombs will require 5/8 base speed and will only be able to fly as a 1/2.  Which is technically enough to launch, remain airborne, land, and even do a few things but isn't a huge margin until bombs start coming off the rack.

Upping the speed to 6/9 does get to 2/3 for the same ASF and that does help.

Given the specific examples of the SL-15 Slayer versus the CHP-WS Chippewa we get 16 bombs for the Slayer moving 2/3 while the Chippewa is carrying 18 at 1/2.

So from a perspective of only caring about total bomb load and assuming that you have the air superiority and magical ability to have the Chippewa already on station it will bring more total bombs and thus looks better on paper but if any variable starts going in favor of your enemy you can get more value out of the Slayer.  Especially as it can drop just one bomb and suddenly become a 3/5.  That may not look like much but it opens up a lot of options.  It would take dumping 8 bombs from the Chippewa to get the same performance.


monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10858
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #14 on: 24 February 2021, 19:49:42 »
a slow ASF is still a slow moving target for ground fire.  this is like, the fundamental problem with trying to design a Battletech version of the A-10-the systems just don't support the tactic as being viable.

Every manuever requires thrust points, every turn, every  climb and every dive.  this is most unlike real aircraft which can climb, bank, and even glide with the engines off or throttled down.

thus, you can't get that sweet-sweet canyon-carving CAS profile without lots of potential thrust (which also beefs up your warload.)

Typically if I'm assigning for dedicated ground-attack, I grab designs with LOTS of thrust, average armor, and enough tonnage to pack a useful bomb-load, as opposed to trying to make something 5/8 or 3/5 useful as a cornrow bomber.

And almost forgot about wanting to expand on this as well.

TW rules as written don't give a defensive advantage for ground to air fire based off velocity.  That is a StratOps rule.  So Cannonshop is a little off in saying slow is bad in that regard.

That said though having more thrust does help for situations where time to target is a factor, making successive passes(especially without having to make piloting rolls), or if enemy ASF are present.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #15 on: 24 February 2021, 21:42:37 »
At first I didn't expect ASFs are able to get that much armors before read techmanual. How you can imagine it can plate with armors more than two times of the mechs with same tonnage? For an aircraft? And conventional fighters are plated like a paper as we can guess. It seems weird, really.

Anyway, what I can't get is... around 2 to 3 thrust seems enough for ground support, unless they are required to take off from far behind of the line or have to scramble from there to repel the incomming attack, but is it really required to have them that much speed? For ground units, speed equals survivality. But for CAS fighters it seems thrust 2 is already enough or you can't return to your enemy again/needs too much time to do(if you have survived from the control roll last turn, of course). In ground mapsheet, I found that they need not to accelerate much. That's why I can't get your point right now. I don't want to convince you. Just ask for the reasons.

Well, perhaps they can strike fast, retreat and rearm again? Since strike attack is not able to be performed each turn so focus on bombing is an option. But is it a reason of faster one what you have imagine?

Sorry if I was rude, but I intended no offense(to all).

Still it is obvious that using more fighters to not focus on a single big fighter and let it dead by crash is a sure benefit of using more cheaper fighters.

Also while 2 to 3 safe thrust seems enough, but having only 1/2 is too slow. At first is it even able to take off? Perhaps it can, for it may push thrust 2, but only able to move up to 16 ground hex seems too slow.

You've plainly already decided what you want and don't want to actually discuss it. 

Well, no, I just don't fully understand it and ask for the reason.
« Last Edit: 24 February 2021, 21:46:38 by PuppyLikesLaserPointers »

Kerfuffin(925)

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 443
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #16 on: 24 February 2021, 22:00:18 »
Having played some megaMek on ~50x60 maps trying to keep the fighters on the map is hard. The first run across is usually pretty easy, it’s setting it up for the second and/or third that’s hard. 1/2 can cover at best half the board In a straight line only. 1/2 limits you to half the special maneuvers and none of the ones I use to make a second strike. You have to spend a thrust every turn to stay airborn, so every turn is going to need thrust. Even if you set up a perfect pass for the first and get back to 2/3 you barely be able to pull of any sort of maneuver.

When I use bomb/attack Aeros I stick with some 5/8 or even the Ostrogoth at 7/11. Being able to make the tight turns and special maneuvers is important. It works double duty with the Strat ops rules for speed=TMM. Which is probably closer to how it is “in-universe”.

Not sure why I got so focused on 1/2. But anyway, I use my 5/8 guys with a 5 bomb load so they can still move around. The Ostrogoths get a full load
« Last Edit: 24 February 2021, 22:07:35 by Kerfuffin(925) »

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10858
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #17 on: 24 February 2021, 22:46:19 »
At first I didn't expect ASFs are able to get that much armors before read techmanual. How you can imagine it can plate with armors more than two times of the mechs with same tonnage? For an aircraft? And conventional fighters are plated like a paper as we can guess. It seems weird, really.

Anyway, what I can't get is... around 2 to 3 thrust seems enough for ground support, unless they are required to take off from far behind of the line or have to scramble from there to repel the incomming attack, but is it really required to have them that much speed? For ground units, speed equals survivality. But for CAS fighters it seems thrust 2 is already enough or you can't return to your enemy again/needs too much time to do(if you have survived from the control roll last turn, of course). In ground mapsheet, I found that they need not to accelerate much. That's why I can't get your point right now. I don't want to convince you. Just ask for the reasons.

Well, perhaps they can strike fast, retreat and rearm again? Since strike attack is not able to be performed each turn so focus on bombing is an option. But is it a reason of faster one what you have imagine?

Sorry if I was rude, but I intended no offense(to all).

Still it is obvious that using more fighters to not focus on a single big fighter and let it dead by crash is a sure benefit of using more cheaper fighters.

Also while 2 to 3 safe thrust seems enough, but having only 1/2 is too slow. At first is it even able to take off? Perhaps it can, for it may push thrust 2, but only able to move up to 16 ground hex seems too slow.

Well, no, I just don't fully understand it and ask for the reason.

I don't keep it a secret that I think the construction rules and game rules for all things space(ASFs are included, possibly Conventional Fighters too) need yanked and completely re-done from scratch to introduce some sanity but that said under current rules even I tend to consider the optimized bricks you can come up with somewhat ill suited for the job of precision CAS.

Largely because it doesn't matter how much armor you put on them it just takes one flying at Altitude 6 or lower, just 1 point of damage, and a failed PSR for that expensive investment to be effectively removed from the game.  Yes I am granting it may survive but it is all but doomed to not participate in the scenario again.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #18 on: 24 February 2021, 23:00:32 »
So, the point is not the speed, but the one expensive flying brick? Then it makes sense.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10858
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #19 on: 25 February 2021, 00:23:26 »
I'd say a bit of both really.

Thrust is always useful in some way and if you're limiting bomb loads below maximum you're just as well off using a faster platform so that even at your ideal loads you have more thrust.  Which also tends to lend toward your new platform being cheaper by most any metric.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #20 on: 25 February 2021, 00:37:49 »
But, although I am inexperienced and aircrafts in ground mapsheet is making the game somewhat weird, but I didn't see them push its thrust more than 3. In the most times they are only stick with thrust 1, and only use 2 or 3 the beginning of the game when they are enter the battlefield or have to turn a long way around.

And, are something like mechbuster and protector the alternatives for CAS, rather than ASFs? Their weight makes them to load with some bombs, shoots some weapons after deliver it and survives, and are cheap as well.
« Last Edit: 25 February 2021, 00:40:51 by PuppyLikesLaserPointers »

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5376
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #21 on: 25 February 2021, 02:20:07 »
But, although I am inexperienced and aircrafts in ground mapsheet is making the game somewhat weird, but I didn't see them push its thrust more than 3. In the most times they are only stick with thrust 1, and only use 2 or 3 the beginning of the game when they are enter the battlefield or have to turn a long way around.

And, are something like mechbuster and protector the alternatives for CAS, rather than ASFs? Their weight makes them to load with some bombs, shoots some weapons after deliver it and survives, and are cheap as well.

Mechbuster has nice sales figures, but it was designed under AT1 and it shows, in that it's a pretty poor performer in CAS under AT2 or Total Warfare rules.

Generally going with cheap conventionals, you're better off with a Boeing Jump Bomber despite the anemic bomb load, because of that poor performance-the 'buster has nice art, but it's a poor design.

even compared to the 'generic' medium strike fighter.

Basically, I'll reiterate: if you're designing a dedicated ground attack platform, you're better off sinking into engines because the golden bb doesn't care about your threshold limits, but your bomb loads are influenced by your thrust and your mass, and higher thrust is better on any given mass.

Keep in mind, I'm perfectly okay using SB-27 Sabers as dedicated ground attackers, and I pretty much won't use them in air-to-air if I have access to something better.

For a general multimission design, my favorites tend to linger around the SL-15 and variants, because it's got a good, solid bomb load and decent thrust, with plenty of fuel for lingering or doing those complex maneuvers if it gets jumped by a froggy enemy pilot.

The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #22 on: 25 February 2021, 12:41:20 »
So the speed enough to carry the maximum amount of bombs for its tonnage+around 2 to 3 seems enough, then.

What about 80+ tons? It seems that having 6/9 for such heavier chassis requires too much tonnaged on engine so it is better to keep 5/8 and up to 15 bombs even for them.

And weapons? They are usually aim for mechs so is it better to have close ranged weapon with high base damage?
« Last Edit: 25 February 2021, 12:43:52 by PuppyLikesLaserPointers »

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5376
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #23 on: 25 February 2021, 13:27:38 »
So the speed enough to carry the maximum amount of bombs for its tonnage+around 2 to 3 seems enough, then.

What about 80+ tons? It seems that having 6/9 for such heavier chassis requires too much tonnaged on engine so it is better to keep 5/8 and up to 15 bombs even for them.

And weapons? They are usually aim for mechs so is it better to have close ranged weapon with high base damage?

re-read Monbvol's answer Here

His explanation and examples are really quite clear and well trimmed up, because he's demonstrating the principle at work with what we're discussing, and I really can't think of a clearer way to illustrate the basic outcome using known examples.

Basically, 'Bigger is only better if it's faster' with Aero and dropping bombs/using underwing ordnance.  In simpler terms "Faster, faster would better!!"

You see, you're trying to build a ground attacker, and there are three primary modes with ground attack.

Strike
Strafe
Level Bombing.

Strikes and Strafes put you at range zero, which is rough, but ground attack (presumably on the ground map) means you're much more likely to be taken out by the golden BB that doesn't penetrate your threshold, than you are to be taken out by fire that does, because all it has to do is hit, and you're making a PSR, and the defender is at range zero to hit you.

This is, effectively, "He's going to hit you."  at least, with an average gunner and assuming his weapons don't have a minimum (that doesn't apply anyway).

I'll admit some lack of clarity regarding level bombing, since it's been a few years since I played with it.

But 2/3 times, you're going to be making a PSR regardless, so you're using an attrition unit-that is, a unit that has at most one to three passes before it becomes one with the dirt in a fireball.

unless your aviator has godlike piloting numbers.

not critted out, just 'bang you're dead'.

Hence the term "Golden BB".

in that aspect, then, if you're designing a dedicated ground attack platform, you need to look at a different tripod than with ground units.

Instead of "Speed/armor/firepower" you're looking at "Speed/cost/firepower".  The maximum firepower and speed at the lowest c-bill cost.

Keeping in mind in BV balanced scenarios, your plane lives longer if it has a better pilot, and that, in turn, costs in BV total.

This should suggest why designs like the BJB or Light/Medium conventional fighters are popular with users-they don't cost a lot to deploy and you can usually afford to lose one or two in a given scenario without gutting the rest of your forces to pay for them.

"Firepower" in htis context? it's your external stores, the bombs and rocket pods.  Everything else is a 'nice to have', because a strafing/striking fighter isn't likely to last long barring ridonkulous dice-luck...regardless of how much ferro-aluminium you slather on it.

Armored fighters are for Air Superiority and specifically for space superiority-environments where you can largely afford to move somewhat slowly, and rely on your plating to keep you alive because you're not risking being dropped by a machinegun.

with me so far?

Okay, for Strafing, you want energy weapons.  This is whether you're using AT1, AT2, or Total Warfare.  Energy weapons for strafing, it's even codified in the rules that way, and energy weapons are light-weight.  ON a strafe even a small laser is in range, even an inner sphere small pulse laser is in range.

so your issue only becomes heat.  The platonic ideal of a ground attack bird, therefore, is a loadout of high-damage energy weapons, five to ten tons of fuel, high speed, and moderate or even light armor-because no matter how much plating you slather on for the role, you're still subject to mister golden BB.

Extra slack with your thrust means getting there, and turned around for another pass if you survived the first one, is a lot more probable, thus making it easier to survive carrying lots of extra bombs, because you can actually USE THEM.

assuming you don't take a dirt nap off your last pass from a golden bb.

basically, your dedicated ground attack craft needs to be the FASTEST ship in your fleet, not the heaviest.

Heavies, big-number heavies, are for air superiority, where they're not subject to the golden bb, and instead are subject to thresholding and with decent armor, can shrug off hits.

getting the picture yet?   a Heavy that does well in ground attack is laid out like an F-90, Stuka, or Slayer-lots of energy weapons, MAYBE one non-energy weapon, and lots of thrust to go with the weight and warload.

of the three, I would prefer the F-90 or the Slayer (SL-15) since they're a hair quicker.  Maybe not as good at the superiority role as a Stuka, (Well, except that an SL-15 can do more complex turn-and-burn in a dogfight and has an edge in a turning fight due to that nice, deep fuel tank) but better as airstrike/bomb trucks (the F-90 actually has the advantage over the Slayer here, it has more energy weapons and they hit harder, but it's got a little bladder five tons, so not as good as a dogfighter).

anything 5/8 doesn't belong hauling bombs when 6/9 and faster are available.
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Lagrange

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 619
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #24 on: 25 February 2021, 13:44:27 »
I tend to think of the golden-bb problem as so severe that CAS is just not a viable strategy for ASF.  Is there a design which, on a cost basis, competes with just inserting ground forces?

Strategies around air launched homing missiles in conjunction with ground forces and the use of the bomb bay doors quirk can give ASF a more viable role.   

The use of air-to-ground capital weapons rules is utterly overwhelming.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10858
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #25 on: 25 February 2021, 14:19:42 »
So the speed enough to carry the maximum amount of bombs for its tonnage+around 2 to 3 seems enough, then.

I tend to think of it this way:

Final thrust of 1/2: Only acceptable if I have absolute air superiority or no other choice.
2/3: Same as 1/2.
3/5: This is where I'll start risking intercept but won't feel super good about it.
4/6: I'd still like a strong escort force if I can but I can work with this.
5/8: Bomb load at this point is starting to get a bit light for how I tend to do things but if I can turn and burn with Chippewas and the like while also having a bomb load I'm not going to feel too bad about it.
6/9: Same as 5/8 but now I'm able to hold my own with unburdened Corsairs?  Yes please.
7/11+: I grow increasingly unconvinced I'm able to carry a truly decisive bomb load here on out but as a believer in the power of air support it's not like I'm going to turn it down if I have it.

Quote
What about 80+ tons? It seems that having 6/9 for such heavier chassis requires too much tonnaged on engine so it is better to keep 5/8 and up to 15 bombs even for them.

If you're short loading you're overspending.  It's not terribly difficult to get a 75 ton option that has an extra thrust that is cheaper in both C-Bills and BV that will serve just as well as a bomb truck.  Sure it'll have to make some compromises and there's a lot of variables there.

Quote
And weapons? They are usually aim for mechs so is it better to have close ranged weapon with high base damage?

Strafing and striking are very calculated risks.  In other words something you want to consider very carefully.  As such I tend to think of weapons actually on an ASF more primarily for attacking other aerospace units.

re-read Monbvol's answer Here

His explanation and examples are really quite clear and well trimmed up, because he's demonstrating the principle at work with what we're discussing, and I really can't think of a clearer way to illustrate the basic outcome using known examples.

Basically, 'Bigger is only better if it's faster' with Aero and dropping bombs/using underwing ordnance.  In simpler terms "Faster, faster would better!!"

You see, you're trying to build a ground attacker, and there are three primary modes with ground attack.

Strike
Strafe
Level Bombing.

Strikes and Strafes put you at range zero, which is rough, but ground attack (presumably on the ground map) means you're much more likely to be taken out by the golden BB that doesn't penetrate your threshold, than you are to be taken out by fire that does, because all it has to do is hit, and you're making a PSR, and the defender is at range zero to hit you.

This is, effectively, "He's going to hit you."  at least, with an average gunner and assuming his weapons don't have a minimum (that doesn't apply anyway).

I'll admit some lack of clarity regarding level bombing, since it's been a few years since I played with it.

But 2/3 times, you're going to be making a PSR regardless, so you're using an attrition unit-that is, a unit that has at most one to three passes before it becomes one with the dirt in a fireball.

unless your aviator has godlike piloting numbers.

not critted out, just 'bang you're dead'.

Hence the term "Golden BB".

in that aspect, then, if you're designing a dedicated ground attack platform, you need to look at a different tripod than with ground units.

Instead of "Speed/armor/firepower" you're looking at "Speed/cost/firepower".  The maximum firepower and speed at the lowest c-bill cost.

Keeping in mind in BV balanced scenarios, your plane lives longer if it has a better pilot, and that, in turn, costs in BV total.

This should suggest why designs like the BJB or Light/Medium conventional fighters are popular with users-they don't cost a lot to deploy and you can usually afford to lose one or two in a given scenario without gutting the rest of your forces to pay for them.

"Firepower" in htis context? it's your external stores, the bombs and rocket pods.  Everything else is a 'nice to have', because a strafing/striking fighter isn't likely to last long barring ridonkulous dice-luck...regardless of how much ferro-aluminium you slather on it.

Armored fighters are for Air Superiority and specifically for space superiority-environments where you can largely afford to move somewhat slowly, and rely on your plating to keep you alive because you're not risking being dropped by a machinegun.

with me so far?

Okay, for Strafing, you want energy weapons.  This is whether you're using AT1, AT2, or Total Warfare.  Energy weapons for strafing, it's even codified in the rules that way, and energy weapons are light-weight.  ON a strafe even a small laser is in range, even an inner sphere small pulse laser is in range.

so your issue only becomes heat.  The platonic ideal of a ground attack bird, therefore, is a loadout of high-damage energy weapons, five to ten tons of fuel, high speed, and moderate or even light armor-because no matter how much plating you slather on for the role, you're still subject to mister golden BB.

Extra slack with your thrust means getting there, and turned around for another pass if you survived the first one, is a lot more probable, thus making it easier to survive carrying lots of extra bombs, because you can actually USE THEM.

assuming you don't take a dirt nap off your last pass from a golden bb.

basically, your dedicated ground attack craft needs to be the FASTEST ship in your fleet, not the heaviest.

Heavies, big-number heavies, are for air superiority, where they're not subject to the golden bb, and instead are subject to thresholding and with decent armor, can shrug off hits.

getting the picture yet?   a Heavy that does well in ground attack is laid out like an F-90, Stuka, or Slayer-lots of energy weapons, MAYBE one non-energy weapon, and lots of thrust to go with the weight and warload.

of the three, I would prefer the F-90 or the Slayer (SL-15) since they're a hair quicker.  Maybe not as good at the superiority role as a Stuka, (Well, except that an SL-15 can do more complex turn-and-burn in a dogfight and has an edge in a turning fight due to that nice, deep fuel tank) but better as airstrike/bomb trucks (the F-90 actually has the advantage over the Slayer here, it has more energy weapons and they hit harder, but it's got a little bladder five tons, so not as good as a dogfighter).

anything 5/8 doesn't belong hauling bombs when 6/9 and faster are available.

The only thing I'll add is there is technically a 4th option of Dive Bombing.  But it is something that I also put on the list of very calculated risk.

That it is a bit more accurate and has an exception to the maximum number of bombs you can drop per hex helps.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #26 on: 26 February 2021, 04:56:44 »
Well, what still I don't get is, WHY speed after packing the bombs is important in ground mapsheet. After had some test games, it seems that ASFs in the ground mapsheets are must not maintain its thrust over than 3, and usually they are only stick with thrust of 1 to 2 at most to keep attack its target and/or keep within the battlefield, so over than safe thrust of 3 have really no difference with those slowcows. In atmospheric map, sure slow one is not meant to be usable. But what about the dedicated attacker?

So what point I have missed? Perhaps, special maneuvers? Else the possibility that they needs to scramble from far behind of the line? Or any other reason that keep thrust high have or at least the possibility to need to push it that much?

Honestly, I don't want to convince anyone. Just, I don't know the reasons because I didn't heard WHY it is so important. Please, explain me why it is important, and how to use it.

What I am already aware are;
-Bomb costs your thrust, 1~5 cause -1, 6~10 cause -2, 11~15 cause -3, and 16~20 cause -4.
-An ASF/conventional fighter have 1 bomb slot per each 5 ton for free. So a 50 tonner can have up to 10 bombs, 70 tonner can have up to 14 bombs, 85 tonner can have up to 17. That means your Hellcat II cannot put 20 bombs and reduce its safe thrust by 4, and only up to 10 bombs.
-(in my limited experience) You should keep your thrust 3 or lower, and usually only 1 to 2, in ground mapsheet.

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5376
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #27 on: 26 February 2021, 09:18:45 »
Well, what still I don't get is, WHY speed after packing the bombs is important in ground mapsheet. After had some test games, it seems that ASFs in the ground mapsheets are must not maintain its thrust over than 3, and usually they are only stick with thrust of 1 to 2 at most to keep attack its target and/or keep within the battlefield, so over than safe thrust of 3 have really no difference with those slowcows. In atmospheric map, sure slow one is not meant to be usable. But what about the dedicated attacker?

So what point I have missed? Perhaps, special maneuvers? Else the possibility that they needs to scramble from far behind of the line? Or any other reason that keep thrust high have or at least the possibility to need to push it that much?

Honestly, I don't want to convince anyone. Just, I don't know the reasons because I didn't heard WHY it is so important. Please, explain me why it is important, and how to use it.

What I am already aware are;
-Bomb costs your thrust, 1~5 cause -1, 6~10 cause -2, 11~15 cause -3, and 16~20 cause -4.
-An ASF/conventional fighter have 1 bomb slot per each 5 ton for free. So a 50 tonner can have up to 10 bombs, 70 tonner can have up to 14 bombs, 85 tonner can have up to 17. That means your Hellcat II cannot put 20 bombs and reduce its safe thrust by 4, and only up to 10 bombs.
-(in my limited experience) You should keep your thrust 3 or lower, and usually only 1 to 2, in ground mapsheet.


yes, actually, special manuevers are actually important, unless you're only making a single pass and your bomb load is small enough to drop in a single go.

at which point, we're not talking about a dedicated ground attack unit, but instead a single-use asset.  (*in which case, you largely don't even need armor or weapons at all.)

But if you ARE making multiple attack passes, velocity 1 or 2 is totally insufficient, especially if you actually want to get your bombs close to that moving high-value target.

remember: a bomb dropped on nothing, with nothing in range, is worth nothing, and you won't always have sufficient advantage to plan your entry and course comfortably.  You may need to immelmann, or side-slip, or loop to get your target in line for your strike, strafe, dive-bomb or bombing run, or to come around for a second pass in a timely fashion.

Or, you know, to avoid the other guy's air support or air-defense positions/units that aren't on your planned route.

IOW to use it tactically on the map instead of as a one-use gimmick and BV sink.

it's not enough to just have sufficient velocity to remain in the air, you need to be able to do things and use your aircraft while you're doing it.
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #28 on: 26 February 2021, 09:34:05 »
Got it. Thanks, although I am still not familiar with this but I am starting to understand it....

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5376
Re: Attacker ASF designs?
« Reply #29 on: 26 February 2021, 22:51:30 »
Got it. Thanks, although I am still not familiar with this but I am starting to understand it....

Don't just believe me, get a game together and TEST IT. 

Look, I've been wrong in the past, I've gotten things wrong and had wrong interpretations, the only way to be sure anyone's advice or explanations have any actual value, is to put them to a series of blind tests, different players on each side, with the rulebook open to verify things step by step.'

One other thing I'll caution you on: Don't try to use Aerospace on small maps.  You need 2x3 minimum and bigger if you can get it because it's difficult to get it right on a smaller map table.
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

 

Register