Author Topic: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?  (Read 63695 times)

ianargent

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 188
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #240 on: 20 August 2012, 20:01:46 »
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.

Each time you roll, it's a 1/36 chance. But if you roll several 1/36 chances, the cumulative chance of any one of those rolls being catastrophic is rather higher than that - as noted above.
Yes, KF drive vessels, assuming they survive the atmospher[ic reentry] (they take 100 points of damage per hex per turn of velocity in the atmosphere), do tend to use an aggressive lithobraking method for landing.

Nikas_Zekeval

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #241 on: 20 August 2012, 22:55:03 »
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.

The formula is simple enough, just plug in the numbers, unless you are disputing the formula used?

Each time you roll, it's a 1/36 chance. But if you roll several 1/36 chances, the cumulative chance of any one of those rolls being catastrophic is rather higher than that - as noted above.

Actually it is a 35/36 chance of NOT blowing your breach block out the back end of the cannon.  Because the round you roll a failure ends the sequence, only by not getting that result allows you to continue.

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13208
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #242 on: 20 August 2012, 22:55:23 »
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.
Think of it the other way around - it's a 35/36 chance of NOT blowing up with each shot.  Then a 35/36 after that, then a 35/36 after that, and so on...the more chances you take, the more chances there are to get outside of that particular sequence, which is why your overall likelihood goes down.
Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen,
Tod und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!
Fühlt nicht durch dich Jadefalke Todesschmerzen,
So bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr!

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8389
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #243 on: 20 August 2012, 23:27:49 »
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.
It has no rear armor and a maximum of 3 points IS

Think of it the other way around - it's a 35/36 chance of NOT blowing up with each shot.  Then a 35/36 after that, then a 35/36 after that, and so on...the more chances you take, the more chances there are to get outside of that particular sequence, which is why your overall likelihood goes down.
This part of probability theory is one of the harder areas to solve, you can calculate the odds of firing X number of shots easily, but not how many shots you should get off on average before the gun blows

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #244 on: 20 August 2012, 23:35:54 »
The formula is simple enough, just plug in the numbers, unless you are disputing the formula used?

Yes, but 1/36=.02777777..., not .03 so your numbers are off from that.  I also remember that for a case like this the 50% line for an event with probability P should be at the point where the number of trials, n, is such that n=1/P, which in this case is 1/(1/36)=36 which indicates another error in your math.


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

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #245 on: 20 August 2012, 23:43:40 »
Chance of not exploding: 35/36.  Chance of not exploding after two shots: (35/36)*(35/36).  Chance of not exploding after three shots: (35/36)^3.  Chance of not exploding after n shots: (35/36)^n.

Therefore, chance of firing off all 30 shots of HVAC/2 ammunition without exploding: 0.4295, or 42.95% chance of the gun not exploding through an entire ton of ammunition.

This, incidentally, does not mean that the chances of the weapon exploding are close to one once you've fired 36 times.  After so many shots, the chance of non-explosion has only dropped to 0.3627, or 36.27%.  Such a weapon actually has a fully 18.45% chance of surviving two full tons of ammo without a mishap.  I know I've taken shots at lower odds (10+ on 2d6 is only 16.66% chance of succeeding).  So, you have a slightly better chance of feeding two full tons of HVAC/2 ammunition through an HVAC/2 than you do of succeeding at a 10+ to hit.
« Last Edit: 20 August 2012, 23:54:46 by Scotty »
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.

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #246 on: 21 August 2012, 00:52:46 »
It has no rear armor and a maximum of 3 points IS

Actually, the "no rear armor" part depends. The explosion damage is applied to the rear armor with any excess ignored; it's not an automatic "all rear armor is blown off immediately" result. So a sufficiently small explosion on a vehicle with CASE and enough rear armor may actually leave some of it in place.

Granted, in a regular ammo explosion that's unlikely to happen since all the ammo blows at once, usually resulting in more than enough damage to overwhelm any amount of armor that may be left (if any at that point). But the general position at the moment seems to be that if a weapon explodes, it doesn't automatically take all the ammo on the vee with it -- your mileage may vary as to whether or not it should -- and your HVAC/2 blowing up on you ultimately only means two points.

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #247 on: 21 August 2012, 02:51:33 »
Actually, the "no rear armor" part depends. The explosion damage is applied to the rear armor with any excess ignored; it's not an automatic "all rear armor is blown off immediately" result. So a sufficiently small explosion on a vehicle with CASE and enough rear armor may actually leave some of it in place.

Granted, in a regular ammo explosion that's unlikely to happen since all the ammo blows at once, usually resulting in more than enough damage to overwhelm any amount of armor that may be left (if any at that point). But the general position at the moment seems to be that if a weapon explodes, it doesn't automatically take all the ammo on the vee with it -- your mileage may vary as to whether or not it should -- and your HVAC/2 blowing up on you ultimately only means two points.

I believe the rule is all the ammo remaining blows. How much remaining would depend on how well or badly you roll each time you fire the gun. However since its only the gun itself that blows up the only way it can ignite the ammo is if the 2 points of damage causes a critical hit on the ammo. So to have the gun blow up, ignite the ammo, strip the rear of the vehicle of armor, and stun the crew you'd need 2 really bad rolls. Or in my case just rolling normally.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10424
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #248 on: 21 August 2012, 02:54:22 »
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.

That sounds more like an H-10 derivative, actually.

Both concepts lose the key virtues of the H-7 to overemphasize a single aspect-the H9X loses versatility and gains random expolsions-it maybe should've been named the "Suicide Vest", while your ELRM ends up dumping flexibility to overemphasize the SAME single aspect.  (iirc, neither the HVAC, nor the ELRM can fire variant munitions and in neither case do you gain the ability back to carry a secondary weapon and thus, secondary roles that VTOL units tend to perform rather well... when properly equipped.)

Here's the t'ing, 'kay?

in both cases, you have  a huge range you don't really need, with light damage you already had off of another variant, the H9X picks up the speed that was game-ruled out by the math-nerf in the 3039 book-the engine change would have been enough, imho, given the in-universe existence of Precision Ammunition and Inferno SRMs.

The result is a net loss of capability, plus the introduction of a system that will randomly blow out your rear armor, knock out all offensive capability, and stun the crew for 3+ rounds of combat, to get a machine gun with a 1 mapsheet range on an airframe that most often doesn't have the room on the map to make use of its speed.

As for the ECM bubble?  You're using an HVAC, you're already out of range of everything else, and you're too far back from the front lines for that bubble to be worth bringing-you have to get CLOSE for ECM to do any good, (as in to interrupt line of sight).

It's the kind of design, like the Yellowjacket, that expresses a designer who's really kind of unfamiliar with how VTOLs WORK in the game, and likely never uses them (or only rarely), to the point of really not having much interest in HOW to use them, what they SHOULD bring to a force, or the way the capabilities match up to boosting the effectiveness OF a given force on the map.

The old, prenerf model of the H-7 from the now-obselete 3026 book was hell on wheels in at LEAST three roles-those being scouting, light firesupport/harassment, and Vulturing damaged ground units (using Infernoes).  It was also a superior dogfighter against the Donar (3058 model), a CLAN unit with all advanced tech-an Old-model H-7 packing the right ammunition could hunt/kill other VTOLs right up to and including 30 ton models, and stand off against lighter choppers with some good measure of success.

The essential trait of a VTOL (or other vee) in this game, is it's a cheap weapon to fill certain roles that it does slightly better than a light 'mech of comparable tech level-the original stats of the H-7 made it good for hunting the "bug mechs" of the 3rd succession war, especially in terrain, it was also good for killing most light to medium ground vehicles (or some Heavy tanks) if armed appropriately for the era.

Come to think on it a bit further, that explains the mathematics-"resolution" that cut the original's speed by 10kph cruise-it was too good against too many "Successors".

A chopper is ALREADY a fragile unit-less fragile since the MUNCHTEK rules were instituted to create the 50+Point ROTOR SHIELD OF DHOOM, but still fragile enough that strapping a bomb to your chassis and calling it okay because "The chances are really small" that it will explode and take your chopper out of the fight...they're there AT ALL is the problem.  How often have you (or Kit, or anyone defending this thing) rolled a 2 on your to-hit rolls?  Seriously?  or a MASC check (for Grognards out there, the BMR version with the "Now you can't walk" result?)

as I said before, it's less of a problem putting an HVAC on a tank-tanks don't fall out of the sky, Tanks have armor, the crew can bail out if they need to, and a crew-stunned only results in a crew-dead if the enemy continues shooting at the spot where they stalled.

This thing, it's not just "QWERKY" bad design choices, it's "BAD DESIGN", period.  Like putting MASC and IJJ's on an Urbie at the cost of armor bad.

Here's the tactics for VTOLs-their role on the battlefield...

They're scout/screen and harassers, vultures and hunters, when alone they are going after vulnerable light targets, when working as part of a team, (Say, in double-blind, because that's always fun) they're the "Eyes" of the force, and they occasionally take the risk to backstab.

To fill those roles, you need speed (Okay, it's got speed), you need some range (It's got LOTS of range) and you need EYES.  30 ton weight limit means you have to 'streamline' to get the best results.  I don't really get the fetish for cramming ECM on fast units-it works better with slow, heavy, otherwise easily targets Assault units, nor the fetish for putting Active Probe on 80+ton units that can't get out of their own way.  You put ECM in the TANK, you put Active Probe on the Chopper, this works MUCH better than the other way around.

You need enough range in your main gun, to be hard to target with things that will kill you easily and quickly-iow, you need to outrange most LBX autocannons, which means you need to outrange a base-model oldtech PPC, which also lets you outrange a Large Laser and sit at 'long' for LRM fire.  That's it. 

You need enough speed to regularly pull +5 THM at CRUISE-again, this is protection from things that kill you frelling quickly- LBX's, anything with a bonus against flyers (see HAG, LBX, FLAK).  If you are relying on Jet boosters, you're already in trouble here-sideslip is a nasty thing.  "Routinely" means being able to turn, climb, or descend and still retain that TMM...at CRUISE speed.  Flanking screws with your targeting, it also draws in a high risk of sideslipping into the weeds, trees and rocks.


Nice-to-haves for a VTOL is a heavy (or relatively heavy) punch if you surprise someone at close range -it doesn't matter what, an ATM-3 is as good as an SRM-4 for this, but the SRM can use munitions that the ATM can't, some of which are decidedly more potent against vehicles, BA, and Protomechs, and can cook a platoon to death rather quickly-if your TMM was high to begin with, you might even survive the experience.

The problem for game-developers, is that the mass constraint, and the existence of your basic 'food groups' for ammunition, made certain old designs still better than the NEW and SHINY designs.  the tactics that worked in BMR days for VTOLs...still work.  Even with rules changes to salvage newer concepts, those older designs keep up rather better than their cousins in the 'mech, tank, or infantry classes.  It comes from the basic limitations on how choppers are constructed for the game-the effective curve plateaus quickly and drops off well short of the mass limit-a 30 ton VTOL isn't going to perform as well, at the same tech level, as a 21 to 25 tonner does, and even the lighter engine tech doesn't fix this, it merely highlights it-the same XL or XXL engine that can push 30 tons to 10/15 will get a 21 to 25 tonner a considerable margin of TMM, esp. with the changes to the TMM 'cap' and the open-ended modifiers. 

Hit, and not BE hit is always the name of the gme with mass-limited units like VTOLs.
« Last Edit: 21 August 2012, 03:20:37 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."

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #249 on: 21 August 2012, 03:36:52 »
Since I have bad dice karma, all the time. But that doesn't stop me from liking being able to plink away at enemy units where they can't shoot back at me. They always get critical hits.

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19825
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #250 on: 21 August 2012, 05:52:00 »
Since I have bad dice karma, all the time. But that doesn't stop me from liking being able to plink away at enemy units where they can't shoot back at me. They always get critical hits.

An important part of the meta game indeed  ;D

snip

My latent oppositional-defiance disorder now dictates I'm going to use this unit more. Please list a number of designs you feel are so flawed that they are not worth using so I can expand my horizons.

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?

ianargent

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 188
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #251 on: 21 August 2012, 05:56:48 »
Hmm, that suggests that a VTOL should carry mmls as part of their weapons package.
Yes, KF drive vessels, assuming they survive the atmospher[ic reentry] (they take 100 points of damage per hex per turn of velocity in the atmosphere), do tend to use an aggressive lithobraking method for landing.

Jayof9s

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2419
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #252 on: 21 August 2012, 09:00:49 »
Hmm, that suggests that a VTOL should carry mmls as part of their weapons package.

I think MMLs would work very well on a VTOL. When I can I tend to mix LRMs and back them up with some SRMS. Just carry more LRM ammo for the MML and even just 1 ton of SRM ammo could come in quite handy. I know some people were pretty opposed to short ranged VTOL designs when they got mentioned earlier but they can be quite effective when used correctly. Which tends to mean jumping out of cover to fire with a full movement modifier before running back behind cover and then repeating - or with enough movement flying straight at the back of someone with the full TMM and then backing up and firing with the LRMs, closing the next round for another SRM back shot, etc. Keeps your movement mods up and let's you mix in a bit more damage from the SRMs. Still risky since you're at short range but if the enemy is in a fight against the rest of your forces and it has devolved to a brawl, that VTOL with a +5 TMM is not going to be nearly as tempting as that heavy 'Mech with a +1 or +2 TMM.

ianargent

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 188
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #253 on: 21 August 2012, 09:53:23 »
I'm also thinking that a VTOL carrying DE or DB weapons ought to invest in a targeting computer to offset AMM and make the occasional called shot for crit hunting. Won't help missiles, though.
Yes, KF drive vessels, assuming they survive the atmospher[ic reentry] (they take 100 points of damage per hex per turn of velocity in the atmosphere), do tend to use an aggressive lithobraking method for landing.

Istal_Devalis

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4127
  • Baka! I didnt change my avatar because I like you!
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #254 on: 21 August 2012, 10:19:33 »
In the days of LB2X AA units, the ERLRM version at least has the ability to take them out with minimum danger to itself. I'd have probably gone with a -5 rack instead of a 10, so it could bring back some Inferno launchers, but I would never write off something that can easilly outrange you like it can.

You also dont have much of a choice in the use of ECM if you want to keep the stealth armor.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #255 on: 21 August 2012, 11:53:39 »
I don't think I can overstate the benefit of the Stealth armor.  With something like an HVAC/2, the VTOL can grab a +4 TMM with a lazy cruise, and stay in long range of literally everything on the field if it doesn't remain out of range outright, and be in medium range of its own guns.  An extra +2 at long range means that this VTOL is sitting on a +10 modifier and it can dictate the range to anything on the field.  Even an Elite pilot is going to have a hard time hitting it.
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.

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #256 on: 21 August 2012, 17:33:45 »
An important part of the meta game indeed  ;D


:)

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8389
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #257 on: 22 August 2012, 00:24:40 »
I don't think I can overstate the benefit of the Stealth armor.  With something like an HVAC/2, the VTOL can grab a +4 TMM with a lazy cruise, and stay in long range of literally everything on the field if it doesn't remain out of range outright, and be in medium range of its own guns.  An extra +2 at long range means that this VTOL is sitting on a +10 modifier and it can dictate the range to anything on the field.  Even an Elite pilot is going to have a hard time hitting it.
And Stealth Armor isn't effected by hostile ECM, not sure how it works with ARAD missiles but

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #258 on: 22 August 2012, 00:52:18 »
And Stealth Armor isn't effected by hostile ECM, not sure how it works with ARAD missiles but

If you're using the advanced TacOps ECM optional rules, then per errata being within the radius of any ECCM field, friend or foe, will negate the benefits of stealth armor.

As for ARAD missiles, since I can't find anything saying otherwise, I'd say the modifiers are cumulative -- the stealth bonus applies at medium and long ranges, but the missiles still get their bonus for homing in on a unit with ECM active.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10424
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #259 on: 22 August 2012, 02:28:38 »
I think MMLs would work very well on a VTOL. When I can I tend to mix LRMs and back them up with some SRMS. Just carry more LRM ammo for the MML and even just 1 ton of SRM ammo could come in quite handy. I know some people were pretty opposed to short ranged VTOL designs when they got mentioned earlier but they can be quite effective when used correctly. Which tends to mean jumping out of cover to fire with a full movement modifier before running back behind cover and then repeating - or with enough movement flying straight at the back of someone with the full TMM and then backing up and firing with the LRMs, closing the next round for another SRM back shot, etc. Keeps your movement mods up and let's you mix in a bit more damage from the SRMs. Still risky since you're at short range but if the enemy is in a fight against the rest of your forces and it has devolved to a brawl, that VTOL with a +5 TMM is not going to be nearly as tempting as that heavy 'Mech with a +1 or +2 TMM.

when MML's first showed up, I built a Cavalry with all packages replaced by an MML and mixed SRM/LRM in the bins.  Worked VERY well, far better than most of the stock designs at all the basic VTOL roles.  (Screener, cavalry, VTOL vs. VTOL and Scout missions).

Keep in mind, the price differential too- you can build a good, fast moving and manueverable chopper that will pull down +5 just off movement at cruise for a LOT less than the H-9X at a lower tech level, and cover more roles more effectively.

It's all about roles and tactics-does a design FILL a role? does it serve a purpose?  This one doesn't, that one does, and for the price, the H-9X SHOULD, but doesn't.

Hell, the comment about it being armed with a thousand meter Machinegun is a misstatement-machineguns do more damage against infantry and don't generate heat, or detonate randomly, and don't weigh as much as some entire VTOL designs on their own.

Back to the original topic for a moment now...

A VTOL needs to fill some effective role as part of an over all strategic mix.  given the weight constraints on the class, the suspension factor numbers and how they curve, and the all important "But can I get a 'mech to do this for the same price" question,  it comes down to layouts that take best advantage of the graces, while mitigating or avoiding choices that lead straight into the limitations or flaws inherent in the motive type.

WHILE filling a place in a TO&E, since this is a war game and these are supposed to be war machines fielded by armies and/or mercenaries.

Does the design justify the cost?  An XXL wonder-platform at thirty tonnes may perform well, but in what roles, and by what standards?  Same here for the H-9X-it's nigh unhittable, but the main (and only) gun explodes randomly and does only light damage to the target when it DOES work, it carries a system that only benefits itself under most circumstances, and doesn't contribute to the mission for the rest of the forces, on a platform that costs as much as a good medium battlemech that does MORE things BETTER, at lower risk.

Which is the same fundamental flaw that the Yellowjacket has-other platforms cost less and do the job as well or better at less risk of being destroyed, with parts that are less expensive to replace, less costly to maintain, and more available in very nearly EVERY era.

When designing  an effective gunship for this game, the keys are Movement, Payload, and Cost-as in the best movement and payload at the lowest cost you can manage without dropping below your threshold as defined by your intended role.

Note also: Main gun detonates, right? well, it's got stealthy armor, so it should be good-oh, wait, that's right-when you lose the armor in a location, you lose the stealth bonuses from Stealth Armor, don't you?  did they change that, too? 

Too many points of failure, too many random factors added, not sufficient benefit accrues to offset the combined cost and risk of the design, the gunship built the way the H-9X is built, fails as a design.  Succeeds as a vanity pressing, but fails as a unit worthy of inclusion in a Militia force, much less front liners.  It may have a good career on Solaris, however-crowds love pretty explosions, and the display of tech always wows the rubes.

But on a practical level, the original H-7 variants, the Cavalry AH and most of ITS variants, the Sprint, Mantis, Marten, and the H-10 fill effective battlefield roles for Attack Helicopters, most of them performing BETTER than more "advanced" designs not merely on cost, or role, but OVER ALL in performance (the exception being the AC/5 Warrior variant, which is the spiritual ancestor of designs like the Hawk Moth, Yellowjacket, and H-9X, a big old phallic gun that weighs too much for a VTOL shoved into a VTOL at the cost of being able to do anything particularly useful beyond looking "Kewl" in a skateboard-art sort of way...)

If you're actually interested in fielding combat VTOLs in-game or in-campaign, your C-bills/BV/Time is better served using mostly-stock designs from the earlier TRO's, or designing your own based on "What role can I fill with something that can ignore terrain, rack a high TMM without flanking or special equipment, but is limited to the "Light" class of Vehicles and units?"

"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."

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #260 on: 22 August 2012, 02:43:42 »
Note also: Main gun detonates, right? well, it's got stealthy armor, so it should be good-oh, wait, that's right-when you lose the armor in a location, you lose the stealth bonuses from Stealth Armor, don't you?  did they change that, too?

You don't and never did. You may be thinking of the null-signature system, which goes offline if any location where it is installed (not just the armor on it here, either -- you need to take out the null-sig critical slot there itself) is destroyed. Stealth armor is disabled only if you lose the ECM suite.

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #261 on: 22 August 2012, 03:48:18 »
You also lose the armor only if the ammo is destroyed. For the ammo to be destroyed when the gun is you need a bad roll on the crit chart.

You've also missed one role. Head Hunting. It's stealthy making it hard to detect. It has a gun that out ranges anything. Sneak in. Pop off a shot at the commander from behind. Chaos, confusion, and mayhem ensues. Even if your gun blows up on the first shot, they're going to notice someone behind them is shooting at them. That's going to force them to take cover and send someone to hunt you down. Those forces won't be on the front lines, weakening them to your advantage. Even if you don't get the commander your secondary mission, that of being an annoying distraction, is accomplished.

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8389
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #262 on: 22 August 2012, 04:34:31 »
There's no actual rule about losing all the armor points in a location stops the stealth effect, but the patchwork armor rules suggest that (no armor is technically an armor choice to)

That sort of thing causes logic errors for the QKD-8X, the 'Mech has stealth armor but the weapons packs CAN'T

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19825
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #263 on: 22 August 2012, 05:18:06 »
-snip-

And not everyone plays campaign - and even in one, you probably wouldn't be able to get one of these anyway.   I don't think anyone is going to argue (at least I'm not) that the H-9X is a cluster of strange design choices and that there are sub-optimal (or downright dangerous).

I like running weird units to see how they work.  Players shouldn't have to justify every choice they make like they're in front of a military funding appropriations committee.



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?

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 #264 on: 22 August 2012, 07:40:04 »
You don't and never did. You may be thinking of the null-signature system, which goes offline if any location where it is installed (not just the armor on it here, either -- you need to take out the null-sig critical slot there itself) is destroyed. Stealth armor is disabled only if you lose the ECM suite.

Yup, technically you can lose all of the stealth armor on a unit and the stealth effect continues to work.
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.

Fireangel

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3402
  • 7397 posts right down the toilet...
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #265 on: 23 August 2012, 17:15:14 »
After reading along I came up with this yesterday. Yes it uses a fusion, but price wise it compares pretty close with a Manticore. It doesn't have the secondary weapons or armor of the tank but it does have much better mobility.

Code: [Select]
Velociraptor

<snip>


Designs should be posted in the design forums.  :)

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8389
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #266 on: 24 August 2012, 03:23:06 »
Yup, technically you can lose all of the stealth armor on a unit and the stealth effect continues to work.
See my comment about the QKD-8X for similar weirdness

Belisarius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1371
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #267 on: 24 August 2012, 08:29:33 »
The Yellow Jacket (original) among other similar machines, puts a weapon in too great a risk IMHO. In order to be effective for a single shot, you frequently put yourself in the middle of a firefight in ranges where the enemy can hit you, at low enough speeds to be hit, and with a big enough weapon to be a good target. That said, slow VTOLs can be armed in such a way as to be a great combat multiplier; just by adding indirect fire weapons like LRMs and Arrow IV. That's why I love the Yellow Jacket AIV. You can park it behind some buildings at 17 hexes or less and still hammer the enemy. And arrows landing same turn just get brutal.

Eldragon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 153
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #268 on: 24 August 2012, 13:27:12 »
Don't forget there are 4 methods of survivability: Armor, Superior Range, Movement (Both Mod and LOS), and Target Priority.

VTOLs never qualify for armor, that's for mechs and tanks. So lets skip that one for now.

Movement mod and Range has been discussed at length, so I'm going to talk about the often forgotten method: Target Priority.

 A VTOL operating alone is a sitting duck, A VTOL operating in conjunction with a heavy/assault lance simply isn't going to attract as much attention. When your opponent as to decide between expose their rear arc to my VTOL, or my Highlander... Most people pick the VTOL.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I prefer the fast, short range VTOL variants. Swing them around behind the enemy line and force the enemy to make hard choices.  Normally SRMs or Rockets, but an AC10 would do just fine.

Eventually the VTOLs annoy the enemy player enough where they start focusing on the VTOLs. That gives my mechs time to get into good position, and  the VTOLs have the speed to get out of harms way.

Thus, I think 3SW era gunships are quite viable. Putting a SFE on a VTOL isn't how I like to use them.  I'd rather have Four cheap ICE VTOLs packing an AC10 driving the enemy crazy than a single VTOL loaded to the gills with Advanced jihad era tech.   

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #269 on: 24 August 2012, 14:38:22 »
Relying on my enemy having worse judgment in "target priority" than I do myself sounds like a rather dubious proposition to me. You know, in the "this tactic will totally work because I'm smart and they're dumb" sort of way that's just asking for karmic payback.

I think I'd rather have the range and movement modifiers, thanks. I can count on those. ;)

 

Register