Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?

[Kit deSummersville]

However, I'd say the reason for the lack of a true Gunship during the 3025 era makes sense in universe. At least one using a SFE, there are certainly some optimizations that could be made even sticking with an ICE engine.

Well, if you continue to ignore the Karnov with the AC/20, of course you won't be able to find a 'true gunship' in 3025.

[Kit deSummersville]

Rotors do a lot better under the current rules set; they can only take one point of damage per damage cluster, and you have to roll a 12 any way to hit them.

Under the current rule set (Total Warfare) 3, 4, 10, 11 or 12 on the location chart will hit the rotors.

[Scotty]

And rotors take one damage per ten damage in the cluster, rounded up.  An AC/20 will shave two points off, as will a Gauss Rifle.  An HGR at close range will deal three.  However, it's true that the vast majority of weapons and hits will only do one damage per hit.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Under the current rule set (Total Warfare) 3, 4, 10, 11 or 12 on the location chart will hit the rotors.

³And God said, Let there be LB 5-X: and there was LB 5-X. ⁴And God saw the LB 5-X, that it was good: and God divided the rotors from the VTOL.

(well, that and SRMs)

[Jayof9s]

Well, if you continue to ignore the Karnov with the AC/20, of course you won't be able to find a 'true gunship' in 3025.

However, I'd say the reason for the lack of a true Gunship during the 3025 era makes sense in universe. At least one using a SFE, there are certainly some optimizations that could be made even sticking with an ICE engine.

Bold for emphasis. I was simply responding to the majority of comments that seemed to feel a SFE was necessary for people's envisioned gunships. The Karnov and Warriors fill the role of gunship in that time frame well enough in my experience, despite a lack of variety.

And at this point I'm figuring there have to be more VTOLs in universe than we have published stats for - otherwise we're essentially left with just the Warrior, Karnov and Ferret and their variants by 3000. That seems unlikely to me unless VTOLs are supposed to be less common than I think.

[ANS Kamas P81]

There are; see all the stuff in TRO 3050U for Star League vehicles.  Rippers are all over the place with many variants, Nightshades sans ECM ended up in militia hands, and there's always the goodies in TRO:VA.

[ianargent]

How does the Karnov cram an AC/20 into 6 tons, anyway? The "gunship" model for which we have a record sheet carried machine guns.
Incidentally, if you didn't mind losing the secondaries, you could put an AC/5 on a Warrior and either up the armor or carry nearly as much ammo for the main gun as for the AC/2. In the time frame, the AC/5 is not an unreasonable gunship weapon, and if we consider the range on a PPC adequate for standoff, the same should go for the AC/5.
Bumping to 30 tons doesn't get you enough larger payload to improve the weaponry, and 25 tons gets you the same payload as 30 tins at the Warrior's movement curve. Neither weight gets you an engine used in mechs, so likely no fusion engine available for love or money in those ratings by the 3SW period.
Various LRM packs fit on the Warrior as well, but that's outside the scope of discussion, I think.

[Ian Sharpe]

How does the Karnov cram an AC/20 into 6 tons, anyway? The "gunship" model for which we have a record sheet carried machine guns.
Incidentally, if you didn't mind losing the secondaries, you could put an AC/5 on a Warrior and either up the armor or carry nearly as much ammo for the main gun as for the AC/2. In the time frame, the AC/5 is not an unreasonable gunship weapon, and if we consider the range on a PPC adequate for standoff, the same should go for the AC/5.
Bumping to 30 tons doesn't get you enough larger payload to improve the weaponry, and 25 tons gets you the same payload as 30 tins at the Warrior's movement curve. Neither weight gets you an engine used in mechs, so likely no fusion engine available for love or money in those ratings by the 3SW period.
Various LRM packs fit on the Warrior as well, but that's outside the scope of discussion, I think.

Moves 8/12 with a SFE.  Its also side mounted, which has its good and bad. 

[Kit deSummersville]

How does the Karnov cram an AC/20 into 6 tons, anyway? The "gunship" model for which we have a record sheet carried machine guns.

We have a record sheet for the AC/20 model; its on page 68 of RS 3039U.

[ianargent]

Which I don't have, only the abridged one. Mea Maxima Culpa.

Looks like you can cram a large laser or an AC/10 into a bird with that movement profile on an ICE engine. If you felt like initiating the mechbuster you might get an AC/20, but when your ammo payload weighs almost as much as your armor and a Jenner can pace you, I worry for your survivability. The fusion engine required can at least theoretically drive a light mech at a relative snail's pace for the class, and since the Hornet and Angel fighters use one, you might be able to lay hands on one.

So, if you're willing to fly a bird that is no faster than a Saladin, you can have the main gun of one, too, along with its paper thin armor. You can have the warload of a Saracen or Scimitar, at the same movement profile, and have a bit of armor. The engine choice doesn't seem to make that much of a difference, approximately 5% of the mass is saved by going fusion at 30 tons. At that point, the choice between a hover and a  VTOL is up to you.

[A. Lurker]

But I can't even imagine LAMs would replace all the need for VTOL gunships. That's still like saying there should never be another main battle tank built during the SL-era because 'Mechs are better in that same role. While some may argue that for their games, clearly MBTs did not and have not disappeared from the universe. Even in time periods where 'Mechs are plentiful.

Well, how great is the need specifically for VTOL gunships in a universe where armed forces already regularly field everything from 'Mechs and tanks over ASFs to potentially orbital bombardment if they're ticked off enough, anyway?

Sure, VTOLs make great scouts and transports, and if you put them onto a battlefield you probably want them armed just for self-defense. But I honestly can't at the moment remember a single instance from the fiction in which a VTOL's guns played a decisive role in any in-universe battle I've read about...

[Sartris]

I've used the AC/20 Karnov and I love it.  It's the ultimate glass tiger. It usually doesn't survive, but while it's on the board, it's an absolute terror.

[Ian Sharpe]

For its incredibly low BV it ought to be a terror.  I'm going to have to mix some in with my rocket Karnovs.

[Beazle]

Well it's like this.  (NON OFFICIAL, my opinion only.)

I've always been of the opinion that there are WAY more vehicle designs out there then have ever been put into TROs.

I see the ones put into official TRO's as examples, and as common production models.

Vehicles are no where near as complicated as mechs.   Any world with a reasonable amount of industry should be able to design and build their own combat vehicles.  (At least ICE vehicles, fusion is a different question) 

Most of these units would be designed to use local parts (to keep costs down) and probably wouldn't be cost effective to ship off world. (vehicles make for fairly high mass, high volume cargo)

I figure they gave us vehicle design rules for a reason.  So, any time I have a campaign that involves fighting a local vehicle based force, i whip up a couple of ICE designs, and combine them with some canon ones to make up the TO&E.

As a recent example, I made up a cheap ICE VTOL packing a few SRM2s, combined it with a few Warriors and used the unit to strike at my players artillery unit.  So now the players are trying to figure out a way to capture some of the LRM based tanks I designed (basically just LRM carriers with some tweaks) for the local militia.

All of the vehicles involved, except for the Warriors, were what I call "one-offs", which is to say, they were only produced on one industrial world, and never really exported. (The VTOLS, the Long Toms, and the LRM tanks)

This means players will likely have trouble finding parts for them as they travel around the universe. 

All part of the fun of being a Merc.  :)

[ianargent]

Well, sure, there are many more vehicles than we have sheets or TRO for. But with 3SW tech, it's really hard to build an effective gunship that lives anywhere close to the center of the VTOL armor/armament/movement triangle, and the closest you can get involves using tech that would be almost certainly reserved for building more mechs (fusion engines). It would be until the 3040's and 3050's before you can justify someone setting up a factory to build the low-rating fusion plants you need.

Or you accept that the Warrior H7 is a gunship, of course.

[Belisarius]

You also have to keep in mind that gunships are not 'stand and deliver' weapons. Either IRL or in Battletech, the concept of a rotary-wing gunship is designed around the concept of shooting when the other fellow can't. Helicopters can use masking terrain to approach their targets, pop up from behind hills or buildings, deliver a volley of fire, and be gone before the enemy can return fire. Particularly if the enemy has his/her hands full with a ground attack simultaneously.

[Jayof9s]

Well, sure, there are many more vehicles than we have sheets or TRO for. But with 3SW tech, it's really hard to build an effective gunship that lives anywhere close to the center of the VTOL armor/armament/movement triangle, and the closest you can get involves using tech that would be almost certainly reserved for building more mechs (fusion engines). It would be until the 3040's and 3050's before you can justify someone setting up a factory to build the low-rating fusion plants you need.

Or you accept that the Warrior H7 is a gunship, of course.

It isn't that hard to make a decent gunship with just intro tech. I posted a few custom versions over in the custom boards: Pre-4th War VTOLs

Mind you there are some non-gunships in there and I wasn't trying to make them over optimized but they're still quite good (mostly) and all use ICE. The best actual gunship on that list is the very last one.

All of the vehicles involved, except for the Warriors, were what I call "one-offs", which is to say, they were only produced on one industrial world, and never really exported. (The VTOLS, the Long Toms, and the LRM tanks)

This means players will likely have trouble finding parts for them as they travel around the universe. 

All part of the fun of being a Merc.  :)

I just took this a step further and decided that there are probably at least a few commonly produced VTOLs we don't know of - I mean it seems unlikely to me that there would be (mostly) just Warriors, Ferrets and Karnovs in the early 3000s. So sure it is unofficial but I'm going to start throwing some non-canon VTOLs at my campaigns and make them almost as available as the standard VTOL types. I'm sure my players will enjoy some variety since several of them have started to enjoy VTOL gunships of late and that was just using the standard 3 Warriors available in that time frame.

[Istal_Devalis]

 Now what people SHOULD be asking is why dont we see more Fuel Cell VTOLS out there...

[Beazle]

Well, sure, there are many more vehicles than we have sheets or TRO for. But with 3SW tech, it's really hard to build an effective gunship that lives anywhere close to the center of the VTOL armor/armament/movement triangle, and the closest you can get involves using tech that would be almost certainly reserved for building more mechs (fusion engines). It would be until the 3040's and 3050's before you can justify someone setting up a factory to build the low-rating fusion plants you need.

Or you accept that the Warrior H7 is a gunship, of course.

As I stated in my earlier post, fusion models are a different story.

If we're sticking to 3SW, I think you'll find that many designs don't stick to the center of any design triangles.  That's part of the joy of that era.  Making do with imperfect designs.

When I come up with a one-off design, i don't try to Min-Max it.  I'm more likely to design by RP.  I look at what I think the world in question would have access to, and base designs around that.  Usually it comes down to SRMs, LRMs, autocannons, and machineguns.

They ALWAYS sport ICE engines.

[evilauthor]

You also have to keep in mind that gunships are not 'stand and deliver' weapons. Either IRL or in Battletech, the concept of a rotary-wing gunship is designed around the concept of shooting when the other fellow can't. Helicopters can use masking terrain to approach their targets, pop up from behind hills or buildings, deliver a volley of fire, and be gone before the enemy can return fire. Particularly if the enemy has his/her hands full with a ground attack simultaneously.

And IRL, one shot is all the VTOL needs to kill an enemy vehicle even if that vehicle is a tank. That's not the case in BT. In BT, battles are slugging matches and the guy who can bring more armor and armament to bear is the one more likely to win... and that guy is NOT the lightly armed and armored VTOL unless the other guy has even LESS arms and armor.

[ianargent]

As I stated in my earlier post, fusion models are a different story.

If we're sticking to 3SW, I think you'll find that many designs don't stick to the center of any design triangles.  That's part of the joy of that era.  Making do with imperfect designs.

When I come up with a one-off design, i don't try to Min-Max it.  I'm more likely to design by RP.  I look at what I think the world in question would have access to, and base designs around that.  Usually it comes down to SRMs, LRMs, autocannons, and machineguns.

They ALWAYS sport ICE engines.

The OP excludes the Warriors as "real" gunships, and that was what I was trying to address; that if you stay true to canon, 3SW VTOLs won't exceed the capabilities of the Warrior because  you really can't without fusion engines, and the requisite small fusion engines don't and wouldn't canonically exist in 3SW.

[Dave Talley]

Looks like you can cram a large laser or an AC/10 into a bird with that movement profile on an ICE engine.

yeah just for fun I  opened HMV and you can do an 8/12 vtol with an AC10 and 5 tons armor, granted not real fast by vtol standards but in L1 play it should be able to stay at range 10+ most of the time , it wont hit that often, but in a group or in support of ground units, it could be damned annoying

[Jayof9s]

The OP excludes the Warriors as "real" gunships, and that was what I was trying to address; that if you stay true to canon, 3SW VTOLs won't exceed the capabilities of the Warrior because  you really can't without fusion engines, and the requisite small fusion engines don't and wouldn't canonically exist in 3SW.

Even with ICE you can do quite a bit better than the Warrior. I'd say most of the designs that I linked to on my last post (which all use ICE) are either comparable to the Warrior but with 2-3x more armor (meaning they don't die in 1 hit) or are a bit slower (only 7/11), like the final one and it has decent armor for a VTOL and 15 tons for weaponry. Which makes for a solid AC/20 variant or a lot of SRMs or an LRM20, etc etc.

All of them are pretty good for filling the role of Battletech gunships - either hanging back and sniping with high TMMs and long range weaponry or darting in to harass the backs of enemies before darting behind cover to repeat the process.

[Cannonshop]

Even with ICE you can do quite a bit better than the Warrior. I'd say most of the designs that I linked to on my last post (which all use ICE) are either comparable to the Warrior but with 2-3x more armor (meaning they don't die in 1 hit) or are a bit slower (only 7/11), like the final one and it has decent armor for a VTOL and 15 tons for weaponry. Which makes for a solid AC/20 variant or a lot of SRMs or an LRM20, etc etc.

All of them are pretty good for filling the role of Battletech gunships - either hanging back and sniping with high TMMs and long range weaponry or darting in to harass the backs of enemies before darting behind cover to repeat the process.

7/11 with a VTOL is still a suicide sled, even with the current rules-nerf protecting the rotors and creating that 50 point damage sink.

To be EFFECTIVE a VTOL needs to MOVE-as in a high CRUISE speed, not flank (Flanking means sideslip, which is a great way to experience Deconstructive Lithobraking in a VTOL.)

Further, Armor is still less valuable on a VTOL, than it is on any other type of unit-at least, in relation to the need for speed-prior to the 3039 "players can't handle math" nerf, the H-7 (for nearly 20 years real time) soldiered on with a 70 rated engine and a cruise of 10-which, combined with the AC/2 meant you could legitimately rack up +5 movement mod and +4 range mod for return fire-that is, a +9 to be hit by anything but a Clantech ERLL, Light Gauss, or LRATM or HAG, while hanging at the H-7's MEDIUM range...and that's BEFORE gunnery was applied. (for the h-7 driver, this means at base gunnery of 4, cruising, at medium range, what, a 6 to hit? 7?  been a while for me...)at 10/15 movement, the SRM pack can actually be occasionally applied-don't do it too often, because the range drops to your opponent's favour-but at a cruise you can get some very good defensive numbers while having a relatively easy shot.  That's VTOL tactics.  Also, high cruise means you can actually MAKE USE of terrain screening-because you're not having to flank all the time, at the risk of becoming one with the hills and buildings.

2 points that hit, do more damage than 30 points that MISS.  This was always the problem with slowboats like the Jellowbucket, aka flying hollander, and the problems MAGNIFY in post-3050 eras where most of the 'new and shyny' VTOL designs turn up-once LBX's turn up on the field, if you're slow, you're dead.

In 3026, you might...MIGHT be able to get away with 9/14 IF you can keep the range up-but don't count on that, slow gunships are a death sentence for aicrew, though the Nerf to damage DOES mitigate that and make 8/12 ALMOST viable, assuming a heavy reliance on LRMs or other long-ranged but low-damage weapons in that era.


Urbies are Turrets, slow Tanks are really semimobile emplacements, VTOLs HAVE to work like what they are-fast harassers, it's just the nature of the limitations they work in, and the usual outcome of losing your motive system with one...which is 'dead.'

[Jayof9s]

Well, glad you actually looked at the designs before writing a book about VTOLs and their capabilities.  ::)

[ianargent]

I looked (casually) at them. I even ran some numbers for slower VTOLs myself - hence my comment about a flying Saladin above. I was dubious of a VTOL slower than 9/14, even in the 3SW era, being combat-survivable, particularly when you start mounting weapons that require the VTOL to enter large laser range to tag targets.

I'm a personal fan of VTOLs, and I wish they were somewhat more effective and survivable.

[Jayof9s]

I looked (casually) at them. I even ran some numbers for slower VTOLs myself - hence my comment about a flying Saladin above. I was dubious of a VTOL slower than 9/14, even in the 3SW era, being combat-survivable, particularly when you start mounting weapons that require the VTOL to enter large laser range to tag targets.

I'm a personal fan of VTOLs, and I wish they were somewhat more effective and survivable.

Casually at my one description - since only one of them was slower than 9/14.

[ianargent]

Casually at my one description - since only one of them was slower than 9/14.

That's what I get for reading on a smartphone...

I'll have to take another look.
...

Having done so, the fast ones carry a Warrior's armament, and they heavily armed one is 7/11. Yes, the armor bests the Warrior, but that appears to be a factor of the increase in tonnage. The standout exception is the twin LRM-5 model, which is very nice.

[Beazle]

7/11 with a VTOL is still a suicide sled, even with the current rules-nerf protecting the rotors and creating that 50 point damage sink.

To be EFFECTIVE a VTOL needs to MOVE-as in a high CRUISE speed, not flank (Flanking means sideslip, which is a great way to experience Deconstructive Lithobraking in a VTOL.)

Further, Armor is still less valuable on a VTOL, than it is on any other type of unit-at least, in relation to the need for speed-prior to the 3039 "players can't handle math" nerf, the H-7 (for nearly 20 years real time) soldiered on with a 70 rated engine and a cruise of 10-which, combined with the AC/2 meant you could legitimately rack up +5 movement mod and +4 range mod for return fire-that is, a +9 to be hit by anything but a Clantech ERLL, Light Gauss, or LRATM or HAG, while hanging at the H-7's MEDIUM range...and that's BEFORE gunnery was applied. (for the h-7 driver, this means at base gunnery of 4, cruising, at medium range, what, a 6 to hit? 7?  been a while for me...)at 10/15 movement, the SRM pack can actually be occasionally applied-don't do it too often, because the range drops to your opponent's favour-but at a cruise you can get some very good defensive numbers while having a relatively easy shot.  That's VTOL tactics.  Also, high cruise means you can actually MAKE USE of terrain screening-because you're not having to flank all the time, at the risk of becoming one with the hills and buildings.

2 points that hit, do more damage than 30 points that MISS.  This was always the problem with slowboats like the Jellowbucket, aka flying hollander, and the problems MAGNIFY in post-3050 eras where most of the 'new and shyny' VTOL designs turn up-once LBX's turn up on the field, if you're slow, you're dead.

In 3026, you might...MIGHT be able to get away with 9/14 IF you can keep the range up-but don't count on that, slow gunships are a death sentence for aicrew, though the Nerf to damage DOES mitigate that and make 8/12 ALMOST viable, assuming a heavy reliance on LRMs or other long-ranged but low-damage weapons in that era.


Urbies are Turrets, slow Tanks are really semimobile emplacements, VTOLs HAVE to work like what they are-fast harassers, it's just the nature of the limitations they work in, and the usual outcome of losing your motive system with one...which is 'dead.'

I think your exaggerating the need for such extreme speeds just a little bit.

There are a few other things to consider that you have left out.

Terrain.  If you fly low enough to risk crashing into a hill when you side-slip at flank speed, then there is a good chance your going to have your LOS blocked by some of that same terrain you risk hitting.  That means, you don't HAVE to go at such speeds as long you use the terrain properly.  If your flying high enough, and just stacking modifiers, then a little side slip isn't any big deal.

Target Priority.  This really goes with any lightly armored vehicle.  You have to come up with a strategy that keeps the fire off of them, by making something else look like a juicier target.  Fly low and stay behind a hill until the enemy is committed towards something else, then pop him with an Alpha of SRMs in the back.

Hit-n-Run.  You state that combat in BattleTech is more of a slug fest, this is true, but only most of the time.  There are times when a burst of damage can make a major difference.  In my original post i mentioned using VTOLS against my players artillery section.  The VTOLS in question flew in under full power, launched a massive amount of SRMs against lightly armored artillery units, and then fled. (None of the SRM VTOLS were lost, only a couple of the Warriors with AC2s that were hitting the sparse AA units were downed by lucky LRM hits.)  In the past I've used VTOLS in a combined arms fight to counter enemy infantry.  Just hold back, out of LOS until the enemy starts to reposition his infantry, or move his APCs, then zoom in for a strike, and back out the next turn.

In short the tactics for VTOLS that you describe are valid, and I get your points, but they are not the ONLY valid tactics for VTOLS.  There is a place on the battlefield for a higher damage potential VTOL that doesn't rely on stacking movement and range mods for survival.

[SCC]

Move 7 is a TMM of +3, between the sort of range a VTOL SHOULD be engaging at a +2 for medium range, a further +1 for AMM or intervening terrain does not seem unreasonable, that's a total of +6, on top of the standard gunnery of 4 that's a to-hit of 10