Unhappy with LAMs: brainstorming

[Atarlost]

I have three problems with LAMs.  I don't like that the hybrid airmech mode dominates their use, I don't like that they are incompetent as ASF, and I don't like that the way they scale or don't scale with advanced tech. 

I would like airmech mode to be niche and preferably not require using the rules for a relatively new and rare vehicle type.  Ideally I'd like them to operate under modified mech rules. 

I would like a Star League LAM to be as good as a primitive ASF.  As an example of how it isn't, Currently it is impossible to duplicate the SB-26 Sabre as a LAM without using composite structure, improved jumpjets, a small cockpit, and Clantech ERSL to substitute for the original's medium lasers.  And it still comes up with half the fuel.  That's two non-SL IS techs and a Clan tech.  Duplicating the S-2 Star Dagger requires composite structure, improved jumpjets, and a compact gyro and for the LAM to be allowed to carry additional fuel on a ton for ton basis.  If forced to use internal bomb bays for drop pods it has to also use a small cockpit.  That's three non-SL IS techs.  And in either case you have to get into Wobbie cybernetics or Clan eugenics to get around or offset the small cockpit piloting penalty, which is a bigger deal for ASFs than mechs.  Without Jihad tech current LAMs cannot even approach the capabilities of primitive ASF. 

LAMs can benefit from Jihad tech in the form of improved jumpjets, but not from the advanced tech available when they were originally developed.  With 3025 tech surviving LAMs are peers to mechs around 3/4 their weight and I feel this should extend to other eras.  I believe LAMs should have more access to Star League advanced tech and not be so reliant on munchkining Jihad era tech. 

The four principal difficulties for LAMs as ASF are mass spent on stuff an ASF wouldn't need(1), getting at best (barring IJJ) conventional fighter performance per engine rating(2), having fuel issues in vacuum (3) (IIRC they were first used in an asteroid field so this is also a lore problem), and having a lack of critical slots in sections that map to the nose or aft arcs (4). 

With those complaints and that break down the LAM as ASF issues as a premise here's my brainstorming. 

• LAMs may not mount components across multiple locations, but may split crits for internal structure and armor.  This mitigates ASF issue 1 and the inapplicability of Star League era advanced tech.
• LAMs may not mount components across multiple locations, but may split crits for internal structure and armor but may not use ferro-whatever armor because ground and aerospace ferro-whatever armor are not interchangeable.  This mitigates ASF issue 1 and the inapplicability of Star League era advanced tech.
• The limitation on splitting components on LAMs only applies to weapons.  This mitigates ASF issue 1 and makes all Star League tech applicable.
• LAMs use their jump+2 as their safe thrust.  This directly addresses ASF issue 2.
• LAMs receive free gyroscopic thrust per turn equal to half (as a first guess; could be a third) their walk speed as mechs.  These gyroscopic thrust points may only be used for facing changes and do not consume fuel.  This partially addresses issue 1 by giving the gyro a role in ASF mode and issue 3 by reducing fuel needs.
• LAMs may mount fuel tanks at a crit per ton.  This directly addresses ASF issue 3.
• LAMs do not mount a gyro.  Instead they use ther verniers for stability even in mech mode, expending a point of fuel every time they make a piloting check to avoid falling, but having no chance of failure.  This partially adresses ASF issue 1 and requires issue 3 be addressed.
• LAM conversion equipment is massless but they receive no free fuel and consume fuel in atmosphere as ASF.  This addresses ASF issue 1 while attempting to impose the same problem on mech mode to make up for removing a mass penalty that applied to both modes.
• The weight of trimodal and bimodal LAM conversion equipment is switched.  This addresses my not liking the airmech mode dominating LAM use by making it cost instead of nerfing it.
• The arms of a LAM in ASF mode fold into positions where their weapons fire in the nose arc.  This addresses ASF issue 4.
• LAM center torsos have an additional 6 critical slots extending the usual method for simulating 1d12 with 2d6 to simulate 1d18.  This addresses ASF issue 4.
• LAMs may mount external ordnance as an ASF if launched as an ASF but must use or jettisoning it before transforming.  This kind of addresses ASF issue 3 indirectly. 
• LAMs cannot mount jumpjets.  They receive jump MP equal to their walk MP for free.  This partially addresses ASF issue 1 and denies Jihad era IJJ munchkinry.
• LAMs in airmech mode function as mechs with 2/3 of their walk MP, no torso twist, and jump MP equal to their normal jump MP plus 2.
• LAMs in airmech mode function as mechs with 2/3 of their walk MP, no torso twist, and jump MP equal to 150% of their normal jump MP.
• LAMs in airmech mode function as mechs with 2/3 of their walk MP and no torso twist.  As an alternative to normal jumping movement they may instead jump without turning as if they had mechanical jump boosters with movement equal to twice (or possibly 2.5x or 3x) their normal jumping movement.
• LAMs in airmech mode function as mechs with 2/3 of their walk MP and no torso twist or as vtols with cruise MP equal to their jump MP.

[Sabelkatten]

How would a Stinger LAM look and work with your rules? I'd like to compare it to my LAM rules.

[Atarlost]

How would a Stinger LAM look and work with your rules? I'd like to compare it to my LAM rules.

I don't know.  I don't have a single set of rules yet, just some ideas that need sifting.  That's why I started the thread. 

[Col Toda]

Much of your issues revolve around too much tonnage is expended for conversion equipment and standard fusion engine .  The biggest reason that LAMs do not equate well to purpose built counterparts is that the mechs and aerospace fighters are far better designed in later years and have access to light and XL engines . My LAM designs revolve around using composite internal Structure and a small cockpit to offset the conversion equipment somewhat .  In a 20 ton LAM it provides the 2 tons on heavier LAMs it does not completely pay for it . A back stabber may have a Vairable Pulse Lasers . A scirmisher a snub nosed ppc or a light AC 2 w precision rounds . i OS missile launchers to round it out . Still not quite as nice as a very well designed purpose built unit but it will be about as good as an average one and better than poorly designed units . As average and poorly designed models do exceed tight well designed models by at least 2 to 1 or more depending on ERA such designs should at least make an OK showing . Play against enthusiastic ham fisted idiots you will appear to get the results you desire . In truth I only expect LAMs in difficult to ply a conventional landed drop ship deployed operation . It is a special forces operations niche unit and using it as a line unit is just not a fair representation of it"s role .

[Red Pins]

Well...  One of the biggest reasons for the conversion gear is the three shapes.  In my AU, I take away the option of transforming into either ASF or full Battlemech, so I save on the conversion gear.  Why not go for a full ASF/Airmech option, cutting off a third of the conversion gear weight in exchange for no Battlemech option?

For all the rest, you're going to have to try playtesting to come up with something that doesn't break the game, or nobody will play anything else.  At that point you may as well play a different game of giant robots rather than keep coming up with your own.  Good luck - playtesters are scarce.

[Retry]

Much of your issues revolve around too much tonnage is expended for conversion equipment and standard fusion engine .  The biggest reason that LAMs do not equate well to purpose built counterparts is that the mechs and aerospace fighters are far better designed in later years and have access to light and XL engines . My LAM designs revolve around using composite internal Structure and a small cockpit to offset the conversion equipment somewhat .  In a 20 ton LAM it provides the 2 tons on heavier LAMs it does not completely pay for it . A back stabber may have a Vairable Pulse Lasers . A scirmisher a snub nosed ppc or a light AC 2 w precision rounds . i OS missile launchers to round it out . Still not quite as nice as a very well designed purpose built unit but it will be about as good as an average one and better than poorly designed units . As average and poorly designed models do exceed tight well designed models by at least 2 to 1 or more depending on ERA such designs should at least make an OK showing . Play against enthusiastic ham fisted idiots you will appear to get the results you desire . In truth I only expect LAMs in difficult to ply a conventional landed drop ship deployed operation . It is a special forces operations niche unit and using it as a line unit is just not a fair representation of it"s role .

Sure, but how would getting rid of some arbitrary restrictions (the Biped-only LAM restriction, the 55-ton weight limit, bulky equipment, armor, and engine restrictions) make LAMs any less of a specialized unit?  If anything higher-end LAMs with higher performance (XLEs & Endo-Steel etc) would make more sense for such a specialized unit to push the ends of the envelope, and it'd give LAMs a price-tag closer to what you'd expect.  Since LAMs are stuck with fusion engines, current LAM designs with all their fancy transformation gizmos usually end up being far cheaper than a typical front-line 'Mech with a light/XL engine & endo-steel construction.

[Red Pins]

Posted by request, good luck and enjoy.  Please note; I lost my only playtester early in the process, so there are inconsistencies between rules and the combat sample.  The construction rules are pretty clear, but remember you use the desired walk to calculate engine size like a normal mech, then penalize it to 1/3rd movement, and the total # of Jump Jets is limited by the desired walk before getting multiplied.

You also have to spend Jump points to 'Launch' and 'Land', and you better spend jump points to climb elevations to avoid trees or you're gonna crash. If you have it, PAMs roughly follow the rules in the canon book, The Tactical Handbook.

You can PM me if you need help figuring it out, suggest something, or want the rest of the New Clans' Unique Technology file.

PERMANENT AIRMECHS

   The lineage of PAMs built in the Legacy Cluster can be traced back to the original Star League LAM brought to the Cluster with the survivors of the Wolverine Annihilation.  Refurbished and used during the 3rd Exodus for its superb reconnaissance abilities, repair and maintenance problems eventually left it permanently in AirMech mode.
   Rather than a problem, the damage to its conversion gear actually extended its working lifetime, while other machines were scrapped to maintain its remaining systems during the Exodus.  Finally retired after the settlement of the Totem system, it was stored with the remainder of the 331st’s surplus equipment in the Haven Castle Brian.
   Eventually, the discarded LAM technology became the subject of an intense scrutiny by the Frost Apes looking for technology and equipment to adapt for use in their Touman.  Supplied with the abandoned chassis, Frost Ape technicians quickly realized the technology of its conversion gear was too advanced for the New Clans to duplicate.  A technician noted, however, the LAM was repairable with commonly available tools if parts could be found or made.
   As the list of repairs and upgrades were categorized, engineers found most of the advanced technology needed for the conversion process could be ignored if the team was willing to settle for returning the AirMech to service.  With that in mind, Scientists prepared detailed blueprints for the first New Clan PAM design.  During the process, it was discovered the material strengths exceeded requirements for a 55-ton unit, leading to the development of the Heavy PAM.
   Today, PAMs are still primarily scouts and harassers, but Heavy PAMs have emerged as the preferred raiding unit.  Despite their relative scarcity, they seem likely to experience yet another boost in popularity as blueprints and samples of the Inner Sphere’s Improved Jump Jets make their way through Guide Teams to the Cluster’s Scientist and Technician Castes.

Construction Rules
PAMs are unique the New Clans, and may be designed as either full-sized units or Extra-Lights.  To simplify construction, the points below assume you have copies of the Battletech TechManual for charts (such as Internal Structure) and Tactical Operations by Catalyst.

Step 1:  Design the Chassis
In this Step, designers choose options to assemble a Permanent Air Mech.  Because designers have chosen to build a PAM, the necessary internal arrangements must follow set rules, such as the loss of arms.

Choose Tech Base
Because they are exclusive to the New Clans, a ‘Mixed’ Tech Base must be chosen.

Choose Weight (Tonnage)
PAMs range in weight from 20 to 75 tons.  Designers also have the option of creating a PAM on an ELM chassis, from 10 to 19 tons.

Allocate Tonnage For Internal Structure
PAMs calculate tonnage dedicated to Internal Structure the same way as standard Battlemechs, using the formula (Tonnage x 10%).  PAMs may use any kind of Inner Sphere or Clan Internal Structure available, according to the ATC.

Notes:
•   Designers should remember at this point that PAMs are not allowed arms, and no Arm critical slots exist on the Record Sheet.

Step 2:  Install Engines and Control Systems
PAMs have several mandatory requirements (such as Jump Jets) and penalties that must be observed, determining their performance in this Step.

Choose Engine
   PAMs are limited to Fusion Engines, and use the standard formula, Engine Rating = Tonnage x (Desired movement).
Because PAMs suffer from a 1/3rd ground movement penalty, multiply its Walk movement by .33 and round down before calculating its Run movement.  This is the unit’s final Walk/Run speed.

Determine Gyroscope Tonnage
   PAMs may use any Clan or Inner Sphere gyro technology, determining tonnage with the standard formula (Engine Rating/100) before applying any additional modifiers.

Determine Jump Capacity
   Light and Medium PAMs are allowed a number of standard Jump Jets equal to their original Desired Walk movement.  Heavy PAMs use their original Desired Walk movement and multiply by 1.5 to calculate the maximum number of Standard or Improved Jump Jets.

Add Cockpits
   Due to the need to accommodate the added avionics and controls, only standard Cockpits may be used.

Choose Special Physical Enhancements
Due to the nature of PAMs, Light and Medium units must assign 5% of their total weight and one Critical Slot to “PAM Equipment”, rounding fractions down to the nearest half-ton.  Heavy PAMs must assign 10% of their total weight and three critical slots to “PAM Equipment”. 
Limb Extensions are the sole type of optional Enhancements allowed to PAMs.

Notes:
•   Light and Medium PAMs may not use Improved Jump Jets.  Heavy PAMs may use Improved Jump Jets, subject to the Available Technology Chart.

Step 3:  Assign Heatsinks
Heatsinks are assigned normally, with fusion engines containing a number of heatsinks determined by the formula, (Engine Rating/25), rounded down. 

Notes:

Step 4:  Add Armor
   PAMs may only use standard, Ferro-Fibrous, Hardened, Laser Reflective, or Stealth armor, following their standard rules and consulting the Available Technology Chart. 

Notes:

Step 5:  Add Weapons, Ammunition, and other Equipment
   PAMs may not carry several types of weapons and equipment.
•   Weapons – HVACs, ACs larger than /10, Heavy Gauss Rifles, Heavy Lasers, and HAGs.
•   Equipment – Partial Wings, Turrets, CASE or CASE II, or UMUs.

Notes: 

Game Rules
   PAMs operate in a manner similar to VTOLs, using Jump Jets to take off, move, gain or loose elevation, and land.  PAMs also have the added risk of PSRs to land and complete turns at high speed.  To prevent confusion over LAM movement, there is also a detailed movement example at the end of this section.

Basic Movement
   PAMs are one of the most maneuverable types of units, while one of the most vulnerable at the same time.
•   ELM/PAMs, Light, and Medium PAMs have only 1/3rd the Walk speed of a normal ‘Mech and a Jump Bonus of (x3).  Heavy PAMs have 1/3rd the Walk speed of a normal ‘Mech and a Jump Bonus of only (x2).
o   ELM/PAMs that choose to expend more than (x2) their base Jump movement must roll a PSR before moving into the first hex over that limit to determine if the EWarrior looses control.
•   PAMs Jump at no cost in heat.
•   A PAM may not mix movement modes; It may Walk/Run (according to the rules for ‘Mechs) or Jump, but may not attempt to Walk and Launch.
•   At the beginning of each Movement Phase, a PAM must Launch itself into the air at a cost of 2 MP.  When Landing, it must make a PSR at –4 and pay 2 MP.  If a PAM suffers actuator damage to its legs, it loses its –4 modifier and adds the appropriate damage modifiers.
•   PAMs are unable to remain in the air at the end of the Movement Phase as LAMs do.  They are incapable of true flight.
•   ELM/PAMs, Light, and Medium PAMs have a unique movement option; Nape of the Earth flight.  PAMs may use up to double their base Jump movement to travel at ground level.  Note they must still pay the MP cost for Launching and Landing.  Because of the risks involved, PAMs are required to make a successful PSR before changing hex facing.  The target modifier for a successful turn increases by +3 every time it changes hex facings.
Ex.  A Light PAM chooses to attempt NotE flight.  After Launching and moving 5 hexes, it must turn a single hex face to the left.  Its base Pilot skill is a 4, so for its first PSR must roll 4+ on 2d6.  After continuing onward for 2 hexes, it must turn right two hex facings.  Its second PSR is now a 7 (base 4 + 3 for its first turn) and its third turn is a 10 (base 4 + 3 (for its first turn) + 3 (for its second turn)).  Afraid of crashing, the pilot decides to end his movement after changing his hex facing the second time.
A failed PSR during NotE movement causes a crash, in which the PAM takes 1 pt. of damage for every 5 tons, multiplied by the number of hexes moved in the last straight line before its turn.  Because the Pilot was trying to turn, he assigns damage to the opposite side (left turn, right side arc) arc.  Note the Pilot follows all rules for falling, including a PSR to avoid injury.
Ex.  A 35-ton PAM with Walk 2/ Run 3/ Jump 18 chooses to use NotE to cross the open ground in front of it, Launching and moving 9 hexes in a straight line.  Choosing to turn two hex faces left at the end of his movement, the Pilot misses his second PSR (base 4 + 3 (first turn)), and looses control.  Because his last straight-line movement was the nine hexes, he must assign 63 points of damage (35 tons / 5 = 7 pts x 9 hexes) in 5-point groups to the Right side arc.
•   If the Internal Structure of the Left or Right Torso is destroyed, the PAM looses its wing and Jump bonus.  It may Jump normally (as a standard Battlemech) with the remaining Jump Jets.

Combat Sample
Jane and her 35-ton Gryphon PAM is racing across the battlefield; Launching for 2 MP, she climbs 2 elevations to avoid crashing into the trees in her path, moves 13 hexes (one hex over her x2 Jump of 16), then turns to the left 1 hex facing (her 18th MP), and must roll a PSR to prevent sideslipping.  Successful, she moves 2 more hexes before dropping 2 levels and Landing, using her maximum Jump movement of 24.  Rolling a PSR at –4, she finds she has Landed safely.
Entering the map, Jane chooses to use NotE movement.  Launching for 2 MP, she moves along the open hexes along the side of the map.  Turning left after 3 hexes, she fails her PSR (base 4 + 0 (first turn)) by rolling 2 and crashes for 21 damage (35 tons / 5 = 7 pts of damage x 3 hexes traveled = 21 damage), assigned in 5-pt groups to her Right side on the Hit Location Table.  Rolling a second PSR, she finds she has avoided injury.  Determining facing after the fall, she finds she has come to a stop facing hex side #4.
   Seeing the opportunity to cripple the elusive PAM, her opponents rush to gain line-of-sight on her machine.  Since she has fallen, she must attempt to Stand.  Her PAM, with a 280 XL engine, has only a 2/3 movement (35 tons x 8 movement = 280 Engine Rating.  Since she is a PAM, she must calculate her 1/3rd ground movement penalty; 8 x .33 = 2.64, rounded down to 2.  With a 2 Walk MP, her Run becomes 2 x 1.5 = 3 MP.) and she decides to Run.  Standing on her first attempt, she moves further from her attackers and remains out of line-of-sight (remember, she can’t walk backwards at a run.
   Breathing a sigh of relief, she Launches in the next Turn, climbs 2 elevations to avoid the Light Woods in her path, and travels 9 hexes before dropping 2 levels and Landing behind an enemy Thor (for 17 MP).  Rolling a PSR at -4, she finds she has Landed safely.  In order to hit with her Medium Lasers, she needs an 8 (base 3 + 0 (short range) + 3 (attacker Jumped) + 2 (target movement)).  Unfortunately, Jane is struck by another ‘Mech with a Targeting Computer and a Large Pulse laser, piercing the armor on her right leg and destroying her Upper Leg actuator.
Jane has lost the-4 modifier to Landing in her PAM, and now has to roll a 5 (base 4 + 1Upper Leg Actuator destroyed) to remain standing. Landing successfully and avoiding doing further damage to her ‘Mech will now require a PSR of 5, rather than her previous target number of 0 (base 4 – 4 (no leg damage bonus)).
Rolling a successful Piloting Skill Roll, she decides to continue fighting.  Later in the game, Jane’s PAM loses the last of the Internal Structure in its Right Torso.  Because only a single Jump Jet was in the Torso, Jane can use her new Jump Movement of 5 from her remaining Jump Jets to retreat from the map. 

*edit - Yeah, the combat example gives it a 280 XL.  Because they don't transform, they can use the Endo/XL/whatever of normal units, a late change before my only playtester moved.  It gets really squished in terms of crits without arms, though.

[Sabelkatten]

The rules I put together a bunch of years ago:

Construction: Follow the classic (mech) design rules.
Standard LAM equipment weights 10% of total unit weight.
Limited LAM equipment that only allow two modes (Fighter/AirMech or Mech/AirMech for bipeds, Mech/Fighter for Quads) weight 6.66% of total unit weight.
The LAM equipment takes up 2 critical spaces each in the right/left torso and 2 in each arm on a biped, or 3 critical spaces each in the right/left torso on a quad.
1 space in each location on a biped or 2 per location on a quad are Flight Control Systems, the other spaces are Transformation Control Systems.
All equipment is allowed, but no equipment may be split between a torso and an arm or leg location.
LAMs do not have external hardpoints.

Mech Mode: As usual, a LAM in mech mode plays just like a normal mech.
AirMech Mode: A LAM in AirMech mode has its ground speed reduced to half normal (.5 rounds up). It can also operate as a VTOL with a cruise movement rating equal to 1.5 times the lowest of its jumping and walking MP (.5 rounds up). Add 1 MP if the unit mounts Partial Wings. If the unit mounts Improved Jump Jets add 1 MP if its jump MP is equal or lower than its walking MP, 2 if it is higher.
Flanking MP are calculated as usual.
When flying an AirMech builds up 2 heat by cruising and 3 heat by Flanking. It also suffers an additional +1 targeting penalty (+2 total cruising, +3 total flanking).
An AirMech that jumps can chose to end that movement in the air and to proceed with flying the next turn. Likewise a flying AirMech can chose to jump, but must then end the movement on the ground or it will fall. It may descend up to 3 times its jump MP number of levels safetly.
Fighter Mode: In fighter mode a LAM moves like a normal Aerospace Fighter. However it still uses standard mech firing arcs, armor arcs and hit location tables.
The LAMs thrust rating is equal to the lowest of its jumping and walking MP plus 2. Add 1 more MP if the unit mounts Improved Jump Jets.
A LAM has an internal fuel reserve of .25 tons per standard Jump Jet and .5 tons per Improved Jump Jet.
Damage:
A LAM that has lost a Shoulder or Hip Actuator and/or has taken a hit to a Transformation Control System space is stuck in whatever mode it is in until repair can be made.
A flying AirMech that suffers a critical hit to a Jump Jet or Flight Control System space must immediately make a piloting skill roll with a +2 modifier.
If a flying AirMech fails a piloting skill roll it falls 1D6 levels and can then make another roll to stop falling. Repeat until a roll succeeds or the LAM crashes.
A Hit to a Flight Control Systems in Fighter Mode is treated as a control surface hit for an ASF.

Heat: LAMs use the standard mech heat table, with one modification: When flying (in AirMech or Fighter Mode) it rolls for loss of control as an ASF instead of suffering a movement penalty. A LAM in AirMech mode that suffers loss of control falls as above.

One thing that never got added to these rules, only discussed, was that a LAM in AirMech mode should probably be extra vulnerable to damage. Specifically, on any hit of 5+ points roll a crit check at -5 plus 1 per 5 damage (i.e. a 5-point hit causes a crit on a '12', a 20-point hit on a '9' (2 crits on a '11').

[Red Pins]

Killed another LAM thread.   8)

[Phicksur]

Why no arms with your Airmech, Red Pins?

LAMs in AirMech mode are completely allowed to use their arms and hands.

[Phicksur]

Some rules I have been coming up with myself for AirMech-only mode, modifying the rules in Interstellar Operations. I call them StrikeMechs because they are more about speed and hitting hard and are essentially glass cannons:

Code: [Select]

Weighing up to 75 tons
Limited to bipedal Mechs
Minimum Jumping MP = 3
No Conversion Equipment necessary
No Landing Gear Critical Slots
Avionics Critical Slots in Head, LT, RT

Prohibited Technologies: same as LAM except those relating to additional critical slots (the lack of conversion equipment means that criticals can be spread around), or restrictions on engine types. Also, StrikeMechs may NOT mount Bomb Bays (but may carry bombs in their hands).

Treated as a LAM in Airmech mode for most rules.
Uses all AirMech Mode movement rules (including dual-Piloting skill requirements depending on whether or not it is in the air or the ground).

StrikeMech Cruise MP = lesser of Walking MP x 3 (x 2 if over 55 tons) or Jumping MP x 3 (x 2 if over 55 tons)
StrikeMech Flank MP = Cruise MP x 1.5 (round up)
StrikeMech Walk MP = Walking MP / 3 (round up)
StrikeMech Run MP = Walking MP x 1.5

Heat: Walk or Run MP = 1 / MP used
Heat: Cruise or Flank MP = 1 / 3 MP used - 3 Heat (to a minimum of 0) to account for the additional heat venting allowed by the design.
(Example: An StrikeMech which cruises for 19 MP generates (19/3 - 3) = 3 Heat)

Side-slipping, Skidding, Collisions, Unintentional Charging and Crashing are all the same rules as LAM Air-Mechs.
Transporting StrikeMechs is more awkward than LAMs because they are stuck between the two modes normally transported. As a result, Mech bays or Fighter Bays need to be completely converted to accommodate StrikeMechs and only StrikeMechs until they can be converted to transport a different type of unit. Essentially, they require a new type of transport bay specifically designed for them.
Utilizing these rules, I have the following twist on the Shadow Hawk, using OLD tech. 7 Points of weapons heat (if everything fired at once), 5 movement heat at max speed:

Name: ShadowHawk - S	SHD-SK
Tech:	Inner Sphere
Tonnage:		55 tons
Internal Structure	Standard	5.5 tons
Engine:	275	15.5 tons
Walk MP:	5
Run MP:	8
Cruise MP:	15
Flank MP:	23
Jump Jets:	Standard	2.5 tons
Gyro:	Standard	3 tons
Cockpit:	Standard	3 tons
Heat Sinks:	11	1 ton
Armor:	Standard	11.5 tons
Left Arm: 9 - 17	Head: 3 - 9	Right Arm: 9 - 18
Left Torso: 13 - 20/6	Center Torso: 18 - 28/8	Right Torso: 13 - 20/6
Left Leg: 13 - 26		Right Leg: 13 - 26
------
Equipment	Location	Mass
LRM-5	LT	2 tons
AC/5	RT	8 tons
Medium Laser	RA	1 tons
Small Laser	LA	.5 tons
LRM-5 Ammo	LT	1 ton
AC/5 Ammo	RT	1 ton
Jump Jets	2LT, 2RT, 1 CT

[Maingunnery]

I wish for improved bi-modal LAMs, with the concept centered around the question: "Why bother transforming the torso?"

Mechs such as the Bushwacker and other low chicken-walkers look just fine. And if the torso doesn't transform then it should lead to: More construction options, lighter conversion equipment, faster conversion, etc.

[Sabelkatten]

All LAM problems - rules-wise, at least - are really related to AirMech mode. Fix that and equipment limits are unnecessary.

I think I made them somewhat balanced (note that I allowed almost all equipment), but it's really hard nowadays. After all an AirMech should beat a VTOL, right? Mech vs/ vehicle and all that. With the boost VTOLs got in TW that's a tall order without keeping AirMech mode as an "I win" button... :(

[Easy]

cleanup

[Red Pins]

Why no arms with your Airmech, Red Pins?

LAMs in AirMech mode are completely allowed to use their arms and hands.

Wait, what?  I don't see anything there saying, 'No Arms.'

[Sabelkatten]

Key question there. An AirMech, maybe, should not, necessarily, beat a VTOL, ton for ton. The value of a unit, operationally, can be a difficult thing to quantify under the best of conditions, but, alas, in the case of LAMs, the potentials there make BV-based judgements sketchy.

I've tried to address this in a fanfic: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=62129.0

It's so much about potential applications with LAMs that you could concede it in a one-to-one duel with any 'specialized' unit and still want to take it. I mean, lol, it's one reason why, especially in the early days, we found ourselves getting our LAMs disinvited from tabletop games. It was just so easy to poke all the holes in the opfors with a unit that could shift around on the map so quickly and easily.

As an anecdote, I remember one campaign very clearly where my Phoenix Hawk, even after getting saddled with all the baggage that made you want to cry, crazy degenerate technician, difficult piloting roles for aero-mode, poverty of parts, ppl looking at you sideways, etc, etc, I was /still/ able to go on solo nightly hunting trips to bag LCT and SDR scouts that I could literally fly rings around. It's a challenging unit that makes you think outside the box. Comparing BV values of AirMechs and VTOLs, I suspect, may miss the point.

It's true that the LAM is one of the real odd-ducks of the BattleTech IP.

It's like belonging to some kind of weird cult, lol.

The original AirMech rules were just silly...

Preferably (IMO) AirMech mode should be 1) more maneuverable than a regular mech, while 2) being tougher than a VTOL, while 3) still not being more powerful than a regular mech in a fight.

If this can be managed we have a good rule set, if not... :(

[Phicksur]

Wait, what?  I don't see anything there saying, 'No Arms.'

Notes:
•   Designers should remember at this point that PAMs are not allowed arms, and no Arm critical slots exist on the Record Sheet.

[Red Pins]

!

Um.  Well, in my defense, I wrote that the better part of 8-10 years ago, and my only local opponent left while we were still playtesting stuff.  Sorry.

I think it was an attempt to balance the x3 Jump movement; remember, under my rules, you have to save 4 Jump MP for Launch/Land, 4 MP to climb/descend above treetop level plus any intervening elevation changes, and for a PAM with 2/3/18 (the standard 6/9/6 of a Wasp/Stinger/P-Hawk) that leaves only 10 Jump MP.

Without arms, the PAM has to Turn to keep the target in the forward arc, another drain on those 10 remaining MP.  (As I write this, I can't remember if I included a turn mode, forcing you to move straight before turning a single hex facing.  Sorry.)

Thinking about it, those 10 MP are the reason I came up with the 'Nape-of-the-Earth' flight option - most grogs remember that one lazy LAM player, who just blindly counted out the Jump MP and didn't follow the rest of the rules in the book.  They can try it with this, but its like walking on a beach ball while skateboarding.

[Phicksur]

The original AirMech rules were just silly...

Preferably (IMO) AirMech mode should be 1) more maneuverable than a regular mech, while 2) being tougher than a VTOL, while 3) still not being more powerful than a regular mech in a fight.

If this can be managed we have a good rule set, if not... :(

That is why I came up with the StrikeMech. It is what I would like the AirMech to play like. Highly maneuverable, tougher than a VTOL, and able to hold its own with a regular mech without overwhelming them.

That means, same rules applied to LAM, should put the LAM at a slight disadvantage because of the extra weight of conversion equipment.

[Daemion]

The arms of a LAM in ASF mode fold into positions where their weapons fire in the nose arc.  This addresses ASF issue 4.

I've used this as a custom option for an advanced prototype in a campaign.  It makes sense as a general rule.



Secondly, you're already an aero player, from the sounds of it, so you don't mind the two different systems, correct?

How about using the Aerospace thrust and mp mechanic on a BT map for AirMech Mode, instead of straight up jumping? It would be a straight value for value set-up from fighter mode (A hex is a hex, regardless of size for MP expenditure and thrust use).

[Red Pins]

Hmm.  IIRC, its a single fuel point per ground-level map, isn't it?  That seems doable on the face of it, but I never did much aerotech.

[Daemion]

The original AirMech rules were just silly...

Preferably (IMO) AirMech mode should be 1) more maneuverable than a regular mech, while 2) being tougher than a VTOL, while 3) still not being more powerful than a regular mech in a fight.

If this can be managed we have a good rule set, if not... :(

Take away physical attacks. Save something like that for SPAs on a pilot that's been using the mech long enough to know how to override the collision safety protocols.

Then, no more boot to the head moments that a lot of people like to do, especially with the way Total Warfare handles using the modified piloting skill.  One munchy tactic removed. 

And, to prevent perpetual back-stabbing, the thrust/mp system from fighter mode, along with the restrictions on how many hex faces you can turn at a time and how much thrust is required to make each single turn can be a balancing factor there.

[Daemion]

Y'know, I like the idea that the gyro should either grant piloting bonuses, or allow for tighter maneuvering in fighter mode.

Maybe having the gyro reduces the thrust cost required for turning at high velocity?

Or

It grants modifiers making piloting rolls for turning easier, maybe like how a quad gets a piloting bonus while it has four legs.


I'm also keen on the idea that the weight of the conversion equipment should have the jet thrusters that the fighter uses included already.  This means the LAM shouldn't have to allocate tonnage to jumpjets.

Instead thrust allocation should probably be calculated like for a Fighter, which is normally engine and tonnage based, right?

Thrust MP can then be used for a LAM's jump capacity in Mech mode.  However, LAMs still have to allocate space for thruster ports as if they were jumpjets on the critical hit tables, one per Thrust MP.

[idea weenie]

One simple idea is to use the ASF turn radius chart, but with a modification.  Since the ASF turn chart assumes a fully functioning ASF, with properly designed Ailerons, wings, etc, and an AirMech is not, how about treating the AirMech's speed as 2* its actual when looking up turn radius.

So the AirMech can have speed thaanks to its Jumpjets, potentially WIGE flight capability, but a poor turn radius means you know when the AirMech is going to come after you, and which way they are going to move.

[Daemion]

One simple idea is to use the ASF turn radius chart, but with a modification.  Since the ASF turn chart assumes a fully functioning ASF, with properly designed Ailerons, wings, etc, and an AirMech is not, how about treating the AirMech's speed as 2* its actual when looking up turn radius.

So the AirMech can have speed thaanks to its Jumpjets, potentially WIGE flight capability, but a poor turn radius means you know when the AirMech is going to come after you, and which way they are going to move.

That is a thought, although I'd like to point out that the jets that they have, combined with the wings, give an AirMech roughly the same control that you'd find with a fighter. However, the reason they're moving at speeds calculated in 100 foot increments instead of 1/3 of a mile is because of the unaerodynamic portions of the arms and legs.

[Maingunnery]

However, the reason they're moving at speeds calculated in 100 foot increments instead of 1/3 of a mile is because of the unaerodynamic portions of the arms and legs.

If that was the case, then a properly developed LAM (to be properly aerodynamic) wouldn't be subjugated to that.   

[Col Toda]

From my perspective a LAM is a long range insertion special forces tool .  Comparing it to it"s monoform counterparts is counter productive . It is either the very best tool to get the jpb done or should not be there at all . The Long Range Combat Thread shows some of a LAM"s Niche . These square peg in round holes analyses serve no one . It does not need to be as good as its counterparts just good enough to get the job done . The biggest killer to Aerospace fighters and LAM tech in general is 3058 O Bakemono , 3060 Anvil 8M and 3085 Patriat on board Arrow IV w Air Defense Arrow IV ammo . This attacks flying incoming assets the mapboard before it engages with your ground units . So by the late 3070s most everyone thinks more LAM development is an investment in obsolescence . My standard attack force tends to have 9 Arrow IV launchers 3 of which has a ton  ADA ammo in it . Onboard Arrow IV is my heavy weapon of choice.  Sub optimal against the WoB but OK vs everyone else .  Still long range FC targeting computer and precision ammo is nice .  Varible Pulse lasers and iOS SRM aalso offset performance.

[TigerShark]

I don't see any issue with the LAM rules. They're not designed to be extremely good units like they were under the box set rules in the 1980s.
The turn radius rules severely hamper their worth, unless you spend the BV to put a great pilot into the LAM. At which point you're paying excessive BV just so the thing doesn't slam into a mountain while turning. Even -IF- you have a 4/3 or better, you still need to contend with LB-X and Flak ammo (if playing in the Star League era -- MUCH worse if playing in Clan and above).

I think this is a case of wanting too much, like an AD&D 2e player wanting the game to be like Pathfinder.

[Daemion]

I'm sorry, why did you decide to post 'poo-poo' comments in the fan designs and rules section in a post about ideas on improving LAMs, again?

I personally come down to this segment for ideas that are beyond the norm of standard rules, not to find comfort in the 'rules work fine as-is'.

[skiltao]

LAMs aren't intended to be "extremely good," but making them extremely bad is just as ill-fitting; there's a cost to using them which goes beyond BV (force size slots, rules complexity, play time, anticipated "cool factor"), and LAMs do not live up to that cost.

This is less like an AD&D 2e player wanting Pathfinder, and more like when you were petitioning to have Piloting Skill and C3 networks given more accurate BV costs.

[packhntr]

My primary gripe with LAMS is (according to the last rule set I read) they can't use virtually any of the advanced construction materials.  No XLFE, LFE, Double Heat Sinks, XL Gyros, Various Armors, etc.  That just kills them.  I can understand some things....XL Engine...due to it being split into multiple hit locations....  But how about some special rules to allow LFE's.  Maybe use a compact gyro (mandatory) and stack the extra LFE slots into the CT?  And WHY can they use DHS?  Come on! One House Rule we always had was weapons could not be split into multiple locations.  AND their ammo had to be in the same location as the weapon.  It restricted things nicely, but allowed everything.   I created a 50 ton LAM with Stealth armor, Composite internals and Improved JJs.  I forget the exact movement and loadout, but it was pretty darn effective as a harasser/scout.

[Alexander Knight]

LAMs can use double heat sinks because otherwise there's almost no variation in the design.  You stick with the low-heat standard lasers, autocannons, and missiles.
Because you can't get the extra tonnage from engines, gyros, armor, or structure like you can with standard 'mechs, so you can't pile on the SHS to use paired ER LL.

[The_Caveman]

The way I see it, LAM gyros are already special gyros, LAM structure is already special structure, etc., etc. Thus the inability to use endo-steel and so on.

Personally, I've never been able to suspend my disbelief quite far enough to permit LAMs to exist. The whole idea of a 'Mech turning into a plane is just fraught with so many problems that would prevent it ever reaching deployment. For one, the wings you would need to lift a BattleMech and allow it to actually maneuver would be enormous and it's difficult to imagine how they'd fit into the chassis when it was in 'Mech mode. ASFs already have the flying brick problem that is barely compensated for by them having multiple Gs of thrust. Since a LAM would be a clumsy flyer anyway owing to its distribution of mass, why even bother with the wings? Just fit a normal 'Mech with huge thrusters and brute-force your way into the sky if you want to fly.

The whole idea seems like it would work better on a smaller scale. ProtoMech LAMs make more sense from a square-cube law perspective and they offer the chance to rectify the problems of not one but two otherwise-mediocre designs.

[Maingunnery]

The whole idea seems like it would work better on a smaller scale. ProtoMech LAMs make more sense from a square-cube law perspective and they offer the chance to rectify the problems of not one but two otherwise-mediocre designs.

For myself P-LAMs are not really interesting, now if it concerned BA-LAMs, then I would be more interested.

[The_Caveman]

For myself P-LAMs are not really interesting, now if it concerned BA-LAMs, then I would be more interested.

I'm a little concerned about how the pilot of a BA-LAM would handle the transformation!

Reminds me of some flavor text in Metroid Prime where the space pirates experimented with copying morph-ball technology....with grisly results.

[packhntr]

For one, the wings you would need to lift a BattleMech and allow it to actually maneuver would be enormous and it's difficult to imagine how they'd fit into the chassis when it was in 'Mech mode. ASFs already have the flying brick problem that is barely compensated for by them having multiple Gs of thrust. Since a LAM would be a clumsy flyer anyway owing to its distribution of mass, why even bother with the wings? Just fit a normal 'Mech with huge thrusters and brute-force your way into the sky if you want to fly.

Well, an F-14 has a max takeoff weight of 74,350lbs...or 37 tons and an F-22 has a max takeoff weight of 83,500lbs or 47.75 tons. And both maneuver quite well. It's not too much of a stretch (given the IN-GAME technological advances) to bump that to a max of 55 tons.  Is it optimal?  NO.  Realistic?  NO.  It's a game. 

[Maingunnery]

I'm a little concerned about how the pilot of a BA-LAM would handle the transformation!

Reminds me of some flavor text in Metroid Prime where the space pirates experimented with copying morph-ball technology....with grisly results.

BA-LAM wouldn't really require any actual transformation, it could be little more then a rocketeer suit with advanced deployable wings.

[The_Caveman]

Well, an F-14 has a max takeoff weight of 74,350lbs...or 37 tons and an F-22 has a max takeoff weight of 83,500lbs or 47.75 tons. And both maneuver quite well. It's not too much of a stretch (given the IN-GAME technological advances) to bump that to a max of 55 tons.  Is it optimal?  NO.  Realistic?  NO.  It's a game.

It's not about weight, it's about wing loading. If you want to lift a lot of weight you need a lot of wing area. Just one of an F-14's wings is nearly the size of an entire Wasp LAM. Even if you could magically punch the lift coefficient up by a factor of 3, a 55-ton LAM is still going to have space problems. The wings have to go somewhere when they're folded up, and the mechanism for stowing them will take up space too. Bimodals can get around this a bit by having a permanently aerodynamic torso and treating the legs as landing struts.

Having the wings at all though is a huge structural liability compared to having some control fins that were fixed-in-place and using your giant honking fusion engine to provide the effort needed to get the thing into the air. If the whole LAM concept were started over from scratch and we ignored the influence of Macross on what the designs ought to look like, a sensible LAM would more resemble a Sylph battle armor than a veritech fighter.

(I don't see how "it's a game" is any defense to anything, frankly, any more than "it's a movie" excuses gaping plot holes or "it's an ice cream cone" makes pistachio taste good.)

BA-LAM wouldn't really require any actual transformation, it could be little more then a rocketeer suit with advanced deployable wings.

I like this idea. The need for cramming in an honest-to-god fusion engine and fuel storage might limit you to heavy and assault class suits only, though. The idea is getting close to the Mobile Infantry from Starship Troopers (minus the mini-nukes).

[idea weenie]

It's not about weight, it's about wing loading. If you want to lift a lot of weight you need a lot of wing area. Just one of an F-14's wings is nearly the size of an entire Wasp LAM. Even if you could magically punch the lift coefficient up by a factor of 3, a 55-ton LAM is still going to have space problems. The wings have to go somewhere when they're folded up, and the mechanism for stowing them will take up space too. Bimodals can get around this a bit by having a permanently aerodynamic torso and treating the legs as landing struts.

Having the wings at all though is a huge structural liability compared to having some control fins that were fixed-in-place and using your giant honking fusion engine to provide the effort needed to get the thing into the air. If the whole LAM concept were started over from scratch and we ignored the influence of Macross on what the designs ought to look like, a sensible LAM would more resemble a Sylph battle armor than a veritech fighter.

Would making LAM wings take up side torso slots help out?  Say 1 slot per 10 tons, FRU, per side?  So a 55 ton LAM needs 6 slots in each side torso for LAM wings

[Sabelkatten]

Would making LAM wings take up side torso slots help out?  Say 1 slot per 10 tons, FRU, per side?  So a 55 ton LAM needs 6 slots in each side torso for LAM wings

That actually a really neat idea. If you expand it a bit to include taking up slots in the arms it should do a pretty good job at both limiting advanced costruction materials and limiting size.

[packhntr]

It's not about weight, it's about wing loading. If you want to lift a lot of weight you need a lot of wing area. Just one of an F-14's wings is nearly the size of an entire Wasp LAM.

Where is this stated?  All of the canon images I have ever seen do not show this.  Everything I have ever seen shows a very direct comparison to an F14 size wise for a Phoenix Hawk LAM.  And the others are only slightly smaller even though their weight is 20t less.  And as for wing loading, proper material selection takes care of that readily.

[The_Caveman]

Where is this stated?  All of the canon images I have ever seen do not show this.  Everything I have ever seen shows a very direct comparison to an F14 size wise for a Phoenix Hawk LAM.

A single F-14 wing panel is 7.5m in length and has a chord of 3m at the root. As per this chart a Commando is 8.5m tall and 4m in width. Which would put the 30-ton Stinger and Wasp LAMs in the 9m tall range in 'Mech mode. That's "nearly as big" enough for me, since none of the "reseen" LAM artwork includes a size chart. The P-hawk LAM is based on the full-scale VF-1 Valkyrie which is dimensionally quite a bit smaller than an F-14 (14.2m long in fighter mode vs 19.1m, with a similar difference in wingspan), and in battroid mode stands about 12m tall, which is in keeping with common medium 'Mechs.

And as for wing loading, proper material selection takes care of that readily.

I don't think you got what I mean by wing loading.

The lift generated by a wing is proportional to the square of the airspeed times the effective lifting area times the air density, as stated in the equation L=1/2 * p * V^2 * (S * Cl).

When you boil that equation down and solve for weight, the square of the minimum speed needed to fly is proportional to the total weight divided by the total wing area. This is what we call "wing loading" and is expressed in lbs/sqft or kg/m².

A more highly-loaded wing has a higher stall speed and accordingly the aircraft is less maneuverable because to make a turn you have to generate lift equal to the weight of the aircraft times the number of Gs (extreme examples being the F-104 Starfighter and the Space Shuttle, which were more akin to projectiles than aircraft).

Thus, the more weight you're trying to lift, the more wing you need. Material selection has little to do with it. There is some wiggle room for very thick wings and large slotted flaps that increase the effective wing area, but not enough to put a small wing on a big 'Mech.

In the case of the Wasp LAM, to have the same wing loading as an F-14 (and thus similar flying characteristics, noting also that an F-14 at maximum takeoff weight is quite sluggish and has to burn off a lot of fuel before it can really dogfight) it would need wings 95% the scale of the F-14's (7.125m x 2.85m each). A Phoenix Hawk LAM would need wings 9.6m x 3.8m each, which when folded would be as wide as an Atlas's shoulders and would nearly drag the ground. Even with a pure magic sci-fi wing that produced 3 times the lift because reasons, the wings together would have a volume comparable to the entire center torso.

That's a lot of bulk and ungainly mass compared to jump jets and ASF thrusters, which would be more effective at getting a 'Mech into the air and are well known to be very small in comparison to a 'Mech chassis. A "hovermech" using jet lift would be just as capable if not moreso than a winged LAM, minus having the glide ratio of an office building (not that LAMs do much better when their engines are disabled, going by the few times they appeared in novels).

[TigerShark]

Have you considered telescopic wings as a possibility?

[Maingunnery]

I like this idea. The need for cramming in an honest-to-god fusion engine and fuel storage might limit you to heavy and assault class suits only, though. The idea is getting close to the Mobile Infantry from Starship Troopers (minus the mini-nukes).

Engine weight can likely be determined by using a combination of ASF engine rating formula and use that rating in the protomech engine weight formula.
The fuel itself would have to be rescaled to fit the smaller unit size.

[Maingunnery]

I think that the next-generations of Land-Air-Mechs should be bimodal with aerodynamic torsos, which only transform between fighter and a chicken-walking 'Mech.
And like with the QuadVees, such a transformation could be done through repositioning of the arms & legs. This could also return all those construction options (XL, Endo & Ferro) to them.

Other fun options would be:

• Fixed-Air-Mechs (just no transformation)
• Space-Mechs (pure thrust/VTOL, likely have to pay a engine rating penalty in exchange)

[Jester006]

If you're designing a LAM for competitive play, then you'll have to obey normal construction rules.

If you're designing them for a campaign, then make up what ever you want to.  Why shouldn't a LAM have access to endo-steel structures or XL engines?  Those technologies were around during the SLDF; who's to say some LAMs weren't manufactured with them?

I may not be an aerospace engineer, but I can certainly tell you that if the designers of a flying capable machine had access to materials that provided the same strength but weighed less than their counterparts, they would use those lighter materials in a heartbeat; assuming cost and availability isnt a problem.

As someone who has run campaigns before, i always try to make some specially designed units as a way of throwing a curve ball at the players.  The hardest part about doing that is trying to get the balancing down.

[TigerShark]

I would actually go the other way with it: LAMs should be REQUIRED to have Endo Steel, since a normal BattleMech's frame would probably make it like trying to fly a brick with wings. It would also have the dual purpose of (a) restricting its availability during the Succession Wars and explain their decline and (b) limit critical slots. The latter makes a lot of sense, since the conversion gear wouldn't leave much space for ammunition bins, or at least make feeding them more of a chore.

[Easy]

cleanup

[Maingunnery]

MattPlog just posted some special commissioned (Not from me) LAM art, just some food for discussion/inspiration:

https://www.deviantart.com/mattplog/art/Comm-vLAM-Chopper-771754119

https://www.deviantart.com/mattplog/art/Comm-LAMvee-Triple-Changer-771755258

[The_Caveman]

MattPlog just posted some special commissioned (Not from me) LAM art, just some food for discussion/inspiration:

https://www.deviantart.com/mattplog/art/Comm-vLAM-Chopper-771754119

https://www.deviantart.com/mattplog/art/Comm-LAMvee-Triple-Changer-771755258

Oy vey. How about one that changes into a cassette deck?  xp

[Korzon77]

LAM's have a huge advantage over every other unit in the game--they can go anywhere. Need to fly low and slow? They can do it. Need to go into space, they can do it. Need to do a fast suborbital flight, turn into a mech, and mug that group of bandits that thought they were in the clear? Fine.

Strategically they need no other advantage, because that's what they're for. 

So the problem becomes, the closer you bring them to regular mechs, the more goodies they can use, you run into the strategic question of: why isn't everyone just building LAM's.  Even if they're more expensive, the incredible mobility they have, for most applications, trumps everything else.

IE, you have a world with three cities, one regiment to cover it, and it's been divided into battalion units for each city.  If those cities are 400 miles apart, the units can't support each other. If they concentrate, they leave two of the three cities uncovered. Using transport presents it's own problems, especially if you're deploying into a "hot zone."

But LAMS, on the attack or defense, can quickly concentrate, or if the battle is going poorly, run away faster than anyone can follow.  With LAMs, you never have to surrender the initiative to your slower enemy--not unless he has a vastly increased number of combat units.

The problem with LAMS isn't so much technology as them being misused.

[Atarlost]

LAM's have a huge advantage over every other unit in the game--they can go anywhere. Need to fly low and slow? They can do it. Need to go into space, they can do it. Need to do a fast suborbital flight, turn into a mech, and mug that group of bandits that thought they were in the clear? Fine.

Except they pretty much can't do any of those.  Need to fly low and slow?  That makes them a target.  This is a job for conventional aircraft or if you must transport them over interstellar distances possibly very light and cheap ASF.  Need to go into space?  Presumably you need them to accomplish more than just being in space for Cold War propaganda.  With their limited fuel reserves and all the mech dead weight without even going into conversion equipment it's not looking good.  Need to do a fast suborbital flight, turn into a mech, and mug a group of bandits?  If you seriously out-mass them or they're in primitive Age of War relics it's possible, but unless it's something really unbalanced like PHX LAMs against bugs you'll need a lot of LAMs relative to the enemy's force.  If you'd invested those resources in non-transforming ASF would they have landed?  They obviously don't have ASF escorting their dropship or your LAMs would have trouble getting to them. 

It doesn't matter how flexible something is if it performs all roles badly.  No matter how you use it it's overpriced and outclassed when it comes to actual fighting.  LAMs, comparing 3025 to 3025, are about 50% more expensive than an equivalent mech and cap out at comparable to 40 tonners.  There exist no ASF bad enough to be comparable to LAMs. 

IE, you have a world with three cities, one regiment to cover it, and it's been divided into battalion units for each city.  If those cities are 400 miles apart, the units can't support each other. If they concentrate, they leave two of the three cities uncovered. Using transport presents it's own problems, especially if you're deploying into a "hot zone."

Something a battalion can't beat, force to retreat, or tie down for a day does not sound like a raid, and if it's more than a raid you can concentrate your forces near any city you choose or in an empty plain not particularly near any of them and they'll have to come to you rather than leave a force in being on planet. 

[The_Caveman]

It doesn't matter how flexible something is if it performs all roles badly.  No matter how you use it it's overpriced and outclassed when it comes to actual fighting.  LAMs, comparing 3025 to 3025, are about 50% more expensive than an equivalent mech and cap out at comparable to 40 tonners.  There exist no ASF bad enough to be comparable to LAMs.

This sounds familiar....

Awww, crap.

If only the SLDF had a service branch with the role and inimitable ego of the USMC, we'd have a great explanation for how LAMs came about in-universe. "We need our own version that can go everywhere, do anything, and we don't care how impractical or expensive it is because it's ours dadgummit!"

[Korzon77]

Something a battalion can't beat, force to retreat, or tie down for a day does not sound like a raid, and if it's more than a raid you can concentrate your forces near any city you choose or in an empty plain not particularly near any of them and they'll have to come to you rather than leave a force in being on planet.

And while you're sitting on an empty plain--the LAM's just blew up three cities. Also, unless you sit on that plain all the time, the LAM's can catch your mechs in transit, unless they always travel in large packs--and those large packs aren't exactly controlling much in teh way of territory. Meanwhile, they're also shooting up all the rear echelon support services that mechs depend on.  As well as every bridge they might use, and every rail net link.

Your own statements prove the greatest advantage of LAMs--your strategy immediately, and irrecoverably, surrenders the initiative to the enemy.

[Korzon77]

Now, the kid is off to school, so I can cmplete this--

But the very strategic advantages, their mobility, demands that LAMs be markedly inferior to mechs, aerospace, etc, in any kind of straight up fight, because if they aren't, they suddenly turn into the primary unit everyone wants--which is fine for Macross, but not for Btech. That is, I feel, the greatest barrier to improving LAMs, is that they already straddle a very fine line.

Secondly, and thisis a gaming problem, the primary way LAMs would be employed in combat--using that advantage in speed to never, ever, fight on even terms, mugging that little platoon left guarding a vital bridge while the enemy mechs are out of position is...

Well, for gaming, boring. "Okay Sam, you crest the hill and see the two militia trucks panicking as they see your LAMS--what do you do?" does not make for a satisfying experience on either side of the gaming board, so most scenarios won't be employing LAMs in the way that maximizes their advantages--for quite understandable reasons.

[Maingunnery]

I rather give up some WIGE mobility.

[Sabelkatten]

Now, the kid is off to school, so I can cmplete this--

But the very strategic advantages, their mobility, demands that LAMs be markedly inferior to mechs, aerospace, etc, in any kind of straight up fight, because if they aren't, they suddenly turn into the primary unit everyone wants--which is fine for Macross, but not for Btech. That is, I feel, the greatest barrier to improving LAMs, is that they already straddle a very fine line.

Secondly, and thisis a gaming problem, the primary way LAMs would be employed in combat--using that advantage in speed to never, ever, fight on even terms, mugging that little platoon left guarding a vital bridge while the enemy mechs are out of position is...

Well, for gaming, boring. "Okay Sam, you crest the hill and see the two militia trucks panicking as they see your LAMS--what do you do?" does not make for a satisfying experience on either side of the gaming board, so most scenarios won't be employing LAMs in the way that maximizes their advantages--for quite understandable reasons.

Thought, arguably, that's how movement already works.

If you're faster than the enemy you can in theory always decide when and where to fight.

If you have dropships and the enemy doesn't, same.

And so on. LAMs just take it up a notch because they can switch to their "strategic" mode faster. But the basic fact is that the slower side in any case has to position itself so that the faster side has to fight it - ambush, or defending the enemy's objective.

[Atarlost]

And while you're sitting on an empty plain--the LAM's just blew up three cities. Also, unless you sit on that plain all the time, the LAM's can catch your mechs in transit, unless they always travel in large packs--and those large packs aren't exactly controlling much in teh way of territory. Meanwhile, they're also shooting up all the rear echelon support services that mechs depend on.  As well as every bridge they might use, and every rail net link.

Only if they have air supremacy, and given air supremacy ASF can do it more efficiently.  They can carry bombs externally without sacrificing already scarce tonnage. 

LAMs compared to mechs in 3025 are bad.  LAMs compared to mechs in 2750 are terrible.  LAMs compared to ASF in any era, even the Jihad when those ASF may well be retrotech make do fighters, are hopeless. 

Now, the kid is off to school, so I can cmplete this--

But the very strategic advantages, their mobility, demands that LAMs be markedly inferior to mechs, aerospace, etc, in any kind of straight up fight, because if they aren't, they suddenly turn into the primary unit everyone wants--which is fine for Macross, but not for Btech. That is, I feel, the greatest barrier to improving LAMs, is that they already straddle a very fine line.

Secondly, and thisis a gaming problem, the primary way LAMs would be employed in combat--using that advantage in speed to never, ever, fight on even terms, mugging that little platoon left guarding a vital bridge while the enemy mechs are out of position is...

Well, for gaming, boring. "Okay Sam, you crest the hill and see the two militia trucks panicking as they see your LAMS--what do you do?" does not make for a satisfying experience on either side of the gaming board, so most scenarios won't be employing LAMs in the way that maximizes their advantages--for quite understandable reasons.

What's going to happen in gaming is that if you take LAMs your opponent will take ASFs instead of ceding air supremacy because you're bringing aerospace rules into this by using LAMs in the first place.  And ASFs outperform LAMs by a ridiculous margin in every respect including strategic mobility.  There may be some militia trucks to attack several air mapsheets over if you can get to them, but right now you're up to your ears in Sabres and if you trade a LAM for a Sabre and a militia truck you're losing the war of attrition. 

[The_Caveman]

Only if they have air supremacy, and given air supremacy ASF can do it more efficiently.  They can carry bombs externally without sacrificing already scarce tonnage. 

LAMs compared to mechs in 3025 are bad.  LAMs compared to mechs in 2750 are terrible.  LAMs compared to ASF in any era, even the Jihad when those ASF may well be retrotech make do fighters, are hopeless. 
What's going to happen in gaming is that if you take LAMs your opponent will take ASFs instead of ceding air supremacy because you're bringing aerospace rules into this by using LAMs in the first place.  And ASFs outperform LAMs by a ridiculous margin in every respect including strategic mobility.  There may be some militia trucks to attack several air mapsheets over if you can get to them, but right now you're up to your ears in Sabres and if you trade a LAM for a Sabre and a militia truck you're losing the war of attrition.

Not only that, but the LAMs have to get to the planet in the first place. They make poor fighters so the defending force with ASFs will make mincemeat of them and their DropShips on the way in. An equal-cost or even equal-BV force of Sabres and Lightnings will annihilate LAMs trying to make planetfall.

LAMs are only advantageous when the other side has only ground or air capability but not both. Or when its resources are spread so thin that a lance of LAM raiders can operate behind the lines for extensive periods and attack infrastructure--but even then they're highly vulnerable to being drawn into a trap.

[idea weenie]

LAMs do have one key advantage that they can serve as both a ground and air force.

I.e.:
Defender has 12 Mechs and 12 ASF
Attacker has 24 LAMs

The attacker will have 2:1 advantage against enemy ASF, and the survivors can then engage the defending Mechs on the Attacker's terms, not the defender's.  If the attackers take enough damage vs defending ASF, they might just pull back for repairs or leave entirely.  The Attacker has to be careful though, as any LAMs that get shot down can only be recovered if they win, while the Defender aircraft can try to land anywhere and the pilots can have a local taxi pick them up.

If the defender is known for using large amounts of ASF (or purely ASF), then the attacker will bring more ASF as appropriate.  But if the defender has to split BV/C-Bills/personnel between ground and air units, then LAMs can have a small chance.

[Maingunnery]

Defender has 12 Mechs and 12 ASF
Attacker has 24 LAMs

The attacker will have 2:1 advantage against enemy ASF, and the survivors [snip]

What survivors? Even with 2:1 numeral advantage, the LAMs are likely going to lose in space/air.

[Daemion]

Hence the desire to see them brought up to parity.

[Intermittent_Coherence]

Couple of things:
Why is Airmech mode so fast/broken speedwise? I get that maneuverability at speed suffers but why grant them that much increase in speed to begin with? Any insights as to the thinking that yielded that mechanic?

In three hundred years of Airmechs existing why did nobody ever try to duplicate the hovering capability on standard battlemechs?

Why is it that LAM's only get a ton of fuel? Is there no way to add more?

[Maingunnery]

Couple of things:
Why is Airmech mode so fast/broken speedwise? I get that maneuverability at speed suffers but why grant them that much increase in speed to begin with? Any insights as to the thinking that yielded that mechanic?

WiGE MP isn't as efficient as Jump MP. Each Jump MP allows for 1 hex of movement, but WiGEs often need to use multiple MP per hex.

Why is it that LAM's only get a ton of fuel? Is there no way to add more?

Yes they can, but existing designs are only designed to get in and get out.

[Atarlost]

The WIGE movement may be excessive even so. 

The Wasp and Stinger LAMs are 30 tons with 180 rated engines.  A 30 ton WiGE has a suspension factor of 80.  This would give 8/12 movement with some rounding loss.  The LAM rules give them 18/27.  But 30 tons is just below a suspension factor cutoff.  An 81 ton WiGE would have a suspension factor of 115 which would lat a 180 rated engine propell it to 9/14 with some rounding.  A 180 engine and 6 jumpjets weigh the same as a 225 engine.  A 225 would propel a 30 ton WiGE to 10/15 with some loss to rounding or a 31 ton WiGE to 10/15 with rather more loss to rounding. 

Depending on how one measures, the Wasp and Stinger are from 80% to 125% too fast.

The Phoenix Hawk LAM is 50 tons and uses a 250 rated engine.  A 50 ton WiGE has a suspension factor of 140.  This would give 7/11 movement with quite a bit of rounding loss.  The LAM rules give 15/23.  There is no higher suspension factor breakpoint to check against.  Adding the jumpjet weight to the engine weight it would wind up in between the 270 and 275 ratings.  Either of these would give a movement of 8/12 after rounding down. 

Depending on how one measures the Phoenix Hawk is from 25% to 43% too fast. 

I think the math safely shows that something is wrong with the rules for airmech mode. 

[skiltao]

Any insights as to the thinking that yielded that mechanic?

You could ask in the "Ask the Writers" area; I put it at 50/50 that the guy who knows actually answers vs someone else locks it straight off.

I suspect the idea was to make them fly off the mapsheet and therefore be unusable in pick-up games. High speed + turn modes = needs more than the usual 2x2 spread of mapsheets to fly behind anyone and turn around. (They play differently in Alpha Strike, of course, but I don't think they were thinking about that when writing the baseline rules.)

[Intermittent_Coherence]

The WIGE movement may be excessive even so. 

The Wasp and Stinger LAMs are 30 tons with 180 rated engines.  A 30 ton WiGE has a suspension factor of 80.  This would give 8/12 movement with some rounding loss.  The LAM rules give them 18/27.  But 30 tons is just below a suspension factor cutoff.  An 81 ton WiGE would have a suspension factor of 115 which would lat a 180 rated engine propell it to 9/14 with some rounding.  A 180 engine and 6 jumpjets weigh the same as a 225 engine.  A 225 would propel a 30 ton WiGE to 10/15 with some loss to rounding or a 31 ton WiGE to 10/15 with rather more loss to rounding. 

Depending on how one measures, the Wasp and Stinger are from 80% to 125% too fast.

The Phoenix Hawk LAM is 50 tons and uses a 250 rated engine.  A 50 ton WiGE has a suspension factor of 140.  This would give 7/11 movement with quite a bit of rounding loss.  The LAM rules give 15/23.  There is no higher suspension factor breakpoint to check against.  Adding the jumpjet weight to the engine weight it would wind up in between the 270 and 275 ratings.  Either of these would give a movement of 8/12 after rounding down. 

Depending on how one measures the Phoenix Hawk is from 25% to 43% too fast. 

I think the math safely shows that something is wrong with the rules for airmech mode.

So Airmech mode is just straight up 3x the MP? That's just wrong. It also leads me to a suggestion on how to change the mechanics.

WiGE's are fast, but their ground effect mechanisms are built in and optimised for their shape. LAM's OTOH essentially repurpose some of their JJ to provide lift and counteract the effects of gravity. Even the wings should not help much, unaerodynamic as the overall shape is. Hence I propose that the speed be cut by the amount of JJ needed to maintain lift.

In game terms, subtract 3 from the Jump MP and calculate the movement from there.

[Easy]

cleanup

[Intermittent_Coherence]

Although the obvious engine nacelles on the HK1 Airmech are horizontally oriented, the HK1 can lift vertically, from this pictured pose, without having to point it's nose in the air and ruin it's forward firing arc in the concurrent turn. Something provides enough thrust pointing straight down with the dangling legs to lift 50+ordinance, like bombs and AIV, tons straight up to hover.

Explain that.  :thumbsup:

This is why I recommend subtracting from the JJ MP to maintain lift.

[Easy]

cleanup

[Xeno426]

Well, an F-14 has a max takeoff weight of 74,350lbs...or 37 tons and an F-22 has a max takeoff weight of 83,500lbs or 47.75 tons. And both maneuver quite well. It's not too much of a stretch (given the IN-GAME technological advances) to bump that to a max of 55 tons.  Is it optimal?  NO.  Realistic?  NO.  It's a game.

You're confusing short tons (2,000 pounds) with tonnes (1,000 kg). The former is what you're calculating for those aircraft, the latter is what mechs are measured in.
For comparison, the F-22 is only about 38 tonnes.

It's not about weight, it's about wing loading. If you want to lift a lot of weight you need a lot of wing area. Just one of an F-14's wings is nearly the size of an entire Wasp LAM. Even if you could magically punch the lift coefficient up by a factor of 3, a 55-ton LAM is still going to have space problems. The wings have to go somewhere when they're folded up, and the mechanism for stowing them will take up space too. Bimodals can get around this a bit by having a permanently aerodynamic torso and treating the legs as landing struts.

Having the wings at all though is a huge structural liability compared to having some control fins that were fixed-in-place and using your giant honking fusion engine to provide the effort needed to get the thing into the air. If the whole LAM concept were started over from scratch and we ignored the influence of Macross on what the designs ought to look like, a sensible LAM would more resemble a Sylph battle armor than a veritech fighter.

(I don't see how "it's a game" is any defense to anything, frankly, any more than "it's a movie" excuses gaping plot holes or "it's an ice cream cone" makes pistachio taste good.)

The whole "not enough wing area" argument is rather obviated by existing aerospace designs with even less wing area, which can get much heavier than any LAM.
And "it's a game" is already a defense, otherwise mechs would float. Though it's more "it's a game of big stompy robots" as a defense, otherwise mechs would be the niche weapon of war, not the likes of tanks.

[Daemion]

And, whether you go by the Macross or Robotech stats (which were derived from the same source materials - or macross manual) the Valkyrie is only 15 tons. Dry weight. Nothing is mentioned on the weight of fuel or bombs. 

And, that's what the LAMs are derived from. 

Quite frankly, even BT conventional fighters lack in the lift surface department.

The Angel Light Strike Fighter - 10 tons


The Defender Medium Strike Fighter - 25 tons


The Meteor Heavy Strike Fighter - 45 tons

[Daemion]

The WIGE movement may be excessive even so. 

[snip]
Depending on how one measures, the Wasp and Stinger are from 80% to 125% too fast.

[snip]
Depending on how one measures the Phoenix Hawk is from 25% to 43% too fast. 

I think the math safely shows that something is wrong with the rules for airmech mode.

Well, remember that the early incarnation of AirMech rules had them moving like VToLs.  What kind of lift factor do you get for the same engine ratings there? 

And, Lift Factors aside - they explained on the outset of LAM design rules that it is the wings and other surfaces which provide the extra bonus to Jump MP. Of course, there was only one mode, back then, so the Wasp and Stinger had a VToL movement of 18 and the Pixie a VToL movement of 15.  No indicator of whether that was cruise or flank.

(I personally treated it as flank movement, with the matching attacker movement modifier of +2, and not the +3 for jumping.)

[Daemion]

Personally, I would have rather had AirMechs function similar to VToLs (or even fighter craft as if on low altitude for something different) with a cruise AMM of +1 and a Flank AMM of +2 instead of the +3 and +4 we get, and come up with some other ways to limit the AirMechs.  WiGE movement, while interesting, doesn't cut it. 

For example - one of the biggest problems with AirMechs, especially customs, is the ability to get into boot-to-the-head range, where you're one elevation higher than the target.  Even in WiGE mode, you can pull it off.  Potential shot to the head on the punch location table and a kick-induced PSR, to boot.  Combine that with Total Warfare's application of piloting skill to physical attack modifiers, and you have a lot of salvage-making cheese, right there.

Suggested fix - no physical attacks allowed in AirMech mode while airborne. The hovering nature of the jets and the computers running it keep the Mech from crashing accidentally, so that includes punches and kicks, and DFAs.  On the ground, it's no big deal, since the flight computer isn't active at that point, and the mobility loss for AirMech mode means you're not going to get a lot of damage in a charge. 

You might as well be in Mech mode if you want fisticuffs 


Example 2 - Are LAMs still allowed to torso twist while in AirMech Mode? If not, great.  If they are, well, then they really shouldn't.  One of the other big gripes of LAMs in AirMech Mode was the penchant to get in Back Shots with relative ease.  And, one of the methods was using the rules for torso twisting, which wasn't strictly disallowed in the original rules.

However a strict application of 'they function like VToLs while in the air' would fix that.  VToLs cannot torso twist.  It makes sense that while in the air, an AirMech's facing is not based on its feet but based on its nose, largely due to the nature of aerial flying.  Take away torso twisting, and you force the LAM to expend movement to line up its front arc or rely solely on arm weapons.

(I would like to point out that the Wasp LAM has no arm mounted weaponry, in spite of what you see in the art, so it is severely limited by such a restriction.  What is it carrying on its arm?  My guess is the fuel tank disguised as the medium laser so it still can look like a regular WSP-1A... until it opens fire with the head lasers.)

Those would be ample fixes for what really made LAMs broken.  No need to make a hit while in AirMech mode next to impossible.  Never understood why they went that route.  The Star League had ample time and development to make sure the AirMech Mode was more than a minor curiosity, and could perform on relative par with other units in perpetual motion, like VToLs.



On movement rates, I do have an odd suggestion.  It seems to me that the closer to the ground an AirMech is, the more it can take advantage of the WiGE effect, and move faster.  So, maybe it has five movement modes:  Walk, Run, Jump, VToL, WiGE.

In VToL Mode you get, say 2x jump MP but can fly around like a VToL.  You're assumed to be moving at VToL flank speed, with all the stability of a VToL in flight, as well. So, it only imparts a +2 AMM.

In WiGE Mode, you get 3x jump MP but can only move like a WiGE.  Due to the WiGE, the AirMech is more stable, and only imparts a +1 AMM.


But, I'm still largely in favor of dropping the odd movement modes altogether, and incorporating the fighter aspect of a LAM in AirMech mode where it has to spend thrust to keep in the air.  You already have a safe and max thrust stat for the LAM. You have movement restrictions and thrust costs in hexes.  You will notice that those values don't change between High Altitude/Orbit maps and Low Altitude maps, so it's a simple application of keeping the values the same while the AirMech zips around on the ground map.

Say that the Pilot has to use his Fighter Piloting Stat while airborne in AirMech mode, and he can't spend that on physical attacks.  It functions like a Fighter while airborne, so it can't torso twist.

And, viola.  You have something that incorporates the air game inside the ground game, giving the ground game one more unique element, and helping people get used to the air mechanics so that they could take to the skies at some point in a campaign, if they want.

[TigerShark]

.

[TigerShark]

And, viola.

[RifleMech]

I do not know why people still complain about AirMechs being too fast. Not under the current rules. Especially not when we have mechs that can hit 40 without Sprinting.

So AirMechs get 3xJJ for flight movement. Big deal. That MP is cut in half when moving at Elevation 2 or higher. The Stinger LAMs 27 hex MP is reduced to 13.  For a LAM at the slow end of the spectrum with just 3 JJ its even worse. That 14 MP is now 7. Yes that's slow but so's an UrbanMech. And LAMs can't use Overdrive, Evasion, or any speed enhancing equipment. Personally I'm okay with that but it's frustrating to hear people complain about AirMechs being fast when there's units a whole lot faster. Except for Savanna Masters no one complains about fast units. Even if AirMechs stay at Elevation 1 their "high" speed isn't that high. Not when AirMechs are required to use Turn Modes or face PSRs.  AirMechs either have to be predictable or risk crashing.

And trying to compare suspension factors to justify nerfing LAMs doesn't work. AirMechs can't use any speed boosting rules or equipment. Every other unit can. They also can't use XL or XXL Engines unlike every other unit. A J Edgar (11/17) with an XL Engine can move 15/23. As fast as some AirMechs and it still has tonnage left over for a supercharger to boost its speed up to 30, 38 with Overdrive. An XXL Engine engine can make it even faster or more deadly. All while weighing less than a Stinger LAM.  All by using technolgy and rules that AirMechs can't. All LAMs have is Improved JJs with doubles the weight and crits of their motive system and reducing other items. And converting to Fighter Mode isn't any help since opposing players always bring Aerospace Fighters just to kill the LAM.

Really the only thing LAMs have going for them is their price tag. They cost a lot less than other units with the high tech equipment. So why must people continue to try to nerf them? I don't understand.


Some other points of interest.

Additional fuel is 1 ton and 1 crit.
Physical Attacks in AirMech mode only do half damage. 

According to the Macross Compendium the VF-1 weights 13250 kg.  The maxium take off weight is 72000 kg with the FAST Pack System. It can also fly at 500 km in GERWALK (AirMech) Mode. Something no LAM will ever be able to do.

[Daemion]

According to the Macross Compendium the VF-1 weights 13250 kg.  The maxium take off weight is 72000 kg with the FAST Pack System. It can also fly at 500 km in GERWALK (AirMech) Mode. Something no LAM will ever be able to do.

Which is why I'm fond of the suggestion of using the thrust/MP system out of AeroTech 2, which was directly ported to Total Warfare.

I'm not wanting to nerf LAMs. I want to see improvements. But, the fixes I want in order to get those improvements are actually minor.  Of course, our group generally plays Special Pilot Abilities, especially made up one to fit particular special characters and do a lot of linked-game campaigns.  So, I have no problem putting something that isn't normally used into an SPA.  So, a LAM pilot who eventually gets one could be able to torso twist while in the air or make physical attacks, if we went with the two limitations I suggested.

I, for one, agree that the Fighter mode needs a boost. The fact that the Gyro appears to act as a giant fly-wheel with a shoe-brake on any or all of its axes to throw weight around is something that probably should be in use with the Aerospace mode, especially in space.  Or, for that matter, the shear stability of the mega-gyroscope (... it weighs at least a ton for most Mechs, and usually more...) means that it shouldn't take as much thrust to change its orientation. 

So, either MP savings for facing changes, or fuel savings, or something.  Next time I'm with my group, I'll inquire and see what they think. I have one person that might have an idea.

[RifleMech]

Which is why I'm fond of the suggestion of using the thrust/MP system out of AeroTech 2, which was directly ported to Total Warfare.

I'm not wanting to nerf LAMs. I want to see improvements. But, the fixes I want in order to get those improvements are actually minor.  Of course, our group generally plays Special Pilot Abilities, especially made up one to fit particular special characters and do a lot of linked-game campaigns.  So, I have no problem putting something that isn't normally used into an SPA.  So, a LAM pilot who eventually gets one could be able to torso twist while in the air or make physical attacks, if we went with the two limitations I suggested.

Sorry but I don't see how those are improvements. An AirMech isn't a fighter. At Elevation 1 its a WiGE with limbs. At Elevation 2+ its a VTOL using vectored thrust.

I don't mind Special Pilot Abilities but they're still limited by the unit they're piloting. You can't twist a torso when there isn't one and AirMechs can engage in physical combat.

I, for one, agree that the Fighter mode needs a boost. The fact that the Gyro appears to act as a giant fly-wheel with a shoe-brake on any or all of its axes to throw weight around is something that probably should be in use with the Aerospace mode, especially in space.  Or, for that matter, the shear stability of the mega-gyroscope (... it weighs at least a ton for most Mechs, and usually more...) means that it shouldn't take as much thrust to change its orientation. 

So, either MP savings for facing changes, or fuel savings, or something.  Next time I'm with my group, I'll inquire and see what they think. I have one person that might have an idea.

I would think that the gyro would make the LAM more stable in Fighter Mode which would be why weapons and equipment don't have to be mounted symmetrically. I don't know why it'd do more than that.

Fighter Mode is okay but the whole Thrust/Overthrust is broken in BattleTech. A friend did some numbers and if she got them right a Stinger LAM at 9 Thrust is only moving at Mach 1.25. I'm fine with that but that's so not fast enough for it or most aerospace fighters to reach orbit.

[Daemion]

Sorry but I don't see how those are improvements. An AirMech isn't a fighter. At Elevation 1 its a WiGE with limbs. At Elevation 2+ its a VTOL using vectored thrust.

But, an AirMech is based off a Valkyrie, which functions mostly like a fighter, but with hefty cargo bringing extra drag into the mix.

Where I'm coming from based on improvements is the stupid +3 and +4 movement mode modifiers for AirMechs.  Makes no sense, and is a huge nerf.

I generally dislike a lot of the new rules in interstellar ops.

Anything not that is an improvement.

But, we got to that point because a lot of the open holes in the earlier rules made for some interesting munch that many people facing it didn't like and vocally complained about.

Fighter Mode is okay but the whole Thrust/Overthrust is broken in BattleTech. A friend did some numbers and if she got them right a Stinger LAM at 9 Thrust is only moving at Mach 1.25. I'm fine with that but that's so not fast enough for it or most aerospace fighters to reach orbit.

Which means the space game needs fixed.

Nothing new.

But, the sentiment Fighter Mode is okay is counter to the original post's point.  Fighter Mode isn't okay. The Stock LAMs have all kinds of disadvantages against aerospace fighters in glaring ways, no matter the rule-set, with only not taking threshold damage crits as a noted bonus.

 

[RifleMech]

But, an AirMech is based off a Valkyrie, which functions mostly like a fighter, but with hefty cargo bringing extra drag into the mix.

Where I'm coming from based on improvements is the stupid +3 and +4 movement mode modifiers for AirMechs.  Makes no sense, and is a huge nerf.

I generally dislike a lot of the new rules in interstellar ops.

Anything not that is an improvement.

But, we got to that point because a lot of the open holes in the earlier rules made for some interesting munch that many people facing it didn't like and vocally complained about.

That's why AirMech's have a reduction in speed. Just like the Valkyrie. It goes from a max of Mach 3.87 in Fighter Mode to 500 km in GERWALK Mode.

I agree. The modifiers should be the same as those for other units.

I understand the reason for past hatred of LAMs and why the rules needed to be revised but things have gone too far in the other direction. Even their value in universe has been retconned.

Which means the space game needs fixed.

Nothing new.

But, the sentiment Fighter Mode is okay is counter to the original post's point.  Fighter Mode isn't okay. The Stock LAMs have all kinds of disadvantages against aerospace fighters in glaring ways, no matter the rule-set, with only not taking threshold damage crits as a noted bonus.

Aerospace Rules do need work.

The disadvantages for Fighter Mode I see are; hull breaches, slower top speed, no external ordnance and limited advanced construction options. I only see no external ordnance and limited advance construction options as a nerf. The others are because it's a Mech pretending to be a fighter. I don't have a problem with that and it does come with the advantages of better thresholding and structural integrity. Its the nerfs that bother me and they wouldn't if they weren't there just to make the haters happy.

[Daemion]

That's why AirMech's have a reduction in speed. Just like the Valkyrie. It goes from a max of Mach 3.87 in Fighter Mode to 500 km in GERWALK Mode.

So, a move from low-altitude where you're applying thrust to 500m hexes to the ground map where you're applying thrust to 30m hexes isn't enough of a reduction for you?

Seems big enough to me.

The disadvantages for Fighter Mode I see are; hull breaches, slower top speed, no external ordnance and limited advanced construction options. I only see no external ordnance and limited advance construction options as a nerf. The others are because it's a Mech pretending to be a fighter. I don't have a problem with that and it does come with the advantages of better thresholding and structural integrity. Its the nerfs that bother me and they wouldn't if they weren't there just to make the haters happy.

Okay. We seem to be on the same general page, as, since I dislike the nerfs from Interstellar Operations, that includes the restrictions to equipment choices, as well. (I have a custom WSP-LAM-105 in a mercenary campaign I'm still running. the FF armor made perfect sense as an upgrade.  Never agreed with the balanced placements of weapons, either, so I put the laser back in the right arm, so it functioned more like it's standard cousin, too.)

As well as external ordinance.

I don't recall hull breaches actually being a problem for a LAM, in any rule-set. It's easy to acknowledge as part of the Fighter part of a LAM.  They have the issues of losing entire locations, unlike a fighter. It would make sense that part of the tonnage behind a LAM's IS is to keep breaches from being an issue.

If that seems too powerful, I still think suffering breaches normally is still too much.  So, maybe a specific item is rolled for a breach instead of the entire location giving out?

I may have to try this out in a scenario with my friends, see what they think. We have an ongoing 5th succession war series of campaigns, and one is the Raven Alliance playing around with LAMs to bolster ground forces and space forces alike.

We've been playing around with 'advancements' in the process. This could be something to look into.

[RifleMech]

So, a move from low-altitude where you're applying thrust to 500m hexes to the ground map where you're applying thrust to 30m hexes isn't enough of a reduction for you?

Seems big enough to me.

Sure its big. That's why I don't think it needs to be bigger. But that's one of the biggest complaints, "AirMechs are too fast!" Personally I think they should be allowed to use thw Overdrive rules.

Okay. We seem to be on the same general page, as, since I dislike the nerfs from Interstellar Operations, that includes the restrictions to equipment choices, as well. (I have a custom WSP-LAM-105 in a mercenary campaign I'm still running. the FF armor made perfect sense as an upgrade.  Never agreed with the balanced placements of weapons, either, so I put the laser back in the right arm, so it functioned more like it's standard cousin, too.)

As well as external ordinance.

I don't mind some restrictions since I don't want LAMs to be too powerful. I like that they can be almost equaled with ridiculously expensive technology. That being said, restrictions can be hard to justify so restrictions should have some kind of work around or even limitations. An example being the same reasoning allowing TSM should allow ES and FF. That or having set critical slots like in the FrankenMech rules. Something to limit them but not rule them out completely.

I don't recall hull breaches actually being a problem for a LAM, in any rule-set. It's easy to acknowledge as part of the Fighter part of a LAM.  They have the issues of losing entire locations, unlike a fighter. It would make sense that part of the tonnage behind a LAM's IS is to keep breaches from being an issue.

If that seems too powerful, I still think suffering breaches normally is still too much.  So, maybe a specific item is rolled for a breach instead of the entire location giving out?

I may have to try this out in a scenario with my friends, see what they think. We have an ongoing 5th succession war series of campaigns, and one is the Raven Alliance playing around with LAMs to bolster ground forces and space forces alike.

We've been playing around with 'advancements' in the process. This could be something to look into.

I don't think hull breaches are problem for LAMs any more than they would be for normal Mechs. Without them having to pay more for sealing eliminating hull breaches would make LAMs too powerful.

[idea weenie]

Fighter Mode is okay but the whole Thrust/Overthrust is broken in BattleTech. A friend did some numbers and if she got them right a Stinger LAM at 9 Thrust is only moving at Mach 1.25. I'm fine with that but that's so not fast enough for it or most aerospace fighters to reach orbit.

For reaching orbit, you only need a Thrust rating greater than 1G with an air-independent engine, that can thrust for a sufficient amount of time.  That will allow you to slowly but steadily lift off from a planet's atmosphere and get into space.  Now whether you have enough fuel onboard to accelerate in space for a decent amount of time is another matter.  Can you share her math so we can see it too?

Remember that once you get in space, there is no top speed, you just have to spend thrust points to move to a new hex, ad those velocity points are marked on the fighter chart.  After that turn, if you want to change vector, you have to burn more thrust points.

[RifleMech]

For reaching orbit, you only need a Thrust rating greater than 1G with an air-independent engine, that can thrust for a sufficient amount of time.  That will allow you to slowly but steadily lift off from a planet's atmosphere and get into space.  Now whether you have enough fuel onboard to accelerate in space for a decent amount of time is another matter.  Can you share her math so we can see it too?

Remember that once you get in space, there is no top speed, you just have to spend thrust points to move to a new hex, ad those velocity points are marked on the fighter chart.  After that turn, if you want to change vector, you have to burn more thrust points.

Interesting. Does that mean such a craft can get into space or just the edge of it?


Sure. She as looking at the TRO:3025 LAM AirMech speeds in Fighter mode and trying to figure out how FASA came up with their numbers. She ended up dividing the listed speed by 10.8 kph (MP speed to travel 1 hex) and then dividing that by 17 (1 map sheet traveled by thrust point). Rounding up she got the number of jump jets. 


Battletech Stinger/Wasp LAMs (6/9)
Cruising Speed, Air:  1080 kph
Overthrust Speed: 1620 kph

Her numbers
1080/10.8/17=5.588
1620/10.8/17=8.823

Battletech
Phoenix Hawk LAM (5/8)
Cruising Speed, Air:  900 kph
Overthrust Speed: 1620 kph

Her numbers
900/10.8/17=4.901
1440/10.8/17=7.843


Going in reverse by multipling the number of jump jets by 10.8 by 17 gets slighly higher speeds but its still not the super fast speeds we hear aerospace unit travelling. And since LAMs use the same thrust MP as Aerospace units it throws the whole system out of whack.

[idea weenie]

Interesting. Does that mean such a craft can get into space or just the edge of it?

If it is using internal fuel to generate that >1G thrust, it can get into space as long as there is enough fuel for that level of performance (see any rocket built in the past 60 years). If the craft only uses a fusion reactor to superheat air for thrust, it cannot get into space (since space has no air for thrust).

Sure. She as looking at the TRO:3025 LAM AirMech speeds in Fighter mode and trying to figure out how FASA came up with their numbers. She ended up dividing the listed speed by 10.8 kph (MP speed to travel 1 hex) and then dividing that by 17 (1 map sheet traveled by thrust point). Rounding up she got the number of jump jets. 


Battletech Stinger/Wasp LAMs (6/9)
Cruising Speed, Air:  1080 kph
Overthrust Speed: 1620 kph

Her numbers
1080/10.8/17=5.588
1620/10.8/17=8.823

Battletech
Phoenix Hawk LAM (5/8)
Cruising Speed, Air:  900 kph
Overthrust Speed: 1620 kph

Her numbers
900/10.8/17=4.901
1440/10.8/17=7.843


Going in reverse by multipling the number of jump jets by 10.8 by 17 gets slighly higher speeds but its still not the super fast speeds we hear aerospace unit travelling. And since LAMs use the same thrust MP as Aerospace units it throws the whole system out of whack.

Air units IIRC have been given a special rule where in an atmosphere they lose half their current velocity each turn.  But since they can still thrust at the beginning of the next turn they can get up to 2* the speeds listed.  Also remember that the numbers she calculated reflect the ASF/LAM starting from a speed of near zero, to being able to travel the entire distance, rather than steady acceleration (steady acceleration means starting from zero to a speed of X kps, means you only travel a distance of 1/2 X).

Distance traveled = 900 km
Time = 1 hr
Cruising speed = 900 kph
This means they have to accelerate near-instantly from a speed of zero kph to a speed of 900 kph.
In reality, in the first minute the Phoenix Hawk could be accelerating at 2.5 Gs (rounding to 25 m/s^2 for ease of math).  Assuming starting velocity is zero, that means your final velocity should be 1500 m/s (25 m/s^2 * 60 seconds), if you accelerated the entire time.  1500 m/s converts to 5400 kph.

(As a side note, that 2.5 G acceleration at regular Thrust is ~60% better than the F-22 Raptor.  Here is a list of thrust to weight ratios.  Note that the F-22 barely gets up to 1.3 T/W ratio, while the clumsiest 100-ton ASF can get 1.5, due to using a 3/5 T/OT rating.)

Even more fun, if a LAM/ASF can get into the high altitude map each of those hexes is 18 km in width.  You do have lower altitudes having a speed limit.

(That Phoenix Hawk traveling 5400 kph would be traveling through 5 of those 18-km hexes per turn.  Hope it is high enough to survive the experience, otherwise it takes damage based on how much faster than the altitude limit is)

[RifleMech]

If it is using internal fuel to generate that >1G thrust, it can get into space as long as there is enough fuel for that level of performance (see any rocket built in the past 60 years). If the craft only uses a fusion reactor to superheat air for thrust, it cannot get into space (since space has no air for thrust).

cool

Air units IIRC have been given a special rule where in an atmosphere they lose half their current velocity each turn.  But since they can still thrust at the beginning of the next turn they can get up to 2* the speeds listed.  Also remember that the numbers she calculated reflect the ASF/LAM starting from a speed of near zero, to being able to travel the entire distance, rather than steady acceleration (steady acceleration means starting from zero to a speed of X kps, means you only travel a distance of 1/2 X).

Distance traveled = 900 km
Time = 1 hr
Cruising speed = 900 kph
This means they have to accelerate near-instantly from a speed of zero kph to a speed of 900 kph.
In reality, in the first minute the Phoenix Hawk could be accelerating at 2.5 Gs (rounding to 25 m/s^2 for ease of math).  Assuming starting velocity is zero, that means your final velocity should be 1500 m/s (25 m/s^2 * 60 seconds), if you accelerated the entire time.  1500 m/s converts to 5400 kph.

(As a side note, that 2.5 G acceleration at regular Thrust is ~60% better than the F-22 Raptor.  Here is a list of thrust to weight ratios.  Note that the F-22 barely gets up to 1.3 T/W ratio, while the clumsiest 100-ton ASF can get 1.5, due to using a 3/5 T/OT rating.)

Even more fun, if a LAM/ASF can get into the high altitude map each of those hexes is 18 km in width.  You do have lower altitudes having a speed limit.

(That Phoenix Hawk traveling 5400 kph would be traveling through 5 of those 18-km hexes per turn.  Hope it is high enough to survive the experience, otherwise it takes damage based on how much faster than the altitude limit is)

The speeds listed are the cruising and overthrust speeds. Doesn't say anything about from starting at zero. There also places in the rules where 17 hexes per thrust backs up her numbers. I'll have to try to find them again. I also know that the rules let aerospace travel faster the higher they get. Which is fine but if you look at her numbers they're close to real aircraft. A WWI Prop plane would move at 1/2, a WWII would move at 2/3 and turboprops would move at 3/5 and so on.


Correction.
She says inter. war aircraft would be 2/3 and some WWII aircraft could be 3/5. She says many would have a max thrust of 4 but isn't sure how to get that in game.

[Daemion]

[casts thread necromancy]

I stepped away from this mostly due to other things taking up my time, but I am still interested in some of this.

First off -

The speeds listed are the cruising and overthrust speeds. Doesn't say anything about from starting at zero. There also places in the rules where 17 hexes per thrust backs up her numbers. I'll have to try to find them again. I also know that the rules let aerospace travel faster the higher they get. Which is fine but if you look at her numbers they're close to real aircraft. A WWI Prop plane would move at 1/2, a WWII would move at 2/3 and turboprops would move at 3/5 and so on.


Correction.
She says inter. war aircraft would be 2/3 and some WWII aircraft could be 3/5. She says many would have a max thrust of 4 but isn't sure how to get that in game.

Let's summarize the Hex sizes for each map size:
Ground = 30m
Low Altitude = 500m (0.5km)
High Altitude/Space = 36,000m (18km)

17 hexes x 30 gets you 510m.  And, 17 hexes happens to be the basic single map sheet size for a BattleTech Map. That's where she's getting 17 from. 
It just so happens that two low-alt maps of 17 hexes each (technically 17.5, since there's a middle row unaccounted for when you set them up) adds up to 34 or 35.  Being 510 meters per map, that gets you very close to 18 km.  I bet they rounded up for fudgibility's sake.



Now -

Fighters!

If I have proposed it already, I still stand by the idea.  If I haven't, well, here it is.

AirMechs in fighter mode should be treated as ground units for targeting purposes only.  Conversely, to be fair, they can only target like ground units except for ordinance.

How does that work?  Remember that ASF units can only make strafing runs against ground units on a ground map.  That means the ranges that get while being airborne, against other airborne units, are lost against ground units, since they have to enter the hex (map) that the ground unit occupies. 

(Special note: this is actually good for VToLs, since they can go up to elevations that put them in different Low Altitude levels, but aren't allowed to move and interact with ASFs at Low Altitude values.  Probably because they don't have thrust/overthrust ratings.  Gives me an idea for an Airwolf style VToL/ASF.)

Because of that restriction, ASFs cannot target a VToL or AirMech at ranges to which it can normally target other ASFs.  It has to get into the target's hex and effectively dog-fight them or make a pass. It doesn't matter if they're at elevation 50, putting the VToL or LAM at par with the ASF's current low-altitude elevation.

I suggest that even LAMs in Fighter mode get treated the same way.  Not only in atmo, but in space, too.

They have the thrust/overthrust to move around at space/high altitude and low altitude, but they can only engage and be engaged in a dog-fight fashion by entering the hex they occupy.  The only way a LAM can get around this would be with limited external ordinance, or so I recommend.

This way, speed and being outranged doesn't matter.

I suggest that capital weapons, like from warships, can still target them as if they're trying to do ground bombardment, and misses should track drift distance to see if the shot still splashes a targeted unit. Direction is unnecessary, just how many hexes away it scattered.

Why would this be possible? 
It comes down to two things.  One is an inbuilt piece of equipment not found on pretty much any other aerospace unit.  The other is a particular point of view on the defensive capabilities and programs put into Mechs and other ground units.

Point of view - The verbiage that a missed shot isn't actually a failure to connect with the target, but rather a failure to connect in a way that causes hit point damage on the sheet.  Kinda how the creators of D&D described attacks working with the armor being the large determining factor if a hit caused damage.  (Interesting read. You should research it if you can.)  How does that work in BattleTech?  For me, it's mostly programming in the machines which use mobility along with the nature of the armor to turn hits into glancing, harmless shots.  This seems to be a function that only applies to ground units, who have the cpu space dedicated to a lot of this.

Key item - The Gyro.  As I've stated earlier, the Mech gyro is heavy, and not just for survivability.  I actually imagine it functions as a series of giant fly-wheels with shoe-brakes on each one, allowing the Mech to throw its weight around in ways that even we humans can't.  This is what keeps them from having to make a PSR with each weapon shot or hit, instead of only when sustaining 20+ points of damage while on the ground.

It functions independent of the ground, so a Mech can use the gyro to hold its position in air and space, and even use it to reorient its position by creative use of the weight-throwing method, it would make a Mech in open vacuum still just as hard to hit and damage as it would on the ground.

The fairness aspect comes from the same tonnage cockpit of an ASF and A Mech having the same cpu space dedicated to two different things.  I imagine that there's room for long distance navigation upgrades and flight control for the LAM, but probably not so much given to BVR targeting and tracking, except maybe for ordinance add-ons through hard points.

I really want to try this out, to see if it helps or overpowers.  If anyone wants to try it out, let me know how it goes.

The ultimate idea is that other ASFs may be fast, but speed doesn't matter if they have to come to you to shoot you down.

[RifleMech]

[casts thread necromancy]

I stepped away from this mostly due to other things taking up my time, but I am still interested in some of this.

First off -

Let's summarize the Hex sizes for each map size:
Ground = 30m
Low Altitude = 500m (0.5km)
High Altitude/Space = 36,000m (18km)

17 hexes x 30 gets you 510m.  And, 17 hexes happens to be the basic single map sheet size for a BattleTech Map. That's where she's getting 17 from. 
It just so happens that two low-alt maps of 17 hexes each (technically 17.5, since there's a middle row unaccounted for when you set them up) adds up to 34 or 35.  Being 510 meters per map, that gets you very close to 18 km.  I bet they rounded up for fudgibility's sake.

Thanks. Thanks to a thread in the aerospace forums we do have a slightly better understanding of Aerospace Speeds. Their being able to go twice their Safe Thrust is a good thing to know. Trying to figure out higher altitudes though...haven't gotten there yet. Or velocities.

Now -

Fighters!

If I have proposed it already, I still stand by the idea.  If I haven't, well, here it is.

AirMechs in fighter mode should be treated as ground units for targeting purposes only.  Conversely, to be fair, they can only target like ground units except for ordinance.

You mean LAMs in fighter mode?

How does that work?  Remember that ASF units can only make strafing runs against ground units on a ground map.  That means the ranges that get while being airborne, against other airborne units, are lost against ground units, since they have to enter the hex (map) that the ground unit occupies. 

Actually, they can strike and bomb targets as well as strafe them on the low altitude map.

(Special note: this is actually good for VToLs, since they can go up to elevations that put them in different Low Altitude levels, but aren't allowed to move and interact with ASFs at Low Altitude values.  Probably because they don't have thrust/overthrust ratings.  Gives me an idea for an Airwolf style VToL/ASF.)

Because of that restriction, ASFs cannot target a VToL or AirMech at ranges to which it can normally target other ASFs.  It has to get into the target's hex and effectively dog-fight them or make a pass. It doesn't matter if they're at elevation 50, putting the VToL or LAM at par with the ASF's current low-altitude elevation.

I wish that VTOLs could dogfight with aerospace units but according to the rules they are never above aerospace units even if they are higher. I disagree with it and use older rules that allow it but legal game rules says no.

I suggest that even LAMs in Fighter mode get treated the same way.  Not only in atmo, but in space, too.

They have the thrust/overthrust to move around at space/high altitude and low altitude, but they can only engage and be engaged in a dog-fight fashion by entering the hex they occupy.  The only way a LAM can get around this would be with limited external ordinance, or so I recommend.

This way, speed and being outranged doesn't matter.

I suggest that capital weapons, like from warships, can still target them as if they're trying to do ground bombardment, and misses should track drift distance to see if the shot still splashes a targeted unit. Direction is unnecessary, just how many hexes away it scattered.

So a LAM in Fighter Mode should be treated like a ground unit?

Why would this be possible? 
It comes down to two things.  One is an inbuilt piece of equipment not found on pretty much any other aerospace unit.  The other is a particular point of view on the defensive capabilities and programs put into Mechs and other ground units.

Point of view - The verbiage that a missed shot isn't actually a failure to connect with the target, but rather a failure to connect in a way that causes hit point damage on the sheet.  Kinda how the creators of D&D described attacks working with the armor being the large determining factor if a hit caused damage.  (Interesting read. You should research it if you can.)  How does that work in BattleTech?  For me, it's mostly programming in the machines which use mobility along with the nature of the armor to turn hits into glancing, harmless shots.  This seems to be a function that only applies to ground units, who have the cpu space dedicated to a lot of this.

There are rules for glancing blows in Tactical Ops. I don't think it has anything to do with the targets CPU as to the accuracy of the shooter.

Key item - The Gyro.  As I've stated earlier, the Mech gyro is heavy, and not just for survivability.  I actually imagine it functions as a series of giant fly-wheels with shoe-brakes on each one, allowing the Mech to throw its weight around in ways that even we humans can't.  This is what keeps them from having to make a PSR with each weapon shot or hit, instead of only when sustaining 20+ points of damage while on the ground.

It functions independent of the ground, so a Mech can use the gyro to hold its position in air and space, and even use it to reorient its position by creative use of the weight-throwing method, it would make a Mech in open vacuum still just as hard to hit and damage as it would on the ground.

I can kind of see using the gyro to make a LAM more agile in space but isn't the gyro to keep the mech more stable?

The fairness aspect comes from the same tonnage cockpit of an ASF and A Mech having the same cpu space dedicated to two different things.  I imagine that there's room for long distance navigation upgrades and flight control for the LAM, but probably not so much given to BVR targeting and tracking, except maybe for ordinance add-ons through hard points.

I think the LAM gained the long distance navigation with the 3 Avionics crits it gained. Of course I've yet to understand how the same weapon can have such vastly different ranges depending on what unit it's on.

BVR targeting and tracking?

[Daemion]

BVR targeting and tracking?

Beyond Visual Range.  Most space engagements outside one hex (18 km) are beyond visual range.

As for altitude values, they have those in Total Warfare, as well as AT2.  Would you like me to PM those values?

[Daemion]

So a LAM in Fighter Mode should be treated like a ground unit?
...

There are rules for glancing blows in Tactical Ops. I don't think it has anything to do with the targets CPU as to the accuracy of the shooter.
...

I can kind of see using the gyro to make a LAM more agile in space but isn't the gyro to keep the mech more stable?
...

I think the LAM gained the long distance navigation with the 3 Avionics crits it gained. Of course I've yet to understand how the same weapon can have such vastly different ranges depending on what unit it's on.

All of this is related so I'll tackle it all at once. 

Yes.  I am suggesting that you treat LAM fighters in fighter mode as ground units for targeting.  I'm also suggesting it can be simplified to you have to engage them in a dogfight, instead of focusing on strafing or strike attacks.

But, I'm only making this suggestion for folks who can get behind the notion that the target unit takes some pre-programmed, automated defensive maneuvers while taking fire.  If you can't, then it doesn't work thematically as you see BattleTech's tech working.

Regardless of whether the target is doing anything or not, a weapon's performance is largely based on Fire Control.  I'm imagining something far more CPU and programing driven, though there may be structural elements to it.  I never really thought of BT Fire Control (FC) as iron-sights, dead-stick style of targeting. Combine Sensor Crit damage with the fact that Lasers are near instantaneous weapons that shouldn't miss.

I honestly think that ground units should be able to fire at low- and high-altitude ranges when engaging air targets.  They decided against that in the current set of rules, though.  AT2 never really tackled it, so it's possible to infer room for that kind of thing in prior rule-sets, in the form of house rules.

However, under the current rules paradigm, this would seem to fit, as long as you're accepting of a conceptual In-Universe theme.

And under that jinky theme, there's a defensive maneuver aspect.  While the gyro is largely there to stabilize the Mech, I largely think that it can be used creatively for defensive maneuvers.  People ask about how a Mech could jink while running. Gyro.  If it can be attributed to that, then it can do the same for units in space.  I imagine the LAM developers would have been aware of this and worked with it when designing the AirMech and Fighter modes of the LAM.

So, it was just a suggestion.  Take it or leave it.

[RifleMech]

Beyond Visual Range.  Most space engagements outside one hex (18 km) are beyond visual range.

As for altitude values, they have those in Total Warfare, as well as AT2.  Would you like me to PM those values?

Ah.  Thanks.

Sure. Thanks.

All of this is related so I'll tackle it all at once. 

Yes.  I am suggesting that you treat LAM fighters in fighter mode as ground units for targeting.  I'm also suggesting it can be simplified to you have to engage them in a dogfight, instead of focusing on strafing or strike attacks.

But, I'm only making this suggestion for folks who can get behind the notion that the target unit takes some pre-programmed, automated defensive maneuvers while taking fire.  If you can't, then it doesn't work thematically as you see BattleTech's tech working.

Like a drone?

But wouldn't a unit taking control out of the pilot's hands be a bad thing?

Regardless of whether the target is doing anything or not, a weapon's performance is largely based on Fire Control.  I'm imagining something far more CPU and programing driven, though there may be structural elements to it.  I never really thought of BT Fire Control (FC) as iron-sights, dead-stick style of targeting. Combine Sensor Crit damage with the fact that Lasers are near instantaneous weapons that shouldn't miss.

I don't think iron sites are just iron sites. Movement of the the body, even breath can change the aim.

I honestly think that ground units should be able to fire at low- and high-altitude ranges when engaging air targets.  They decided against that in the current set of rules, though.  AT2 never really tackled it, so it's possible to infer room for that kind of thing in prior rule-sets, in the form of house rules.

However, under the current rules paradigm, this would seem to fit, as long as you're accepting of a conceptual In-Universe theme.

I do to. I'd still have to look up some rules to check for attacks against high altitude units. I can see some weapon limits on that. Its latest version that changes AS vs VTOL combat. It's really bizarre.

And under that jinky theme, there's a defensive maneuver aspect.  While the gyro is largely there to stabilize the Mech, I largely think that it can be used creatively for defensive maneuvers.  People ask about how a Mech could jink while running. Gyro.  If it can be attributed to that, then it can do the same for units in space.  I imagine the LAM developers would have been aware of this and worked with it when designing the AirMech and Fighter modes of the LAM.

So, it was just a suggestion.  Take it or leave it.

I can sort of see the gyro doing that or maybe being turned off so the LAM is more unstable and thus more maneuverable.

[Daemion]

Like a drone?

But wouldn't a unit taking control out of the pilot's hands be a bad thing?

I don't think iron sites are just iron sites. Movement of the the body, even breath can change the aim.

Think of the auto-aim feature in video games.  Without it, your shot will go where you point it.  With it on, your in-game character/avatar homes in on the target with more precision, and you can simply pull the trigger when you're close enough to hit.

Besides, BVR combat is all outside the pilot's control.  He can line up the shot in only the most general of ways.  It's up to the Fire Control computers to do the rest.  This is even true of combat tanks today.  They have computer assisted aiming that gives them the accuracy that tread-heads are proud of. 

Secondly, when you can't see the shot incoming, how are you going to react to it? Unless you have a computer reading the sensors and at least giving you a warning, you can't.  Combine that with most BattleTech weapons being FTL or very near it, and your reaction time won't be fast enough, anyway.

So, yeah.  In a lot of ways, it's better for the mount to do the actual hard work, and the pilot/Knight to merely guide it where to go, and who to fire at.

And, by the time of the first Mech, we've had roughly 500 years of nearly unchecked tech progression.  Stuff like that would be rather trivial, at that point.

The future battlefield is almost here, and it will be very scary when it finally arrives.

[RifleMech]

Think of the auto-aim feature in video games.  Without it, your shot will go where you point it.  With it on, your in-game character/avatar homes in on the target with more precision, and you can simply pull the trigger when you're close enough to hit.

Besides, BVR combat is all outside the pilot's control.  He can line up the shot in only the most general of ways.  It's up to the Fire Control computers to do the rest.  This is even true of combat tanks today.  They have computer assisted aiming that gives them the accuracy that tread-heads are proud of. 

Secondly, when you can't see the shot incoming, how are you going to react to it? Unless you have a computer reading the sensors and at least giving you a warning, you can't.  Combine that with most BattleTech weapons being FTL or very near it, and your reaction time won't be fast enough, anyway.

So, yeah.  In a lot of ways, it's better for the mount to do the actual hard work, and the pilot/Knight to merely guide it where to go, and who to fire at.

And, by the time of the first Mech, we've had roughly 500 years of nearly unchecked tech progression.  Stuff like that would be rather trivial, at that point.

The future battlefield is almost here, and it will be very scary when it finally arrives.

I get all this. LAMs in fighter mode would have it. They'd have BVR targeting. I would think that most  modern aircraft have sensors to warn if they've been targeted. I don't understand the change in ranges though. I can see some increase do to elevation but otherwise the ranges should be the same. Its like ground combat is SciFi and aerospace combat is science.

[Daemion]

Ground Combat is SciFant (Science Fantasy).  Space and air combat is hard Sci-fi.

[RifleMech]

Exactly and that's where things break down. Weapon ranges shouldn't just change because of what the weapon is mounted on or what mode thubi 6in. And VTOLs should be capable of engaging in dogfights with aircraft. Not every aerospace unit travels at mach speeds. Some are slow enough as toi using MP.