Future LAM technology

[packhntr]

On (2), what about replacing Endo-steel option with Endo-composite?
Also with allowing XL and light engines wouldn't that also allow weapons split between torso locations?

I forgot about Endo-Composite.   YES on allowing it.

As for why not splitting up weapons.  I look at engines as a large "chunk".  they take up room.  Period.  The mech is designed around them.  Weapons are considered add ons.  Splitting up a weapon between a torso and arm is theoretically difficult enough for a biped.  With a LAM you have the conversion to account for.  Things have to manipulate in ways that would cause severe issues with things like weapons.... power feeds or ammo feeds....firing mechanisms...etc.  Don't get me wrong... A fling transformable AC20 would be awesome!  But I feel the mechanism would be so prone to failure or malfunctions that it would be useless. 

[Talen5000]

Or are no changes required anymore?

No - the current rules neuter the tech enough as it is.

[Col Toda]

When mixed tech becomes Advanced in the time line no rational reason Clan weapons would not be normal on LAMs. Composite IS and small cockpit  should be standard equipment for them as well  . Very specialized niche  they fill does not warrant any any further research or resources develping .

[RifleMech]

The thing is while composite structure and small cockpits do reduce weight and crit spaces they also come with penalties. So I would think that there's still room for research. Especially since the QuadVee has no such tech restrictions. If that's something unique to Quads, let us have QuadLAMs. If it isn't unique to quads, let the LAM research continue.

[Col Toda]

Very different roles . A quadvee uses its alternative movement mode to go faster on roads and have a suspension factor for increased speed . LAMs are far faster and better in movement.  LAMs are just not worthe the investment in improving.

[Maingunnery]

Very different roles . A quadvee uses its alternative movement mode to go faster on roads and have a suspension factor for increased speed . LAMs are far faster and better in movement.  LAMs are just not worthe the investment in improving.

That depends upon the local circumstances, one idea I had for a LAM faction are nomadic space-travelers that only sporadically needed units on the ground.   

[Col Toda]

Jump Ships and Drop Ships require fuel and spare parts all the time . Mechs need fuel and spare parts  when used . Going around space and landing on the ground from time to time describes Pirates and Interstellar explorers only . A lot of specialized customization for drop ships in either case . Just the tonnage of food and water in Man days is sizable . Low man power  to off set this makes you vulnerable to  boarding by battle armor  too many kills endurance  . LAMs or for that matter any forces away from regular logistic supply requires a cargo dropship  like a ROSE expending half its cargo space for a small factory module  to represent facilities to fabricate spare parts at 3-5 X price  . Cracking equipment to make water or Ice into hydrogen fuel and oxygen  for life support  . It is doable and has been done, but  even with grav decks mankind does not adapt well to Long term micro gravity . Small Craft and better performing  Areospace and Battlemechs is a more  rational approach. 

[Maingunnery]

Going around space and landing on the ground from time to time describes Pirates and Interstellar explorers only .

Belters & Jarnfolk

These almost never go planetside.

[Col Toda]

Belters are gene engineered.  Jarn Folk have deep periphery planets . To be a Jarl requires a jump ship and a planet to generate the resources to upkeep the jump ship . You cannot maintain the reputation of bad ass melee weapon specialists practicing in  0.2 to 0.5 gravdecks . They have mineral or  food producing worlds in the Deep Periphery.  Likely 1.2 g worlds or less pleasant rock with a small portion of the surface conditioned to grow terrestrial plants. Every Jarn Folk faction have their own Jump Ship lose it the faction dies or is absorbed by another . Aquire another a new faction can be made or an old one gets stronger. Do you actually believe a people who routinely beat Clan Elementals caste in melee in circles of equals can get the needed muscle and body mass on a grav deck . Rotating it for even O.8 G would cause needless were and tear on the moving parts . Watch the Expanse TV show people in long term micro gravity  problems .

[RifleMech]

Very different roles . A quadvee uses its alternative movement mode to go faster on roads and have a suspension factor for increased speed . LAMs are far faster and better in movement.  LAMs are just not worthe the investment in improving.

Quadvees can use just about every tech item available including OMNI Technology. All things that have been taken away from LAMs. So, yeah, I can see room for LAMs to be improved.

That depends upon the local circumstances, one idea I had for a LAM faction are nomadic space-travelers that only sporadically needed units on the ground.   

Belters & Jarnfolk

These almost never go planetside.

I can see LAMs being used by those groups.

[Maingunnery]

Belters are gene engineered.  Jarn Folk have deep periphery planets . To be a Jarl requires a jump ship and a planet to generate the resources to upkeep the jump ship . You cannot maintain the reputation of bad ass melee weapon specialists practicing in  0.2 to 0.5 gravdecks . They have mineral or  food producing worlds in the Deep Periphery.  Likely 1.2 g worlds or less pleasant rock with a small portion of the surface conditioned to grow terrestrial plants. Every Jarn Folk faction have their own Jump Ship lose it the faction dies or is absorbed by another . Aquire another a new faction can be made or an old one gets stronger. Do you actually believe a people who routinely beat Clan Elementals caste in melee in circles of equals can get the needed muscle and body mass on a grav deck . Rotating it for even O.8 G would cause needless were and tear on the moving parts . Watch the Expanse TV show people in long term micro gravity  problems .

Micro-gravity gene-modification is likely quite widely spread in the BT universe, heck " routinely beat Clan Elementals caste in melee" sounds like gene-modification on the Jarn Folk part.

[grimlock1]

Micro-gravity gene-modification is likely quite widely spread in the BT universe, heck " routinely beat Clan Elementals caste in melee" sounds like gene-modification on the Jarn Folk part.

What book will tell me more about these Jarn Folk?

[Col Toda]

(Books)
Jarn Folk info is very widely scattered . (  1692 Periphery FASA Corporation ) has tthe emphasis on viking culture,  emphases on the importance  of individual Clan ornate ancient jumpships . They are the best by far infantry trooper per man than any other faction in the Battletech Universe  . In melee with Vibra weapons and Rage combat drugs they have  a decent shot of cracking open Elemental Battle Armor without being in Battle Armor themselves.  In very much later Eras when they do get older suits of battle armor they are just that much more over top powerful in their  niche.

 The ( A Time of War  ) emphasized melee specialization  and not being a special gene engineered phenotype. The Viking culture has separate  units divided into ruthless natural leaders called Jarls//Earls and there thingman lieutenants  . Each Jarl has a seat at the Althing assembly with first amoung equals maybe given earned title of king .

The (A Time of War Companion)  has mutants stemming  from the normal human phenotype arising at Deep Periphery  colony worlds  be it the ugly judicial  champion mutants w the. 9 + str augmented with Rage drugs to give rise to Berserker viking legends euphemistically called Grendal to exotic tall Platinum blond violet eyed 10 or so Charisma euphemistically called decentants of the Gods gregarious mutant Face man or women  that can trivally inspire Devlin Stone like fanatical devotion . Common A Time of War RPG trait is Natural Aptitude advanced melee combat that is roll 3 d6 and take the best 2 .  Another  common is exceptional attribute to rise above phenotype limits . Uncommon advantages is a mutation that augments the exceptional attribute  . Fit and tough advantages are also common . The above are extreme maximum possible potential attributes normal range for active characters is around 7+ augmented with combat drugs respectables skill levels and positive traits enhancing all of the above. 

( As for Norse Culture and Vikings all sorts of dry real world historical sources including the oldest democratic assembly in Iceland . Althing and thingman History channel crap knock yourself out on how in the Battletech universe this culture would Have to shape itself. )

The Jarn folk have uncommon mutants and common exceptional physical attribute advantages born out ruthless winnowing of the weak Eugenic ultra Darwinistic environment that was in play centuries before the Clan in the Iron Wombs was even an idea . This is why in circles of equals they kick the ass of Clan mech and Elemental warrior's as only the most powerful and skilled judical champions from the Viking culture is ever in them to fight the Clan opponant . For the Clans the rare good enough or lucky warrrior that beats a Jarn folk champion almost has to be bloodnamed skilled to have a chance .

The Jarn Folk speak a version of Norse and depending on luck and power using Viking cultural guidelines range from Republic like circle of equals w an elected first among who if ruthless , successful and lucky enough might be called a King in their life time . Mostly it is just different Jarls jocking for! better positions arranging marriage alliances and other politics as usual in the fuedalistic Battletech  Universe .

The culture clearly bridges the best of the self made individual warrior that the Clans connect with and fuedalistic  Jarl strong man Noble  the Inner Sphere understands and connects with . That is their place in the universe  . Sometimes different hard up Jarls and community's hire out to get resources and currency to advance and better themselves.  Mostly the keep to themselves rarely do the go a Viking to take resouces from the weak as each other is far closer to travel or the rare batchal challenge at a Clan outpost for resources.

Most Inner Sphere warriors go through their whole lifetimes without ever encountering a Jarn Folk .  Clanners look at meeting them as am opportunity to prove they are worthy of renoun and fame and homeworlds and outposts just very much closer.  They have an aura of legend about them that other factions do not have because of that lack of interaction and isolation in which they live in .

All Jarn Folk warriors  are infantry trained . Only the best mercenary units have any chance to hire them for thier company's  . The price is steep because they would not be available to hire in the first place unless their community was not hard up for resources.  Sometimes the price is Battle armor training and they
 leave with the  Battle armor suit  when the contract is up . They have a tiny niche in which they are best at and trade on that reputation heavily .

As they have almost no Mechwarriors they are not depicted much in Battletech materials

To get back  on topic  purpose built mechs and areospace fighters will always be more efficient than a LAMs with stunts you still can get a decent fighting unit . Jarnfolk left for the deep periphery before mechs were developed let alone LAMs . Belters are second class people and all anyone has to do for them to fork over resources is to threaten to blow a hole in the asteroid they live on with a NPPC or less . They pay taxes and tribute to anyone who comes along with enough ordnance.  If they are lucky a house , comstar or WOB will provide enough protection that they are only getting shook down  by them.  If want an explanation to use a LAM in the periphery.  Explorer Corp with a WOB pilot pretending to be Com Star  field testing away from prying  eyes or a Com Star Stooge who thinks they are doing it for Comstar or a Draconis Combine Nobel assigned to explorer Corps who brought family LAM on assignment.

[Hominid Mk II]

I'd allow Endo Steel and Endo-Composite Internal Structure and Ferro-Fibrous, Heavy Ferro-Fibrous and Light Ferro-Fibrous Armor. But I'd require a symmetrical distribution of Critical Slots for all of them. For example, Endo Steel might be RA 3, LA 3, RT 3, LT 3, RL 1 and LL 1.

I'd also allow Stealth Armor, but only allow it to function properly in a single mode. (Converting to another mode would create gaps between armor sections and prevent the Stealth from functioning properly.) Same with N-SS, CLPS and V-SS.

I'd allow TSM, but only with a symmetrical distribution of RA 1, LA 1, RT 1, LT 1, RL 1 and LL 1.

I wish I could think of a pretext for allowing Light, XL or XXL Engines, but I can't. My first Rulebook was The BattleTech Compendium from 1989, and when I read the construction rules for LAMs there I thought straight away that XLs shouldn't be allowed because their bulk should logically interfere with the conversion process.

[RifleMech]

I'd be okay with a set Crit Slots for Internal Structure and Armor Types but it'd need to include the Center Torso. We've used the FrankenMech and Patchwork Armor rules to determine numbers for crits.

TSM is also legal now. We've toyed with allowing Internal Structures and Armors as long as they followed the same rules. That kept the fluff where they couldn't be used during the SL era but could be made with later advancements.

As for stealth Armor, Null Sig, Chameleon I'd be okay with their use but converting would disrupt their functions for a turn before they reestablished. 

[grimlock1]

As for stealth Armor, Null Sig, Chameleon I'd be okay with their use but converting would disrupt their functions for a turn before they reestablished.

Even with the partial wing effect, Airmechs can get generate a fair bit of movement heat. Add that the stealth heat and it could be a bit of nuance.  Also, I had a bit of a giggle how Void Sig would virtually useless for something that moves as much as a LAM ought to be moving.   On the other hand, if you plop down next to somebody, stealth, or null sig won't help, but Void will.  At least on the next turn.

[Talen5000]

I'd allow Endo Steel and Endo-Composite Internal Structure and Ferro-Fibrous, Heavy Ferro-Fibrous and Light Ferro-Fibrous Armor. But I'd require a symmetrical distribution of Critical Slots for all of them. For example, Endo Steel might be RA 3, LA 3, RT 3, LT 3, RL 1 and LL 1.

I'd also allow Stealth Armor, but only allow it to function properly in a single mode. (Converting to another mode would create gaps between armor sections and prevent the Stealth from functioning properly.) Same with N-SS, CLPS and V-SS.

I'd allow TSM, but only with a symmetrical distribution of RA 1, LA 1, RT 1, LT 1, RL 1 and LL 1.

I wish I could think of a pretext for allowing Light, XL or XXL Engines, but I can't. My first Rulebook was The BattleTech Compendium from 1989, and when I read the construction rules for LAMs there I thought straight away that XLs shouldn't be allowed because their bulk should logically interfere with the conversion process.

To be honest, there isn't any technology that strikes me as suited for LAMs or unable to be integrated

I would simply make two changes

The chassis can only support 1 point of armour per point of IS, 2 on the head
Jump Jets don't allow for flight. LAMs require either dual mode jump jets which are heavier/larger than standard or dedicated flight engines. Also to be added...fuel.

This allows the use of advanced technology, but then uses that mass for flight engines,  and fuel.

For example...

A Phoenix Hawk LAM under these suggestions with ES and an XL would gain an extra 9 tons but could spend 3 tons, 6 crits on 150 fuel points, and 5 tons on 5 1-ton flight engines. Simpler rules and fewer exceptions and a 5 ton gain in equipment offset by a higher cost, greater vulnerability...XL... and less armour.
 

[Atarlost]

The chassis can only support 1 point of armour per point of IS, 2 on the head

That pretty much wipes out their viability as a combat platform.  Their niche is being tougher than VTOLs, but their head is now more fragile than a rotor against most weapons and their total armor limit is little more than half as much. 

Jump Jets don't allow for flight. LAMs require either dual mode jump jets which are heavier/larger than standard or dedicated flight engines. Also to be added...fuel.

And this makes usable LAMs impossible to actually build the moment XL engines or endosteel are lost and leaves them only remotely usable in airmech mode.  Consider the Stinger ATG-A5 that is supposed to be in production on Irece until the Clans conquer it.  It can't have XL engines or endosteel.  If you strip off all of the weapons you can get a pitiful 40 points of fuel with double weight jumpjets. 

My benchmark for good LAM rules is that they should compete with mechs and ASFs one tech level lower.  I consider the conversion capability not justified without this and development would have moved into non-converting airmechs. 
Succession Wars or non-Royal SLDF LAMs (ie. those that could be maintained in sufficient quantities to get record sheets in the 3025 era) should be able to compete with a primitive ASF and mechs. 
Royal grade SLDF LAMs should be able to compete with Succession Wars ASF and mechs. 
Clantech or Mixed Tech LAMs should be able to compete with SLDF Royal ASF and mechs. 

LAMs as Mechs do okay by that standard.  Even bimodal LAMs don't cost as much tonnage as primitive engines, and DHS generally covers the mass penalty for trimodal LAMs, though Clantech's lighter weapons don't tend to save enough weight to cover not having Endo or ferro when trying to exactly match an SLDF Royal mech unless you're looking at trading LLs in for CERML or shrinking a lot of LRMs. 

LAMs as ASF do not.  They require Jihad era tech and mixed tech and give up being able to really match a mech by abusing ASF range brackets just to swap MLs to CERSLs to duplicate a primitive SB-26 Sabre or CNT-1A Centurion.  And they have to use VDNI to offset the small cockpit penalty. 

I've identified four major problems:
1) The crits occupied by landing gear combined with the mech location to ASF arc mapping make the most advantageous firing arc under TW almost unusable. 
2) Internal structure, jumpjets, and gyro are all dead weight for ASF on top of the conversion equipment while mechs have only the conversion equipment as penalty weight.  In exchange LAMs get a measly 1 ton of fuel for free. 
3) ASF get +2 safe thrust while LAMs do not. 
4) IJJ are not available during the period when LAMs were first identified as worthwhile, but are necessary to make them useful at the tech level then prevalent. 

To correct these issues I suggest:
1a) Either the arms or side torsos (not both) map to the nose arc in ASF mode. 
1b) The landing gear crit from the CT may be traded for one in each leg.
2a) LAMs receive 35 thrust points of fuel for every jumpjet, presumed to correspond to the jumpjet fuel for vacuum operations.  35 is selected to be the lowest multiple of 5 that allows a reasonable LAM to reach 400 points without needing to spend additional tonnage on fuel.  (This gives them something in ASF mode for their jumpjets.)
2b) LAMs receive bonus thrust points equal to 1/100 their engine rating rounded up that can be used only for maneuvers that result in facing changes and facing changes in vacuum.  This is lost if their gyro is damaged or some other change I'm not currently contemplating allows them to operate without one.  (This gives them something in ASF mode for their gyro.)
2c) Trimodal LAMs with functioning conversion equipment may make a second piloting check after a check due to damage that would cause them to crash.  If they pass they convert to Airmech mode and land safely.  (This gives them something for their conversion equipment, which offsets that I can think of no way to make mech internal structure a practical benefit to them in ASF mode.)
3-4) LAMs in ASF mode have safe thrust equal to the minimum of 2+engine rating/mass (ie. the safe thrust that engine would give an ASF of the same weight) or twice the number of jumpjets.  This does not effect their jumping movement in mech mode or their airmech movement.  IJJs have no benefit over standard jumpjets in ASF mode, but do effect airmech movement. 

In terms of advanced tech I'd allow anything that does not represent a single rigid structure split across multiple locations except armors that are not allowed on both mechs and ASF.  I assume that if FFA could handle reentry heating there would be no FAA and if FAA could function thin enough to use on articulated mechs there would be no FFA.  I would, however, exclude all physical weapons and industrial equipment by default with a white list of the hatchet, claw (I can imagine an appropriately shaped hatchet or pair of claws as canards), sword, lance, chainsaw (I can imagine the previous three folding between the arms), retractable blade (already retracts into the arm), and spot welder (small enough to not disrupt aerodynamics)

In terms of new tech how about a CLFE with the weight of an LFE and occupying 8 slots in the center torso and introduced in the late 3060s by Clan WiE or Diamond Shark.  With rule change 2b allowing the landing gear crit to be displaced from the center torso this allows Clan tech or mixed tech LAMs a reduced weight engine around the time pure IS tech is getting things like HFA and MMLs. 

[Maingunnery]

Quite well argued.  :thumbsup:

2b) LAMs receive bonus thrust points equal to 1/100 their engine rating rounded up that can be used only for maneuvers that result in facing changes and facing changes in vacuum.  This is lost if their gyro is damaged or some other change I'm not currently contemplating allows them to operate without one.  (This gives them something in ASF mode for their gyro.)

I would simplify as LAMs getting free facing changes in space (no atmosphere, working gyro).

[Talen5000]

That pretty much wipes out their viability as a combat platform.  Their niche is being tougher than VTOLs, but their head is now more fragile than a rotor against most weapons and their total armor limit is little more than half as much. 

They were never good at front line combat at all. They were always fragile and any force using them as such was foolish. They were harrassers, scouts and interceptors.  But if one point per IS is too weak, then you could go for 3 points of armour per 2 IS.

And this makes usable LAMs impossible to actually build the moment XL engines or endosteel are lost and leaves them only remotely usable in airmech mode. 

No....it reduces their available payload. And it reins in the AirMech mode which, being blunt, probably should NOT be a viable combat mode in BT.

My benchmark for good LAM rules is that they should compete with mechs and ASFs one tech level lower.

And mines is that they should fill the role of scout, harrasser and quick response. LAMs have always been fragile but the exact masses and figures can be massaged to provide the desired degree of fragility. LAMs need fewer exceptions from the standard ruleset and even though the AirMech mode has been nerfed, it is still fairly strong. Your suggestion that non-converting AirMechs would have been plausible seems to suggest you would agree with this.

You can add certain limits to the concepts. A LAM might be expected to carry to enough fuel to make only one or two trips to and from orbit. It might be able to burn fuel at half the rate in atmosphere. The flight jets might mass the same mass as jump jets or you might reduce the mass of the conversion system or speed. Even without changing anything, the reduction in armour on a Stinger LAM saves 2.5 tons for the same percentage of maximum cover.

A Stinger LAM for example...


IS.                                3 Tons.   
LAM.                           1.5 Tons. 
Engine.                        5.5 Tons.    (150)   
W/r/J.     5/8/5.         2.5 Tons.         
Flight.      T:4 OT:6.    2 Tons.     
Fuel.         60.               1 Ton.     
Armour.    40.              2.5 tons. 
Gyro.                            2 Tons
Cockpit.                      3 Tons

Total mass.          23 Tons
Weapons.....7 tons

This version is slightly slower....5/8/5 instead of 6/9/6
Its got less fuel...60 points instead of 80
Its more fragile....40 points of armour instead of 80, even with the dame percentage of maximum armour.
But it carries 7 tons of equipment....4 tons from the canon lam and an additional three that could be used to bring the speed up to 6/9/6 or which could restore the mass of the conversion system to 10% or to make the flight jets heavier or, in general, to massage the weight of the new equipment.

A PHX built to the same concepts would need 3.5 tons extra for fuel and flight engines, but lose 1.5 tons from the conversion (now 5% instead of 10%), and 3.5 tons of armour. Again, maybe you want to keep the conversion equipment at 10% of the mass and thats doable. There is room to be flexible here.

If you added an XL or ES, you'd add the potential of another 4 tons, but it'd still be fragile and ill suited to battle because of the lack of armour. Those 4 tons could add a little more protection but you might get better return with a probe or ecm suite, or an upgraded engine for more speed.

The exact values associated with the concept can be adjusted to suit....but I think that the concepts itself is fine in that it creates a LAM that is a lot more fragile even with newtech.

And that is the point here...to create a unit which can benefit from nutech without being too powerful or embracing the nonsensical sledgehammer of an outright ban.

Do you want to make LAMs more useful? More varied?
Perhaps bimodal LAMs get the full armour allotment but lose the AirMech mode.
Perhaps the Clans can build Heavy LAMs.
Perhaps the small cockpit is standard.

There are options for embracing LAMs and making them viable but the end result is that I do not agree that these concepts make 3025 tech LAMs impossible to build. They make such vehicles more fragile...which was the intent.

But they are only my suggestion for making LAMs more acceptable while allowing for the integration of advanced tech. Point being that if you are going to remove one weakness then another needs to be added - in this case, I am suggesting greater granularity wrt the LAMs equipment and fuel, and greater ingame fragility both to eat mass freed up by the use of newtech and to discourage the use of LAMs in combat. They gain strategic mobility, but don't have the fuel to fill an aerospace role, they are fast enough to act as scouts but don't have the armour to take on anything of the same weight class.

[Hominid Mk II]

In terms of new tech how about a CLFE with the weight of an LFE and occupying 8 slots in the center torso and introduced in the late 3060s by Clan WiE or Diamond Shark.  With rule change 2b allowing the landing gear crit to be displaced from the center torso this allows Clan tech or mixed tech LAMs a reduced weight engine around the time pure IS tech is getting things like HFA and MMLs.

You know, I wondered once about the idea of a Clan LFE with all its crits in the CT (which would therefore necessitate the use of a Compact Gyro). It'd probably have an unusually elongated shape compared to any other kind of FE and maybe ought to have some other kind of disadvantage too... maybe hot-running like an XXL?

[RifleMech]

Even with the partial wing effect, Airmechs can get generate a fair bit of movement heat. Add that the stealth heat and it could be a bit of nuance.  Also, I had a bit of a giggle how Void Sig would virtually useless for something that moves as much as a LAM ought to be moving.   On the other hand, if you plop down next to somebody, stealth, or null sig won't help, but Void will.  At least on the next turn.

Heat is a problem but DHS would mitigate that a lot.
Lol. That'd probably be the only way it could be used without walking.

To be honest, there isn't any technology that strikes me as suited for LAMs or unable to be integrated

(snip)
A Phoenix Hawk LAM under these suggestions with ES and an XL would gain an extra 9 tons but could spend 3 tons, 6 crits on 150 fuel points, and 5 tons on 5 1-ton flight engines. Simpler rules and fewer exceptions and a 5 ton gain in equipment offset by a higher cost, greater vulnerability...XL... and less armour.

I agree but to help placate the haters... :(
Can't say I favor reducing the armor load.
Lost me on the Jump Jets. If I made a change it'd be to just a +2 to Thrust in Fighter Mode. It's simple. Makes Fighter Mode more effective, and doesn't invalidate any design.

[RifleMech]

(snip)

No....it reduces their available payload. And it reins in the AirMech mode which, being blunt, probably should NOT be a viable combat mode in BT.


And mines is that they should fill the role of scout, harrasser and quick response. LAMs have always been fragile but the exact masses and figures can be massaged to provide the desired degree of fragility. LAMs need fewer exceptions from the standard ruleset and even though the AirMech mode has been nerfed, it is still fairly strong. Your suggestion that non-converting AirMechs would have been plausible seems to suggest you would agree with this.
(snip)

And that is the point here...to create a unit which can benefit from nutech without being too powerful or embracing the nonsensical sledgehammer of an outright ban.

(snip)

But they are only my suggestion for making LAMs more acceptable while allowing for the integration of advanced tech. Point being that if you are going to remove one weakness then another needs to be added - in this case, I am suggesting greater granularity wrt the LAMs equipment and fuel, and greater ingame fragility both to eat mass freed up by the use of newtech and to discourage the use of LAMs in combat. They gain strategic mobility, but don't have the fuel to fill an aerospace role, they are fast enough to act as scouts but don't have the armour to take on anything of the same weight class.

Weakening LAMs isn't the answer and LAMs were not always fragile. It used to be that LAMs could be built with any tech and be just as good as anything else. A bit slower than ASF but with all the advanced tech that wasn't much of a problem. That's part of why they are so hate and banned. Unclear AirMech Rules were the other. Most of the advanced components have since been taken away leaving LAM behind on the tech curve.

Pretty much the only advanced tech that would hugely benefit the LAM would be the XL and XXL Engines. And honestly, I don't mind being without them. All the other tech? I think should be available. I don't think it should matter how many modes the equipment works in. It works in at least one so it should be mountable. A sword could be the leading edge of a wing. The bucket of a backhoe could form the nose or something. The crits taken more than offset any weight saving benefit because LAMs have 6 fewer critical slots than standard mechs.

As for the Engines, I don't mind being without since I don't know how the LAM could convert without exposing the engine. Maybe if the extra crits were requited to be armored and thus keeping them safe? It certainly wouldn't help every LAM but it doesn't have to either. But for those it does help, it'd free up some tonnage. Not as much as a standard unit, and crit space is still limited but it'd be better than nothing.

AirMech mode should be just as effective as WiGEs, Hovers, and VTOLs, and a ProtoMech. I don't mind AirMechs paying 2 MP for flying 2 elevations and higher. It's the Turn Modes though just kill it for me. It's no fun when you spend the whole game crashing while opposing units can move even faster. And on the ground, at best they might move is maybe 5 MP Sprinting. There's infantry that can move that fast. And probably hit just as hard. AirMechs do not need any more nerfing.

When it comes to fighter mode, I Atarlost. The entire torso should be the forward firing arc.  I also agree with Maingunnery, as long as the LAM has a working Gyro it should get free facing changes in space.  I also agree with the +2 to Thrust that seems to be the most common improvement to LAM rules. It's simple and doesn't make LAMs better than ASF, just a bit more competitive.

[Talen5000]

I agree but to help placate the haters... :(
Can't say I favor reducing the armor load.
Lost me on the Jump Jets. If I made a change it'd be to just a +2 to Thrust in Fighter Mode. It's simple. Makes Fighter Mode more effective, and doesn't invalidate any design.

It would depend on what you want LAMs to do, how you want them to operate.
In the hypothetical situation where you accept that LAMs can access advanced technology components - such as XL engines and Endo Steel - then either you accept that LAMs become stronger, or you accept a need to introduce a weakness to "compensate". CGL appears to think LAMs should be handicapped and whether you agree with that or not, that appears to be reality.

The weakness I suggest is to embrace the canonical fragility of LAMs, but to do so without clunky special rules. Just say the design carries less armour because it needs to transform.
That also creates free mass for the extra components I suggest.
You could, of course, massage the figures to add the standard +2 Thrust but to be fair, I wasn't trying to make LAMs viable in aerial combat but to position the flight mode as strategic mobility. The LAM can fly under its own power to and from orbit, and to and from its operations area for its mission. It isn't intended to engage in dogfighting therefore the +2 thrust is an unnecessary strength. Yes, it makes fighter mode more effective...which is not something I was trying to do. Which was make the LAM an effective scout and harrasser but not a front line combatant, not a dogfighter but still allow for the use of advanced technology.

Different visions of how LAMs operate would require different weakensses and strengths. You wish LAMs to be more effective in fighter mode. There is nothing wrong with that vision, and a +2 thrust would certainly help. But it isn't what I was going for.

[Atarlost]

When it comes to fighter mode, I Atarlost. The entire torso should be the forward firing arc.  I also agree with Maingunnery, as long as the LAM has a working Gyro it should get free facing changes in space.  I also agree with the +2 to Thrust that seems to be the most common improvement to LAM rules. It's simple and doesn't make LAMs better than ASF, just a bit more competitive.

My thought on possibly keeping the side torsos as the wing arcs and putting the arms in the nose arc is that the arms look like they should fold into the underside of the fuselage, which would put the guns right under thenose while the side torsos are supposed to be the wings by damage arc.  Moving either pair of location to the nose arc fixes the problem so the choice between them is almost purely aesthetic. 

It would depend on what you want LAMs to do, how you want them to operate.
In the hypothetical situation where you accept that LAMs can access advanced technology components - such as XL engines and Endo Steel - then either you accept that LAMs become stronger, or you accept a need to introduce a weakness to "compensate". CGL appears to think LAMs should be handicapped and whether you agree with that or not, that appears to be reality.

The weakness of LAMS is that they pay 10% of their mass for conversion equipment.  They don't need weaknesses beyond that for the privilege of being allowed advanced tech because the same advanced tech is available to their competitors, which don't pay 10% of their mass for conversion equipment. 

CGL wrote bad LAM construction rules not for balance (as airmech mode was the only balance issue) but because they find Battletech's past links to Macross an embarrassment they want to sweep under the rug and because they resent fans who ask why things aren't options and since LAMs had been an option in the past they couldn't declare some completely nonsensical reason for them to be fundamentally impossible like they did with non-KF warships. 

[Maingunnery]

You could, of course, massage the figures to add the standard +2 Thrust but to be fair, I wasn't trying to make LAMs viable in aerial combat but to position the flight mode as strategic mobility. The LAM can fly under its own power to and from orbit, and to and from its operations area for its mission. It isn't intended to engage in dogfighting therefore the +2 thrust is an unnecessary strength. Yes, it makes fighter mode more effective...which is not something I was trying to do. Which was make the LAM an effective scout and harrasser but not a front line combatant, not a dogfighter but still allow for the use of advanced technology.

To be a proper scout/harrasser it is better to be fast enough to avoid combat, current LAMs with their low speed and fuel can only hope that no ASFs are around to intercept it. So that +2 is only going to help with being a better scout/harrasser.


I do somewhat agree that LAMs should benefit from fragile technologies (composite structure, etc) as a side-torso loss is a mission kill anyway.
Personally I would like to keep the armor as it is but make the internals more damage prone (see my earlier ideas for composite engines and gyros) but that is just me. 

[Talen5000]

zthe weakness of LAMS is that they pay 10% of their mass for conversion equipment.

That is ONE weakness. Another is that they cannot use certain advanced construction materials. That, in turn, renders them effectively obsolete when facing anything other than 3025 tech opponents as it might cut another 10%-20% off of the effective payload.

Either you accept that LAMs become stronger as a result of adopting new component technology, or you add additional weakness to compensate, changing one weakness for another that might be more appropriate.

You might think these limits exist because of the links with RT...and I'd agree to an extent...but they also exist because CGLs vision of what LAMs are and how they work appears very different from yours.

The change I suggested is simple. Remove all the rules about forbidden tech (the sledgehammer option) and replace them with dedicated components and an armour limitation. That suggestion is one that is intended to replace a weakness, not remove it.

[Talen5000]

To be a proper scout/harrasser it is better to be fast enough to avoid combat, current LAMs with their low speed and fuel can only hope that no ASFs are around to intercept it. So that +2 is only going to help with being a better scout/harrasser.

Yep. It would. But the system I suggested is one where LAMs aren't anywhere close to a match for ASFs. Airmode is there for transport to and from orbit, and strategic movement over long distances without the need of specialised transport assets.

Faster is of course better and that can be achieved through a +X thrust or a larger engine. The question is how effective do you want LAMs to be...a unit with a maximum thrust of 4 is already going to be many times faster than ground based Mechs so additional thrust isn't really an advantage in that sense.

Indeed, I could argue that with the suggested reduction in armour, and the greater freedom of movement combined with the specialist chassis and more flexible actuators, a +1 or even +2 to the walking MP might be appropriate (not affecting jump or thrust) but that would be moving into custom rules. If you want that then I could suggest that the armour limit be dropped but LAMs gain a free +1 or +2 Walk MP in Mech mode if no section carries more than half its maximum armour (6 points max for the head).

But again, trying to avoid specialist rules.

I do somewhat agree that LAMs should benefit from fragile technologies (composite structure, etc) as a side-torso loss is a mission kill anyway.
Personally I would like to keep the armor as it is but make the internals more damage prone (see my earlier ideas for composite engines and gyros) but that is just me.

I considered it, but then you are getting into the realm of specialist rules...Mechs get a TAC on a result of 2-4, that component takes double damage, etc.

The reduced armour suggestion makes sense...to me, anyway...because it represents limitations needed to let the LAM retain the freedom necessary to transform AND also frees up most of the mass required for the specialised components I suggested.

The reduced armour reflects the LAMs fragility without any custom rules, the specialised components eat mass and crits but also allow for variation between modes and ensure damage to one mode need not cripple another.

Again, a lot would depend on how you see LAMs and the role they play.

But, my suggestions were intended to replace, not remove, a built in weakness in order to allow the use of advanced tech; to offer the possibility of rules simplification; and to remove the bugbear of "free" equipment such as a free ton of fuel. Addressing concerns over their viability in the air was not.

[Maingunnery]

Yep. It would. But the system I suggested is one where LAMs aren't anywhere close to a match for ASFs. Airmode is there for transport to and from orbit, and strategic movement over long distances without the need of specialised transport assets.

Faster is of course better and that can be achieved through a +X thrust or a larger engine. The question is how effective do you want LAMs to be...a unit with a maximum thrust of 4 is already going to be many times faster than ground based Mechs so additional thrust isn't really an advantage in that sense.

That strategic mobility is an illusion, currently it can only do those things when no aerospace units are nearby. For example SC and DS can also be slow but they have thicker armor, more weapons, and don't have to preserve fuel.

The reduced armour reflects the LAMs fragility without any custom rules, the specialised components eat mass and crits but also allow for variation between modes and ensure damage to one mode need not cripple another.

Vastly lowering the threshold before internal damage occurs cripples all modes, as internal damage quickly mission kill LAMs.

[Talen5000]

That strategic mobility is an illusion, currently it can only do those things when no aerospace units are nearby. For example SC and DS can also be slow but they have thicker armor, more weapons, and don't have to preserve fuel.

It gives a unit the ability to redeploy a land force anywhere on world within hours and do so without dedicated transport assets. Anything more, and you are looking for a LAM that is a viable aerospace combatant.

If that's what you want LAMs to be...fine.

Vastly lowering the threshold before internal damage occurs cripples all modes, as internal damage quickly mission kill LAMs.

And again, unless you want LAMs as front line fighters, would this be an issue? LAMs are supposed to be fragile, to lack protection and to be susceptible to damage.

I think the suggestion of reducing the maximum armour meets that criteria without the need for specialist rules or modifiers.

There are other options.
Banning AirMech mode might be possible. Probably unpopular.
Making Bimodal LAMs the standard, but require they stay still and/or take one turn to convert