How much armor for a VTOL

[Cannonshop]

That's... what I never expect, and I thought totally opposite about him. Consider he very, very dislikes yellow jacket, it feels like almost out of the blue that he don't bother for send some cannon fodder and/or spamming weak dudes. I just can't believe this that he wasn't actually.

There's smart attrition, and there's dumb attrition, PPLP.  With 'smart' Attrition, you Expect to lose units, but you don't actively court losses, your units are there to do damage, but if they're only good for one or two shots, then you're going to lose, especially if they are easily out maneuvered or unable to expose and exploit opportunities. 

The YJ (*at least, the base model form without the hyperexpensive advanced tech XL or XXL engine) doesn't really allow for that, and similar VTOLs suffer the same problem-they're often too slow to get into a useful position and stay there without being shot down,

This is because I'm a mobility and pressure player, rather than a static duellist   Every unit I have that can move is likely to move every turn they can move.  Hence my dislike of assault class vehicles-when you move a 3/5 or 2/3 tank it often loses the ability to hit, while not gaining enough defensive movement to justify the effort.  Worse still, where terrain is involved, slow ground vehicles become nearly paralyzed on relatively mild terrain such as rolling hills.

With VTOL units, it's about getting to a position where your fire is more effective, and being able to move to keep it effective, or to evade counter-fire because counter fire will be coming.

The heavier your fire from a light unit, the more enemy fire will be incoming and I like to have more than 1-3 turns for something to be useful....(this is human nature, people will tend to favor easy targets they can kill quickly over hard targets that take effort, and if that easier target is also a very threatening target...) but I also accept in my planning and dispositions that I'll experience losses, and have to plan around that fact.

do you see the difference?

Effective attrition is "I accept I'm going to lose units, but I want to make them expensive for the other side" versus Stupid attrition which is "Let's put a bomb/boobtrap/suicide device on this because losses don't matter".

Shots that hit, after all, are the only shots that do damage (other than artillery splash), so hitting is actually kind of important, more important, even, than how much damage youj're doing on the other end.  a 15 or 20 point whack that consistently rolls 4 (or 5) plus 2 for flanking plus four for range mod-that's 10 before the other guy's even moved, and if you're peaking at 3 but the other guy MAYBE walked with slightly better range bands (LRM ranges, say, or an AC/2) and he only needs between 7 and 9?  well, the bell curve on 2D6 means most rolls put squarely in the 7 to 9 range.

Meaning that BIG gun (say, a Yasha's AC/20 or Yellowjacket's Gauss rifle) is likely to miss, while that slow airframe, even pushing in straight lines, is very likely to be hit by something that will, at least, do SOME damage.

Damage done, counts, damage that 'almost makes it' doesn't.

Worse still, if you're using book designs, your Yellowjacket is LIKELY to need to flank all the time just to get into and STAY IN a position to shoot.  this is less of an issue with the Hawk MOth because it turns out those 2 MP actually DO matter for getting the gun laid on a target.  (I wo't go into Turrets on VTOLs as not only is the implementation clunky, but we don't have much if any useful examples of them in the canon as published designs.  Presumably if you have the free mass it's not a bad investment, but that's also the rub-what are you sacrificing for the turret system to gain that extra hit location that if destroyed destroys the vehicle?  Would this application work better as a Hovertank, or WiGE, or even wheeled vehicle?)

Devian talks about fielding 15-25 Ferrets, and I wouldn't do that.  I see Ferrets in two roles: 1. as transports for squads of infantry (using the correct variant), or 2. as spotters for indirect fire or spotters for double blind play.

I don't do 'zerg rushes' because they rarely work the way they look like they will in theory.  (I've only seen a Savannahswarm work once, and that was against a new player in a tonnage-balanced game.)

[Cannonshop]

Yeah, you can kind of see how cannonshop and I disagree.  I go into the math a lot... you see in my post above it was full of hit location spreads, critical hit analysis and basing armor on living long enough based on expected damage clusters and weapon types.

When I play ranked play matches, its 6k-10k BV, and its 6 units max per player, with max 2 of a unit.  I also balk at more then 2 paper mapsheets, as I want games done quick, and only use bigger maps on megamek.
When I play campaigns, for multiple players its a 1 mech per person only, and for fewer then 4 players they get a max of 4 units on the table versus op for at any one time.  A vehicle with low armor, relying on the big VTOL TMM, will kill the PC when it is hit, so I am greatly against those kinds of vtols for PCs.  The player surviving and gaining XP is a big deal, so big armored VTOLs that hang back instead of fast flankers is critical.  I have much more success with players in yellow jacket snipers then glass cannons, unless I am going out of my way to never target the high TMM vtol and just allowing that player to do whatever to the opfor so I dont kill their unit.
My last used Vtol was the 112 armor Crane, with 4 side mounted Mguns and an 8/12 speed.  It was fantastic, doing everything I needed.

Cannonshop has his own setup.  Like he said he doesnt like slow turret tech, and isnt afraid to lose some of his units.  Youd have to ask him what his duplicate unit/unit count/BV/map size/ect is for matched play, but im guessing its higher then 6 units.  Right off the bat if I could take 20 Ferrets with mguns I would.  Those 15/23 buggers are darned effective if you allow someone to bring that many of them, and 20 of them only costs 1160 BV.  They are why we limit to 6 units, with only 2 of any chassis.

So that swings back to my math.  I come at it from a point of view that the unit isnt disposable, even as an init sink, as we play with only a few units.  Mission objectives also usually involve surviving, so tougher vtols are much more valuable then disposable ones since I cant field 15 units or whatever. 

Regardless of play style difference, the math should be useful at showing what level of armor will let you live to see the unit killed by TACs/Rotor hits, and how many hits it takes to remove a rotor or get a side TAC, versus running out of armor early like when a warrior takes a single 10 point hit anywhere but the rotor.

Your statement on map selection tells a lot here, I won't willingly TAKE Vtols on less than 2x2, because their capabilities are effectively useless on a postage-stamp map.  (Likewise for the bulk of light 'mechs, esp. fast ones, or quick heavies).

You limit to 6 on a side, that predetermines what you're taking, really, and really predecides what you're likely to face within your BV limitation.

Under those conditions, a VTOL's worth is less than a ground vehicle that can saok damage to the Motive in a Parked pose (something that doesn't work w/ Vtols) while your heavies do the lifting.

VTOL movement and units, are best used in two types of scenarios, IMHO (MY OPINION, not as universal fact!!). 

1. Double blind with lots of territory.  Getting eyes out, finding enemy in cluttered terrain to direct other forces at them,

2. striking vulnerable weak points and arranging angling shots to disrupt the other guy's plans.  this means terrain that's cluttered as hell (Urban) or extensive, or both.

Basically light 'mech roles with a third dimension, though there's a fourth if you're using full combined arms and either BA or squad deployment with infantry and that's transport.

but you don't really need it and it doesn't have a lot more use than something wheeled or tracked on a postage-stamp map.

When I have the luxury of choosing units, I ALWAYS begin with "What am I going to use this for?"

Usually followed by "can I use something cheaper for the same job and get equal or better results?"  (Or, even "do I actually NEED six units?")

sometimes this means the VTOL minis stay in the plastic boxes, and I pull out something like Strikers or Hunters instead, there are even times when a Scorpion or Vedette are a better option.

particularly under numbers limits like you prefer.  a TANK with good enough gunny on a postage stamp map is often FAR more useful than a mediocre or even GOOD pilot in a Yellowjacket.

Particularly if "You leave the map you left the game".   Typically, a two map game with unit restrictions you might as well have the organizers assign your units to you.

For Duplicate units??  I use numbers.

Patton 1, Patton 2, Patton 3, etc.  When I was regularly doing Gamestore games I even had little flags fastened to the hex bases so that it was easy to keep track of which unit was doing what, and it was easy enough to keep track of it that way.

but then again, we often had to use proxies and if the proxy wasn't labeled? that became a problem.

so I tend to favor proper labeling over hoping my opponent knows what all the thousands of different 'mech sculpts are by sight.

this isn't, after all, WH40K$.

When using Paper or cardstocks, flagging is MORE important because sometimes it's the oniy real identifier the other players get.

[Retry]

Very much depends on the use case.  If you're strictly doing BV balanced games on small maps, the Yellow Jacket's poor speed is not quite as big of a hinderance, and its BV efficiency is significantly more important.  If you're doing less symmetrical campaigns, the Yellow Jacket's speed is a much bigger issue: It slows down VTOL formations on the strategic scale if you field them with other VTOLs, and if you have them as a separate formation from other VTOLs it makes them more vulnerable to intercept.

If you're stuck on a single mapsheet on the tactical map then speed in general is going to be a tad underutilized, simply because the field is so claustrophobic.  Two mapsheets is a bit better, but still fairly cramped.  Four mapsheets and up really lets you spread your wings a little, but this is often difficult to do when playing on a real tabletop; computer assisted makes it much easier (especially when you live in different timezones...)

Similar story with Double Blind: Bit of a nightmare on tabletop, but computer assisted makes that rule far simpler and gives another dimension to the game.

[DevianID]

Going back to how much armor for the OP, something nasty like a Red Kite has only 62 armor.  The turret is amazing, the speed is great, the weapons are great.  But that 62 armor (Not including it turret its only 46) is so low, you can only take hits from 1 damage LBX fire a few times.  SRMs, or infernos to the side, or even a few medium lasers will kill the vtol through the armor.  For 835 BV, it would be better served with less ammo or 1 less gun and better armor.

Since I have the above limitation of 6 units, each unit is replacing a potential mech.  So something with 46 armor on the main frame is worse then a dasher in terms of survivability.  Now on the init sink vtols like the ferret or sprint, who dont see combat, then yeah I suppose you dont need armor if the goal is to spot in double blind from far away.  But if its something like a Mantis, that weak armor of only 40 points means you die to a single 10 point hit in the flank.  The mantis isnt a bad vtol, seeing how many vtols have even less then 40 armor, but its a liability in combat when flak/precision AC ammo and large pulse lasers/targeting computers are around providing accurate ground fire.  Sending it in for a small laser strike means risking its death, though you can play it as an expensive init sink like a ferret and only commit it versus exposed enemies who cant shoot back. 
With something longer ranged, you can kinda get away with less armor by using ranged sniping, which is the only reason the yellow jacket at a mere 56 armor gets a pass... its armor is good at trading long ranged gauss attacks versus ground based gauss platforms efficiently for the BV, and it can shoot outside of LB10x range.

[Cannonshop]

Going back to how much armor for the OP, something nasty like a Red Kite has only 62 armor.  The turret is amazing, the speed is great, the weapons are great.  But that 62 armor (Not including it turret its only 46) is so low, you can only take hits from 1 damage LBX fire a few times.  SRMs, or infernos to the side, or even a few medium lasers will kill the vtol through the armor.  For 835 BV, it would be better served with less ammo or 1 less gun and better armor.

Since I have the above limitation of 6 units, each unit is replacing a potential mech.  So something with 46 armor on the main frame is worse then a dasher in terms of survivability.  Now on the init sink vtols like the ferret or sprint, who dont see combat, then yeah I suppose you dont need armor if the goal is to spot in double blind from far away.  But if its something like a Mantis, that weak armor of only 40 points means you die to a single 10 point hit in the flank.  The mantis isnt a bad vtol, seeing how many vtols have even less then 40 armor, but its a liability in combat when flak/precision AC ammo and large pulse lasers/targeting computers are around providing accurate ground fire.  Sending it in for a small laser strike means risking its death, though you can play it as an expensive init sink like a ferret and only commit it versus exposed enemies who cant shoot back. 
With something longer ranged, you can kinda get away with less armor by using ranged sniping, which is the only reason the yellow jacket at a mere 56 armor gets a pass... its armor is good at trading long ranged gauss attacks versus ground based gauss platforms efficiently for the BV, and it can shoot outside of LB10x range.

I find the Mantis is optimized for something OTHER than ground attack-it's a good unit for killing other VTOLs, and really I don't consider it much use for any other role.

With your habitual restrictions, Devian, I wouldn't TAKE a VTOL.  the advantages don't line up, not even for a Jellowbucket-there are other methods that, in my admittedly limited abilities, tend to work BETTER.

Did I mention I get bored quickly with static slugging fests?

The VTOL 'Problem' is that like most vehicles, your motive system is the biggest hit box you've got, means most incoming IS goig to the rotors, and unlike a Tank, losing those rotors means you don't even get to be a bunker.

a tank stalled on the hillside is still a bunker until the guns are silenced.  Infantry can move through terrain that stops everything else, and can fort up in buildings, making up for their speed and firepowere deficiency and the sheer number of ways they can die if you have friendly terrain.  There IS NO friendly terrain for a VTOL.  With something slow in campaign, you want to be close to the ground, because you're going to be meeting it soon, and dead pilots don't advance.  (falling from L1 or L2 is very much more survivable than falling from L5 to L11.)

In a phone booth map with limited force sizes, it's better to go with optimizing an average or even below-numbers force of 'mechs, than taking a VTOL of any sort-as I've said before, a force optimized to make a Yellowjacket (or similar slow moving VTOL) useful, is generally better off without that VTOL than with it-you can buy better P/G skills, or run better 'mech designs that make its single trick Irrelevant.


Four or five 'mechs within your imposed BV limit works better than having something like a Yellowjacket on the roster.

This is really because Combined Arms is more of a battle than a Duel.  The rules you laid out? those are duelist rules, and nothing duels as well as 'mechs.

With VTOLs and other niche units, those are Campaign/Battle play, asymmetric and wide ranging because movement and objectives matter more than body count, and you can actually WIN a campaign battle or scenario without needing to rely on killing everything else on the map.

They're for VICTORY CONDITIONS fights.

but they don't really work particularly well in YOUR style of play (based on my observations) either-beaus as I said, slow VTOLs are something that you have to build your whole force around to make them useful, and at that point, you find out that force you just built, works better if you don't take the slow VTOL.

Try it, make the direct comparison, then reverse the armies and play against it with someone who really wants to win.  (Not Princess).  I suspect you'll find whatever grouping you're using with your slow VTOLs? works even BETTR if you put that point value into Piloting or Gunnery, specialist munitions, or better configurations.

(I've 'initiative sunk' with FEWER units before, initiative sinking is nothing more or less than allocating your units to your best advantage and having a plan, even with the 'stock' initiative order.)

Some design philosophies, in MY experience, are points-legal and not very useful.  IOW it's possible to build something that just...isnt' an asset without HEAVY handed restrictions on the scenario expressly built for the most part to make such units somewhat useful.

but again, that's MY experiences, and clearly not yours.  It would be interesting to see what the difference is on the table in a head to head, or better, to see it tested out by people who don't habitually roll 2's and 3's more often than 8's and 9's.  (I lose initiatives so often I had to develop tactics to DEAL WITH losing initiative on a constant basis.  Part of my 'constant motion' is to force the other player to use his initiative advantage to REACT to me...instead of carrying out his own plans.)

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

There's smart attrition, and there's dumb attrition, PPLP.  With 'smart' Attrition, you Expect to lose units, but you don't actively court losses, your units are there to do damage, but if they're only good for one or two shots, then you're going to lose, especially if they are easily out maneuvered or unable to expose and exploit opportunities. 

The YJ (*at least, the base model form without the hyperexpensive advanced tech XL or XXL engine) doesn't really allow for that, and similar VTOLs suffer the same problem-they're often too slow to get into a useful position and stay there without being shot down,

This is because I'm a mobility and pressure player, rather than a static duellist   Every unit I have that can move is likely to move every turn they can move.  Hence my dislike of assault class vehicles-when you move a 3/5 or 2/3 tank it often loses the ability to hit, while not gaining enough defensive movement to justify the effort.  Worse still, where terrain is involved, slow ground vehicles become nearly paralyzed on relatively mild terrain such as rolling hills.

With VTOL units, it's about getting to a position where your fire is more effective, and being able to move to keep it effective, or to evade counter-fire because counter fire will be coming.

The heavier your fire from a light unit, the more enemy fire will be incoming and I like to have more than 1-3 turns for something to be useful....(this is human nature, people will tend to favor easy targets they can kill quickly over hard targets that take effort, and if that easier target is also a very threatening target...) but I also accept in my planning and dispositions that I'll experience losses, and have to plan around that fact.

do you see the difference?

Effective attrition is "I accept I'm going to lose units, but I want to make them expensive for the other side" versus Stupid attrition which is "Let's put a bomb/boobtrap/suicide device on this because losses don't matter".

Shots that hit, after all, are the only shots that do damage (other than artillery splash), so hitting is actually kind of important, more important, even, than how much damage youj're doing on the other end.  a 15 or 20 point whack that consistently rolls 4 (or 5) plus 2 for flanking plus four for range mod-that's 10 before the other guy's even moved, and if you're peaking at 3 but the other guy MAYBE walked with slightly better range bands (LRM ranges, say, or an AC/2) and he only needs between 7 and 9?  well, the bell curve on 2D6 means most rolls put squarely in the 7 to 9 range.

Meaning that BIG gun (say, a Yasha's AC/20 or Yellowjacket's Gauss rifle) is likely to miss, while that slow airframe, even pushing in straight lines, is very likely to be hit by something that will, at least, do SOME damage.

Damage done, counts, damage that 'almost makes it' doesn't.

Worse still, if you're using book designs, your Yellowjacket is LIKELY to need to flank all the time just to get into and STAY IN a position to shoot.  this is less of an issue with the Hawk MOth because it turns out those 2 MP actually DO matter for getting the gun laid on a target.  (I wo't go into Turrets on VTOLs as not only is the implementation clunky, but we don't have much if any useful examples of them in the canon as published designs.  Presumably if you have the free mass it's not a bad investment, but that's also the rub-what are you sacrificing for the turret system to gain that extra hit location that if destroyed destroys the vehicle?  Would this application work better as a Hovertank, or WiGE, or even wheeled vehicle?)

Devian talks about fielding 15-25 Ferrets, and I wouldn't do that.  I see Ferrets in two roles: 1. as transports for squads of infantry (using the correct variant), or 2. as spotters for indirect fire or spotters for double blind play.

I don't do 'zerg rushes' because they rarely work the way they look like they will in theory.  (I've only seen a Savannahswarm work once, and that was against a new player in a tonnage-balanced game.)

Well, if you throw away the snipers and special forces as the line infantry, they end up dying as the line infantry does, nothing more and without a gain(actually you will suffer a LOTS of loss for such a foolish decision). If the snipers and special forces are switched to the artillery units then I am dead sure that it's even worse, for snipers and special forces are at least supposed to be have decent skills in the infantry rifles. That's definitly the dumb attrition, of course. It is definitely not the smart attrition that throw away something like YJ to your frontline and hope that they will soak up the enemy bullets while advances, for example.

Perhaps some of they could be lost, but it should not because it is a cannon fodder, but the cheap asset that can be spammed and also disposable if needed, that could harrass the enemy afar, provide fire support, or at least punch back the long ranged threat and forcing the enemy to choose either aim the cheap YJ or aim the expensive assets while hammered by YJ freely.

The supposed position is an another problem. It can be on the frontline initially but required to be moves backward after the enemy is about to close, or you better put them on the backline of yours that could flank the enemy too if the enemy attempt to push through your line. In either ways those position ensures that it's not the easy target, so the opponents must spend too much costs to deal with such a cheap assets.

Even if the enemy striker team want to close in fast and aim for the YJ, their cheap cost assures that the enemy need to send their mobile force(which would be precious) just for deal with such a cheap assets, and it means those forces cannot aim for rest of your assets meanwhile. Not to mention that being airborne AND MP of 6 is not a joke, and it can move backward too, so even if exposed it's not the easy prey either. Remember, only the shots that hit are the only shots that do damage, and I suppose that you are well aware of this.

Well YJ is not the main topic, but there are even more. If you want to use a VTOL and expect it to be works other than the sniper role, then it should be faster than YJ. So it is required to have 7/11 MP as the minimum, and many of up to about 50 tonner could reach to the 10/15 without sacrifice much and have plenty of spare tonnage to plate it with near maximum armor points.

Then, what's the problem on plate it with maximum armor points? Rotor hits? Well, THAT's one of the important reason why you should plate it with more armor, actually, for each hit reduces the MP of a VTOL, thus each hit on the rotor makes the unit forcing lower to hit modifier against the enemy. I remember that around 1/3 hits will struck at rotor, so even a LB-10X will lands about 2 fragments on the rotor on a hit by average. Even if it's about 1/2 that would be about 3 fragments(Remember, the average value of the cluster table is about 2/3 of the maximum number). Even at worst, that means the heavy armored VTOL lures LB-X shots, and maybe down one or two at best, while the rest of VTOLs are freely harrass the enemy uninterrupted. Well, it seems not so bad, actually.


---------------

Besides will you explain why you blame me for what I did not claimed out of nothing?

[Cannonshop]

Well, if you throw away the snipers and special forces as the line infantry, they end up dying as the line infantry does, nothing more and without a gain(actually you will suffer a LOTS of loss for such a foolish decision). If the snipers and special forces are switched to the artillery units then I am dead sure that it's even worse, for snipers and special forces are at least supposed to be have decent skills in the infantry rifles. That's definitly the dumb attrition, of course. It is definitely not the smart attrition that throw away something like YJ to your frontline and hope that they will soak up the enemy bullets while advances, for example.

Perhaps some of they could be lost, but it should not because it is a cannon fodder, but the cheap asset that can be spammed and also disposable if needed, that could harrass the enemy afar, provide fire support, or at least punch back the long ranged threat and forcing the enemy to choose either aim the cheap YJ or aim the expensive assets while hammered by YJ freely.

The supposed position is an another problem. It can be on the frontline initially but required to be moves backward after the enemy is about to close, or you better put them on the backline of yours that could flank the enemy too if the enemy attempt to push through your line. In either ways those position ensures that it's not the easy target, so the opponents must spend too much costs to deal with such a cheap assets.

Even if the enemy striker team want to close in fast and aim for the YJ, their cheap cost assures that the enemy need to send their mobile force(which would be precious) just for deal with such a cheap assets, and it means those forces cannot aim for rest of your assets meanwhile. Not to mention that being airborne AND MP of 6 is not a joke, and it can move backward too, so even if exposed it's not the easy prey either. Remember, only the shots that hit are the only shots that do damage, and I suppose that you are well aware of this.

Well YJ is not the main topic, but there are even more. If you want to use a VTOL and expect it to be works other than the sniper role, then it should be faster than YJ. So it is required to have 7/11 MP as the minimum, and many of up to about 50 tonner could reach to the 10/15 without sacrifice much and have plenty of spare tonnage to plate it with near maximum armor points.

Then, what's the problem on plate it with maximum armor points? Rotor hits? Well, THAT's one of the important reason why you should plate it with more armor, actually, for each hit reduces the MP of a VTOL, thus each hit on the rotor makes the unit forcing lower to hit modifier against the enemy. I remember that around 1/3 hits will struck at rotor, so even a LB-10X will lands about 2 fragments on the rotor on a hit by average. Even if it's about 1/2 that would be about 3 fragments(Remember, the average value of the cluster table is about 2/3 of the maximum number). Even at worst, that means the heavy armored VTOL lures LB-X shots, and maybe down one or two at best, while the rest of VTOLs are freely harrass the enemy uninterrupted. Well, it seems not so bad, actually.

Rotor maximum: 5 points (2 pts  armor, 3 internal).  30% of your hit locations, but hey, it reduces big hits to one point...and small hits to one point.

individually, not bad.

Difference: Rotor is your motive systm, so every 'motive system crit' hits the rotor.

VTOL=Vehicle, the majority of your crit-hits? rotor.  Including TACs.

What happens when your VTOL loses due to motive system damage? It falls out of the sky and becomes wreckage.

When a Tank loses its motive system, it becomes a bunker.  Largely the same for a 'mech that loses its legs, it can usually prop up on another limb and keep shooting, presenting some kind of threat or asset.

Crashed VTOLs become part of the terrain if they don't outright explode from the falling damage-they do not become a fighting part of the terrain like other vehicles do.  They become a wreckage hazard.

Sniper role?  the YJ isn't a  good sniper-it has to flank to get to a position to shoot more often than not, spoiling accuracy.  The Hawk Moth is an 'okay' sniper-it has the range with a significant gun, plus movement to position for good shots without flanking, see the difference?  Donar? even better, it can do it, and keep doing it after losing 1MP from a spalling hit to the motive system.

a VTOL's hit location table makes it a unit that, unlike other vehicles, you can't park-it has to move in order not to die, because the consequences for being rendered unable to move means it isn't 'reduced effectiveness' but rather, 'it's dead jim'.  (Sometimes with fires and explosions, sometimes just wreckage, depending on what's left aboard when it hits and rolls from falling damage).

Hence, the chief usage of heavy armor on a VTOL is to guarantee there's material to salvage for recycling, not to keep it in the fight-for staying in the fight, VTOL pilots have to lean heavily on "avoid being hit" rather than bruting things out like a 'mech or main battle tank.

and again, the force structure that would make a Slow VTOL into an asset, even in the 'sniper role' is likely to be more effective if you don't take the slow vtol, but instead plow that BV into better P/G in your other units.  The contribution isn't good enough. Only speed gives enough movement to create tactical dilemmas or impact an opponent's behaviors in a way you can exploit.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Rotor maximum: 5 points (2 pts  armor, 3 internal).  30% of your hit locations, but hey, it reduces big hits to one point...and small hits to one point.

individually, not bad.

Difference: Rotor is your motive systm, so every 'motive system crit' hits the rotor.

VTOL=Vehicle, the majority of your crit-hits? rotor.  Including TACs.

What happens when your VTOL loses due to motive system damage? It falls out of the sky and becomes wreckage.

When a Tank loses its motive system, it becomes a bunker.  Largely the same for a 'mech that loses its legs, it can usually prop up on another limb and keep shooting, presenting some kind of threat or asset.

Crashed VTOLs become part of the terrain if they don't outright explode from the falling damage-they do not become a fighting part of the terrain like other vehicles do.  They become a wreckage hazard.

Sniper role?  the YJ isn't a  good sniper-it has to flank to get to a position to shoot more often than not, spoiling accuracy.  The Hawk Moth is an 'okay' sniper-it has the range with a significant gun, plus movement to position for good shots without flanking, see the difference?  Donar? even better, it can do it, and keep doing it after losing 1MP from a spalling hit to the motive system.

a VTOL's hit location table makes it a unit that, unlike other vehicles, you can't park-it has to move in order not to die, because the consequences for being rendered unable to move means it isn't 'reduced effectiveness' but rather, 'it's dead jim'.  (Sometimes with fires and explosions, sometimes just wreckage, depending on what's left aboard when it hits and rolls from falling damage).

Hence, the chief usage of heavy armor on a VTOL is to guarantee there's material to salvage for recycling, not to keep it in the fight-for staying in the fight, VTOL pilots have to lean heavily on "avoid being hit" rather than bruting things out like a 'mech or main battle tank.

and again, the force structure that would make a Slow VTOL into an asset, even in the 'sniper role' is likely to be more effective if you don't take the slow vtol, but instead plow that BV into better P/G in your other units.  The contribution isn't good enough. Only speed gives enough movement to create tactical dilemmas or impact an opponent's behaviors in a way you can exploit.

Rotor has up to 8 points for the superheavy. Well, 5 points is already enough, though. Sure that would be fallen eventually if it is targeted by the concentrated LB-X attacks. But to reduce that 5 points, you need about 3x5=15 LB-X fragments which hits the VTOL, and it also means you need even more LB-X fragments for you need to hit the VTOL first. You will know that even with the accuracy fix of LB-X VTOL is not an easy target in the first place, so you need several units with LB-X guns to destroy just a single VTOL. And note that it's only for the cheaper 30 tonner VTOL. Yes, you do need several units to order them aim for just a mere light VTOL, while let the other enemy shoots your stuffs freely.

That is the true way to making the attrition. Nothing is invincible, ever, and if you put enough concentrated fire it is inevitable that the target would be fallen. But HOW MUCH assets you need to silence is an another story, and it DOES matters for you never would have infine numbers of weapons everywhere and everytime.

YJ is not required to flank. If it have the chance to do then it would be better but is not required either for it could survives against suffers a 15 damage on the front side. Taking one hit but still functional is already enough. Also being airborne means it does not hampers the others movement at all too. After all, it's very cheap, so if you don't fond of the firepower of only a YJ, you could bring company and battalion of those instead. Again, it's the true way to making the attrition - while it cannot be killed without a critical hit against its front, it could shoots against very long distance, means even at worst and it works as the 'line infantry' it's quite annoying for the opponent's long ranged units. Also its cheaper cost allows you to buying the other stuffs as well, so its nature of one trick pony is nothing but an insignificant flaw actually.


By the way, could you please explain why you falsely blamed me before? I did ask for the answers several times.

[Cannonshop]

Rotor has up to 8 points for the superheavy. Well, 5 points is already enough, though. Sure that would be fallen eventually if it is targeted by the concentrated LB-X attacks. But to reduce that 5 points, you need about 3x5=15 LB-X fragments which hits the VTOL, and it also means you need even more LB-X fragments for you need to hit the VTOL first. You will know that even with the accuracy fix of LB-X VTOL is not an easy target in the first place, so you need several units with LB-X guns to destroy just a single VTOL. And note that it's only for the cheaper 30 tonner VTOL. Yes, you do need several units to order them aim for just a mere light VTOL, while let the other enemy shoots your stuffs freely.

That is the true way to making the attrition. Nothing is invincible, ever, and if you put enough concentrated fire it is inevitable that the target would be fallen. But HOW MUCH assets you need to silence is an another story, and it DOES matters for you never would have infine numbers of weapons everywhere and everytime.

YJ is not required to flank. If it have the chance to do then it would be better but is not required either for it could survives against suffers a 15 damage on the front side. Taking one hit but still functional is already enough. Also being airborne means it does not hampers the others movement at all too. After all, it's very cheap, so if you don't fond of the firepower of only a YJ, you could bring company and battalion of those instead. Again, it's the true way to making the attrition - while it cannot be killed without a critical hit against its front, it could shoots against very long distance, means even at worst and it works as the 'line infantry' it's quite annoying for the opponent's long ranged units. Also its cheaper cost allows you to buying the other stuffs as well, so its nature of one trick pony is nothing but an insignificant flaw actually.


By the way, could you please explain why you falsely blamed me before? I did ask for the answers several times.

Context, I was explaining my position, PPLP, not 'blaming' you for anything, but trying to clarify a position in response to your apparent reaction.

seriously, I have no hostility toward you.

As for the rest here...you're ignoring LRM fire because it doesn't have a bonus-but every one of those LRM missiles does one point guaranteed damage, and LRM boats are one of the more common units on the map.

and a cruise at 6 doesn't actually do much good there, most LRM shots at a walking 'mech moving 6-8 hit.

The LBX is just the BEST choice, not the only, and certainly not the most common.

For that matter, SRM racks are pretty effective, or ATM's for Clanners, and while a pulse laser isn't going to do 10  points, it WILL do one.

Something like that signature 'mech the Blood spirits like, would scythe one or more Yellowjackets from the skies in a single turn without overheating out to 'long' range and shrug off that gauss shot if you didn't roll a 12 on the hit location, with few to no problems.

It might even do it when the YJ is flanking and trying to smack with an 11 or 12.

Thing I see in these talks that sticks with me, is that everyone forgets that even infantry can down a VTOL that strays into range...with rifle fire.

Because there are no 'fractional points', if you're doing a fraction, you're doing one point in terms of the rotor's special power.

And it's a quick kill, which most players will go for even when it doesn't eliminate a potential headcapper from the field.

Human nature, right?  Oh, and a Gauss hit? does 2 points, same with an AC/20, to the rotor.

as for superheavies...now you're getting into truly kustoms-on-kustoms there.  The existing canon designs are mostly transports with few to no guns.

It's like bringing up a custom WIGE that is really an eighty ton flying tank.  RARE and built under what are extreme optional rules, at which point you better be hoping the other guy isn't using Flak in Artillery Cannons-at which point you lose your sniper role in the entire because the range band is damned near 'yes' on those.

(ratcheting escalations- how many optional rules are we using? all of them.)

in 'straight play' (Total Warfare no must-be-agreed-on-options) your slow VTOL is a force divider-for your own side.  It only starts getting useful when both sides agree to make sure the scenario rigs for it.  We start dropping in something like a HAG-20 (or 30) or something and it gets even stickier, because your gauss rifle on a Yellowjacket can't get enough range not to both lose MP (if you don't die immediately) from rotor hits, OR die from them.

even with your superheavies. 

Please be recalling, every rotor hit drops your MP by one.  that means your slow VTOL goes from, say, 7/11 to 2/3 if one cluster of 5 LRM's hits-because even ONE lrm hitting will do 1 full point to your rotor.

and most randomly generated lances will have one to four LRM boats, it's only a unique random roll on the table that you'd get an opponent who's ONLY running icebox energy boats or big whacky Autocannons.

So here's how it really boils down; Your 7/11 Yasha, let's say, or 6/9 Yellowjacket pops up to fire their big gun.  They're both inside the range of the other guy's LRM boats.  Go with an average hit spread, keep in mind 30% of your hit box is rotor.

what happens now? well, he's going to roll cluster table first to see where those missiles are going to end up.

Let's say he rolls an average roll.

mind we're grouping those missiles in fives for sake of brevity and because otherwise the LBX loses one of its tricks.

Let's call it an LRM-10 because that's pretty common.

Five to the nose? no problem lots of armor on that facing.

3 to the rotor.

First, you lose all the armor on your rotor and take an internal, which is a crit...on top of the damage from being hit in the rotor already deductiing two MP next turn.

He rolls...9.  Critical Hit!
 
so you're now looking at losing 4 MP next turn.  that means your Yasha's topping out at 3/5, or your Yellowjacket's pulling 2/3.  do you think he's going to die next turn? I do.

There's no reason NOT to kill him off-he's slow(er), has a big gun and fully a third of his hit locations are 'hit this once and you've killed it."

and it still works if you only count those three points as one hit...because it still went critical, so you lose 3, topping your Yasha (with the short range gun) a 4/6, and the Yellowjacket at 3/5 and needing to flank anyway, which makes next shot problematic if the other guy isn't parked.

In a mass combat (2 to 4 or more units per side) it's still a kill worth pursuing aggressively, because it's extremely vulnerable and an easy kill, and players ADORE easy kills...and the gun is significant enough that it's WORTH THE EFFORT.-that is, the payoff is high enough to be worth it.

and I didn't use one LBX in my example.  an LBX 10 I've got eight to ten tries to knock your MP down and destroy your VTOL, either this turn, or next, for little risk in total, and players LOVE them odds.

[DevianID]

Correct me if im wrong cannonshop, but if you hit with 5/3 cluster on an LRM10, and the 3 point cluster hits the rotor, you only do 1 damage, -1 MP, and the rotor has armor left.  You get the full rotor 90% damage reduction versus cluster weapons still.

If cluster weapons like RACs or HAGs did full damage to rotors, like they used to before TW, id agree with you that you dont need heavy armor vtols.  But, with the damage reduction, you can take around 12 total shots before you have lost your rotor (on the 12th hit location roll on a 5 health rotor, you have about a 30% chance of your rotor still being intact via random location rolls).  So you want enough armor so that if they DO miss your rotor, you have enough armor to survive, and if they do hit the rotor you can survive the crash.

[Daryk]

DevianID, I think you're right, but Cannonshop's point still stands.  All those 3- and 1-point hits from odd LRM clusters still do 1 point of damage minimum, and will reduce the VTOL's movement.

[Retry]

DevianID's right, the 5-point cluster would get reduced to 1 point.

That being said, y'all armor VTOLs under the assumption they'll take 5 points of rotor damage?  They start auto-critting on the third hit...

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Context, I was explaining my position, PPLP, not 'blaming' you for anything, but trying to clarify a position in response to your apparent reaction.

seriously, I have no hostility toward you.

Because, I don't understand why I have that reply;

That 1/10th rounds up, not down.  Thus LBX pellets do 'full' damage, SRM's do 1 point per missile and so do LRMs.

Ditto for infantry fire or really anything that would have done damage normally without the nerf-a hit will do a minimum of one point.  an aC-20 does two, so does a gauss rifle.

They kept (barely) enough 'bad things' to prevent VTOLs from becoming  the 'go-to' option with a magic shield for a motive system. (and you might wanna review 'motive system criticals'.)

someone, you see, pointed out in playtest that rounding it DOWN meant VTOLs would get a 50 point immunity shield on 30% of their hit locations, making them more durable than BATTLEMECHS.

(and this isn't Choppertech or AirWolf the tabletop game)

I did said about that it's ridiculous, for I did not advocated any subjects on the reply. Simply put, why just mention for a brief of part suddenly turned to it reduces every single damage to 1/10 without an exception?

As for the rest here...you're ignoring LRM fire because it doesn't have a bonus-but every one of those LRM missiles does one point guaranteed damage, and LRM boats are one of the more common units on the map.

and a cruise at 6 doesn't actually do much good there, most LRM shots at a walking 'mech moving 6-8 hit.

The LBX is just the BEST choice, not the only, and certainly not the most common.

For that matter, SRM racks are pretty effective, or ATM's for Clanners, and while a pulse laser isn't going to do 10  points, it WILL do one.

Something like that signature 'mech the Blood spirits like, would scythe one or more Yellowjackets from the skies in a single turn without overheating out to 'long' range and shrug off that gauss shot if you didn't roll a 12 on the hit location, with few to no problems.

It might even do it when the YJ is flanking and trying to smack with an 11 or 12.

Thing I see in these talks that sticks with me, is that everyone forgets that even infantry can down a VTOL that strays into range...with rifle fire.

Because there are no 'fractional points', if you're doing a fraction, you're doing one point in terms of the rotor's special power.

And it's a quick kill, which most players will go for even when it doesn't eliminate a potential headcapper from the field.

Human nature, right?  Oh, and a Gauss hit? does 2 points, same with an AC/20, to the rotor.

as for superheavies...now you're getting into truly kustoms-on-kustoms there.  The existing canon designs are mostly transports with few to no guns.

It's like bringing up a custom WIGE that is really an eighty ton flying tank.  RARE and built under what are extreme optional rules, at which point you better be hoping the other guy isn't using Flak in Artillery Cannons-at which point you lose your sniper role in the entire because the range band is damned near 'yes' on those.

(ratcheting escalations- how many optional rules are we using? all of them.)

in 'straight play' (Total Warfare no must-be-agreed-on-options) your slow VTOL is a force divider-for your own side.  It only starts getting useful when both sides agree to make sure the scenario rigs for it.  We start dropping in something like a HAG-20 (or 30) or something and it gets even stickier, because your gauss rifle on a Yellowjacket can't get enough range not to both lose MP (if you don't die immediately) from rotor hits, OR die from them.

even with your superheavies. 

Please be recalling, every rotor hit drops your MP by one.  that means your slow VTOL goes from, say, 7/11 to 2/3 if one cluster of 5 LRM's hits-because even ONE lrm hitting will do 1 full point to your rotor.

and most randomly generated lances will have one to four LRM boats, it's only a unique random roll on the table that you'd get an opponent who's ONLY running icebox energy boats or big whacky Autocannons.

So here's how it really boils down; Your 7/11 Yasha, let's say, or 6/9 Yellowjacket pops up to fire their big gun.  They're both inside the range of the other guy's LRM boats.  Go with an average hit spread, keep in mind 30% of your hit box is rotor.

what happens now? well, he's going to roll cluster table first to see where those missiles are going to end up.

Let's say he rolls an average roll.

mind we're grouping those missiles in fives for sake of brevity and because otherwise the LBX loses one of its tricks.

Let's call it an LRM-10 because that's pretty common.

Five to the nose? no problem lots of armor on that facing.

3 to the rotor.

First, you lose all the armor on your rotor and take an internal, which is a crit...on top of the damage from being hit in the rotor already deductiing two MP next turn.

He rolls...9.  Critical Hit!
 
so you're now looking at losing 4 MP next turn.  that means your Yasha's topping out at 3/5, or your Yellowjacket's pulling 2/3.  do you think he's going to die next turn? I do.

There's no reason NOT to kill him off-he's slow(er), has a big gun and fully a third of his hit locations are 'hit this once and you've killed it."

and it still works if you only count those three points as one hit...because it still went critical, so you lose 3, topping your Yasha (with the short range gun) a 4/6, and the Yellowjacket at 3/5 and needing to flank anyway, which makes next shot problematic if the other guy isn't parked.

In a mass combat (2 to 4 or more units per side) it's still a kill worth pursuing aggressively, because it's extremely vulnerable and an easy kill, and players ADORE easy kills...and the gun is significant enough that it's WORTH THE EFFORT.-that is, the payoff is high enough to be worth it.

and I didn't use one LBX in my example.  an LBX 10 I've got eight to ten tries to knock your MP down and destroy your VTOL, either this turn, or next, for little risk in total, and players LOVE them odds.

I don't ignore the other types of cluster weapons. But that's the lesser threats. At least lesser threat than LB-X, for we all know that it's the most deadly weapon against VTOLs. Still, LRM causes 5 damage cluster grouping, so it's not that fatal as LB-X. It would cause more damage to the rotor than the others, though, but you will need a lots of those to actually end the rotor part. This means, the VTOL will had meaningful hits on the other locations as well before got perished. You will need a lot of hits anyways, and if the VTOL have good armor points you won't get good chance to punch through an another location and blow it off before destroy the rotor unless you have some functional LB-X guns. The odds is not zero, but it's surely fare less likely than using LB-X.

Also I don't deny the fact that each rotor hit reduces the MP of the VTOL. Rather, I'd have mentioned for myself. But I want to point that, it's the reason why you should plate some armor, rather than avoid to do, for what I said above. Because VTOL will suffer more hits it starts to suffer more and more rotor hits, it allows the enemy to hit that easier. And as you know, rotor is not the only part it have. Why destroyed rotor is an issue if the said VTOL could be killed by about two AC/10 fire on a same location? In this case did you ever care for the durability(fragility, actually) of the rotor? But if the unit is not so easy to be killed without damaging the rotor faster than the other weapons, then the armor plates on the other sides does have a lots of meaning.


And as I said before, although nothing is invincible, but how much time and/or effort to kill it does matters. For it's not the duel of one unit and an another one opponent unit, but the battle between a force and its adverary forces. Consider its high to hit modifier, even LB-X cannot hit those as the easy prey, and for the other weapons it's even worse. And those weapons are not so 'easily' ends those VTOL either, means you need a lots effort than that unless you are very lucky.

[Cannonshop]

Correct me if im wrong cannonshop, but if you hit with 5/3 cluster on an LRM10, and the 3 point cluster hits the rotor, you only do 1 damage, -1 MP, and the rotor has armor left.  You get the full rotor 90% damage reduction versus cluster weapons still.

If cluster weapons like RACs or HAGs did full damage to rotors, like they used to before TW, id agree with you that you dont need heavy armor vtols.  But, with the damage reduction, you can take around 12 total shots before you have lost your rotor (on the 12th hit location roll on a 5 health rotor, you have about a 30% chance of your rotor still being intact via random location rolls).  So you want enough armor so that if they DO miss your rotor, you have enough armor to survive, and if they do hit the rotor you can survive the crash.

a few years ago it was 'explained' that it wasn't a big deal putting Ferro-Lam on a VTOL (IIRC it was a Donar variant) because the DR didn't protect from cluster hits, and now it does again?  (SO glad I resigned from the playtest group...)

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

I didn't heard that there are any recent errata that changes this. So it would be all the same - while ferro lamellor armor reduces the damage of LB-X fragment to zero, but it's still the rotor hit and each hits reduces cruising MP by 1.

[DevianID]

DevianID, I think you're right, but Cannonshop's point still stands.  All those 3- and 1-point hits from odd LRM clusters still do 1 point of damage minimum, and will reduce the VTOL's movement.

It will, but the question remains 'how much armor for a vtol'.  Knowing we have an absolute toughness limit with 5 hits on a 21-30 ton vtol with max rotor armor, how much total armor do we want?  Reducing MP =/= dead vtol, so armor still contributes to vtol survivability, just with diminishing returns.

I set my upper limit at around 33% chance of living based on rotor hit expectations, meaning Ill still have armor left 66% of the games my rotor goes, and ill start running out of armor the 33% of the time they miss the rotor.  This means Ill trade speed or weapons for armor on like 99% of vtols, because most vtols are comically under armored, starting with the warrior.  (part of that was because originally there was no rotor damage reduction, but with rotor reduction the viability of armor has skyrocketed these past 20 years, and many newer vtols have 100+ armor as a result.)

If we were to get back on topic a bit, how much armor in total points do you all prefer, and what methodology do you use to judge whether a vtol is under armored or not?

[Daryk]

My threshold is "enough to avoid a one-shot kill".  Rotor invulnerability helps, but you should still have 15 points or so on the faces you expect to show a Gauss Rifle.  If you're fast enough so that's only your nose, then the sides (and probably tail) should be able to take 10-point hits.

[Cannonshop]

It will, but the question remains 'how much armor for a vtol'.  Knowing we have an absolute toughness limit with 5 hits on a 21-30 ton vtol with max rotor armor, how much total armor do we want?  Reducing MP =/= dead vtol, so armor still contributes to vtol survivability, just with diminishing returns.

I set my upper limit at around 33% chance of living based on rotor hit expectations, meaning Ill still have armor left 66% of the games my rotor goes, and ill start running out of armor the 33% of the time they miss the rotor.  This means Ill trade speed or weapons for armor on like 99% of vtols, because most vtols are comically under armored, starting with the warrior.  (part of that was because originally there was no rotor damage reduction, but with rotor reduction the viability of armor has skyrocketed these past 20 years, and many newer vtols have 100+ armor as a result.)

If we were to get back on topic a bit, how much armor in total points do you all prefer, and what methodology do you use to judge whether a vtol is under armored or not?

I think I mentioned earlier that most of the designs I actually LIKE are, taken logically, under-protected.  (There's a REASON I won't take a Mantis for ground attack.)

Like, four or five posts ago.

When designing a custom, however, I look at the same things I look at when compromising on a canon design-"What is it supposed to be doing? and can it do that effectively without a cooperative opponent?"

Call it spending the better part of a decade and a half running mooks for players to grind their campaign heroes on-both in BMR and later TW, most of my table time, has been spent running 'Shit militia units' so that other players can build up skill points/enjoy campaigns with their named character heroes.

This has probably influenced a lot of my prejudices-I expect to lose units, frequently, and my weight on that, is whether those losses advance my objectives or not.

You've already articulated your preferred style, which I call a Duellist style.  (quantity limits on top of BV limits, small maps.)

In your preferred playing style, I wouldn't take any VTOL.  It doesn't matter how 'good' it is, because it's the wrong tool for that job.

VTOL units come into their own on BIG maps, or in Double-Blind play on big maps.  Small maps, you're almost better off with a wheeled vehicle in most of the roles a VTOL is actually useful for, or a tracked vehicle, or on very wet surfaces, hovers.

it's on account of a very specific thing that happens to VTOLs that does not happen to anything else in the conventional vehicle family-falling out of teh sky when you lose your motive system.  On a phone booth map, this tends to be a thing that happens a lot-but a VTOL can't bunker when it becomes immobilized, instead, it falls X number of levels at 5 points/level falling damage.

That makes almost ANY other alternative better, even an alternate that doesn't carry as much firepower for the weight and movement.

In my experience  VTOL units work best on LARGE maps, where movement to contact is often delayed and zone coverage is important.

Thus my mentioning tasks like 'gEtting lined up to make your shot' and why low cruising speeds and relying on flanking is a bad idea.

and I'll maintain, that heavy armor is not protection on a VTOL, even with the rotor-hit-nerf, it's crash protection so you can salvage it and maybe the pilot didn't die when the rotors were shot off.  'Protection' comes from being hard to hit, and that's also where 'value' comes from-the ability to do the job in addition to handling incoming fire.

[DevianID]

Right Cannonshop, same different playstyles you mentioned before, but to the OP's question

how much armor in total points do you all prefer, and what methodology do you use to judge whether a vtol is under armored or not?

I see you feel heavy armor is not protection, but for the OP's sake what are those armor point numbers?  How much armor for a Vtol? 

[Cannonshop]

Right Cannonshop, same different playstyles you mentioned before, but to the OP's questionI see you feel heavy armor is not protection, but for the OP's sake what are those armor point numbers?  How much armor for a Vtol?

"enough to let the pilot survive a majority of crashes''...which, incidentally, means I consider most of my favorite designs under-protected.

Basically survive a 2 to 3 level fall should be sufficient, assuming you land on the hull.

so pretty close to what Daryk said, or you might prefer.

why two to three levels? because if you're trying to get close enough to use the majority of weapons you can FIT on a 5-30 ton airframe without needing an XL engine, you're probably going to be at least occasionally screening behind terrain, which means flying low. Enough armor to survive more than a 3 level fall and you're giving up ninety percent of the roles a VTOL is good at by giving up payload or mobility.

Incidentally, this translates as being able to handle a standard PPC on the sides, or a gauss rifle to the nose-at least, on 17 to 26 tons airframe with a decent weapons fit or payload capacity.  (bigger, starts running into diminishing returns, a high capability 30 ton VTOL costs in the same neighborhood as a good Battlemech, but can't operate in vacuum and outside of some extreem-dedicated designs, is going to be outperformed by most regular ground units that do NOT have the defect of 'you lose your motive system you fall down and die")

Thing being, my playstyle is derived from figuring out how to make units that aren't ideal work., rather than structuring the units to fit a playing style.  It also comes from recognizing that some unit TYPES don't belong in some scenarios, because what they offer is severely offset by what it takes to make them viable assets.

Which is, as we've discussed, not an absolute by any stretch of the imagination.

I just know I probably can't have the 'ideal' fit of armor to payload to movement for a VTOL without breaking the bank somewhere I don't want it broken.

It's kind of like asking what the ideal fit for an ASF is.  My personal favorite has 'decent' armor for a Aerofighter, is considered somewhat to severely undergunned...but comes with double the fuel, because I see that as being able to use a lot more of those fuel-burning maneuvers than something with better guns, the same armor, and equal or better acceleration.

Or, why I think 3/5 is too slow for a Tank.  The TW rules favor bunkering your tanks, so movement curve shouldn't matter, right? only my particular playing style is aggressive, I move my tanks a LOT.  Therefore 3/5, which imposes more penalty on you for moving than you gain in defensive modifier for doing it? is too slow for anything but shifting a defensive bunker into a spot to park for the rest of the game.  Ergo, 4/6 is the slowest I'll take on a tank, even when I have all the available designs including customs available to me.  Total Warfare at least gave the slow assault tanks a viable role-it's just not a role I'm inclined to make much use of.  I don't have the same issue with 3/5 Battlemechs-but then, 'mechs can lose body parts and still keep going, and Tanks, hovers, and vTOLs can't.

as a Vehicle primary, non-duellist player, my vehicle doctrines wrap around staying in motion, preferably advancing, or encircling to the flanks, rather than parking to hold a line...which has caused guys who ARE duellists massive frustrations when they have to move instead of comfortably sitting at medium and rolling dice until something falls down.

thus, with VTOLs, I know I'm always going to be making compromises, and some maps you can't compromise ENOUGH to make them an asset instead of  a  liability.

but my way is not everyone's way-I like to play big map sessions where we're using an eight foot sheet of plywood on top of a couple of those plastic tables from Costco, Walmart, or Home Depot just to fit the mapsheets.  It's my PREFERRED mode, becuase I've lost games by running out of mapsheet in the other guy's deployment zone before...

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

So what is important is, VTOL is dead if it loses rotor, and it have 2 armor points but takes 1/10 of damage.

For 30 tonner VTOL, rotor have 2 armor and 3 internal. All vehicles have same numbers of internals onl all the parts, but VTOL have some weird place because rotor is capped at 2 armor point. Anyway, it means, 5 hits on the rotor means it's dead. So let's see how it is 'useless' to consider the other parts, then.

First off, the chance to suffer a rotor hit is 11/36 on the hit location table. It's almost 1/3. Strictly it is 30.55..%. Anyway it would be not that different to just consider it a 1/3.


Against LB-X, it needs about 12 fragments have reasonable chance to only leaves its last point on the internal. So about 12 plus 1/3 would be close to the required LB-X fragment. That means, since only 2/3 of the fragments are hit the target, to make 13+1/3 fragments, 40/3 fragments, about 60/3 fragments total before roll for a cluster table would be needed. - that would requires a full LB-20X.

(edit: it's 12+1/3 so it's 37/3 actually, and is slightly less than 20 fragments)

But if the weapon isn't a LB-X? Most attacks will only causes one point of damage on rotor. So each hit of those weapons cause X/Y damage on rotor(X)/other parts(Y).

Gauss Rifle: 2/15 damage - requires 3 hits with this weapon to destroy the rotor.
AC/20: 2/20 damage - requires 3 hits
PPC and AC/10: 1/10 damage - requires 5 hits
LRM-5: average 1/3.33.. damage - requires 5 hits
LRM-20: average 3/13.33.. damage - requires 2 hits
SRM-6: average 4/16 damage - requires 2 hits

Well, aside gauss and AC/20, those attacks that scores more than 1 damage on the rotor are the cluster weapon with damage grouping, so there is no proof that it causes the full damage on rotor.


So, against gauss rifle, while rotor takes 2 hits(and only leaves the final blow) it also struck by the other parts by 2/3 thus it also suffer about 4 other hits and it means it would suffer an another 60 damage on the other locations.
For AC/20 it would be 80 damage.
For PPC and AC/10 it would be 4x2=8 -> 80 damage.
For LRM-5 it's about 26.66 damage.
For LRM-20 it's about 13.33 x 10/3 = 44.44.. damage(assumed that 4 LRM-20 damage groupings are hit the rotor).
For SRM-6 it's about 16 damage.

Against LRM-5 and SRM-6 you don't expect much protection for the rotor. So you would need to soak at least 30~80 damage total on three parts(four if it has turret). At least 15 or 20 would be required, to withstand a gauss/AC20 hit.

So, for 30 tonner, it would requires at least 102 armor points as minimum. You better expect more, for it needs more armor or it got killed quickly before you are worry about the rotor. It means, just plate as much as armor on it as you can would be the best. So put the maximum possible armor point on it first, after then think about the design.

[Maingunnery]

It would be better to assume 5 point hits from AC/5 Flak or HAG shots.
From that perspective it would be a waste to spend more than 35 points of armor to the front.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

It would be better to assume 5 point hits from AC/5 Flak or HAG shots.
From that perspective it would be a waste to spend more than 35 points of armor to the front.

A 30 tons combat vehicle can have up to 145 armor points. It's moot, for you cannot spend more than 35 points almost all the times. Unless you want to make a tanky version of Yellow Jacket, in this case it is acceptable to leave its rear weak.

Also superheavy VTOLs have more internal points than those normal VTOLs as well, due to its heavier weight.

[Maingunnery]

A 30 tons combat vehicle can have up to 145 armor points. It's moot, for you cannot spend more than 35 points almost all the times. Unless you want to make a tanky version of Yellow Jacket, in this case it is acceptable to leave its rear weak.

Also superheavy VTOLs have more internal points than those normal VTOLs as well, due to its heavier weight.

For 35 on the front, I could combine with 15 LS/RS, 13 RR, 2 RO. For a total of 80 points.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

If about 80 points is what I said was the sum of all the parts that would be struck on a direction, so if you want the casemate design that lacks a turret then the sum of front, left and right would be 80+.

[Cannonshop]

So what is important is, VTOL is dead if it loses rotor, and it have 2 armor points but takes 1/10 of damage.

For 30 tonner VTOL, rotor have 2 armor and 3 internal. All vehicles have same numbers of internals onl all the parts, but VTOL have some weird place because rotor is capped at 2 armor point. Anyway, it means, 5 hits on the rotor means it's dead. So let's see how it is 'useless' to consider the other parts, then.

First off, the chance to suffer a rotor hit is 11/36 on the hit location table. It's almost 1/3. Strictly it is 30.55..%. Anyway it would be not that different to just consider it a 1/3.


Against LB-X, it needs about 12 fragments have reasonable chance to only leaves its last point on the internal. So about 12 plus 1/3 would be close to the required LB-X fragment. That means, since only 2/3 of the fragments are hit the target, to make 13+1/3 fragments, 40/3 fragments, about 60/3 fragments total before roll for a cluster table would be needed. - that would requires a full LB-20X.

(edit: it's 12+1/3 so it's 37/3 actually, and is slightly less than 20 fragments)

But if the weapon isn't a LB-X? Most attacks will only causes one point of damage on rotor. So each hit of those weapons cause X/Y damage on rotor(X)/other parts(Y).

Gauss Rifle: 2/15 damage - requires 3 hits with this weapon to destroy the rotor.
AC/20: 2/20 damage - requires 3 hits
PPC and AC/10: 1/10 damage - requires 5 hits
LRM-5: average 1/3.33.. damage - requires 5 hits
LRM-20: average 3/13.33.. damage - requires 2 hits
SRM-6: average 4/16 damage - requires 2 hits

Well, aside gauss and AC/20, those attacks that scores more than 1 damage on the rotor are the cluster weapon with damage grouping, so there is no proof that it causes the full damage on rotor.


So, against gauss rifle, while rotor takes 2 hits(and only leaves the final blow) it also struck by the other parts by 2/3 thus it also suffer about 4 other hits and it means it would suffer an another 60 damage on the other locations.
For AC/20 it would be 80 damage.
For PPC and AC/10 it would be 4x2=8 -> 80 damage.
For LRM-5 it's about 26.66 damage.
For LRM-20 it's about 13.33 x 10/3 = 44.44.. damage(assumed that 4 LRM-20 damage groupings are hit the rotor).
For SRM-6 it's about 16 damage.

Against LRM-5 and SRM-6 you don't expect much protection for the rotor. So you would need to soak at least 30~80 damage total on three parts(four if it has turret). At least 15 or 20 would be required, to withstand a gauss/AC20 hit.

So, for 30 tonner, it would requires at least 102 armor points as minimum. You better expect more, for it needs more armor or it got killed quickly before you are worry about the rotor. It means, just plate as much as armor on it as you can would be the best. So put the maximum possible armor point on it first, after then think about the design.

How often, in your experience, do you have an opponent kind enough to only fire one weapon per turn at your VTOLs, when they have other weapons in range?

outside of a duel, I mean?

That's problem ONE of the number-crunching approach.  Problem two, is that 30% of your hit locations (plus or minus) also degrades your MP next turn if you survive this one.

Why is that important? because it means if you survive THIS turn, odds are very good your VTOL won't survive NEXT turn-or be able to flee.

This actually came up in the forums almost 20 years ago (or is it over 20 years ago?) when one of the devs was suggesting that a ferro-lamellor VTOL's damage reduction, plus the DR from rotors, meant said 'TRO Experimental" VTOL would be immobilized but somehow still flying even if the DR reduced rotor hits from LBX's to 0.

Because it's hits to the motive system.

if you have 0 MP, you're not moving, not generating defensive movement modifiers and not repositioning-you're essentially a static target which is, in case you forgot, a much, much, EASIER target to hit.

for a VTOL with  standard ("NOT Ferro-Lam") armor, that means even if you got mostly-lucky and kept, say, one or two points of internal structure? your MP is reduced enough that even escaping is going to be problematic.

VTOLs don't peform like tanks when they lose MP-they can't 'bunker' as a means of survival, nor influence the battlespace if they can't move, or if they move too slowly (thus guaranteeing it's easier to hit them.)  While a tank can park and soak the damage into the motive system and still be a useful defensive position until you've worn through the armor, a VTOL Can't Do That.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

How often, in your experience, do you have an opponent kind enough to only fire one weapon per turn at your VTOLs, when they have other weapons in range?

outside of a duel, I mean?

That's problem ONE of the number-crunching approach.  Problem two, is that 30% of your hit locations (plus or minus) also degrades your MP next turn if you survive this one.

Why is that important? because it means if you survive THIS turn, odds are very good your VTOL won't survive NEXT turn-or be able to flee.

This actually came up in the forums almost 20 years ago (or is it over 20 years ago?) when one of the devs was suggesting that a ferro-lamellor VTOL's damage reduction, plus the DR from rotors, meant said 'TRO Experimental" VTOL would be immobilized but somehow still flying even if the DR reduced rotor hits from LBX's to 0.

Because it's hits to the motive system.

if you have 0 MP, you're not moving, not generating defensive movement modifiers and not repositioning-you're essentially a static target which is, in case you forgot, a much, much, EASIER target to hit.

for a VTOL with  standard ("NOT Ferro-Lam") armor, that means even if you got mostly-lucky and kept, say, one or two points of internal structure? your MP is reduced enough that even escaping is going to be problematic.

VTOLs don't peform like tanks when they lose MP-they can't 'bunker' as a means of survival, nor influence the battlespace if they can't move, or if they move too slowly (thus guaranteeing it's easier to hit them.)  While a tank can park and soak the damage into the motive system and still be a useful defensive position until you've worn through the armor, a VTOL Can't Do That.

Not much would be fitted with very same weapons, but that is the point why you should plate it with armors, rather than avoid to. Because, it means the enemy have to spend the most efficient weapons to hunt down them. And those which have good odds againsts VTOL are also usually effective against ASFs. And consider cheap cost of those VTOLs, forcing your opponent to put those specialized weapons or have to waste far more firepower is already enough. That's the advantage you may enjoy because it's NOT a duel, but the group versus group.

An another point is, since it's NOT a duel, why you think about the next turn? If the VTOL loses too much MP thrn even if it does not reduced to 0/0 and got crashed immediately it's not going to survive the next turn, indeed. But is it really meaningful? That would be critical if it's a duel. If it is only a duel, nothing more. But group versus group is different - remember that a downed unit does not immediately results your defeat. Their durability is important because it's NOT a duel, for you will be expected to face the numbers of enemy units, some countermeasures included, also while the enemy can focusing the fire you can do that as well and you do have more than only a VTOL too. If the opponent aims their all the LB-X assets to only one or two VTOLs you have? Congratulation, the other VTOLs and ASFs with anti armor weapon proof you have are all safe this turn, and perhaps those targeted VTOLs are may survives. If they don't got crashed, perhaps they lure the standard anti armor weapons thus buying even an another round as well. Even if they are fallen this round, or the next round, only a handful of 30 tonner, or 60 tonner in the case of superheavy VTOL, would be got the concentrated fire and leaves the other VTOLs or even more of yours unharmed.

If it were a duel or only a handful of units are got involved, indeed it would be a grave loss, but in this case you expect lesser fatality too, and it also means each time the opponent aims your cheap VTOL they bears more risk to waste their precious firepower that have considerable portion on their entire forces. And the durability is even more important on the larger conflict.

All the point is valid as long as the VTOL have good armor point. Otherwise, those would be explodes, and you don't have any chance to complain about a destroyed rotor. Yes VTOLs never bogged downed and keep fights, just crashes, but your idea don't even give them a chance to crash and they are all expected to be explodes on air and you don't have a reason to prepare for a crash. Moreover, while the VTOLs with reasonable armor are only susceptible to LB-X and some cluster weapons and forcing the opponent to bring their anti VTOL assets, the only thing VTOLs with pathetic armor can rely is its good to hit modifier to anyone aims it thanks to its speed, means apart the accracy issue any anti armor weapons will ends them quickly so more enemy units can react to them at ease.

Remember, nothing is invincible, ever, but how hard to silence it does matters. Because the difficulty often results the odds of the engagements.

[Cannonshop]

Not much would be fitted with very same weapons, but that is the point why you should plate it with armors, rather than avoid to. Because, it means the enemy have to spend the most efficient weapons to hunt down them. And those which have good odds againsts VTOL are also usually effective against ASFs. And consider cheap cost of those VTOLs, forcing your opponent to put those specialized weapons or have to waste far more firepower is already enough. That's the advantage you may enjoy because it's NOT a duel, but the group versus group.

An another point is, since it's NOT a duel, why you think about the next turn? If the VTOL loses too much MP thrn even if it does not reduced to 0/0 and got crashed immediately it's not going to survive the next turn, indeed. But is it really meaningful? That would be critical if it's a duel. If it is only a duel, nothing more. But group versus group is different - remember that a downed unit does not immediately results your defeat. Their durability is important because it's NOT a duel, for you will be expected to face the numbers of enemy units, some countermeasures included, also while the enemy can focusing the fire you can do that as well and you do have more than only a VTOL too. If the opponent aims their all the LB-X assets to only one or two VTOLs you have? Congratulation, the other VTOLs and ASFs with anti armor weapon proof you have are all safe this turn, and perhaps those targeted VTOLs are may survives. If they don't got crashed, perhaps they lure the standard anti armor weapons thus buying even an another round as well. Even if they are fallen this round, or the next round, only a handful of 30 tonner, or 60 tonner in the case of superheavy VTOL, would be got the concentrated fire and leaves the other VTOLs or even more of yours unharmed.

If it were a duel or only a handful of units are got involved, indeed it would be a grave loss, but in this case you expect lesser fatality too, and it also means each time the opponent aims your cheap VTOL they bears more risk to waste their precious firepower that have considerable portion on their entire forces. And the durability is even more important on the larger conflict.

All the point is valid as long as the VTOL have good armor point. Otherwise, those would be explodes, and you don't have any chance to complain about a destroyed rotor. Yes VTOLs never bogged downed and keep fights, just crashes, but your idea don't even give them a chance to crash and they are all expected to be explodes on air and you don't have a reason to prepare for a crash. Moreover, while the VTOLs with reasonable armor are only susceptible to LB-X and some cluster weapons and forcing the opponent to bring their anti VTOL assets, the only thing VTOLs with pathetic armor can rely is its good to hit modifier to anyone aims it thanks to its speed, means apart the accracy issue any anti armor weapons will ends them quickly so more enemy units can react to them at ease.

Remember, nothing is invincible, ever, but how hard to silence it does matters. Because the difficulty often results the odds of the engagements.

I think we're talking past each other in some aspects here.

I outlined why I don't use "SLOW" VTOLs-they're a quick kill for the other side in most of the non-duel fights, because non-duellist players will exploit targets that are easy to cripple or kill.

It's a psychology thing, PPLP, which is why the numbers game only tells a fraction of the story.  Battles are often won or lost not on the raw calculations, but on exploiting an opponent's mistakes, and taking slow VTOLs instead of something (almost ANYTHING) else? is in my view, a mistake that will be exploited.

as I've said before (many times) it takes mutual cooperation from both sides and optimized team layouts to make slow VTOLs more than a handicap-even with the friendliest optional rules.

In other words, your opponent has to either make lots of mistakes, or intentionally assist your forces for something like a Yellowjacket or Yasha to be an asset-most of the forces you'd build to make them viable, are actually better off using something else, and the maps they're favored for by (for example) DevianID's scenario rules?

You're still better off sinking that BV and materiel into something NOT a VTOL, and it's all down to how VTOL units Operate-both in terms of their unique traits and virtues, and their specific weaknesses.  some design ideas just don't work.  They're 'rules legal' and at first blush,doing a number-crunch comparison, they look fantastic-but they aren't against live opponents whom aren't either intentionally nerfing, or inexperienced/incompetent.

IOW it comes down to where those virtues (the movement abilities in particular) are actually valuable-theyr'e not valuable in a small map, because a small map doesn't actually have enough room to use them. It's like trying to use Aerofighters in a cavern.

The 'virtues' of the VTOL class are movement-you're above the terrain unless you fly low, you get a small bonus on your base to-hit defense modifier, and you can see over obstacles in double-blind play, and there's the rotor hit nerf, which gives a sort of 'limited invulnerability' where you're essentially going to shed 90% of a hit's damage on 30% of your locations for the loss of 1 MP cruising minimum.

To play that game, you need a deep enough cruise MP that you're still viable as a combatant right up to when you fall out of the sky.

To add to that, VTOLs have the best payload-to-speed ratio of any  unit in Battletech-the suspension factor means you can carry some nearly absurd loadouts on a very small engine-the payload to speed ratio is fan-frikking-tastic.

But then, you've got the downsides;

Parking is suicide, losing your motive system is fatal, you take falling damage when you go down and that, in turn, can be fatal to characters you're trying to level up.  'Stopped' (no movement or very, very, very slow movement) isn't a viable move, and you can become fatally one with the terrain on a bad PSR if you're trying to get clever and use terrain to get close enough to use short range weapons.

Specifically, if you're flanking to get into position for that good shot.

That means as a player, you're looking at an entire classification of units where armor protection levels aren't as important as speed.  VTOL tactics work with Hovertanks, light 'mechs, WiGEs and quick wheeled vehicles.  But tactics that work with those others? don't necessarily ALSO work for VTOLs.

Building a VTOL like an Assault tank? and all you get is a cheap target for the other side and wasted BV, it's not a powerful asset, it's a handicap that must rely on other units to protect it so you can use that overwhelming firepower, and for the budget in tonnage and build, you're better off building (or buying) either an actual assault vehicle, (track, wheel or hover) or sinking that point value into skills for the units you were GOING to use as bodyguards-they'll be more effective.

In turn, PPLP, that means looking at what a VTOL is USEFUL for-it's useful for fast harassment both at range, and up close, there's a below-minimum on armor, sure-the Cyrano's a dog because it's essentially going to be cored by a medium laser hit to the side and is practically the platonic vision of glass hammers.

But the Slow/Armor VTOLs are just as bad with fewer roles where they're actually useful, and no situation where picking literally anything else isn't a better option.

Roles, PPLP.  The reason you choose units, is to accomplish things.  With any conventional vehicle, the role is also informed by 'we can't afford  a proper battlemech for this job'-something that can go slow, lose sections, and still keep fighting.

in that context, there are several canon designs that are flat out BETTER.  Even in the 'tough mobile sniper role', but they're better at it either because they're not VTOLs, or because they're fast enough to BE useful for long enough to actually influence the battle.

Hawk Moth, Donar, you get the picture? They can move fast enough to GET in good positions, and get out of trouble before trouble gets into them.

The ability to get the guns on target without needing to flank every turn is USEFUL, the ability to handle a crash landing or lucky hit? is convenient, but it's not completely vital as long as you can handle a 1-3 level drop and still have your pilot alive enough to be rescued.

There are designs that are, in fact, too light...and their BV reflects this, but 'too light' isn't the same as 'ineffectual in the right hands' or 'needs the entire force on both sides configured to make them useful'.

[Cannonshop]

AS I said before, there's smart attrition, and there's dumb attrition.  Smart attrition is leveraging units that you can afford to lose, dumb attrition is building your entire force around a single 'wonder weapon' that must be protected.

Fun side story, about fifteen years ago, ran a table game, and one of my players brought a LANCE of Yellowjackets on the idea that he could lose one or two and still out-smack the other side with that many cheap gauss rifles.

I killed three of them with a single Marten, and he never got them into a position to be a significant threat.  The air-duel was a whole sideshow for the rest of the players.

Then the following weekend I did it with a Mantis.

This is the psychology side of tactics-the YJ and similar designs can't leverage enough movement to force the other side to react to them-they end up tied down in reacting, because an aggressive tactical player can exploit their lack of mobility and specific vulnerabilities, and do so with ease (and something cheaper).

With VTOL units, your best weapon, is what's going on between the ears of your opponent, and some design philosophies don't allow you to use it.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Well, even the 'slow' VTOLs are expected to have 7/11 at least, to take the skirmisher/harrasser role. And those are still better to have 10/15 or more as well. Yellow Jacket is fine as 6/9 but that's only acceptable because it's primary role is the sniper, and it is stupid to push those to roaming the enemy around as if it's a Warrior - I doubt that you ever expect this, though. Not to mention that you can buy about four Yellow Jackets while you can only buy a Hollander with the similar C-Bill.

And as the niche unit it would be expected to have some flaws. And being the sniper means it doesn't have to be that fast either. Actually 6/9 as well as being airborne means it's a very fast sniper. It is not so slow for put them on the middle of the line or behind of the frontline of your formation too, and in this case they are quite survivable. Not to mention that its nature of airborne unit makes it better suited for the position than Hollander, and it causes more to hit modifier who targets it. Nothing says that the Yellow Jacket should be stay in a place either; it could advance backwards, which I did mentioned repeatedly.

It is the problem that try to using a sniper as the skirmisher and argue that 'Why this skirmisher does not works as it should be.' It's nothing different to put the armored howitzer to the front and says that "Because it's tracked and is armored so it is a tank and it must be placed on the frontline." For frontliner skirmishers and 30 tonner it would be expected to have cruising MP of about 7~10 as minimum, but is not a virtue for a sniper. And low engine rating requirement for VTOL could be abused for gather more spare tonnage too.

Anyway, even those armored VTOLs are should have enough speed as well, to take the role efficiently. Sure that means lower firepower, but seriously, will just some tons makes that much difference? On the case of medium battle armor, I understand that putting lower armor on them for the maximum armor point may results them to only fitted with a single MG if they had better armor such as improved stealth armor. Yes VTOLs have low weight so every spare ton does counts. but will only have 3.5 ton of standard armor have that much firepower, if you could spend 3.5 tons more and fitted with far better armor points? With ten spare heat sinks(assumed that it have at least fusion engine), that would be enough for having three medium lasers and a small laser so it would makes the difference, indeed, but what if you have enough tonnage to already adds something like that? After then I don't think that 3.5 spare tons could be used to increase its firepower dramatically.

Perhaps it could be used for enhance its speed? A fusion engine for a 30 tons VTOL weights 3 tons for cruising 7, 9 tons for cruising 10, 19 tons for cruising 13. Perhaps it does matters for the VTOLs with cruising 7, but for the others it doesn't looks so good enough.

And I don't understand why you are complain about rotor despite what you advocate does not expect the chance to suffer the destroyed rotor result. Is there any reason why you think that the VTOL that is could be destroyed quickly by any type of weapons is better than the VTOL that is only susceptible to LB-X and some other weapons? Despite both would have the same cruising MP and also same to hit modifier? Is there any meaning for 'destroyed rotor' if the said VTOL is explodes instantly by struck by a PPC, for example? Rotor does not saves your VTOL as if it's an energy shield. It only struck by about 30%. The other 69+% are hits on the other parts, remember, and those parts does not enjoys 1/10 damage reduction but those parts are not subjected to be capped at 2 armor points either. That means you should plate the armor on it.

Yes it is also true that VTOL is hard to hit, due to its high to hit modifier. Even LB-X are not that easy to hit those either, for although it gets -1 for cluster round and also -2 for aims the airborne unit VTOL's high cruising speed still causes considerable to hit modifier to the attackers. But even if you are fully armored it, that doesn't reduce the to hit modifier either. And as I said above you do need several LB-X fragments that was hit the VTOL to kill it.

Anyway, you better think the battle as the teamwork, rather than duel. It is not the duel at all, and you have several units to control. You should acknowledge that anything shoots something cannot shoot the another at the same time. Anything that shoots them to death means, the same firepower does not touches all the others. Thus durable unit makes the opponent to think twice before which one to shoot, they will gives some time before perished and split fire does little to them. And because Battletech rules requires you to declare all the shots and its targets, after then resolve all the attacks, so durable units may cause overkill and wasting the enemy firepowers as well.