Unhappy with LAMs: brainstorming

[packhntr]

My primary gripe with LAMS is (according to the last rule set I read) they can't use virtually any of the advanced construction materials.  No XLFE, LFE, Double Heat Sinks, XL Gyros, Various Armors, etc.  That just kills them.  I can understand some things....XL Engine...due to it being split into multiple hit locations....  But how about some special rules to allow LFE's.  Maybe use a compact gyro (mandatory) and stack the extra LFE slots into the CT?  And WHY can they use DHS?  Come on! One House Rule we always had was weapons could not be split into multiple locations.  AND their ammo had to be in the same location as the weapon.  It restricted things nicely, but allowed everything.   I created a 50 ton LAM with Stealth armor, Composite internals and Improved JJs.  I forget the exact movement and loadout, but it was pretty darn effective as a harasser/scout.

[Alexander Knight]

LAMs can use double heat sinks because otherwise there's almost no variation in the design.  You stick with the low-heat standard lasers, autocannons, and missiles.
Because you can't get the extra tonnage from engines, gyros, armor, or structure like you can with standard 'mechs, so you can't pile on the SHS to use paired ER LL.

[The_Caveman]

The way I see it, LAM gyros are already special gyros, LAM structure is already special structure, etc., etc. Thus the inability to use endo-steel and so on.

Personally, I've never been able to suspend my disbelief quite far enough to permit LAMs to exist. The whole idea of a 'Mech turning into a plane is just fraught with so many problems that would prevent it ever reaching deployment. For one, the wings you would need to lift a BattleMech and allow it to actually maneuver would be enormous and it's difficult to imagine how they'd fit into the chassis when it was in 'Mech mode. ASFs already have the flying brick problem that is barely compensated for by them having multiple Gs of thrust. Since a LAM would be a clumsy flyer anyway owing to its distribution of mass, why even bother with the wings? Just fit a normal 'Mech with huge thrusters and brute-force your way into the sky if you want to fly.

The whole idea seems like it would work better on a smaller scale. ProtoMech LAMs make more sense from a square-cube law perspective and they offer the chance to rectify the problems of not one but two otherwise-mediocre designs.

[Maingunnery]

The whole idea seems like it would work better on a smaller scale. ProtoMech LAMs make more sense from a square-cube law perspective and they offer the chance to rectify the problems of not one but two otherwise-mediocre designs.

For myself P-LAMs are not really interesting, now if it concerned BA-LAMs, then I would be more interested.

[The_Caveman]

For myself P-LAMs are not really interesting, now if it concerned BA-LAMs, then I would be more interested.

I'm a little concerned about how the pilot of a BA-LAM would handle the transformation!

Reminds me of some flavor text in Metroid Prime where the space pirates experimented with copying morph-ball technology....with grisly results.

[packhntr]

For one, the wings you would need to lift a BattleMech and allow it to actually maneuver would be enormous and it's difficult to imagine how they'd fit into the chassis when it was in 'Mech mode. ASFs already have the flying brick problem that is barely compensated for by them having multiple Gs of thrust. Since a LAM would be a clumsy flyer anyway owing to its distribution of mass, why even bother with the wings? Just fit a normal 'Mech with huge thrusters and brute-force your way into the sky if you want to fly.

Well, an F-14 has a max takeoff weight of 74,350lbs...or 37 tons and an F-22 has a max takeoff weight of 83,500lbs or 47.75 tons. And both maneuver quite well. It's not too much of a stretch (given the IN-GAME technological advances) to bump that to a max of 55 tons.  Is it optimal?  NO.  Realistic?  NO.  It's a game. 

[Maingunnery]

I'm a little concerned about how the pilot of a BA-LAM would handle the transformation!

Reminds me of some flavor text in Metroid Prime where the space pirates experimented with copying morph-ball technology....with grisly results.

BA-LAM wouldn't really require any actual transformation, it could be little more then a rocketeer suit with advanced deployable wings.

[The_Caveman]

Well, an F-14 has a max takeoff weight of 74,350lbs...or 37 tons and an F-22 has a max takeoff weight of 83,500lbs or 47.75 tons. And both maneuver quite well. It's not too much of a stretch (given the IN-GAME technological advances) to bump that to a max of 55 tons.  Is it optimal?  NO.  Realistic?  NO.  It's a game.

It's not about weight, it's about wing loading. If you want to lift a lot of weight you need a lot of wing area. Just one of an F-14's wings is nearly the size of an entire Wasp LAM. Even if you could magically punch the lift coefficient up by a factor of 3, a 55-ton LAM is still going to have space problems. The wings have to go somewhere when they're folded up, and the mechanism for stowing them will take up space too. Bimodals can get around this a bit by having a permanently aerodynamic torso and treating the legs as landing struts.

Having the wings at all though is a huge structural liability compared to having some control fins that were fixed-in-place and using your giant honking fusion engine to provide the effort needed to get the thing into the air. If the whole LAM concept were started over from scratch and we ignored the influence of Macross on what the designs ought to look like, a sensible LAM would more resemble a Sylph battle armor than a veritech fighter.

(I don't see how "it's a game" is any defense to anything, frankly, any more than "it's a movie" excuses gaping plot holes or "it's an ice cream cone" makes pistachio taste good.)

BA-LAM wouldn't really require any actual transformation, it could be little more then a rocketeer suit with advanced deployable wings.

I like this idea. The need for cramming in an honest-to-god fusion engine and fuel storage might limit you to heavy and assault class suits only, though. The idea is getting close to the Mobile Infantry from Starship Troopers (minus the mini-nukes).

[idea weenie]

It's not about weight, it's about wing loading. If you want to lift a lot of weight you need a lot of wing area. Just one of an F-14's wings is nearly the size of an entire Wasp LAM. Even if you could magically punch the lift coefficient up by a factor of 3, a 55-ton LAM is still going to have space problems. The wings have to go somewhere when they're folded up, and the mechanism for stowing them will take up space too. Bimodals can get around this a bit by having a permanently aerodynamic torso and treating the legs as landing struts.

Having the wings at all though is a huge structural liability compared to having some control fins that were fixed-in-place and using your giant honking fusion engine to provide the effort needed to get the thing into the air. If the whole LAM concept were started over from scratch and we ignored the influence of Macross on what the designs ought to look like, a sensible LAM would more resemble a Sylph battle armor than a veritech fighter.

Would making LAM wings take up side torso slots help out?  Say 1 slot per 10 tons, FRU, per side?  So a 55 ton LAM needs 6 slots in each side torso for LAM wings

[Sabelkatten]

Would making LAM wings take up side torso slots help out?  Say 1 slot per 10 tons, FRU, per side?  So a 55 ton LAM needs 6 slots in each side torso for LAM wings

That actually a really neat idea. If you expand it a bit to include taking up slots in the arms it should do a pretty good job at both limiting advanced costruction materials and limiting size.

[packhntr]

It's not about weight, it's about wing loading. If you want to lift a lot of weight you need a lot of wing area. Just one of an F-14's wings is nearly the size of an entire Wasp LAM.

Where is this stated?  All of the canon images I have ever seen do not show this.  Everything I have ever seen shows a very direct comparison to an F14 size wise for a Phoenix Hawk LAM.  And the others are only slightly smaller even though their weight is 20t less.  And as for wing loading, proper material selection takes care of that readily.

[The_Caveman]

Where is this stated?  All of the canon images I have ever seen do not show this.  Everything I have ever seen shows a very direct comparison to an F14 size wise for a Phoenix Hawk LAM.

A single F-14 wing panel is 7.5m in length and has a chord of 3m at the root. As per this chart a Commando is 8.5m tall and 4m in width. Which would put the 30-ton Stinger and Wasp LAMs in the 9m tall range in 'Mech mode. That's "nearly as big" enough for me, since none of the "reseen" LAM artwork includes a size chart. The P-hawk LAM is based on the full-scale VF-1 Valkyrie which is dimensionally quite a bit smaller than an F-14 (14.2m long in fighter mode vs 19.1m, with a similar difference in wingspan), and in battroid mode stands about 12m tall, which is in keeping with common medium 'Mechs.

And as for wing loading, proper material selection takes care of that readily.

I don't think you got what I mean by wing loading.

The lift generated by a wing is proportional to the square of the airspeed times the effective lifting area times the air density, as stated in the equation L=1/2 * p * V^2 * (S * Cl).

When you boil that equation down and solve for weight, the square of the minimum speed needed to fly is proportional to the total weight divided by the total wing area. This is what we call "wing loading" and is expressed in lbs/sqft or kg/m².

A more highly-loaded wing has a higher stall speed and accordingly the aircraft is less maneuverable because to make a turn you have to generate lift equal to the weight of the aircraft times the number of Gs (extreme examples being the F-104 Starfighter and the Space Shuttle, which were more akin to projectiles than aircraft).

Thus, the more weight you're trying to lift, the more wing you need. Material selection has little to do with it. There is some wiggle room for very thick wings and large slotted flaps that increase the effective wing area, but not enough to put a small wing on a big 'Mech.

In the case of the Wasp LAM, to have the same wing loading as an F-14 (and thus similar flying characteristics, noting also that an F-14 at maximum takeoff weight is quite sluggish and has to burn off a lot of fuel before it can really dogfight) it would need wings 95% the scale of the F-14's (7.125m x 2.85m each). A Phoenix Hawk LAM would need wings 9.6m x 3.8m each, which when folded would be as wide as an Atlas's shoulders and would nearly drag the ground. Even with a pure magic sci-fi wing that produced 3 times the lift because reasons, the wings together would have a volume comparable to the entire center torso.

That's a lot of bulk and ungainly mass compared to jump jets and ASF thrusters, which would be more effective at getting a 'Mech into the air and are well known to be very small in comparison to a 'Mech chassis. A "hovermech" using jet lift would be just as capable if not moreso than a winged LAM, minus having the glide ratio of an office building (not that LAMs do much better when their engines are disabled, going by the few times they appeared in novels).

[TigerShark]

Have you considered telescopic wings as a possibility?

[Maingunnery]

I like this idea. The need for cramming in an honest-to-god fusion engine and fuel storage might limit you to heavy and assault class suits only, though. The idea is getting close to the Mobile Infantry from Starship Troopers (minus the mini-nukes).

Engine weight can likely be determined by using a combination of ASF engine rating formula and use that rating in the protomech engine weight formula.
The fuel itself would have to be rescaled to fit the smaller unit size.

[Maingunnery]

I think that the next-generations of Land-Air-Mechs should be bimodal with aerodynamic torsos, which only transform between fighter and a chicken-walking 'Mech.
And like with the QuadVees, such a transformation could be done through repositioning of the arms & legs. This could also return all those construction options (XL, Endo & Ferro) to them.

Other fun options would be:

• Fixed-Air-Mechs (just no transformation)
• Space-Mechs (pure thrust/VTOL, likely have to pay a engine rating penalty in exchange)

[Jester006]

If you're designing a LAM for competitive play, then you'll have to obey normal construction rules.

If you're designing them for a campaign, then make up what ever you want to.  Why shouldn't a LAM have access to endo-steel structures or XL engines?  Those technologies were around during the SLDF; who's to say some LAMs weren't manufactured with them?

I may not be an aerospace engineer, but I can certainly tell you that if the designers of a flying capable machine had access to materials that provided the same strength but weighed less than their counterparts, they would use those lighter materials in a heartbeat; assuming cost and availability isnt a problem.

As someone who has run campaigns before, i always try to make some specially designed units as a way of throwing a curve ball at the players.  The hardest part about doing that is trying to get the balancing down.

[TigerShark]

I would actually go the other way with it: LAMs should be REQUIRED to have Endo Steel, since a normal BattleMech's frame would probably make it like trying to fly a brick with wings. It would also have the dual purpose of (a) restricting its availability during the Succession Wars and explain their decline and (b) limit critical slots. The latter makes a lot of sense, since the conversion gear wouldn't leave much space for ammunition bins, or at least make feeding them more of a chore.

[Easy]

cleanup

[Maingunnery]

MattPlog just posted some special commissioned (Not from me) LAM art, just some food for discussion/inspiration:

https://www.deviantart.com/mattplog/art/Comm-vLAM-Chopper-771754119

https://www.deviantart.com/mattplog/art/Comm-LAMvee-Triple-Changer-771755258

[The_Caveman]

MattPlog just posted some special commissioned (Not from me) LAM art, just some food for discussion/inspiration:

https://www.deviantart.com/mattplog/art/Comm-vLAM-Chopper-771754119

https://www.deviantart.com/mattplog/art/Comm-LAMvee-Triple-Changer-771755258

Oy vey. How about one that changes into a cassette deck?  xp

[Korzon77]

LAM's have a huge advantage over every other unit in the game--they can go anywhere. Need to fly low and slow? They can do it. Need to go into space, they can do it. Need to do a fast suborbital flight, turn into a mech, and mug that group of bandits that thought they were in the clear? Fine.

Strategically they need no other advantage, because that's what they're for. 

So the problem becomes, the closer you bring them to regular mechs, the more goodies they can use, you run into the strategic question of: why isn't everyone just building LAM's.  Even if they're more expensive, the incredible mobility they have, for most applications, trumps everything else.

IE, you have a world with three cities, one regiment to cover it, and it's been divided into battalion units for each city.  If those cities are 400 miles apart, the units can't support each other. If they concentrate, they leave two of the three cities uncovered. Using transport presents it's own problems, especially if you're deploying into a "hot zone."

But LAMS, on the attack or defense, can quickly concentrate, or if the battle is going poorly, run away faster than anyone can follow.  With LAMs, you never have to surrender the initiative to your slower enemy--not unless he has a vastly increased number of combat units.

The problem with LAMS isn't so much technology as them being misused.

[Atarlost]

LAM's have a huge advantage over every other unit in the game--they can go anywhere. Need to fly low and slow? They can do it. Need to go into space, they can do it. Need to do a fast suborbital flight, turn into a mech, and mug that group of bandits that thought they were in the clear? Fine.

Except they pretty much can't do any of those.  Need to fly low and slow?  That makes them a target.  This is a job for conventional aircraft or if you must transport them over interstellar distances possibly very light and cheap ASF.  Need to go into space?  Presumably you need them to accomplish more than just being in space for Cold War propaganda.  With their limited fuel reserves and all the mech dead weight without even going into conversion equipment it's not looking good.  Need to do a fast suborbital flight, turn into a mech, and mug a group of bandits?  If you seriously out-mass them or they're in primitive Age of War relics it's possible, but unless it's something really unbalanced like PHX LAMs against bugs you'll need a lot of LAMs relative to the enemy's force.  If you'd invested those resources in non-transforming ASF would they have landed?  They obviously don't have ASF escorting their dropship or your LAMs would have trouble getting to them. 

It doesn't matter how flexible something is if it performs all roles badly.  No matter how you use it it's overpriced and outclassed when it comes to actual fighting.  LAMs, comparing 3025 to 3025, are about 50% more expensive than an equivalent mech and cap out at comparable to 40 tonners.  There exist no ASF bad enough to be comparable to LAMs. 

IE, you have a world with three cities, one regiment to cover it, and it's been divided into battalion units for each city.  If those cities are 400 miles apart, the units can't support each other. If they concentrate, they leave two of the three cities uncovered. Using transport presents it's own problems, especially if you're deploying into a "hot zone."

Something a battalion can't beat, force to retreat, or tie down for a day does not sound like a raid, and if it's more than a raid you can concentrate your forces near any city you choose or in an empty plain not particularly near any of them and they'll have to come to you rather than leave a force in being on planet. 

[The_Caveman]

It doesn't matter how flexible something is if it performs all roles badly.  No matter how you use it it's overpriced and outclassed when it comes to actual fighting.  LAMs, comparing 3025 to 3025, are about 50% more expensive than an equivalent mech and cap out at comparable to 40 tonners.  There exist no ASF bad enough to be comparable to LAMs.

This sounds familiar....

Awww, crap.

If only the SLDF had a service branch with the role and inimitable ego of the USMC, we'd have a great explanation for how LAMs came about in-universe. "We need our own version that can go everywhere, do anything, and we don't care how impractical or expensive it is because it's ours dadgummit!"

[Korzon77]

Something a battalion can't beat, force to retreat, or tie down for a day does not sound like a raid, and if it's more than a raid you can concentrate your forces near any city you choose or in an empty plain not particularly near any of them and they'll have to come to you rather than leave a force in being on planet.

And while you're sitting on an empty plain--the LAM's just blew up three cities. Also, unless you sit on that plain all the time, the LAM's can catch your mechs in transit, unless they always travel in large packs--and those large packs aren't exactly controlling much in teh way of territory. Meanwhile, they're also shooting up all the rear echelon support services that mechs depend on.  As well as every bridge they might use, and every rail net link.

Your own statements prove the greatest advantage of LAMs--your strategy immediately, and irrecoverably, surrenders the initiative to the enemy.

[Korzon77]

Now, the kid is off to school, so I can cmplete this--

But the very strategic advantages, their mobility, demands that LAMs be markedly inferior to mechs, aerospace, etc, in any kind of straight up fight, because if they aren't, they suddenly turn into the primary unit everyone wants--which is fine for Macross, but not for Btech. That is, I feel, the greatest barrier to improving LAMs, is that they already straddle a very fine line.

Secondly, and thisis a gaming problem, the primary way LAMs would be employed in combat--using that advantage in speed to never, ever, fight on even terms, mugging that little platoon left guarding a vital bridge while the enemy mechs are out of position is...

Well, for gaming, boring. "Okay Sam, you crest the hill and see the two militia trucks panicking as they see your LAMS--what do you do?" does not make for a satisfying experience on either side of the gaming board, so most scenarios won't be employing LAMs in the way that maximizes their advantages--for quite understandable reasons.

[Maingunnery]

I rather give up some WIGE mobility.

[Sabelkatten]

Now, the kid is off to school, so I can cmplete this--

But the very strategic advantages, their mobility, demands that LAMs be markedly inferior to mechs, aerospace, etc, in any kind of straight up fight, because if they aren't, they suddenly turn into the primary unit everyone wants--which is fine for Macross, but not for Btech. That is, I feel, the greatest barrier to improving LAMs, is that they already straddle a very fine line.

Secondly, and thisis a gaming problem, the primary way LAMs would be employed in combat--using that advantage in speed to never, ever, fight on even terms, mugging that little platoon left guarding a vital bridge while the enemy mechs are out of position is...

Well, for gaming, boring. "Okay Sam, you crest the hill and see the two militia trucks panicking as they see your LAMS--what do you do?" does not make for a satisfying experience on either side of the gaming board, so most scenarios won't be employing LAMs in the way that maximizes their advantages--for quite understandable reasons.

Thought, arguably, that's how movement already works.

If you're faster than the enemy you can in theory always decide when and where to fight.

If you have dropships and the enemy doesn't, same.

And so on. LAMs just take it up a notch because they can switch to their "strategic" mode faster. But the basic fact is that the slower side in any case has to position itself so that the faster side has to fight it - ambush, or defending the enemy's objective.

[Atarlost]

And while you're sitting on an empty plain--the LAM's just blew up three cities. Also, unless you sit on that plain all the time, the LAM's can catch your mechs in transit, unless they always travel in large packs--and those large packs aren't exactly controlling much in teh way of territory. Meanwhile, they're also shooting up all the rear echelon support services that mechs depend on.  As well as every bridge they might use, and every rail net link.

Only if they have air supremacy, and given air supremacy ASF can do it more efficiently.  They can carry bombs externally without sacrificing already scarce tonnage. 

LAMs compared to mechs in 3025 are bad.  LAMs compared to mechs in 2750 are terrible.  LAMs compared to ASF in any era, even the Jihad when those ASF may well be retrotech make do fighters, are hopeless. 

Now, the kid is off to school, so I can cmplete this--

But the very strategic advantages, their mobility, demands that LAMs be markedly inferior to mechs, aerospace, etc, in any kind of straight up fight, because if they aren't, they suddenly turn into the primary unit everyone wants--which is fine for Macross, but not for Btech. That is, I feel, the greatest barrier to improving LAMs, is that they already straddle a very fine line.

Secondly, and thisis a gaming problem, the primary way LAMs would be employed in combat--using that advantage in speed to never, ever, fight on even terms, mugging that little platoon left guarding a vital bridge while the enemy mechs are out of position is...

Well, for gaming, boring. "Okay Sam, you crest the hill and see the two militia trucks panicking as they see your LAMS--what do you do?" does not make for a satisfying experience on either side of the gaming board, so most scenarios won't be employing LAMs in the way that maximizes their advantages--for quite understandable reasons.

What's going to happen in gaming is that if you take LAMs your opponent will take ASFs instead of ceding air supremacy because you're bringing aerospace rules into this by using LAMs in the first place.  And ASFs outperform LAMs by a ridiculous margin in every respect including strategic mobility.  There may be some militia trucks to attack several air mapsheets over if you can get to them, but right now you're up to your ears in Sabres and if you trade a LAM for a Sabre and a militia truck you're losing the war of attrition. 

[The_Caveman]

Only if they have air supremacy, and given air supremacy ASF can do it more efficiently.  They can carry bombs externally without sacrificing already scarce tonnage. 

LAMs compared to mechs in 3025 are bad.  LAMs compared to mechs in 2750 are terrible.  LAMs compared to ASF in any era, even the Jihad when those ASF may well be retrotech make do fighters, are hopeless. 
What's going to happen in gaming is that if you take LAMs your opponent will take ASFs instead of ceding air supremacy because you're bringing aerospace rules into this by using LAMs in the first place.  And ASFs outperform LAMs by a ridiculous margin in every respect including strategic mobility.  There may be some militia trucks to attack several air mapsheets over if you can get to them, but right now you're up to your ears in Sabres and if you trade a LAM for a Sabre and a militia truck you're losing the war of attrition.

Not only that, but the LAMs have to get to the planet in the first place. They make poor fighters so the defending force with ASFs will make mincemeat of them and their DropShips on the way in. An equal-cost or even equal-BV force of Sabres and Lightnings will annihilate LAMs trying to make planetfall.

LAMs are only advantageous when the other side has only ground or air capability but not both. Or when its resources are spread so thin that a lance of LAM raiders can operate behind the lines for extensive periods and attack infrastructure--but even then they're highly vulnerable to being drawn into a trap.

[idea weenie]

LAMs do have one key advantage that they can serve as both a ground and air force.

I.e.:
Defender has 12 Mechs and 12 ASF
Attacker has 24 LAMs

The attacker will have 2:1 advantage against enemy ASF, and the survivors can then engage the defending Mechs on the Attacker's terms, not the defender's.  If the attackers take enough damage vs defending ASF, they might just pull back for repairs or leave entirely.  The Attacker has to be careful though, as any LAMs that get shot down can only be recovered if they win, while the Defender aircraft can try to land anywhere and the pilots can have a local taxi pick them up.

If the defender is known for using large amounts of ASF (or purely ASF), then the attacker will bring more ASF as appropriate.  But if the defender has to split BV/C-Bills/personnel between ground and air units, then LAMs can have a small chance.