Future LAM technology

[Maingunnery]

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

What about if I replace the word Fragile with Composite?
Would that be more clear that it concerns lighter but more fragile alternatives?

[Atarlost]

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.

The side torsos map to the wings.  Only the head and center torso map to the nose.  Wing arcs are half as wide as the nose arc.  That's why the Corsair can compete with the Transgressor with about half again its firepower.  Something like the Phoenix Hawk LAM has a medium range blind spot it wouldn't have if it could put the laser in the nose arc and there's no way a LAM can afford to duplicate anything bigger than a medium laser across two arcs when conversion equipment is eating 10% of its mass budget. 

A LAM with a compact engine can't do better than 6/9 (4/6/6 in mech mode).  A LAM with a standard engine can to 8/12 (5/8/8 in mech mode), but to fit a meaningful combat load you have to centerline an ERLL. 

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

Because ASF can't mount ferro-fibrous armor and LAMs are ASFs.  Similarly, FA is out because mechs can't mount ferro-aluminum armor and LAMs are mechs. 

[Retry]

Those restrictions are strictly arbitrary.  There's a canonical (legal) ground vehicle which uses FA for protection, the Gabriel.

[RifleMech]

What about if I replace the word Fragile with Composite?
Would that be more clear that it concerns lighter but more fragile alternatives?

Sounds interesting.

The side torsos map to the wings.  Only the head and center torso map to the nose.  Wing arcs are half as wide as the nose arc.  That's why the Corsair can compete with the Transgressor with about half again its firepower.  Something like the Phoenix Hawk LAM has a medium range blind spot it wouldn't have if it could put the laser in the nose arc and there's no way a LAM can afford to duplicate anything bigger than a medium laser across two arcs when conversion equipment is eating 10% of its mass budget. 

Okay, I see what you're getting at. Weapons in the right torso can't fire on the left arc. That is a problem, however, LAMs don't have to be balanced the way fighters do. If they did the Phoenix Hawk LAM would have a problem. Fortunately if you wanted you could use a composite structure and a compact gyro to free up space and weight so you could mount the LL in the center torso.

A LAM with a compact engine can't do better than 6/9 (4/6/6 in mech mode).  A LAM with a standard engine can to 8/12 (5/8/8 in mech mode), but to fit a meaningful combat load you have to centerline an ERLL. 

And you can give a 30 ton LAM a speed of 7/11/7 with a 210 compact engine, small cockpit, composite structure. 3 tons of armor and 1.5 tons for weapons. You could also get a 30 ton LAM a speed of 9/14/7 with a 270 engine but you'd have to sacrifice a ton from armor or weapons. If you're not planning for combat you could make it faster by adding more JJs.

Because ASF can't mount ferro-fibrous armor and LAMs are ASFs.  Similarly, FA is out because mechs can't mount ferro-aluminum armor and LAMs are mechs.

Ferro-Fibrous Armor and Ferro-Aluminum Armor are functionally identical. Many other armor types are also based on FF so I'm not sure how you'd include them but ban FF.

[Atarlost]

And you can give a 30 ton LAM a speed of 7/11/7 with a 210 compact engine, small cockpit, composite structure. 3 tons of armor and 1.5 tons for weapons. You could also get a 30 ton LAM a speed of 9/14/7 with a 270 engine but you'd have to sacrifice a ton from armor or weapons. If you're not planning for combat you could make it faster by adding more JJs.

I was looking at 4/6/6 or 5/8/8 IJJ builds, but using that much engine with standard jumpjets defeats the whole point.  Having more than two noncontiguous crits is worthless if I don't have the tonnage to fill them anyways, and 3t of armor on a LAM is just an expensive way to murder the pilot because aerospace units don't get movement modifiers are dependent on angle and you don't get them against someone attacking from the easiest angles to get in. 

If a LAM isn't within shouting distance of contemporary fighters there's no point in having a LAM.  You want a WiGE and the optional rules that make vehicles less preposterously vulnerable to crits.  If airmech mode is still too strong to allow that then it is what needs to be weaker because LAMs should be defined by transformation not some halfway mode.  If the halfway mode was supposed to be better than being a mech or ASF mechs that were just built with that one mode would be common rather than nonexistent. 

[RifleMech]

I was looking at 4/6/6 or 5/8/8 IJJ builds, but using that much engine with standard jumpjets defeats the whole point.  Having more than two noncontiguous crits is worthless if I don't have the tonnage to fill them anyways, and 3t of armor on a LAM is just an expensive way to murder the pilot because aerospace units don't get movement modifiers are dependent on angle and you don't get them against someone attacking from the easiest angles to get in. 

I never said it was a good idea just that it could be done. It'd be easier to just use Prototype IJJs to get 6/9/9 for a LAM.

If a LAM isn't within shouting distance of contemporary fighters there's no point in having a LAM.  You want a WiGE and the optional rules that make vehicles less preposterously vulnerable to crits.  If airmech mode is still too strong to allow that then it is what needs to be weaker because LAMs should be defined by transformation not some halfway mode.  If the halfway mode was supposed to be better than being a mech or ASF mechs that were just built with that one mode would be common rather than nonexistent. 

LAMs have always been weak against aerospace fighters. That's one of the complaints people have. Although, I'm not sure they should be going up against them. One of the best reasons for having an ASF mode is to move faster than ground units and be able to get off planet on their own.

I don't think that an AirMech is superior or was supposed to be superior than a Mech or Fighter Modes. It has it's advantages but it also has drawbacks. They've also been nerfed just to be nerfed. Some were to sooth the Haters. I may not like them but I understand them. Other nerfs are there just to make AirMech bad. They even go against historical use. Those kind of nerfs shouldn't be.

As for pure AirMechs, I don't know why they couldn't exist. They're almost there with Partial Wings.

[Red Pins]

As for pure AirMechs, I don't know why they couldn't exist. They're almost there with Partial Wings.

Been doing it for over a decade.  Do yourself a favor, throw out the overly complex for the simple.  I prefer them, they're more flexible with more construction options and much more fun.

I do insist on the original movement costs, though; 2 to launch, one to gain altitude, ground movement Walk-1/Run-2, etc.  If you insist on not counting properly, I came up with a nape-of-the-earth style (Think rocket-powered roller-skates.) to accommodate people, where they can slam into trees, sideslip, crash, etc., while I laugh heartily.

[RifleMech]

Been doing it for over a decade.  Do yourself a favor, throw out the overly complex for the simple.  I prefer them, they're more flexible with more construction options and much more fun.

I do insist on the original movement costs, though; 2 to launch, one to gain altitude, ground movement Walk-1/Run-2, etc.  If you insist on not counting properly, I came up with a nape-of-the-earth style (Think rocket-powered roller-skates.) to accommodate people, where they can slam into trees, sideslip, crash, etc., while I laugh heartily.

Or I could just go with the old construction rules but I don't mind some of the new ones. They give room for improvement later on. Problem is we're not getting any improvements. We got extinction instead.
What do you use for wings?

I don't have a problem with AirMech movement except Turn Modes. I think if they're going to be in play, they should effect all units. Although I do think it'd be fun to see a LAM with treads.

[Daryk]

*snip*
One of the best reasons for having an ASF mode is to move faster than ground units and be able to get off planet on their own.
*snip*

Heck, those are THE reasons LAMs have an ASF mode.  It has nothing to do with fighting ASFs.

[Maingunnery]

Heck, those are THE reasons LAMs have an ASF mode.  It has nothing to do with fighting ASFs.

Then call it turkey mode. They are currently so hopeless in space that it undermines the suspension of disbelieve for their usage, as if there were any enemy ASFs then they would slaughter the LAMs. 

[Daryk]

Exactly... the only purpose for that mode is strategic/operational mobility.

[Maingunnery]

Exactly... the only purpose for that mode is strategic/operational mobility.

Let me explain it again, if there are enemy ASFs present, then there is no strategic/operational mobility.

[Daryk]

Which is a completely separate point from what I was making.  And one I'm not arguing with.

[Maingunnery]

Which is a completely separate point from what I was making.  And one I'm not arguing with.

Could you please restate the argument, as far as I can see it seems to suggest that the current fighter mode fits the purpose.
My argument is that they are too hopeless in their fighter mode to properly use that mobility.
The current state really harms my suspension of disbelieve, they really need that +2 ASF thrust bonus to perform their role.

[Daryk]

RifleMech asserted "some of the best" reasons for ASF mode were to move faster than ground units, and get into space.  I say those are the ONLY reasons for the mode.  LAMs aren't designed to fight ASFs at all.

[Maingunnery]

RifleMech asserted "some of the best" reasons for ASF mode were to move faster than ground units, and get into space.  I say those are the ONLY reasons for the mode.  LAMs aren't designed to fight ASFs at all.

I think that is a limited perspective on the subject, as BT space isn't empty, there be ASF there.
The bare minimum the LAMs need in that situation is enough thrust to avoid the most dangerous of ASFs, which they currently they don't have, thus the reasons for that mode fall flat. 

[Daryk]

If deployed as part of a full combined arms unit (with ASF cover) like they were meant to be, it doesn't fall flat.

[Maingunnery]

If deployed as part of a full combined arms unit (with ASF cover) like they were meant to be, it doesn't fall flat.

That really doesn't work, in such as case it just best to cut out the LAMs entirely and just rely on combined arms.

[Daryk]

How does it "not work" exactly?  ???

[RifleMech]

Heck, those are THE reasons LAMs have an ASF mode.  It has nothing to do with fighting ASFs.

I didn't say that they should be fighting ASFs.

RifleMech asserted "some of the best" reasons for ASF mode were to move faster than ground units, and get into space.  I say those are the ONLY reasons for the mode.  LAMs aren't designed to fight ASFs at all.

That mode is also good for getting to a planet. Assaulting ships in space, space stations, moon and asteroid bases. There's also other uses if one ignores such nerfs as no cargo space. They could deploy special forces. They could rapidly move infantry and supplies. They could carry the object of the raids back. They could be used for search and rescue. They can be used for ground support, providing there's no enemy air cover. They can zip off in AirMech mode until enemy Fighters are busy, then convert and hit the enemy airbase or other places behind enemy lines.

[Maingunnery]

How does it "not work" exactly?  ???

On two levels it utterly fails.
1. If one goes so far as to go combined arms then it is more effective to just use a set of more specialized platforms.
2. One of the main missions for LAMs is performing deep strikes and diversions, ASF cover would either not be available or could actually tip off the target, allowing the enemy to be more effective in their response.

The concept of a LAM requires that each mode to be at least passable, something that the QuadVee has managed quite well.

[Daryk]

ASF cover doesn't have to accompany the LAMs... simply tie up the opposition ASFs literally anywhere else.

[Red Pins]

Or I could just go with the old construction rules but I don't mind some of the new ones. They give room for improvement later on. Problem is we're not getting any improvements. We got extinction instead.
What do you use for wings?

I don't have a problem with AirMech movement except Turn Modes. I think if they're going to be in play, they should effect all units. Although I do think it'd be fun to see a LAM with treads.

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.

[Retry]

The concept of a LAM requires that each mode to be at least passable, something that the QuadVee has managed quite well.

I've had the opposite experience.  LAMs that work fairly okay in all modes is doable, if rather tricky with the current restrictions.  QuadVees, on the other hand, have more than 20% of their total weight tied up in quadvee-specific technology (Quadvee cockpit, conversion equipment, and track/wheel weight).  What the QuadVee gets from that >20-25% of their weight dedicated to just transforming to quadvee form is... negligible.  For all that weight, it didn't add really anything to the unit on the strategic scale, unlike the LAM.

[Daryk]

LAMs are all about the Operational/Strategic scale, yes...

[Maingunnery]

I've had the opposite experience.  LAMs that work fairly okay in all modes is doable, if rather tricky with the current restrictions.  QuadVees, on the other hand, have more than 20% of their total weight tied up in quadvee-specific technology (Quadvee cockpit, conversion equipment, and track/wheel weight).  What the QuadVee gets from that >20-25% of their weight dedicated to just transforming to quadvee form is... negligible.  For all that weight, it didn't add really anything to the unit on the strategic scale, unlike the LAM.

The LAM fighter-mode is crippled with their minimal thrust and low fuel reserves, their mobility advantage is only a thing if there is nothing around to shoot them down, and if there is so little opposition then might as well use something else.

[Retry]

The LAM fighter-mode is crippled with their minimal thrust and low fuel reserves, their mobility advantage is only a thing if there is nothing around to shoot them down, and if there is so little opposition then might as well use something else.

Yet I've used home-brew LAM designs successfully despite these disadvantages, so...

[Daryk]

The LAM fighter-mode is crippled with their minimal thrust and low fuel reserves, their mobility advantage is only a thing if there is nothing around to shoot them down, and if there is so little opposition then might as well use something else.

So when you have air superiority, what else has the strategic mobility of LAMs?  ???

[Maingunnery]

Yet I've used home-brew LAM designs successfully despite these disadvantages, so...

And how many cases did you play out having the enemy reply with ASFs?

So when you have air superiority, what else has the strategic mobility of LAMs?  ???

If you have air superiority, then anything can be used.
So the question is fundamentally nonsense.   

[Daryk]

Time and distance are never a factor for you?  ???