Fighter of the Week, Issue #016 (repost) - Hydaspes

[BATTLEMASTER]

I've faced these regularly in a MekHQ campaign playing as Clan Smoke Jaguar against Clan Coyote in 3020.  These fighters are very tough.  I feel they can outfight anything, even the Kirghiz, just because of their ability to outlast anything smaller than a dropship.  The quickest way to bring one of these down is to throw capital missiles at it!

[beachhead1985]

I'd really like to see a Hydaspes mech-scale mini.

[Sjhernan3060]

I've faced these regularly in a MekHQ campaign playing as Clan Smoke Jaguar against Clan Coyote in 3020.  These fighters are very tough.  I feel they can outfight anything, even the Kirghiz, just because of their ability to outlast anything smaller than a dropship.  The quickest way to bring one of these down is to throw capital missiles at it!

As a clan fire mandrill aero focused collector would this be a high priority asset for them in lieu of assault dropships?

[BATTLEMASTER]

As a clan fire mandrill aero focused collector would this be a high priority asset for them in lieu of assault dropships?

I'd have assault dropships with points of Hydaspes on them  >:D

The more I think about it, the more I think the Hydaspes was really designed to work with the existing aerospace rules.  It's really a fighter that was actually designed right.  Like how there's a smart armor doctrine for 'mechs, I think the Hydaspes gets it right for aerospace fighters.  The rest of the canon fighters simply weren't designed right in the armor department.  I think part of that problem was the conversion from Aerotech to Aerotech 2 - IIRC aerospace units all had internal structure points for individual locations and not a single SI value.

I think most canon fighters mount only about 1/3-1/2 their maximum armor, making them a bunch of flying Shadowhawk 2Ds or Hellbringers.

[Sjhernan3060]

I'd have assault dropships with points of Hydaspes on them  >:D

The more I think about it, the more I think the Hydaspes was really designed to work with the existing aerospace rules.  It's really a fighter that was actually designed right.  Like how there's a smart armor doctrine for 'mechs, I think the Hydaspes gets it right for aerospace fighters.  The rest of the canon fighters simply weren't designed right in the armor department.  I think part of that problem was the conversion from Aerotech to Aerotech 2 - IIRC aerospace units all had internal structure points for individual locations and not a single SI value.

I think most canon fighters mount only about 1/3-1/2 their maximum armor, making them a bunch of flying Shadowhawk 2Ds or Hellbringers.

That’s very helpful info thanks! A follow up: would two of these beasts go in as a point and be covered by lighter more flexible star mates?

[BATTLEMASTER]

That would probably be a good idea under standard space rules and atmospheric/ground map rules due to their low thrust curve.  If using Newtonian movement in space I don't think it makes as much of a difference unless you really want to keep the unit from flying off the space map.

[Hellraiser]

I think most canon fighters mount only about 1/3-1/2 their maximum armor, making them a bunch of flying Shadowhawk 2Ds or Hellbringers.

I don't think they were designed that way though. 
Most are fine if you have the same tonnage in armor on a mech of the same size.
SparrowHawk mounts what 7.5 tons on a 30 ton frame?  That's more than a mech of that size.
IIRC Fighters didn't have a Maximum Armor till TW.
Which would have been fine but you have this oddball from back in the day, Lucifer-20?, that had INSANE armor for its size.
So when they came up with rules for Max Armor they had to account for that one ship.
Which now means everything else is "low armor" but its not really.
If a ship is mounting 10-13 tons of armor at 65 tons then its right in line with a Catapult/Thunderbolt.
No one expects a design to turn around and mount 20 tons of armor on a 65 ton frame.
The Luci only pulled that off by being VERY slow for its size & also under gunned.

[Scotty]

Aerospace maximum armor is insane and is not at all a benchmark that I'd use as a good description of relative armor.  A fighter that mounts maximum armor is giving up so much for that ability that it's going to be at a significant disadvantage against anything in its own class.

[BATTLEMASTER]

At the same time, thresholding is a real killer against aerospace units and almost none of the higher-end mediums or any heavies can resist a thresholding from a large laser in any location but the nose.  I've found that to truly outfight the opponent in an aero vs aero game is to get enough armor to avoid threshold crits.  I don't think the cost in weapons is too great for a unit that heavily armored.

The Hydaspes is a great example of this because it can outlast a Kirghiz despite not having as much gun as that heavy omnifighter.

[Hellraiser]

If your trying to avoid a LL in 3 locations your talking about a LOT of armor.
That's 13+ Tons just for 3 locations.  Figure 16 total to be safe.
You can't expect that on a 50 ton fighter.

My issue is when Mediums can't take a Medium Laser on the Wings/Rear.
Even LL/Front + ML/Rest is still 12.5 tons minimum.  That's armor for a 60 ton mech!

You need 9 tons exactly to have 3 ML & 1 SL(Rear), try doing that on a 20 ton fighter.

[Sabelkatten]

A reasonable amount of armor on a "classic" 6/9 50-tonner with 5 tons of fuel is 21 tons (some reservations for specific weapons loads). That's just the way AT2 works. As long as your weapon load is reduced by less % than your armor % is increased it's the optimal choice.

The main rules reason for AT1 fighters low armor (not counting "the designer hated the pilots") is that the AT1 hit tables made the vehicle hit tables look friendly. Making a "brick" was pointless, it would just end up with no weapons or thrusters left.

[Hellraiser]

A reasonable amount of armor on a "classic" 6/9 50-tonner with 5 tons of fuel is 21 tons (some reservations for specific weapons loads). That's just the way AT2 works. As long as your weapon load is reduced by less % than your armor % is increased it's the optimal choice.

The main rules reason for AT1 fighters low armor (not counting "the designer hated the pilots") is that the AT1 hit tables made the vehicle hit tables look friendly. Making a "brick" was pointless, it would just end up with no weapons or thrusters left.

Given a classic 50-tonner is armed w/ multiple Large Lasers or an AC20 that leaves exactly 0 room for HS to fire them or added weapons.

Not to mention, what is your goal?  21 Tons of armor is enough to stop LL in every location & PPC in 2 of them.

That kind of armor is useful if your target is enemy DS I guess, but, you won't be packing much firepower outside of Medium Lasers.

[Scotty]

At that point your goal pretty much has to be engaging dropships.  The amount of armor you have is nigh-on irrelevant past the ability to not instantly die when stuck against ground targets.  Having 80%+ armor coverage will not help you pass a lawn dart check

[BATTLEMASTER]

Having 80%+ armor coverage will not help you pass a lawn dart check

It might help you survive a failed lawn dart check  ;D

[Scotty]

X

(I am pressing X to doubt)

[Sabelkatten]

Given a classic 50-tonner is armed w/ multiple Large Lasers or an AC20 that leaves exactly 0 room for HS to fire them or added weapons.

Not to mention, what is your goal?  21 Tons of armor is enough to stop LL in every location & PPC in 2 of them.

That kind of armor is useful if your target is enemy DS I guess, but, you won't be packing much firepower outside of Medium Lasers.

Math.

Give fighter #1 6MLs, 18 SHS, 19.5 tons armor. Give fighter #2 8 ML, 24 SHS, 11.5 tons armor. The exact armament doesn't matter, MLs are just an easy example.

#1 has 75% the firepower, but 1/59% of the protection. In a straight shoot-out #1 will have about 20% of its armor left when #2 dies. And due to the lack of terrain aerospace combats are mostly straight shoot-outs.

[BATTLEMASTER]

I still believe threshold crits are the key to winning aerospace fights.  In my Hydaspes vs Kirghiz example, my Kirghiz weren't outright destroyed right away, but the Hydaspes was able to cause enough threshold crits in one or two turns to cripple the Kirghiz' fighting capability.  The Kirghiz couldn't do the same against the Hydaspes. 

And I was using a custom Kirghiz configuration with predominately ER PPCs and Gauss, which could threshold every location on the Hydaspes, but it didn't put out the same number of threshold crits that the Hydaspes could deal to the Kirghiz.  The Hydaspes' armament can threshold the Kirghiz anywhere too, but with 9+ chances instead of the 4 or 5 my custom Kirghiz could do.

[Weirdo]

X

(I am pressing X to doubt)

If a Corsair can do it(and it can), the hypothetical die-cast bricks being discussed can.

[Hellraiser]

The exact armament doesn't matter, MLs are just an easy example.

That is EXACTLY why the Armament DOES matter.
The only platform this works for is a ML boat.
That was my point.
Try upping the Armor of a Double LL Corsair or an AC20 Toting Transit/Lightning.
It can't be done with any "diverse" weapon selection of that can actually Threshold the enemy back.
Your examples are why customs are disallowed at many table, because no one wants to face nothing but the "Jumping ML Spamboat" collection.  (Insert ASF for Jumping Mech)
Shooting outside 9 hexes, having big hole puncher guns, &/or, Point Defense w/ Small Lasers/MGs are all viable combat options that your removing by turning everything into a 100% Armor boat.

[Scotty]

It is effectively impossible to armor a fighter well enough to *not* be thresholded by big guns, and there absolutely is a point of diminishing returns on armor.  Exactly where on that line you fall is subjective, but much like statistics it's very easy to make the math here support whatever viewpoint you want, especially if the math is looking at some of the most efficient damage dealing weapons in the game during a comparison of total amount of armor.

[BATTLEMASTER]

I think medium lasers (and Clan ER medium lasers when playing that era) are the bare minimum threshold protection for higher-end medium fighters and heavy fighters needs to stop.  Protecting from large laser thresholding I'd regularly expect from heavy fighters.  The Hydaspes easily passes that test.

[Sabelkatten]

That is EXACTLY why the Armament DOES matter.
The only platform this works for is a ML boat.
That was my point.
Try upping the Armor of a Double LL Corsair or an AC20 Toting Transit/Lightning.
It can't be done with any "diverse" weapon selection of that can actually Threshold the enemy back.
Your examples are why customs are disallowed at many table, because no one wants to face nothing but the "Jumping ML Spamboat" collection.  (Insert ASF for Jumping Mech)
Shooting outside 9 hexes, having big hole puncher guns, &/or, Point Defense w/ Small Lasers/MGs are all viable combat options that your removing by turning everything into a 100% Armor boat.

You're completely missing the point.

Of course fitting 16 tons of armament in 12 tons won't work. That should be rather obvious. If you want a Corsair's armament and good armor you need a larger hull.

If you want to optimize the Corsair you drop weapons and heat sinks until you get a good amount of armor. Drop some of the lighter lasers, most of the extra SHS, swap the LLs for a single PPC.

And the biggest point you're completely missing: The problem is that the rules are bad. If you really want to win you get the best-armored fighters available, forcing people to use less effective craft is just a band-aid.

[Sabelkatten]

It is effectively impossible to armor a fighter well enough to *not* be thresholded by big guns, and there absolutely is a point of diminishing returns on armor.  Exactly where on that line you fall is subjective, but much like statistics it's very easy to make the math here support whatever viewpoint you want, especially if the math is looking at some of the most efficient damage dealing weapons in the game during a comparison of total amount of armor.

How so? It's completely doable to proof a medium fighter to PPCs, a heavy to GRs, or an assault to AC/20s.

And even worse, due to the threshold rule fighter armor doesn't have a point of diminishing returns, it has a point of increasing returns - when you have enough armor not to suffer TACs.

2xPPC and not PPC-proof armor will get absolutely trashed by a 1xPPC with 2.5x the armor that is also PPC-proof.

The point it fails is if you can't proof your fighter against the most common enemy weapons. But that is usually 5-point hits, so it's generally only applicable to the lightest fighters.

[Weirdo]

This is well past the point that it needs to be taken to Fan Designs. Please take it there. C:-)

[BATTLEMASTER]

This is well past the point that it needs to be taken to Fan Designs. Please take it there. C:-)

I started a thread over there :thumbsup:

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/aerospace/inner-sphere-aerospace-fighters-armored-sensibly/