Poll

How far should LAM technology grow?

[0] No changes please
8 (17%)
[1] I would like to see one option
2 (4.3%)
[2] I think two options are good
10 (21.3%)
[3] I prefer to see all three options
6 (12.8%)
[4+] MORE!!!!
21 (44.7%)

Total Members Voted: 47

Author Topic: Future LAM technology  (Read 25526 times)

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7155
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Future LAM technology
« on: 14 April 2020, 17:16:50 »
The latest rules gave us a lot of fun technologies for LAMs: IJJs, Composite Structure, Small Cockpit, Bomb Bays.
Now with all the talk about Land-Air-Mechs (and the UrbieLAM) I got curious about the players opinion on possible future LAM technologies.

So where (and how far) should future LAM technology go?
- Allowing more existing technologies
- More new technologies
- Heavier LAMs (Heavy or Assault class)

Or are no changes required anymore?
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

kindalas

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 463
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #1 on: 14 April 2020, 18:02:48 »
The only part of the LAM rules that I objected to was the "no armor/IS with crit slots" rule.

I would have preferred that the conversion equipment took up many more critical spaces as an alternative.

And I would have accepted a no DHS rule to go with the no XL/light engines rule.

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1433
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #2 on: 14 April 2020, 19:04:30 »
Required may not be the best word.  Nobody needs to do anything.  If the developers desired, they could have left Battletech's setting stuck in 3025 forever.

A better question is: Would such changes benefit or detract from the board game?

So going down your list...
- Allowing more existing technologies
Existing technologies include weight-saving items such as endo-steel, ferro-fibrous (or other specialty armors), and other fancy stuff.

Such technologies were banned from LAMs, presumably so they wouldn't be too effective.  That's a perfectly reasonable concern to have, even if I disagree with it (I've experimented with much of these in an AU setting).  Whether lifting those bans would impact tabletop balance too much is largely a matter of opinion, and it can be successfully argued either way.

Other items, such as Omni-technology, are also prohibited, despite not having any actual impact in a pick-up game.  Precisely what would have been lost if the Spectral LAM series had actual omni-technology?  Another restriction is that LAMs cannot be built as a quad or a tripod, the reason for which is lost on me.  Is the Scorpion LAM going to dominate the battlefield in ways the Phoenix Hawk LAM could not if it could take off the ground without ripping itself apart?  No.

Yeah, having those prohibitions don't really help anyone but the ink & logging industries.  The more pointless red tape that gets axed from the rules, the better.
- More new technologies
Question: By more new technologies, are you referring to a general technology that might be added in the future (For instance, a "Autocannon Mk.2"), or technologies that are specific to LAMs?  And in either case, could you give some examples of what you'd have in mind?
- Heavier LAMs (Heavy or Assault class)
Yeah, that one easily falls under the "red tape" I mentioned earlier.  The Champion LAMs and other potential heavy LAMs will inherently be on the slow side on the Aerospace scale for obvious reasons.  If they don't get produced, it should because they're not effective in-universe and not because a some random rule decrees it.  Cut the tape.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #3 on: 14 April 2020, 23:51:56 »
Quad LAMs, Tripod LAMs, Heavy and Assault LAMs. Yes, Please. :)

OMNI LAMs would be nice too. If QuadVees can be OMNI why not LAMs?   ;)

I'd like to see Clan LAMs to know what cockpit they used.

Superchargers and cargo space are allowed. There's really no reason they shouldn't be.

Advanced Materials such as ES and FF, I'd say yes but I know the Haters are gonna hate hate hate. So...I'd limit such materials that can be mounted under existing rules for items such as MASC and TSM, for TriModal LAMs. If, IS versions are allowed use the FrankenMech Rules to determine how many slots in each location they take. Both options would make the items available but limiting.

For BiModal LAMs, no restrictions, except maybe Clan Tech. After all, QuadVees. That should cut down on the hating and give a reason for BiModal LAMs to come back.

Other equipment, if it can be mounted on a QuadVee, it should be able to be mounted on a LAM. Really, any equipment open to Mechs or Fighers should be available. Why you'd want Tracks and a Turret on a LAM, I don't know but you should be able to if you wanted to. I think this would open LAMs up to more missions or just make them more effective in the ones they have. 

It'd be cool if there were other motive types like propellers and rotors for LAMs with Engines other than Fusion. And allow Engines other than Fusion. I think it'd also be cool if the AutoMechs from Nebula California were available in Piloted versions. Why shouldn't there be more vehicle types?





« Last Edit: 14 April 2020, 23:54:37 by RifleMech »

Dragon Cat

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7827
  • Not Dead Until I Say So
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #4 on: 15 April 2020, 01:31:13 »
I liked the engine/gyro compromise I came up with in my AU

https://www.ourbattletech.com/forum/index.php?topic=2931.0

I wouldn't want too much weight sharing options due to their power
My three main Alternate Timeline with Thanks fan-fiction threads are in the links below. I'm always open to suggestions or additions to be incorporated so if you feel you wish to add something feel free. There's non-canon units, equipment, people, events, erm... Solar Systems spread throughout so please enjoy

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,20515.0.html - Part 1

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,52013.0.html - Part 2

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,79196.0.html - Part 3

Red Pins

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3970
  • Inspiration+Creativity=Insanity
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #5 on: 15 April 2020, 02:21:24 »
I liked the engine/gyro compromise I came up with in my AU

Hm.  We're kinda skirting the issue, though - should LAM tech continue to develop?

I'd cautiously say, yes, but the Clans will absolutely not encourage this.  If the Scientists managed to survive, I might float a notion that something could be done behind the scenes, but otherwise the Houses seem unlikely to invest in technology and manufacturing something that by its very existence provides a specialized and limited advantage.

In my own homebrew tech, I allow some weight-saving options, mostly Light engines.  I went the opposite way, allowing permanent airmechs up to 75 tons without the options of ASF or 'Mech and heavy ground movement penalties while limiting heavies to only x2 their jump radius, since all I want to play with it are the original Airmech mode rules anyway.

Frankly I'd rather trust the "rule of Cool" on my tabletop and play with house rules than wait for CGL to come up with something I wanna play.  God knows I've got enough weird stuff.  I'd say make your own rules and enjoy them now rather than wait.
...Visit the Legacy Cluster...
The New Clans:Volume One
Clan Devil Wasp * Clan Carnoraptor * Clan Frost Ape * Clan Surf Dragon * Clan Tundra Leopard
Work-in-progress; The Blake Threat File
Now with MORE GROGNARD!  ...I think I'm done.  I've played long enough to earn a pension, fer cryin' out loud!  IlClan and out in <REDACTED>!
TRO: 3176 Hegemony Refits - the 30-day wonder

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7155
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #6 on: 15 April 2020, 02:37:42 »
Personally I would like to see (and kitbash) more Mechs into LAMs, thus I really would like to see heavier LAMs.
Also I would like to see technologies that mostly improve the space performance, they are just a bit too helpless in space.

Question: By more new technologies, are you referring to a general technology that might be added in the future (For instance, a "Autocannon Mk.2"), or technologies that are specific to LAMs?  And in either case, could you give some examples of what you'd have in mind?

Fragile Engine: 2/3 of the weight but is destroyed after 2 critical hits
Fragile Gyro: 2/3 of the weight but is destroyed after 1 critical hit
Improved Bomb Bay: A more weight efficient Bomb Bay
Bay weapon: A hand-held weapon that can be mounted in either a bomb bay or hand actuator (and switch back and forth).
Spheroid LAM: superior space performance, but less capable in the upper atmosphere (think Arhan unit from Expelled from Paradise)
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #7 on: 15 April 2020, 05:34:39 »
Hm.  We're kinda skirting the issue, though - should LAM tech continue to develop?

I'd cautiously say, yes, but the Clans will absolutely not encourage this.  If the Scientists managed to survive, I might float a notion that something could be done behind the scenes, but otherwise the Houses seem unlikely to invest in technology and manufacturing something that by its very existence provides a specialized and limited advantage.

In my own homebrew tech, I allow some weight-saving options, mostly Light engines.  I went the opposite way, allowing permanent airmechs up to 75 tons without the options of ASF or 'Mech and heavy ground movement penalties while limiting heavies to only x2 their jump radius, since all I want to play with it are the original Airmech mode rules anyway.

Frankly I'd rather trust the "rule of Cool" on my tabletop and play with house rules than wait for CGL to come up with something I wanna play.  God knows I've got enough weird stuff.  I'd say make your own rules and enjoy them now rather than wait.


I think LAM interest would depend on the Clan. Hell's Horses does use QuadVees so they might be open to the idea of using LAMs. As for the IS using LAMs, I think they might once they look at the price tag on some of those mechs they have now.

Pure AirMechs would be cool. :)


Personally I would like to see (and kitbash) more Mechs into LAMs, thus I really would like to see heavier LAMs.
Also I would like to see technologies that mostly improve the space performance, they are just a bit too helpless in space.

Fragile Engine: 2/3 of the weight but is destroyed after 2 critical hits
Fragile Gyro: 2/3 of the weight but is destroyed after 1 critical hit
Improved Bomb Bay: A more weight efficient Bomb Bay
Bay weapon: A hand-held weapon that can be mounted in either a bomb bay or hand actuator (and switch back and forth).
Spheroid LAM: superior space performance, but less capable in the upper atmosphere (think Arhan unit from Expelled from Paradise)



Spheroid LAM:  my first thought was Unicron! And then I thought of Cosmos. Then Scourge and the Sweeps.  ;D Of course now I want a SuperHeavy LAM. Unicron Lives!  :D
« Last Edit: 15 April 2020, 05:54:46 by RifleMech »

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1756
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #8 on: 15 April 2020, 06:28:56 »
So where (and how far) should future LAM technology go?
- Allowing more existing technologies
- More new technologies
- Heavier LAMs (Heavy or Assault class)

The former two. Enhancing LAM would be a way to improve the efficiency of medium to light mech, so I don't think that we should allow the heavy/assault LAM. Although heavy LAM seems doable, for WiGE vehicle is up to 80t.

That said, current LAM is a capable WiGE mech - its battlemech mode is sucks, and its Aerospace Fighter mode is just inferior fighter, but AirMech mode is unique thing on battlemech. I hope that there is a way to improve its mobility(not speed), though.


RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #9 on: 15 April 2020, 08:29:10 »
You need that speed though. It takes twice the MP when flying at 2 elevations or more.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1756
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #10 on: 15 April 2020, 08:46:15 »
You need that speed though. It takes twice the MP when flying at 2 elevations or more.
Third, not twice(+2, actually). For example, if you are fly on 1 elevation it takes 1 MP per one hex, but if it is more than 1, it takes 3 MP per one hex.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #11 on: 15 April 2020, 09:30:40 »
Third, not twice(+2, actually). For example, if you are fly on 1 elevation it takes 1 MP per one hex, but if it is more than 1, it takes 3 MP per one hex.

Nope.
Quote
As with normal WiGE movement, any AirMech moving at more than 1 elevation above its underlying terrain must spend 2 AirMech MPs per hex of movement to do so.

I think you're adding the +1 MP to gain elevation to every hex moved but only do that for each hex you gain altitude in above terrain changes. 
Quote
LAM using AirMech movement may increase its elevation by spending 1 additional MP per elevation change as a VTOL, and may continue to do so up to a maximum elevation of 25 above the underlying terrain.

So at elevation 1 it's 1 MP per hex. At elevation 2 it's 2 MP per hex, plus 1 MP to gain that elevation. If you look at the example, if he continued moving at the higher elevation it would cost 2 MP per hex.

Quote
Continuing its movement from Hex D, Steve’s LAM gains 1 elevation, rising to Elevation 3 when it enters Hex G. When Steve’s LAM enters Hex H, he has a choice to make. He may either continue moving at Elevation 3 (at a cost of an additional 2 MP per hex) or he may descend to one elevation above the underlying terrain (putting him at Elevation 1). Steve decides to
descend to Elevation 2, and then descends again (to Elevation 1) as he moves from Hex H to Hex I.

In the example he's climbing a hill so he's still 1 elevation above the ground until he gets to Hex H. Then it's either descend or pay additional MP per hex. Also at that point he wouldn't have to pay the +1 MP to gain altitude as he's already there. If he was traveling at elevation 1 and wanted to travel at a elevation 3 he'd have to pay 2 MP to climb 2 elevations and 2 MP per hex to continue moving until he descends back to 1 elevation above the ground.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1756
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #12 on: 15 April 2020, 09:45:02 »
Did you said for the raise the elevation, not move while on 2 or more elevation?

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7155
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #13 on: 15 April 2020, 12:24:28 »
The former two. Enhancing LAM would be a way to improve the efficiency of medium to light mech, so I don't think that we should allow the heavy/assault LAM.
Should any new technologies be exclusive to LAMs or more generally available? 

Quote
Although heavy LAM seems doable, for WiGE vehicle is up to 80t.
That is quite a good in-universe argument for the possibility of increasing to heavy-class while also preventing from going beyond that. Always fun to see insights that I didn't think of myself.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37059
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #14 on: 15 April 2020, 17:10:12 »
A fixed AirMech mode without gear to change modes would be interesting...

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #15 on: 15 April 2020, 18:37:26 »
Personally I wouldn't argue against allowing the loading of specialty ammunition under the understanding that all of it would not be usable in ASF mode, at least in air to air and space to space engagements.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #16 on: 15 April 2020, 19:48:59 »
Did you said for the raise the elevation, not move while on 2 or more elevation?

Raising in elevation costs 1 MP. Moving at elevation 2-25 costs 2MP per hex so if you move 2 hexes at elevation 1, that's 2MP. At hex three you pay 1MP to gain 1 elevation and 2MP for moving at elevation 2, that's 3MP. Then you move forward another 2 hexes at elevation 2, that's 4MP (2 per hex). Total hexes moved is 5. Total MP spent is 7.



Personally I wouldn't argue against allowing the loading of specialty ammunition under the understanding that all of it would not be usable in ASF mode, at least in air to air and space to space engagements.


I've never understood the reasoning for that. I can see ammo being less effective do to the distances involved but a weapon shouldn't change just because its taken from one unit type and put in another. Or that unit changes modes.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #17 on: 15 April 2020, 20:10:15 »
Some ammunition choices are obviously poor choices or I can see an argument for not working the same in air to air or air space to space.

Thunder should be fine for air to ground but I can understand not being usable in air to air or space to space.  Precision I can buy not having room for reaction mass to do anything other than be a bad choice for air to air and space to space.

Others seem like they'd be perfectly fine or only need relatively minor alterations.  AP and Flak would be my big two here.

To an extent I understand it is an effort to simplify things rather than having to make special case rules for each ammo for each type of possible engagement but like I said it might not be the worst thing to expand the choices across the board either.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #18 on: 15 April 2020, 20:37:49 »
Standard Rules, don't use alternate ammo. Alternate rules  most alternate ammo can be used but with problems such targeting modifiers or reduced ranges or something?

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #19 on: 15 April 2020, 20:47:00 »
Yeah I think using a standard/advanced gate like that would be required and probably would still require each ammo to be taken on a case to case basis to figure out which changes need to be made.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #20 on: 15 April 2020, 20:53:19 »
Probably. Like you said some would work for air-to-ground not air-to-air.

idea weenie

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4855
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #21 on: 15 April 2020, 21:25:33 »
Mech <-> surfer <-> Boat

Mech <-> swimmer <-> submarine

Mech <-> clumsy rocket <-> Pure Space Fighter

 ;D

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1756
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #22 on: 15 April 2020, 21:40:41 »
Should any new technologies be exclusive to LAMs or more generally available? 
As I have said. Well, not all of them are required to be allowed, but it may have some freedom of choice. Allowing XL engine may have a problem, but Light or Clans XL may doable. Endo structure seems problematic but what about Endo-Composite(or Clans Endo, but you know they don't bothered to make LAM except for some experimental one)?

Well, around Jump MP 3 is playable, and Jump MP 5 is enough for AirMech mode. But you know, lack of XL engine makes LAM unplayable on battlemech mode. Its only advantage over the other type of battlemech is AirMech mode, though.

Also, why not to quad and tripod LAM? Also why not for the dual cockpit? I know dual cockpit is not the valid equipment by default right now but it may have something LAM-exclusive one like Quadvee cockpit?


And... you will understand that it never allowed to have something like Hardened armor, that is not allowed for hovers and WiGEs as well.

Finally, I want to see a true WiGE mech, not LAM - that is able to change between Battlemech Mode-AirMech Mode only, or only have AirMech Mode, but does not have Aerospace Fighter Mode at all. Perhaps it is the time to say for the Hover Mech? Anyway I want them to be more mobile.

That is quite a good in-universe argument for the possibility of increasing to heavy-class while also preventing from going beyond that. Always fun to see insights that I didn't think of myself.


Well, it is disputable that it may possible for full LAM, but only for WiGE mech it seems quite possible.


Raising in elevation costs 1 MP. Moving at elevation 2-25 costs 2MP per hex so if you move 2 hexes at elevation 1, that's 2MP. At hex three you pay 1MP to gain 1 elevation and 2MP for moving at elevation 2, that's 3MP. Then you move forward another 2 hexes at elevation 2, that's 4MP (2 per hex). Total hexes moved is 5. Total MP spent is 7.



But...
Quote from: p55. Total Warfare. WING-IN-GROUND-EFFECT(WIGE) MOVEMENT - Elevation Changes
.. A WiGE vehicle may maintain the same elevation in a new hex(regardless of how many level changes occur in the lower level hex entered) by expending 2 additional MP per hex that it crosses. ..

That's why I askd if the matter of raising the elevation, not move while on higher elevation. So if you are in 2 elevation and move to the adjacent hex while keep your elevation then you need to pay 3 MP total. Perhaps it was not the point?

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #23 on: 15 April 2020, 21:46:43 »
LAMs get a MP discount for maintaining their flight level over terrain.

For them it would be 2 MP instead of 3 of a pure WiGE.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #24 on: 16 April 2020, 02:03:49 »
As I have said. Well, not all of them are required to be allowed, but it may have some freedom of choice. Allowing XL engine may have a problem, but Light or Clans XL may doable. Endo structure seems problematic but what about Endo-Composite(or Clans Endo, but you know they don't bothered to make LAM except for some experimental one)?

I can see ES and FF if its all in one lump like MASC and TSM. The Jade Falcons also had a star of LAMs, 2 at least were fully operational and I'd love to know how they handled the cockpits since one had seating for 3 people.



Quote
Well, around Jump MP 3 is playable, and Jump MP 5 is enough for AirMech mode. But you know, lack of XL engine makes LAM unplayable on battlemech mode. Its only advantage over the other type of battlemech is AirMech mode, though.

 ???
If you mean speed in BattleMech Mode, that would depend on how fast it's opponent is. Plus MASC is allowed. I don't know why superchargers aren't. They should be.

Quote
Also, why not to quad and tripod LAM? Also why not for the dual cockpit? I know dual cockpit is not the valid equipment by default right now but it may have something LAM-exclusive one like Quadvee cockpit?

It's the critical space that the problem. The cockpit for Tripods under 100 tons though doesn't take any extra critical slots.

Quote
And... you will understand that it never allowed to have something like Hardened armor, that is not allowed for hovers and WiGEs as well.

I could live with that.


Quote
Finally, I want to see a true WiGE mech, not LAM - that is able to change between Battlemech Mode-AirMech Mode only, or only have AirMech Mode, but does not have Aerospace Fighter Mode at all. Perhaps it is the time to say for the Hover Mech? Anyway I want them to be more mobile.

Well, it is disputable that it may possible for full LAM, but only for WiGE mech it seems quite possible.

That would be cool. Most likely you'd need Light or XL Engines and I'm not sure how well that would go over. It was the AirMech mode the Haters hated the most.

Quote
But...
That's why I askd if the matter of raising the elevation, not move while on higher elevation. So if you are in 2 elevation and move to the adjacent hex while keep your elevation then you need to pay 3 MP total. Perhaps it was not the point?

like monbvol said, it's 2 MP to maintain elevation and +1 MP to gain elevation.


Atarlost

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 559
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #25 on: 17 April 2020, 07:56:17 »
Some of the rules need to be amended. 

They should get the same free +2 safe thrust in fighter mode as true ASF.  They'll never get within shouting distance of real ASF otherwise. 

More sections need to map to the nose, probably the arms (or front legs if quad LAMs are allowed).  Currently it's impossible to mount significant centerline armaments.  Without advanced tech you can't even fit a large laser, and the small cockpit you'll need to get two contiguous crits is going to kill you when you have to make a PSR for taking damage.  Alternately the compact reactor will make it even harder to get viable airspeeds. 

Instead of 1 ton of fuel, LAMs should get a half ton of free fuel per jumpjet. 

I'd personally allow endosteel, endocomposite, and advanced armors other than ferro and allow crits for TSM to be split.  While Stealth armor mechs can mount and vehicular stealth ASF can mount are arguably the same thing, Ferro-Fibrous and Ferro-Aluminum are definitely different things.  If you could use FAA on a mech or FFA on an ASF there would only be one type. 

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #26 on: 17 April 2020, 09:16:24 »
Some of the rules need to be amended. 

They should get the same free +2 safe thrust in fighter mode as true ASF.  They'll never get within shouting distance of real ASF otherwise. 

Agreed


Quote
More sections need to map to the nose, probably the arms (or front legs if quad LAMs are allowed).  Currently it's impossible to mount significant centerline armaments.  Without advanced tech you can't even fit a large laser, and the small cockpit you'll need to get two contiguous crits is going to kill you when you have to make a PSR for taking damage.  Alternately the compact reactor will make it even harder to get viable airspeeds. 

I'm not following. A Quad LAM's front legs would be the arms of a Biped Mech.
You don't need to mount weapons in the center torso either. They can be mounted in the side torsos. If you really want to there's compact gyros and engines. They do have weight concerns.
I'm also not sure how a compact engine would reduce airspeed, unless you're reducing speed overall to compensate for the extra weight.


Quote
Instead of 1 ton of fuel, LAMs should get a half ton of free fuel per jumpjet. 

Interesting.


Quote
I'd personally allow endosteel, endocomposite, and advanced armors other than ferro and allow crits for TSM to be split.  While Stealth armor mechs can mount and vehicular stealth ASF can mount are arguably the same thing, Ferro-Fibrous and Ferro-Aluminum are definitely different things.  If you could use FAA on a mech or FFA on an ASF there would only be one type.

Why would you allow other armor types but not FF?  ???

theagent

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 343
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #27 on: 17 April 2020, 10:00:08 »
Required may not be the best word.  Nobody needs to do anything.  If the developers desired, they could have left Battletech's setting stuck in 3025 forever.

A better question is: Would such changes benefit or detract from the board game?

So going down your list...Existing technologies include weight-saving items such as endo-steel, ferro-fibrous (or other specialty armors), and other fancy stuff.

Such technologies were banned from LAMs, presumably so they wouldn't be too effective.  That's a perfectly reasonable concern to have, even if I disagree with it (I've experimented with much of these in an AU setting).  Whether lifting those bans would impact tabletop balance too much is largely a matter of opinion, and it can be successfully argued either way.

Other items, such as Omni-technology, are also prohibited, despite not having any actual impact in a pick-up game.  Precisely what would have been lost if the Spectral LAM series had actual omni-technology?  Another restriction is that LAMs cannot be built as a quad or a tripod, the reason for which is lost on me.  Is the Scorpion LAM going to dominate the battlefield in ways the Phoenix Hawk LAM could not if it could take off the ground without ripping itself apart?  No.

Yeah, having those prohibitions don't really help anyone but the ink & logging industries.  The more pointless red tape that gets axed from the rules, the better.Question: By more new technologies, are you referring to a general technology that might be added in the future (For instance, a "Autocannon Mk.2"), or technologies that are specific to LAMs?  And in either case, could you give some examples of what you'd have in mind?Yeah, that one easily falls under the "red tape" I mentioned earlier.  The Champion LAMs and other potential heavy LAMs will inherently be on the slow side on the Aerospace scale for obvious reasons.  If they don't get produced, it should because they're not effective in-universe and not because a some random rule decrees it.  Cut the tape.

I'm in agreement with you.  Especially since aerospace units had access to XL engines & Ferro-Aluminum armor to save weight.  If BattleMechs can have them, & ASFs can have them, then LAMs should be able to have them since they combine the aspects of both.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1756
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #28 on: 17 April 2020, 10:06:35 »
LAMs get a MP discount for maintaining their flight level over terrain.

For them it would be 2 MP instead of 3 of a pure WiGE.

I don't think so, because nothing on IO says so. What it says is only for raise the elevation.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #29 on: 17 April 2020, 10:19:36 »
Quote from: Interstellar Operations page 108
any AirMech moving
at more than 1 elevation above its underlying terrain must
spend 2 AirMech MPs per hex of movement to do so.

To do the same thing for a WiGE is 3 MP per hex.

 

Register