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 25530 times)

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1433
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #60 on: 19 April 2020, 17:00:24 »
And how many cases did you play out having the enemy reply with ASFs?
The majority of them included ASFs on both sides, nearly all scenarios included at minimum a significant contingent of ConvFighters.

Air superiority is great but not required, as long as the side fielding LAMs has air parity.  In fact, the LAMs (Starscreams in this case of my AU) actually present a unique threat to hostile ASF: If they pursue the other side's conventional ASF too far over hostile territory they risk a LAM lance transforming behind them and changing the tide of that dogfight.  If that happens enough times, "Air Parity" may become "Air Superiority".

Sure, after that the other side can scramble Aeros to try and off the LAM lance, but it takes 1 turn to transform back to 'Mech form, and now they're just wasting fuel.  Unless the scrambling Aeros are somehow launching next to the front so they can attack the airborne LAMs immediately after launching, which is a very bad idea since that's within artillery distance.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #61 on: 19 April 2020, 17:12:40 »
I admit one of the things I like most about the current rules is each mode has a defined purpose now and in a way that seems to be what people overlook the most.  That the LAM's ability to be in a mode that is most to it's advantage is what makes it so powerful and allows LAMs to compete.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #62 on: 20 April 2020, 00:24:37 »
Torsos.  Mind you, I haven't had a playtester for most of that decade and the original project stalled, so I don't remember if the rules are complete.  I'll send a PM, or if that doesn't work I'll send an email.

And ironically, I just began work on wheeled battlearmor.  I was going to do hover-  and tracked BA but haven't gotten that far.  I was going to try for Mech-scale, too,  but hover just isn't realistic enough for me.

 ??? Looking forward to reading them :)

I never got wheeled BA, especially the half wheel half leg one.

Red Pins

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3970
  • Inspiration+Creativity=Insanity
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #63 on: 20 April 2020, 02:06:23 »
The Tortoise II - see my thumbnail?   :P   But it lets me pull a trailer of the same weight.

Anyway - LAM tech.

...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

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #64 on: 20 April 2020, 09:34:44 »
The Tortoise II - see my thumbnail?   :P   But it lets me pull a trailer of the same weight.

Anyway - LAM tech.

That'd be the one.  :)   Seriously?  :o

Back to LAMs

Allow Cargo Bays and for LAMs to pick things up.


I admit one of the things I like most about the current rules is each mode has a defined purpose now and in a way that seems to be what people overlook the most.  That the LAM's ability to be in a mode that is most to it's advantage is what makes it so powerful and allows LAMs to compete.

Agreed. Although I think they'd be better if they weren't so nerfed. I know some are there to make them more palatable to the haters but the reason for some of the nerfs are bogus. Add them in with nerfs that didn't need to be and it feels like punishment. 

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7156
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #65 on: 20 April 2020, 11:32:43 »
Time and distance are never a factor for you?  ???
Those are exactly the problems, locally we have used some LAMs in typical deep strikes and we have run into problems.
Typical Plan
Stage 1: Smuggle LAM onto planet & approach target site with WIGE (risky but success gives time bonus), or make a rapid decent from orbit.
Stage 2: Hit target site, with option to try take out their communications first (success gives time bonus)
Stage 3: Go ASAP back to the DropShip in orbit before the enemy shoots you down or amasses enough forces to take out the DropShip.

The experience was that if the target site was able to send out an alert then local ASF would either overtake the LAM or force the DropShips to leave, if LAMs have the same +2 thrust bonus then it would have worked out much better.
And using custom LAMs were countered by the GM with custom ASFs... you can imagine the slaughter.
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

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1433
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #66 on: 20 April 2020, 12:13:00 »
I've usually used my LAMs as advanced scouts.  Operating deep in enemy territory like that is a bit too risky for my taste, with LAMs that requires at least air parity in the region, or they'll get stuck.

I'd honestly go the other way and reduce the bonus thrust of ASF to +1.  I never understood why a big ol' 100-ton brick could manage 3/5 on a 100-rated rocket, especially when that engine would only get 2/3 on a 50-ton ConvFighter.  But honestly, I'm not a huge fan of BT's Aerospace implementation.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37060
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #67 on: 20 April 2020, 17:46:23 »
I can certainly imagine the slaughter, because you were using the LAMs unsupported.  You put ASFs in the ASF bays and LAMs in the 'mech bays. That way, the OPFOR ASFs can chase your LAMs, but only into the teeth of the DropShip and ASFs you brought with you.

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7156
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #68 on: 20 April 2020, 18:03:58 »
I can certainly imagine the slaughter, because you were using the LAMs unsupported.  You put ASFs in the ASF bays and LAMs in the 'mech bays. That way, the OPFOR ASFs can chase your LAMs, but only into the teeth of the DropShip and ASFs you brought with you.
Our OPFOR ASFs when formed up would rip through mere two ASF and a single dropship, in deep strike scenarios we never assumed aerospace superiority as being a normal state. The task of the LAMs is not even to fight the ASFs (maybe a couple of light interceptors if we take too much time) but to get away fast enough.
We only use LAMs in such scenarios as they are fluff wise capable of blitz-raids, as in spending the absolute minimum time to perform a ground mission.

Now if we have thrust parity between LAMs & ASFs, then such missions become a whole lot easier (I am open for either LAM boost or ASF nerf).
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: 37060
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #69 on: 20 April 2020, 18:45:03 »
So you only try this trick with Leopards??  ???

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7156
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #70 on: 20 April 2020, 19:21:11 »
So you only try this trick with Leopards??  ???
I don't even know how you get to such a conclusion.....
You try this with more forces, then the GM would only increase the OPFOR numbers.
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

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1433
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #71 on: 20 April 2020, 19:24:09 »
Our OPFOR ASFs when formed up would rip through mere two ASF and a single dropship, in deep strike scenarios we never assumed aerospace superiority as being a normal state. The task of the LAMs is not even to fight the ASFs (maybe a couple of light interceptors if we take too much time) but to get away fast enough.
We only use LAMs in such scenarios as they are fluff wise capable of blitz-raids, as in spending the absolute minimum time to perform a ground mission.

Now if we have thrust parity between LAMs & ASFs, then such missions become a whole lot easier (I am open for either LAM boost or ASF nerf).
Yikes.  Yeah, that's not even air parity, sounds like air incapability.  In that case I wouldn't assume any flying assets to come back up the way it came.

Sounds like their air supremacy was a huge factor.  If I were to do a deep strike with LAMs, I'd have made the airfields the primary target SAS-style, as it sounds like they weren't ever going to get out in Aero mode without at least disrupting their operations.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37060
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #72 on: 20 April 2020, 19:25:05 »
Sounds like your GM is out to get you, and no matter what you do, you're lost...

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7156
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #73 on: 21 April 2020, 13:21:40 »
Sounds like your GM is out to get you, and no matter what you do, you're lost...
The scenario just really punishes us for wasting time. If we get the time bonuses and complete the objective efficiently, we never encounter an enemy ASF, and when the mission is so successfully completed it really feels great. But if we have thrust parity then the scenario would be quite less extreme.
 
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: 37060
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #74 on: 21 April 2020, 18:49:27 »
Was it a GM designed scenario?  ???

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #75 on: 22 April 2020, 06:08:54 »
I would't mind a boost to Fighter Mode. Even a +1 to Thrust would help.

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7156
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #76 on: 22 April 2020, 12:26:19 »
Was it a GM designed scenario?  ???
Yes, and it kinda worked in 3025, but in 3050+ it became excessively critical.
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

Atarlost

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 559
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #77 on: 23 April 2020, 02:00:34 »
So when you have air superiority, what else has the strategic mobility of LAMs?  ???

ASFs with bombs.  Small craft with light vehicle bays.  Dropships.  Mechs that have been hot dropped from dropships.  And you almost by definition always have dropships.  Even planetary garrisons are more likely to have Leopards (there aren't enough collars to match their prevalence so they mostly aren't being used for interstellar transport) than LAMs. 

So the first question is "why not just land the dropship there and walk off with normal mechs?".  Then there's "Why not bomb it with ASFs?", or "Why not use a light vehicle in a shuttle?". 

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #78 on: 23 April 2020, 02:39:49 »
Hotdropping entails risk that LAMs don't have to face.

ASFs with bombs have a nasty habit of if they need to make more than one run where they have to spend time coming back around, time that a LAM can be spending on target doing damage.  Damage that also won't scatter.

With LAMs you never have to land the dropship that brought them in.  This is easy to underestimate as an advantage but it is huge, even if the target has ASF and Dropship cover(something actually quite rare for militia forces in most eras).

Anything short of a VTOL has terrain restrictions that a LAM can happily ignore and VTOLs simply don't have the same kind of mobility.  I know it looks like it on paper but what a LAM can do by choosing the right mode means it can hit a lot more targets a lot harder in the same timeframe a VTOL unit could.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1758
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #79 on: 23 April 2020, 03:12:16 »
Well, what I want to actually see is a hover or VTOL mech, like as Sylph Light Battle Armor. With this we don't need to stick with Valkyrie design and may expect a standard biped hover machine.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #80 on: 23 April 2020, 04:36:38 »
ASFs with bombs.  Small craft with light vehicle bays.  Dropships.  Mechs that have been hot dropped from dropships.  And you almost by definition always have dropships.  Even planetary garrisons are more likely to have Leopards (there aren't enough collars to match their prevalence so they mostly aren't being used for interstellar transport) than LAMs. 

So the first question is "why not just land the dropship there and walk off with normal mechs?".  Then there's "Why not bomb it with ASFs?", or "Why not use a light vehicle in a shuttle?".


Many dropships are also going to be busy loading, off loading, undergoing maintenance or repairs or will be in transit.

You need a bigger landing field for a dropship or small craft than you do a LAM. It's also harder to hide something that size.



Well, what I want to actually see is a hover or VTOL mech, like as Sylph Light Battle Armor. With this we don't need to stick with Valkyrie design and may expect a standard biped hover machine.

Nebula California is your friend. :)

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7156
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #81 on: 23 April 2020, 05:43:10 »
Well, what I want to actually see is a hover or VTOL mech, like as Sylph Light Battle Armor. With this we don't need to stick with Valkyrie design and may expect a standard biped hover machine.
Well Matt Plog did make some art of a VTOL-Mech.
https://www.deviantart.com/mattplog/art/Comm-vLAM-Chopper-771754119

 
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

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1758
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #82 on: 23 April 2020, 05:52:54 »
Well, what I want is something without different modes. Something like hover battle armor or glider protomech.

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7156
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #83 on: 23 April 2020, 05:54:49 »
Well, what I want is something without different modes. Something like hover battle armor or glider protomech.
So something like a new type of Jump Jets that can support VTOL movement?
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

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1758
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #84 on: 23 April 2020, 05:56:44 »
It would be close. Else a combination of partial wings and jump jet, that keeps mech hover.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #85 on: 23 April 2020, 07:39:32 »
Well Matt Plog did make some art of a VTOL-Mech.
https://www.deviantart.com/mattplog/art/Comm-vLAM-Chopper-771754119

That is sweet!    :drool: :thumbsup:

I do wish that VTOL and Submersible Mechs had a better Cruise/Flank speed. They are having to pay extra for vehicle movement after all. But they're still cool.  >:D



It would be close. Else a combination of partial wings and jump jet, that keeps mech hover.

That and use of the AirMech's movement rules works for me.  :thumbsup:

grimlock1

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2087
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #86 on: 23 April 2020, 08:16:40 »
So something like a new type of Jump Jets that can support VTOL movement?
Nebula California had some VTOL stuff in the Automech chapter. Page  36. It and the associated thread are a bit vague on how "rotors" abstract.  They give an example of an Automech with "6 Rotors."  So I'm guessing the classic main rotor/tail rotor arrangement is pretty rare compared to quad, hex, and octo-rotors. I think there was also something in the Nebula California thread about using rotors for melee, while in mech mode. Don't recall the ruling on that.


edit:  More rules on page 46.
« Last Edit: 23 April 2020, 08:28:01 by grimlock1 »
I'm rarely right... Except when I am.  ---  Idle question.  What is the BV2 of dread?
Apollo's Law- if it needs Clan tech to make it useable, It doesn't deserve those resources in the first place.
Sure it isn't the most practical 'mech ever designed, but it's a hundred ton axe-murderer. If loving that is wrong I don't wanna be right.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #87 on: 23 April 2020, 08:58:24 »
Nebula California had some VTOL stuff in the Automech chapter. Page  36. It and the associated thread are a bit vague on how "rotors" abstract.  They give an example of an Automech with "6 Rotors."  So I'm guessing the classic main rotor/tail rotor arrangement is pretty rare compared to quad, hex, and octo-rotors. I think there was also something in the Nebula California thread about using rotors for melee, while in mech mode. Don't recall the ruling on that.


edit:  More rules on page 46.

Yeah building a conventional looking helicopter isn't that easy. Especially since the center torso is so limited. We kind of abstracted it how we wanted depending on where we put the VTOL slots and how close they were together. After that we used quirks to help differentiate the different types.

grimlock1

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2087
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #88 on: 23 April 2020, 11:37:09 »
Yeah building a conventional looking helicopter isn't that easy. Especially since the center torso is so limited. We kind of abstracted it how we wanted depending on where we put the VTOL slots and how close they were together. After that we used quirks to help differentiate the different types.
While situationally useful, I don't think using VTOL flight in mech mode would be all that beneficial in most fights. The basically act like iJJs, with no mention of heat.  Sustained flight does give you some more options for crossing obstacles like bodies of water, deep canyons or tall buildings.   I don't see anything in the rules but if a mech is using its rotors to jump or hover, they don't seem to risk rotor hits the same way they would in VTOL mode.  Odd in abstraction but consistent with JJ, iJJ, and UMUs.
I'm rarely right... Except when I am.  ---  Idle question.  What is the BV2 of dread?
Apollo's Law- if it needs Clan tech to make it useable, It doesn't deserve those resources in the first place.
Sure it isn't the most practical 'mech ever designed, but it's a hundred ton axe-murderer. If loving that is wrong I don't wanna be right.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Future LAM technology
« Reply #89 on: 23 April 2020, 12:39:35 »
While situationally useful, I don't think using VTOL flight in mech mode would be all that beneficial in most fights. The basically act like iJJs, with no mention of heat.  Sustained flight does give you some more options for crossing obstacles like bodies of water, deep canyons or tall buildings.   I don't see anything in the rules but if a mech is using its rotors to jump or hover, they don't seem to risk rotor hits the same way they would in VTOL mode.  Odd in abstraction but consistent with JJ, iJJ, and UMUs.

Flying over terrain is an advantage. So is the lack of heat. You could also use them to pop up behind terrain/buildings and spot and still have partial cover. I think you'd use the VTOL Mode for the extra speed and to bomb and then convert to Mech mode to do most of the fighting.


Although I am getting confused. Page 36 says 1 Cruise MP per Rotor and then multiply by 1.5 to get the Flank Speed. So 6 Rotors equals 6 Cruise MP and 9 Flank MP. Only page 44 says, 1 MP per Rotor in Mech Mode and 1.5 MP in VTOL Mode. That would be 6 rotors equals 9 Cruise MP and 14 Flank MP. 

Page 44 also says they take 2 crits while page 42 says 1.


It's to early to think.  xp  I think we went with page 36 for using Rotors in Mech mode and page 44 in VTOL mode and we went with Rotors taking only 1 crit otherwise they wouldn't fit in the legs since the other slot has conversion equipment. It's been a while and its too early.
« Last Edit: 23 April 2020, 12:45:06 by RifleMech »

 

Register