Register Register

Author Topic: LAM question  (Read 776 times)

Dreadpool

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 139
LAM question
« on: 07 August 2022, 20:46:04 »
Does the cost and weight of a LAM chassis include the fuel tank and its contents?

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8815
Re: LAM question
« Reply #1 on: 07 August 2022, 21:18:57 »
Yes.

Any fuel it carries must fit and be included within a LAM's weight.
Sun Tzu Liao: Scheming, opportunistic weasel of a ruler, or brilliant political tactician?
-What's the difference?

Dreadpool

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 139
Re: LAM question
« Reply #2 on: 07 August 2022, 21:37:09 »
Yes.

Any fuel it carries must fit and be included within a LAM's weight.
I use the Remlab design program and, when I select the LAM design option, the fule tank isn't mentioned anywhere...
http://remlab.sourceforge.net/

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8815
Re: LAM question
« Reply #3 on: 07 August 2022, 21:41:29 »
Ah, looks like the program is ridiculously old. Up to date rules for LAMs are in Interstellar Operations, and fuel tank component is a component just like any other.

Quoting from IO:
Code: [Select]
Fuel: LAMs receive 1 free ton’s worth of fuel as part of their conversion
equipment. This free ton provides 80 fuel points but does not add to
the unit’s allocated weight, nor does it occupy a critical slot. Additional
fuel may be added in full-ton lots (each providing an additional 80 fuel
points), with each ton of fuel occupying 1 critical slot.

C-bill cost for the extra tanks works as usual. The integral tank's cost is included in the conversion equipment/engine/whatever.
« Last Edit: 07 August 2022, 21:43:12 by Empyrus »
Sun Tzu Liao: Scheming, opportunistic weasel of a ruler, or brilliant political tactician?
-What's the difference?

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10959
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: LAM question
« Reply #4 on: 07 August 2022, 22:40:31 »
that lack of fuel in the canon units (which only use that integral supply) is part of the reason that you don't want to dogfight in ASF mode, even if you are facing an enemy weak enough that the LAM has the better guns and mobility. just about everything flying has better endurance than you.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3785
Re: LAM question
« Reply #5 on: 08 August 2022, 19:09:37 »
LAMs can also carry external fuel tanks in the bomb bay. You only get a half a ton of fuel that way though.

Dreadpool

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 139
Re: LAM question
« Reply #6 on: 09 August 2022, 22:08:32 »
The LAM designs posted in the Sarna.net article have no extra fuel tankage; I have to conclude that all they have on-board is the 80 points of fuel intrinsic to an LAM.

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8815
Re: LAM question
« Reply #7 on: 10 August 2022, 07:01:07 »
The LAM designs posted in the Sarna.net article have no extra fuel tankage; I have to conclude that all they have on-board is the 80 points of fuel intrinsic to an LAM.
Indeed, if you look at the rule i quoted, it states the internal tank has 80 points.
Sun Tzu Liao: Scheming, opportunistic weasel of a ruler, or brilliant political tactician?
-What's the difference?

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10959
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: LAM question
« Reply #8 on: 10 August 2022, 07:15:06 »
The LAM designs posted in the Sarna.net article have no extra fuel tankage; I have to conclude that all they have on-board is the 80 points of fuel intrinsic to an LAM.
this is what i mean. of the official LAM designs, there are only three variants* out of 22 total variants** mount bomb bays allowing them to carry additional fuel, and none of them use liquid storage systems/fuel tanks to expand on that internal fuel.



*the WSP-100 WSP-100 Wasp LAM Mk I, the WOB WSP-110 Wasp LAM (which both mount 5 tons bays) and the Pwwka with a single ton bay. the Wasp LAM variants are clearly indicated in the descriptions as usign their bays for munitions, so the only one which seems to have mounted a bomb bay for fuel carriage is the Pwwka.. which could only add an extra 40pts of fuel.
**which includes the experimental Screamer and Shadow Hawk LAMs, and the non-functional Champion and Scorpion LAMs.

nova_dew

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 705
Re: LAM question
« Reply #9 on: 10 August 2022, 07:58:03 »
this is what i mean. of the official LAM designs, there are only three variants* out of 22 total variants** mount bomb bays allowing them to carry additional fuel, and none of them use liquid storage systems/fuel tanks to expand on that internal fuel.



*the WSP-100 WSP-100 Wasp LAM Mk I, the WOB WSP-110 Wasp LAM (which both mount 5 tons bays) and the Pwwka with a single ton bay. the Wasp LAM variants are clearly indicated in the descriptions as usign their bays for munitions, so the only one which seems to have mounted a bomb bay for fuel carriage is the Pwwka.. which could only add an extra 40pts of fuel.
**which includes the experimental Screamer and Shadow Hawk LAMs, and the non-functional Champion and Scorpion LAMs.


Part of the issue is part of the vocal community doesn't like LAMs for reasons of anything from "They break my suspension of belief" (ironic since 'Mechs in this setting are pretty much impossible given the laws of physics), to "They no longer fit the setting" (which is understandable, since BT is no longer an Anime sim), to "they are the cheesiest cheese that ever cheesed even if you put them on a cheeseboard and compared them to cheese" (parts of them were under some rules, some of which was from creatively interpreted rules) and all this resulted in a rules rewrite to them that some would say nerfed them rules wise, which results in LAMs that are a dead end tech by design, and thus any LAMs we see will have obvious flaws, such as no extra fuel, limited weaponry, ect

That being said i think they were over nurfed and while they can be the purest of cheese in pick up games, they would become balanced in large, long term campaigns where you have to deal with crew training times (it takes longer to train a LAM pilot than any other crew afaik and then that leaves you with a pilot that's less proficient than either a 'Mech or Aero pilot), funding units, Logistics, strategy and tactics, where the costs and times needed would balance out the LAMs strengths, but those types of game are rarer than LAMs in 3153 and i don't think there's even rules to cover things like training times or tax bases...

TLDR: LAMs have limited tech to use in them, something had to be sacrificed, that something was fuel because pick up games are the rule and they had to be somewhat usable at least in a pick up game so they went weapons and armour in the designs and sometimes a dash of "what chemical was the in universe designer using to distract themselves while designing it"
A member of Clan Ghost Bears Legal Team

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8815
Re: LAM question
« Reply #10 on: 10 August 2022, 18:43:56 »
LAMs make little sense in-universe for most things. One on one, 'Mechs and ASFs are better, even if advanced tech were fully allowed on LAMs as they spend mass on conversion gear. LAMs primary usefulness is in recon, but that is not terribly interesting on tabletop, and doesn't really suit simple pick-up games.
Too niche platform overall, me thinks, regardless of their exact rules balancing or whether they "fit" in BT.
Sun Tzu Liao: Scheming, opportunistic weasel of a ruler, or brilliant political tactician?
-What's the difference?

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3785
Re: LAM question
« Reply #11 on: 10 August 2022, 20:50:34 »
TLDR: LAMs have limited tech to use in them, something had to be sacrificed, that something was fuel because pick up games are the rule and they had to be somewhat usable at least in a pick up game so they went weapons and armour in the designs and sometimes a dash of "what chemical was the in universe designer using to distract themselves while designing it"


BattleTech not being an anime sim?  Big stompy robots robots is a staple of scifi anime. BT even had a cartoon.  :))   Of course that doesn't mean BT is an anime sim but it could be.

That LAMs are a technological dead end, depends entirely upon how much they're nerfed. I don't think LAMs should return to their original rules but right now they're too nerfed. There needs to be a Goldilocks medium. QuadVees have it. LAMs need it.

And cheesy?  Have they seen that Fireball that can move 40 hexes, without Sprinting?


LAMs make little sense in-universe for most things. One on one, 'Mechs and ASFs are better, even if advanced tech were fully allowed on LAMs as they spend mass on conversion gear. LAMs primary usefulness is in recon, but that is not terribly interesting on tabletop, and doesn't really suit simple pick-up games.
Too niche platform overall, me thinks, regardless of their exact rules balancing or whether they "fit" in BT.


I think most people don't realize that Recon is not the only role LAMs can perform. There's Rapid Response and Rapid Strike. They can move faster than most other units to plug any holes in your line or take advantage of holes in the enemy lines. There's search and destroy missions. Hunt down those recon mechs behind your lines. Destroy enemy depots. Raiding should be include but that was nerfed away. If LAMs could carry passengers there's search and rescue missions. There's even a Mech for that, which was talked about in another thread. LAMs can act as couriers. Take off and act as spotters. There's all kinds of missions LAMs can do.

 

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3785
Re: LAM question
« Reply #12 on: 10 August 2022, 20:57:50 »
this is what i mean. of the official LAM designs, there are only three variants* out of 22 total variants** mount bomb bays allowing them to carry additional fuel, and none of them use liquid storage systems/fuel tanks to expand on that internal fuel.



*the WSP-100 WSP-100 Wasp LAM Mk I, the WOB WSP-110 Wasp LAM (which both mount 5 tons bays) and the Pwwka with a single ton bay. the Wasp LAM variants are clearly indicated in the descriptions as usign their bays for munitions, so the only one which seems to have mounted a bomb bay for fuel carriage is the Pwwka.. which could only add an extra 40pts of fuel.
**which includes the experimental Screamer and Shadow Hawk LAMs, and the non-functional Champion and Scorpion LAMs.



The Wasp LAM's fluff talks about weapons but it can carry External Fuel and External Consumables Pods in the bomb bays. LAMs cannot carry liquid storage tanks though. I know, technically fuel tanks are liquid storage but they're labeled Fuel Tanks and only carry fuel. Liquid Storage is a type of cargo bay and can carry a variety of liquids. None of which LAMs aren't allowed to carry. I don't know why. I'd love to have a LAM with refrigerated liquid tanks carrying Timbiqui Dark.  ;D



garhkal

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6163
Re: LAM question
« Reply #13 on: 10 August 2022, 23:48:23 »
So if the internal mechanism gives "80" fuel points, how much use does that give??  80 turns of jumping?  40?  one point per MP?
It's not who you kill, but how they die!
You can't shoot what you can't see.
You can not dodge it if you don't know it's coming.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3785
Re: LAM question
« Reply #14 on: 11 August 2022, 00:35:07 »
So if the internal mechanism gives "80" fuel points, how much use does that give??  80 turns of jumping?  40?  one point per MP?

I believe that's 80 thrust points, when in Fighter Mode.

pokefan548

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1494
  • The Barracuda knows where it is, hence the -2 mod.
    • Poke's Aerospace Academy (Discord Server)
Re: LAM question
« Reply #15 on: 11 August 2022, 08:44:40 »
Yeah, it's for fighter mode. Fuel consumption is covered in Strategic Operations, but the skinny is that as long as you're not pushing your craft too hard or trying anything particularly fancy, you've got 80 thrust to spend before you have to land.
Poke's Aerospace Academy
The best place to learn and discuss AeroTech.


BattleTech players: Throwing the baby out with the bathwater since 1984!
"Poke is just a figment of our imagination really." - Siam
"Poke isn't a real person, he's just an algorithm programmed by CGL to try and get people to try the aerospace rules." - Phantasm
"I want to plant the meat eating trees and the meat growing trees on the same planet! Watch that plant on plant violence!" - Sawtooth