Author Topic: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?  (Read 63731 times)

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #210 on: 17 August 2012, 13:04:46 »
Uh, the point is it doesn't destroy the facing.  It destroys the rear armor, but leaves the internal structure untouched.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10427
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #211 on: 18 August 2012, 02:50:55 »
Uh, the point is it doesn't destroy the facing.  It destroys the rear armor, but leaves the internal structure untouched.

I think you need a recheck on how CASE works-if it left the IS of the location intact, then it would be practically mandatory on any XL engined 'mech-since the armor is not the engine OR I.S...

the IS goes TOO_CASE just prevents it from spreading to OTHER locations-enabling, for instance, most of tank to be salvaged.  Tanks aren't flying several levels above the battlefield.   A tank killed out by Ammo explosions with CASE means the crew might still be alive-but a tank is on the ground, see? It doesn't fall down, go boom.  i.e. it doesn't keep the vehicle operational, it just prevents the crew from dying of the explosion-other related events that can kill them still occur as normal-for instance, falling damage.  In the case of the aforementioned experimental Warrior, you've got an airframe, with very little internal structure to start, which has devoted a large portion of its' mass to a weapon that can, and eventually will, kill it in the simple act of firing-because said VTOL is either flying fast, or flying high, or both when it loses the entire REAR PORTION of the airframe.  the crew get just about long enough to go "Oh cra-' before you're rolling the falling damage.


Unless there's been a RADICAL change to how CASE works AFTER Total Warfare came out, all it does for a VTOL, is allow a slightly higher chance that a low flying chopper's crew might live through the impact with the ground.
« Last Edit: 18 August 2012, 03:00:07 by Cannonshop »
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Belisarius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1371
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #212 on: 18 August 2012, 03:10:48 »
I know! CASE for VTOLs should have a bi-chemical foam that, upon triggering, surrounds and permeates the VTOL cushioning any falling damage the vehicle might take...

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #213 on: 18 August 2012, 03:50:35 »
I know! CASE for VTOLs should have a bi-chemical foam that, upon triggering, surrounds and permeates the VTOL cushioning any falling damage the vehicle might take...

That or something crazy like an ejection seat....


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8389
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #214 on: 18 August 2012, 05:11:46 »

I think you need a recheck on how CASE works-if it left the IS of the location intact, then it would be practically mandatory on any XL engined 'mech-since the armor is not the engine OR I.S...

the IS goes TOO_CASE just prevents it from spreading to OTHER locations-enabling, for instance, most of tank to be salvaged.  Tanks aren't flying several levels above the battlefield.
Tank CASE works differently then 'Mech CASE, stopping it spreading from one location to another actually serves NO purpose
In the process it performs some interesting feats with Gauss Rifle hits, the explosions in the turret while the REAR armor is stripped of

Belisarius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1371
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #215 on: 18 August 2012, 06:39:20 »
That or something crazy like an ejection seat....

Let's not get crazy here... we don't want to shock the grognards...

Kit deSummersville

  • Precentor of Lies
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10397
  • The epicness continues!
    • Insights and Complaints on Twitter
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #216 on: 18 August 2012, 08:06:41 »

I think you need a recheck on how CASE works

Before throwing virtual stones,,,,

Quote from: Total Warfare, p. 194
If the vehicle has CASE, apply the damage instead to its rear armor, with any excess damage ignored and the vehicle suffers a Crew Stunned result
Looking for an official answer? Check the Catalyst Interaction Forums.

Freelancer for hire, not an official CGL or IMR representative.

Everyone else's job is easy, so tell them how to do it, everyone loves that!

Millard Fillmore's favorite BattleTech writer.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10427
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #217 on: 19 August 2012, 14:35:01 »
Before throwing virtual stones,,,,

HOW in the HELL did I miss that?

Okay, so instead of being a "Hot Kill' it's just a self-inflicted "Mission Kill", and given the nature of dice-games, it's going to happen at the worst possible times. 

That's not much better, Kit, the design is still constructed of Fail.
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19827
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #218 on: 19 August 2012, 15:07:19 »
HOW in the HELL did I miss that?

Okay, so instead of being a "Hot Kill' it's just a self-inflicted "Mission Kill", and given the nature of dice-games, it's going to happen at the worst possible times. 

That's not much better, Kit, the design is still constructed of Fail.

/shrug

It's fun

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10427
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #219 on: 19 August 2012, 15:29:00 »
/shrug

It's fun

as a player, I'm generally allergic to self-inflicted mission kills, especially when this is accomplished without first doing something stupid...

Although, taking the H-9X could be considered "Doing something stupid" right at the start-choosing a design whose ONLY weapon is a randomly-timed bomb (not the kind you drop, rather the kind that certain types of people set off in crowded marketplaces to make a political statement) that only affects said unit.

The FLAW is the HVAC,  everything else on the design for the most part works-but that extra mass, plus the "Bomb in my chassis" nature of the primary weapon thoroughly overrides any modest benefit derived from the additional range-low damage weapons need to be fired often, as in frequently, to make up for the light impacts, this is a low-damage weapon that if you use it correctly, will blow up and mission kill you roughly 1 in 36 times.

On a track with lots of secondary mounts in the hull, this isn't so bad, but on a VTOL, where it's a mass-constraint issue and the gun's actually HEAVIER than what the original design carried, it's bad news made worse because that's, as I said, 1 in 36 times when you use it correctly.  You can elect NOT to use MASC and still run your 'mech effectively on the board-try not shooting.
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19827
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #220 on: 19 August 2012, 15:38:11 »
We approach the design (and most likely the game) from two completely separate directions.  You see an accident waiting to happen.  I see a dangerously flawed design with oozing with cool features (jet boosters, stealth, ECM, a weapon that makes its own heavy woods cover).   The fact of the matter is I don't care about whether the gun is going to eventually blow up. Before the gun blows up, I have fun using it.

Since I'm playing a game, that's a win whether the thing goes down in self-induced flames or not.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #221 on: 19 August 2012, 15:48:07 »
Yeah, remember that if you're using it right, that particular VTOL is going to be out of range of every single other unit on the map when it takes the self-inflicted damage, and probably out of range by double digit hexes, even, including LRMs and ER PPCs.  That goes a long way toward mitigating the flaws.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Crunch

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #222 on: 19 August 2012, 17:25:16 »
Honestly, I don't see the point of disallowing Flak Ammo in an environment where you're allowing Arti and Aero units.
Quote
It's really, it's a very, very beautiful poem to giant monsters. Giant monsters versus giant robots.
G. Del Toro

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #223 on: 19 August 2012, 18:17:20 »
Yeah, remember that if you're using it right, that particular VTOL is going to be out of range of every single other unit on the map when it takes the self-inflicted damage, and probably out of range by double digit hexes, even, including LRMs and ER PPCs.  That goes a long way toward mitigating the flaws.

Given that it outranges the Clan 2-X by a fair margin, I would say this is an acceptable risk.  Sure it runs the risk of mission killing itself, but you will not reach the 50% line before you run out of ammo and there is absolutely nothing the enemy can do to actually kill the thing.  As such, it essentially guarantees crew and airframe survival at the cost of some rough maintenance which is really not a bad deal.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

Nikas_Zekeval

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #224 on: 19 August 2012, 22:30:07 »
One thing that seems to be seeping into this discussion is 'The Lyran Standard'.  That is, "It can't stop a [insert preferred assault mech here] so it's crap!"  A more fair comparison would be against something in their weight class.

A combat VTOL tops out at 30 tons, so a better comparison would be to stack them light mechs.  For example a H-7 Warrior vs any of the Bugs.  }:)  Now against a Wasp or Stinger, well the Warrior can get to it's short range for the AC/2 and only be in the long range of one (Stinger) or two (Wasp) weapons.  And when you have only three tons of armor (four on average for most cannon 3025 light mechs) even damage from an AC/2 can stack up in a hurry.

ShadowRaven

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8159
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #225 on: 19 August 2012, 23:22:06 »
One thing that seems to be seeping into this discussion is 'The Lyran Standard'.  That is, "It can't stop a [insert preferred assault mech here] so it's crap!"  A more fair comparison would be against something in their weight class.

snipity.

Add in the fact you, as a budget conscious individual, can buy a lot of these for the price of a Locust, and it really doesn't fair too badly
We are Clan Snow Raven. Masters of the void, and reapers of your souls

befriend (v.): to use mecha-class beam weaponry to inflict grievous bodily harm on a target in the process of proving the validity of your belief system.
— From a post on rpg.net

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10427
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #226 on: 20 August 2012, 01:04:45 »
Yeah, remember that if you're using it right, that particular VTOL is going to be out of range of every single other unit on the map when it takes the self-inflicted damage, and probably out of range by double digit hexes, even, including LRMs and ER PPCs.  That goes a long way toward mitigating the flaws.

a mission-kill is still a mission-kill, it means that through no action of the enemy, you're down a unit, and it's a guarantee that eventually, it WILL happen.  Even in BMR days, a 'mech with locked up legs from MASC failure could still turret for a while before being taken completely down, but a VTOL isn't a 'mech,  once it's mission-killed, it's out of the picture as a useable asset, with the destroyed rear armor, it's not even particularly useful in a spotting role, esp. if the opposition brought their OWN choppers...stunned crew just don't fly evasive very well.

for that matter, they don't spot worth a damn either.

It's got the Yellowjacket problem, but applied to a different set of circumstances.  That problem being, "It looks great on paper-if you ignore the fatal flaws."

Put it another way: would YOU climb into an aircraft with a 1 in 36 chance of exploding randomly as part of the normal function of its systems?  would you carry a rifle that, without you doing anything wrong, as in, no operator error or enemy action involved, that explodes randomly for some reason the engineers can't quite figure out yet?

On a properly designed, ground-bound unit, this isn't a major problem, but the variant we're discussing (in this tangent) is NOT a ground-bound unit, with separate turret, that can still be used to bunker if the gun breaches for no apparent reason.

"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #227 on: 20 August 2012, 01:51:38 »
...
Put it another way: would YOU climb into an aircraft with a 1 in 36 chance of exploding randomly as part of the normal function of its systems?  would you carry a rifle that, without you doing anything wrong, as in, no operator error or enemy action involved, that explodes randomly for some reason the engineers can't quite figure out yet?...

Given that aircraft gives me the capability to absolutely guarantee I am safe from all ground based return fire short of a nuclear weapon while doing my job, that it also guarantees that failure will only shake me up and annoy the maintenance crew, and that I get to go home afterwards or keep spotting from a safe distance while protected by stealth armor I think it is most certainly a good deal.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #228 on: 20 August 2012, 03:33:58 »
Why would a VTOL with CASE that suffers an ammo explosion be a mission kill? The VTOLs rear internal structure isn't affected by CASE so it can still move and fight. If it has any weapons left that is. It'd be naked from the rear but it could still fight.

One could mount the gun in a VTOL Turret that would give the VTOL some added protection from the gun exploding. Wouldn't it?

You could also build a super heavy VTOL up to 60 tons to give it more weapons just in case one blows up.

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #229 on: 20 August 2012, 03:44:13 »
Why would a VTOL with CASE that suffers an ammo explosion be a mission kill? The VTOLs rear internal structure isn't affected by CASE so it can still move and fight. If it has any weapons left that is. It'd be naked from the rear but it could still fight.

One could mount the gun in a VTOL Turret that would give the VTOL some added protection from the gun exploding. Wouldn't it?

You could also build a super heavy VTOL up to 60 tons to give it more weapons just in case one blows up.

This Warrior variant has no other weapons, so when it blows there is nothing left.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #230 on: 20 August 2012, 04:19:28 »
This Warrior variant has no other weapons, so when it blows there is nothing left.

The VTOL still survives though and can still cause problems by spotting for other units, shielding other units, suicide attack, or retreat and hope the techs have enough time to replace the gun.

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19827
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #231 on: 20 August 2012, 05:26:29 »
Put it another way: would YOU climb into an aircraft with a 1 in 36 chance of exploding randomly as part of the normal function of its systems?  would you carry a rifle that, without you doing anything wrong, as in, no operator error or enemy action involved, that explodes randomly for some reason the engineers can't quite figure out yet?

No, but if I were playing a game, I'd try to have fun using units that made the game enjoyable for me and not over-analyze everything.  I understand what you're saying.  I don't always take units that are partially suicidal. This one I like.

This Warrior variant has no other weapons, so when it blows there is nothing left.

It's an ECM bubble that can move up to 20.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

mbear

  • Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4497
    • Tower of Jade
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #232 on: 20 August 2012, 07:22:37 »
Ah, yeah....a bird that will kill itself (No enemies required) 1 in 36 times, a chopper with a random time-bomb in the airframe...no thanks.  I prefer my aircrew to live long enough to get really good, as opposed to something that will routinely kill itself on a semi-regular basis.
My games rarely last 36 turns, so it's never been a problem for me. A 1 in 36 chance is about 3% each turn. So 97% of the time the HVAC Unit is fine.
Be the Loremaster:

Battletech transport rules take a very feline approach to moving troops in a combat zone: If they fits, they ships.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your BT experience. Now what? (Thanks Sartis!)

Fireangel

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3402
  • 7397 posts right down the toilet...
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #233 on: 20 August 2012, 08:50:15 »
A combat VTOL tops out at 30 tons, so a better comparison would be to stack them light mechs.  For example a H-7 Warrior vs any of the Bugs.  }:)  Now against a Wasp or Stinger, well the Warrior can get to it's short range for the AC/2 and only be in the long range of one (Stinger) or two (Wasp) weapons.  And when you have only three tons of armor (four on average for most cannon 3025 light mechs) even damage from an AC/2 can stack up in a hurry.

Or you can get into the AC's medium range and remain 100% out of the range of either 'mech's weapons. 8)

Nikas_Zekeval

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #234 on: 20 August 2012, 09:46:31 »
My games rarely last 36 turns, so it's never been a problem for me. A 1 in 36 chance is about 3% each turn. So 97% of the time the HVAC Unit is fine.

Sorry, probablity doesn't work that way.  There is a 3% chance per firing, and you have to beat those odds with each shot.  The forumla is percent chance of successful (non-exploding) firing raised to the power of the number of times you fire.  By the tenth shot you have a 75.44% chance of not having the cannon fire the breach block out the back of your aircraft.  You are down to 65.5% chance by the fifteenth shot (half your ammo).  By your twenty fifth shot you are down to just under 50% (49.4%) of not having the cannon blow up.  And you have only a 43% chance of buring through a full ton of ammo without the cannnon exploding.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #235 on: 20 August 2012, 09:50:14 »
43% chance of burning through an entire ton of AC/2 ammo is a hell of a lot better chance than most things that mount one of the buggers.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Kit deSummersville

  • Precentor of Lies
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10397
  • The epicness continues!
    • Insights and Complaints on Twitter
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #236 on: 20 August 2012, 12:07:16 »
That's not much better, Kit, the design is still constructed of Fail.

Some of my best designs are constructed of Fail. Just because it isn't for you doesn't mean its not for someone else.
Looking for an official answer? Check the Catalyst Interaction Forums.

Freelancer for hire, not an official CGL or IMR representative.

Everyone else's job is easy, so tell them how to do it, everyone loves that!

Millard Fillmore's favorite BattleTech writer.

Istal_Devalis

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4127
  • Baka! I didnt change my avatar because I like you!
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #237 on: 20 August 2012, 14:57:31 »
If you hate the HV ACs that much, you can just replace it with an ERLRM launcher. We could call it, oh, the S-9 or something.

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #238 on: 20 August 2012, 18:43:21 »
It's an ECM bubble that can move up to 20.

I meant offensively.

Sorry, probablity doesn't work that way.  There is a 3% chance per firing, and you have to beat those odds with each shot.  The forumla is percent chance of successful (non-exploding) firing raised to the power of the number of times you fire.  By the tenth shot you have a 75.44% chance of not having the cannon fire the breach block out the back of your aircraft.  You are down to 65.5% chance by the fifteenth shot (half your ammo).  By your twenty fifth shot you are down to just under 50% (49.4%) of not having the cannon blow up.  And you have only a 43% chance of buring through a full ton of ammo without the cannnon exploding.

I have not run the numbers myself, but those numbers sound wrong.  If memory serves, a 1/36 chance of failure means you hit the 50% line at exactly 36 shots, so you should be able to get through your entire ammo reserve more often than not.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

Belisarius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1371
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #239 on: 20 August 2012, 18:58:32 »
Doesn't a 1/36 chance mean that, at every opportunity, you still have a 1/36 chance? I mean, it doesn't go away or change depending on how many times you roll the dice. And your odds aren't any better the first time you roll as the last time.

 

Register