Author Topic: Building a "strategic bomber" unit  (Read 6826 times)

Alan Grant

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2365
Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« on: 02 March 2024, 07:17:54 »
Watching "Masters of the Air" has reignited an old interest in bombers and strategic bombing. I know it's not just me. I'm seeing this come up a lot more across the internet.

Alongside that has come a thought and question about how that kind of unit and role might be replicated in Battletech. Not so much as a tabletop thing obviously, this might be more of a fan non-canon unit project.

I know in general, what most are doing is simply taking ASFs of all types and adding bombs when some version of a ground attack or bombing mission arises. So the reality is aerial platforms capable of doing different things, different missions.

But let's say for sake of discussion that a Great House or mercs or some other faction was looking to build a unit that was as specialized as possible to fulfill a strategic bomber mission. What do you think that looks like? What might that consist of?

I don't have a specific era or faction in mind. Or BV or any other details like that. If those details are helpful, feel free to plug in answers yourself.

I will go ahead and already say, I'm already aware of the Torrent (I believe the only actual strategic bomber in the BT universe? Correct me if I'm wrong). Could definitely see a unit built around those. So that option and possibility already has a check mark next to it in my mind. Looking beyond that.

EDIT: And let's just not get into things like how warships or PWS can do this from orbit. Already know that. That's not what I'm asking.
« Last Edit: 02 March 2024, 07:42:23 by Alan Grant »

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13412
  • I said don't look!
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #1 on: 02 March 2024, 10:27:31 »
When it comes down to it ASF really do already cover this role.

They can carry quite substantial bomb loads.  Which can include Strategic Nukes if they are big enough.

Alan Grant

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2365
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #2 on: 02 March 2024, 13:17:21 »
How much does a full load of bombs slow down an ASF again? (I can't remember the rule on that)

Also, with the above in mind, does it make sense to look for something a little lighter than 100 tons, but still a heavy probably, even if it can carry fewer bombs, just to have that extra speed to work with? I find myself wondering if there's a happy middle ground between decent bomb load but can still turn and burn a bit. Rather than a 5/8 100 tonner that can carry all the bombs but will be slowed down a lot.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13412
  • I said don't look!
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #3 on: 02 March 2024, 13:53:56 »
-1 for every 5 or fraction thereof.

Which does make 5/8 100 ton ASF loaded to the gills 1/2s and something you really should not do unless you have absolute air superiority.  Besides such ASF tend to be the better options for engaging enemy Dropships.

My experience is the sweet spot is 60-75 tons and a minimum thrust of 7/11.  That give a nice blend of maximum bomb load, thrust, and still having enough other capabilities that they can chip in on other roles as needed.

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3866
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #4 on: 02 March 2024, 13:56:32 »
Its -1 Cruise MP per 5 bombs, the optimal fast bomber would be something like the Traverse which can carry 6 Large Thermobaric bombs or 12 normal bombs at 5/8 and that's not nothing, it does sacrifice much in the process however. Something like the Shikra (a 6/9 90 ton fighter) would be slowed down to a 2/3 (aerospace fighters get +2 Cruise) with an 18 bomb load, in the process making it very difficult to operate in atmosphere as any engine damage could knock it out of the sky. A theoretical 400 100 tonner (I don't know of one) could carry 2 Alamos and that would be terrifying. The real limit is the fact that you still have to burn a lot of fuel to move much slower and that really cuts the range down to something that would be better considered a Tactical Bomber (unless it goes Transatmospheric but then it cannot escape interceptor sortie or GBAD).

Aerodyne Small Craft with the Bomb Bay quirk might be able to serve a Strategic Bomber role. You could easily fit 40 tons of bombs in there plus atmospheric flight stability and trans-atmospheric capability would make such an airframe very problematic. The Avenger is fluffed as a Bomber but that seems a reckless use for such as valuable asset compared to a few Small Craft Bombers.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 39357
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #5 on: 02 March 2024, 14:50:25 »
Dedicating cargo tonnage to an internal bomb bay would reduce speed worries.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 41359
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #6 on: 02 March 2024, 14:51:18 »
The first thing to remember is, that classic mental image you have of a B-17 or B-52 at high altitude raining an obscene number of bombs on the world below?

Throw that image out.  It doesn't happen in Battletech. No matter what you try, it's not what you're gonna get. I'm being serious here.

As mentioned, the absolute best bomber platform is an ASF that is both fast AND big. The best examples are the Hammerhead and Ostrogoth, they've got the ability to carry a full bomb load while still being able to climb or maneuver in a reasonable time frame.

Units with the Internal Bomb Bay quirk (the only such units that exist are the Torrent, Mowang, Gorgon, and kinda the Avenger) can theoretically carry larger bomb loads, but are hampered by the 6-per-turn limit. You can carry a heavy load, but are stuck with performing multiple medium attacks. And most of these units REALLY don't want to make multiple passes, because they're either too fragile to survive more then one bombing run, or they're WAY too valuable to risk a lucky hit bringing them down. This admittedly can be mitigated by using larger bombs such as Large FAEs or AtG Arrows(or nukes), but it's still a lot of risk for such expensive platforms.
My wife writes books

Sixteen tons means sixteen suits. CT must be repaired.

"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12300
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #7 on: 02 March 2024, 22:25:29 »
Dedicating cargo tonnage to an internal bomb bay would reduce speed worries.
and greatly increase the payload. the downside is the limit on how many bombs you can drop per hex.

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1956
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #8 on: 03 March 2024, 20:21:49 »
Weirdo so youd like to see the internal bomb bay/bomb rules able to support continuous bomb dropping, not limited to 10 hexes for external ordinance altitude bombing and 6 hexes for internal bomb bay altitude bombing, at least for strategic bombing?  Thats fair I suppose.  1 single long continuous bomb attack isn't possible even over multiple turns, since planes move 16 hexes at the slowest speed but can altitude bomb for only 10.  Thus with the btech turn structure, even if you have more then 20 external bombs somehow you cant use them all in a single altitude bombing run--the game supports an absolute max of 20 bombs and no more then 10 hexes in a line right?  I mean, clearly if you move 16 hexes logically you could bomb 16 hexes with altitude bombing, but like you say the game abstraction doesnt allow this.

This does feel like a gameplay abstraction level issue though, and not an issue for strategic bombing.  The big internal bomb bay bombers, for gameplay reasons, are limited (and thank goodness they are!  Can you imagine a 200+100HE HE dive bomb from a planetlifter in 1 turn!).  But said planetlifter with the internal bomb bay quirk, regardless of the gameplay balance used with 10 second ground battletech turns, is still a tactical bomber right?  30 Bombs if you customize with a quirk, that yes will take several battletech turns to drop, still puts 30 bombs on the enemy in less then a minute.  I dont think some gameplay balancing factors means the concept of a bomber wing isnt valid.

For me, my most common bombers used are the Boeing Jump bomber, and planetlifter.  I just stick with external ordinance, cause the tactical game we play is 4-8 units per side, so 40 damage from a Boeing Jump Bomber acting like a gunless F18 on a bomb mission, and the planetlifter acting like a c130 but now with bombs, is my 'big' bomber with 100 damage on demand.  The Jump bomber is good for tactical strikes, dropping bombs on soft targets like infantry, and the planetlifter goes for hard targets like mechs and assault tanks.  Those 2 work well on the battletech scale, which is kinda the tactical scale.  The Torrent, then, at 200 tons, would be akin to the 188 ton tu-95 bear strategic bomber.  And that feels about right, its a bit too big for the tactical battletech game normally played and requiring quirks and advanced support rules.  The Longhaul is a bit newer, toting 105 internal cargo, and the King Karnov has 76, so giving either the internal bomb bay quirk would make them strategic bombers that are much better then the ancient and primitive Torrent, which is a hot mess of rules.

The Gorgon at 6800 tons is a destroyer or submarine at that scale, I always assumed the internal bomb bay on those was for the nuclear Alamo and anti-air + anti-ship missiles, so the Gorgon can act like a missile destroyer or torpedo submarine, descending and ascending through the atmosphere interface layer to strike naval assets as its pocket warship type allows.  But yeah, it can also drop bombs too, but I wouldnt class it as a strategic bomber.

the tl;dr... strategic bombing is the scale above battletech, which is a tactical game.  So the issue with bombers using the internal bomb bay quirk being limited in the 10 second tactical turn in battletech isnt really a concern for this kind of force, which would be used in battleforce or planetary conquest scaled games.
« Last Edit: 03 March 2024, 20:43:09 by DevianID »

Dapper Apples

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 262
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #9 on: 04 March 2024, 01:07:05 »
Clearly instead of one big plane you should use multiple in a formation that happen to carry 20 bombs a pop.  Probably also take cluster bombs for the added AOE, as past a certain altitude the bombs will just go everywhere anyway.

Probably wouldn't be a bad idea anyway; BT doesn't have turret guns like a WWII bomber might, only a tail gunner.  Fly in formation to at least try to overlap some fire arcs.

Vehrec

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1260
  • Mr. Flibble is Very Cross
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #10 on: 05 March 2024, 14:58:34 »
Any strategic bomber worth it's salt had better be able to loft a capital missile entire onto the enemy, like a somewhat bigger Kinzhal.  At the very least, it ought to be able to loft a Manta Ray under the centerline, partly protruding from your bomb bay as you warm up the seeker head, feed it information, and detach the final umbilicals before launch.  The target?  Enemy dropships, on the ground, fired at with the capital missile as artillery rules.

That's a mission, and a weapon, worthy of the name 'strategic bomber' in my view.
*Insert support for fashionable faction of the week here*

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 41359
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #11 on: 05 March 2024, 15:04:31 »
That excludes everything smaller than a DropShip that exists and will ever exist.
My wife writes books

Sixteen tons means sixteen suits. CT must be repaired.

"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul

Vehrec

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1260
  • Mr. Flibble is Very Cross
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #12 on: 05 March 2024, 23:34:19 »
That excludes everything smaller than a DropShip that exists and will ever exist.

Which is a sad statement of the condition of the ordinance available to a player.  Why can't I have an 18 ton missile in my bomb bay?  Why are there no glide bombs, and no options to lob-bomb targets? There are wonderful options that you can't do and I'm afraid that makes me sad.

But if you want to build a unit to ape the 8th Air Force, consider what the 8th actually did.  You're gonna need a lot of planes, for a start.  You want to copy Big Week?  Then you need to field at least a Wing of bombers, probably a wing of escorts too.  And you're gonna need to be willing to bleed-10% losses, every time you go up.  You'll need replacements, and lots of them coming online, to keep plugging the gaps.  You need a high operational tempo-and a lot of ammo to supply it.  Maybe consider having your own nitorgen-fixing factory to manufacture bomb-filler in the field.  This may be easier than filling 100 or so bombers with 30 tons of bombs from a mule every day. You will probably want at least one Little Friend for each Big Friend in your force-bring the escorts along, but don't keep them glued to your tail, let them roam around. The Little Friend's job is to do the dogfighting, so the big guy can carry the bombload, if the little guys have any external hardware it should be air-to-air missiles or fuel tanks.

Targeting is an important part of the strategic bomber mission.  Do not waste your time attacking combat units under any circumstances.  Hit the enablers, if you must-flatten bases, cut transportation and communications, bomb enemy power plants until they can't shut down their mechs because they need to run the fusion reactors to power the base's repair gantries.  Enemy airfields are also valid targets-drop a stick of bombs down every runway and fuel depot you can see, see how that slows their air-force down.  Isolate factories from suppliers, and force them to halt production-direct attacks may be impossible or undesirable.  If there's nothing else to do, dehouse some enemies and flatten a few cities to keep your game up and force the enemy to disperse AA assets to try and catch the opposing force in a Catch 22.  Always remember that as a strategic bombing force, your job is to cut the enemy's siniews and leave him unable to lift a hand to stop the other guys hitting him, be they tactical air forces, or ground forces.
*Insert support for fashionable faction of the week here*

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #13 on: 11 March 2024, 14:05:03 »
Without adding a design quirk to allows to use the bombs in your cargo, the best bet would be a LAM, obviously. While you need a 100 tons ASF chassis with 400 class fusion engine to have 20 bomb bays but stuck at 2/3 thrust points and needs to be escorted by the other fighters, a 55 tons LAM can carry the same 20 bomb bays while have at least 3/5 and is not slowed down during carry the bombs.

If you want even bigger bomber and truly play a strategical engagement only by the unit itself, then perhaps what you need would be a capital missile at least....

theagent

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 345
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #14 on: 13 March 2024, 23:42:52 »
Which is a sad statement of the condition of the ordinance available to a player.  Why can't I have an 18 ton missile in my bomb bay?  Why are there no glide bombs, and no options to lob-bomb targets? There are wonderful options that you can't do and I'm afraid that makes me sad.

But if you want to build a unit to ape the 8th Air Force, consider what the 8th actually did.  You're gonna need a lot of planes, for a start.  You want to copy Big Week?  Then you need to field at least a Wing of bombers, probably a wing of escorts too.  And you're gonna need to be willing to bleed-10% losses, every time you go up.  You'll need replacements, and lots of them coming online, to keep plugging the gaps.  You need a high operational tempo-and a lot of ammo to supply it.  Maybe consider having your own nitorgen-fixing factory to manufacture bomb-filler in the field.  This may be easier than filling 100 or so bombers with 30 tons of bombs from a mule every day. You will probably want at least one Little Friend for each Big Friend in your force-bring the escorts along, but don't keep them glued to your tail, let them roam around. The Little Friend's job is to do the dogfighting, so the big guy can carry the bombload, if the little guys have any external hardware it should be air-to-air missiles or fuel tanks.

Targeting is an important part of the strategic bomber mission.  Do not waste your time attacking combat units under any circumstances.  Hit the enablers, if you must-flatten bases, cut transportation and communications, bomb enemy power plants until they can't shut down their mechs because they need to run the fusion reactors to power the base's repair gantries.  Enemy airfields are also valid targets-drop a stick of bombs down every runway and fuel depot you can see, see how that slows their air-force down.  Isolate factories from suppliers, and force them to halt production-direct attacks may be impossible or undesirable.  If there's nothing else to do, dehouse some enemies and flatten a few cities to keep your game up and force the enemy to disperse AA assets to try and catch the opposing force in a Catch 22.  Always remember that as a strategic bombing force, your job is to cut the enemy's siniews and leave him unable to lift a hand to stop the other guys hitting him, be they tactical air forces, or ground forces.

Exactly.  Even the B-52 could carry short-range SRAM missiles or the long-range ALCM cruise missiles, mostly external.  Yet we don't get that as an option with ASF.

That being said, strategic bombers are much bigger IRL than the standard conventional fighters.  Mid-range ones like the JAS 39 Gryphon run around 12-15 tons, larger ones like the Super Hornet run in the 20-30 tons, & even the largest "fighters" run from 35 tons (Su-30) to 45 tons (Su-34).  In contrast, the lightest "bomber" is the Chinese H-6 (license-built Tu-16) at 95 tons, but most of them are closer to 200+ tons:
  • B-2 Spirit:  171 tons
  • Tu-95 Bear:  198 tons
  • B-1B Lancer:  217 tons
  • B-52:  221 tons
  • Tu-160:  275 tons
  • Tu-22M:  278 tons
  • Ironically, the B-21 is projected to only weigh 81 tons

While these are all technically atmospheric-only craft (which would be limited to Conventional Fighters or Aerospace Support Vehicles).  If you use the latter, you can get up to 200 tons, which would most correspond to a "strategic bomber".  And theoretically you could carry up to 40 bombs (200 / 5)...but that would reduce Safe Thrust by 8 unless you use the Internal Bomb Bay rule.  I'd go with the "1 ton per bay, with 1 bomb/item per bay" rule rather than the quirk (max of 6 bombs), although I would probably allow them to have more than 20 bays (since a 55-ton LAM can carry 20 tons of bomb bays on it).  The B-52 & B-1 can easily carry up to twice that, so at a minimum I'd say they could have 40 tons of bays (40 weapons) on a 200-ton Support Aerospace Vehicle; I'd even consider letting it have up to 60 or even 80 tons/bays, but it might depend on item slot limits.  That would also allow for more significant carriage of Type II/Alamo nukes (require 5-ton bays, so 40 tons would allow for 8 Alamos, 60 tons would allow for 12, & 80 tons would allow for 16; in comparison, the B-1 could carry 24 SRAM or 8 ALCM internally, plus another 6-14 externally; the B-52 could carry 12 external/8 internal SRAM or 12 external ALCM).  I'd also consider the ability to carry Type Ib/Davy Crockett-type warheads in Arrow IV-sized missiles (i.e. 1 per 1-ton internal bay).

So while there are a couple of modern bombers that mass as much as an ASF, the majority of them would be better classified as "Small Craft" or even extremely small DropShips.  I would assume the same rules for external vs. internal carriage would apply, but you also probably don't have to worry about the item slot limitations anymore if you use the internal bomb bay option.  Plus with the Small Craft & DropShips, you have the option of carrying larger weapons:  Type III/Santa Ana (compatible with White Shark/AR-10 launchers), Type IV/Peacemaker (compatible with Killer Whale/AR-10 launchers), & "Asset Management Weapon"/AMW (compatible with Barracuda/AR-10 launchers, but can't use it against mobile targets; fluff said they were deployed from converted "Freighter" dropships with 12+ launchers & large magazines).

Alan Grant

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2365
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #15 on: 14 March 2024, 05:03:47 »
I don't have the revised version of TRO Vehicle Annex. But a look at the info in Sarna suggests the Torrent was back in production and and playing a bigger role for the Capellans.

I wonder, in terms of doctrine and practice, how they use them.

theagent

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 345
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #16 on: 14 March 2024, 23:39:06 »
I don't have the revised version of TRO Vehicle Annex. But a look at the info in Sarna suggests the Torrent was back in production and and playing a bigger role for the Capellans.

I wonder, in terms of doctrine and practice, how they use them.

Probably not very much.  The Revised TRO entry just says the Capellans were the last faction to claim any of the Torrents in their TO&E.  Their manufacturing line(s?) are on Bellatrix, but primarily for replacement parts; apparently as a lark they build one per year "just because".

Its biggest problem is that with 15 external hardpoints, a full bomb load drops it from 4/6 Thrust to 1/2 Thrust, basically making it a flying target for just about any CF, let alone ASF.  I will say, though, that the revised version also now has 15 tons of "Cargo" space, along with Internal Bomb Bay.  The tonnage was made available due to switching the engine from ICE (120 tons) to Fission (105 tons).  Main benefit is that you can carry 30 bombs (15 external, 15 internal) and be limited to 1/2 Thrust, or carry 15 bombs (all internal) & still be able to hit 4/6 Thrust.  But that's the issue you get, then:  15 bombs is the same load as a 75-ton ASF, & the Torrent weighs 200 tons.  Personally, I find the rest of its weapons laughable:  4 MGs in the Nose (1/2 ton ammo) & a rear-mounted SRM-6 (1 ton ammo) seems very strange to me.  I'd almost recommend swapping them out for 2 SRM-4s (1 Nose, 1 Aft), 1 ton of ammo (because this is a bomber, not a dog-fighting or strafing platform), & improve the armor protection from 3.5 tons BAR 6 to 5 tons BAR 6.  It's especially frightening given that it's a Tech Level E (Star League) platform; I shudder to think of how poorly the original design would have been (apparently having been designed by the "United States of North America Air Force", aka USAF, in the late 21st Century...so probably more like Tech Level C, which would have meant a slower platform with less bombs).

Chinless

  • Modicis Amice
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 604
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #17 on: 15 March 2024, 03:56:30 »
It's especially frightening given that it's a Tech Level E (Star League) platform; I shudder to think of how poorly the original design would have been (apparently having been designed by the "United States of North America Air Force", aka USAF, in the late 21st Century...so probably more like Tech Level C, which would have meant a slower platform with less bombs).

It is a Tech Level C platform - the armour, chassis and engine. The only thing Tech E about it is the ECM. So the earlier version wasn't much worse.

Chris

beachhead1985

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4229
  • 1st SOG; SLDF. "McKenna's Marauders"
    • Kilroy's Wall
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #18 on: 15 March 2024, 21:04:38 »
I looked at the Torrent and decided that given the fluff, it should have some updates over the centuries.

Small improvements make a BIG difference at that scale.

If there is interest, I'll post them.
Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries

These, in the day when heaven was falling,      Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
The hour when earth's foundations fled,         They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
Followed their mercenary calling,               What God abandoned, these defended,
And took their wages, and are dead.             And saved the sum of things for pay.
     
A.E. Housman

Von Jankmon

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1099
  • Everyone is entitled to my opinions
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #19 on: 15 March 2024, 22:38:45 »
I was thinking of this today, and considered either a small craft with good engines and a heavy supply of Arrow IV, or an aerospace fighter with same and two cockpits, one for the pilot and one for a rear gunner.
Both are heavy tactical bombers rather than strategic.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13933
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #20 on: 15 March 2024, 23:37:38 »
I don't recall the rules, but w/ this talk of internal bomb loads............   Can Omni-Pod space be used for Bombs?

If so, I think any canon Omni-Fighter might be your best bet.

3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #21 on: 16 March 2024, 00:15:03 »
I don't recall the rules, but w/ this talk of internal bomb loads............   Can Omni-Pod space be used for Bombs?

If so, I think any canon Omni-Fighter might be your best bet.



https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=24393.msg560233#msg560233

You did asked the question and had the answer already. :p Yes it can't be helped consider the year on the post, though. I will barely remember any random things a decade ago as well.

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13933
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #22 on: 17 March 2024, 13:53:48 »
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=24393.msg560233#msg560233

You did asked the question and had the answer already. :p Yes it can't be helped consider the year on the post, though. I will barely remember any random things a decade ago as well.

That question was about Cargo on Omnimechs for infantry.

I don't see anything there about Bombs as Cargo on Fighters.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Liam's Ghost

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8061
  • Miss Chitty finds your honor rules quaint.
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #23 on: 17 March 2024, 17:11:45 »
That question was about Cargo on Omnimechs for infantry.

I don't see anything there about Bombs as Cargo on Fighters.

If the Omnifighter has the bomb bay quirk, I don't see the problem with using that cargo as bomb space.

If. I don't know of any omnifighter that has that quirk, and I don't think you can pod mount the quirk itself.
Good news is the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show an immediate latency of 44.6 years. So if you're thirty or over you're laughing. Worst case scenario you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you've forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

(indirect accessory to the) Slayer of Monitors!

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12300
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #24 on: 17 March 2024, 17:43:57 »
to be honest, Bomb bay is probably the only quirk i'd allow to be applied as part of an omnimech pod. since it is meant to represent the hardware needed to carry and drop bombs (be it racks, rotary launchers, or whatever)
while the rules just have a quirk that applies to cargo space, in universe we'd be talking specialized bomb carrying hardware, and i don't see why such hardware couldn't be pod-mounted.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #25 on: 18 March 2024, 05:34:16 »
That question was about Cargo on Omnimechs for infantry.

I don't see anything there about Bombs as Cargo on Fighters.


The answer does says;

Quote from: Xotl
In short: Cargo can be pod-mounted per se, and per the Cargo rules (revised with errata) 'Mechs can pod-mount it.

Also since it is already possible to add the cargo bay on the ASF, nothing stops you to put the cargo pod on your omnifighter and put the bombs on it. The only problem would be making the omnifighter with Internal Bomb Bay quirk.

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7302
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #26 on: 18 March 2024, 07:04:11 »
Which is a sad statement of the condition of the ordinance available to a player.  Why can't I have an 18 ton missile in my bomb bay?  Why are there no glide bombs, and no options to lob-bomb targets? There are wonderful options that you can't do and I'm afraid that makes me sad.

An 18-ton missile is huge, and is even heavier than a fully-loaded X-15.  Even testing large ballistic missiles on B-52s resulted in missiles in the 5-ton range, and the same holds true for Russian and Chinese tests.

I could only find onel larger attempt, dropping a 30-ton Minuteman ICBM out the back of a C-5 and air-lighting it, which was evidently attempted only once.

As for glide bombs, can't we drop homing Arrow IV missiles?
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 41359
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #27 on: 18 March 2024, 14:34:11 »
As for glide bombs, can't we drop homing Arrow IV missiles?

Yes. Quite easily.
My wife writes books

Sixteen tons means sixteen suits. CT must be repaired.

"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13933
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #28 on: 18 March 2024, 20:44:38 »
So I was thinking about how the quirks system is usually for how a unit is built from the ground up.

But what about "Temporary Quirks" for the situation.   

We know they are often applied to hasty repairs that go wrong from fluff of old scenario books & such.

For example:

I'm thinking you could allow an OmniFighter that devotes Pod space to Cargo/Bombs to have the 3-Point Bomb Bay quirk for that Pod Load, but in turn, have 3 points of negative quirks to account for things like a Non-Standard bomb bay & doors being open mid flight on the bombing run.

Looking at the list I see these that seem like a solid pair.

Quote
Ammunition Feed Problem
The unit has a ballistic or missile weapons that is prone to jamming at unfortunate times.
The unit must make another roll after each to-hit roll with the affected weapon system to see if the bay or system jams or, in extreme situations, explodes.
Points Rebate: 1

Atmospheric Flight Instability
Indicates that the affected aerospace unit is unstable when flying within the atmosphere of a planet and suffers a penalty to any control rolls made.
Points Rebate: 2

Thoughts?
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #29 on: 19 March 2024, 02:06:05 »
Thoughts?

I'd think that it's better to make the omnifighter that is designed to be intended to take the role, though. Having the temporary quirk is somewhat weird without a good reason.

Although I don't against it entirely and without an exception. Perhaps, having the quirk for the handheld weapon would be makes sense? Then a big module, a series of omnipods that is intended to be works together(all by fluff but nothing supports this by the game rules, though) could ask for a temporary quirk for the whole module, and in this case it is not so ridiculous idea. For only a single or several tons of omnipods rarely suffers ill effect to the whole unit but the very large amount of module which is intended to be work together is an another story.

Well, what you show would be the decent pairs for represent the unstability caused by the whole series of pods. The bomb rack needs much spaces already so it could affect the balance of the fighter as well as allows fewer ways to make the way from the ammunition rack to the guns. Although I wonder that the fighter still have enough space to add the guns to be suffered by the negative quirk, but it is makes sense at least.


 

Register