Air-Mech viability

[Dataweaver]

I'm wondering how viable an Air-Mech design would be.  Not an LAM: no conversion gear, no Battlemech mode, and no Fighter mode; just an Air-Mech.  Admittedly, its Walk and Run ratings would be severely curtailed (1/3 normal, according to the Quick-Start rules in the 3085 Record Sheets); but the vastly improved jump jet performance (in both degree and kind - triple the MP and WiGE-plus mobility) should easily make up for that.  As well, an Air-Mech would take damage the way that a mech does rather than the way a vehicle does, making it a more robust alternative to WiGE vehicles as well as being a bit more versatile than them (can do everything a WiGE vehicle can, plus the ability to hover and gain additional levels of elevation). 

So, what are the down-sides?  You'd still need to train the pilot in both Aerospace and Battlemech Piloting, although you could skimp on the Battlemech Piloting considering how much more likely the craft is going to be relying on its AirMech MP and you wouldn't need to bother with Aerospace Gunnery training at all; it does have the "Going In" problem if it makes use of its AirMech Flank MP, a problem that WiGE vehicles apparently don't share; and design-wise, you still may need more hardware: you need to purchase a jump jet and (probably) a heat sink for every 3 points of AirMech Cruise MP that you want, whereas a WiGE or VTOL vehicle gets its full Engine MP (and then some) for the "simple" cost of 10% of your tonnage for lift equipment.  (I'm assuming that Air-Mech construction would be the same as Battlemech construction for the most part.)  Still, it's possible that those jump jets and heat sinks would end up taking up 10% or less of the Air-Mech's tonnage for comparable Cruise and Flank ratings; so that may not actually be a problem.  Combat-wise there's more to hit in an Air-Mech; but that might be a blessing in disguise, being part of the Air-Mech's relative robustness vs. a WiGE vehicle. 

What else?  The only remaining downsides that I can think of for an Air-Mech vs. a WiGE vehicle are logistical in nature: more expensive and hard-to-come-by parts.  Is that it?  The only reason why Air-Mechs aren't viable is the bang-for-the-buck ratio?  Or is there something I'm missing? 

[cray]

If you're looking at LAM viability within the context of BattleTech, I'd have to ask: why bother with the airmech and fighter modes, or any transformation? Sure, Robotech was awesome, but Robotech ain't BattleTech.

BT has some incredible fusion rockets. The heaviest, most lumbering aerospace fighters have an acceleration 2 to 3 times that of the best conventional fighters in the real world. Their rocket fuel efficiency is stupefying. The thrust available is incredible. Just shove some of those rockets up the tailpipe of even the least aerodynamic 'Mech and you'll achieve mach 2 flight easily, no transformation needed.

When all's said and done, you'll need to train MechWarriors in BattleMech piloting and basic point-and-click computer-assisted VTOL maneuvering. ****** the whole transformation nonsense. It passes the rule of cool, but it doesn't really deliver anything in a universe where aerospace fighters have such awesome engines. The triumph of thrust over aerodynamics and all that.

[Dataweaver]

Read my post again: I'm not talking about LAMs.  No conversion gear, no Battlemech mode, no Aerospace mode.  Just the Air-Mech mode.  And I'm not trying to compare it to aerospace fighters for the same reason that VTOLs and WiGE vehicles don't get compared to aerospace fighters: they fill an entirely different niche than aerospace fighters do. 

I asked some serious questions about very practical issues, not some rant about "LAMs are so kewl!" - so I'd appreciate a response that's a bit better considered than "LAMs are lame!"  Especially since I'm not even talking about LAMs. 

[Dataweaver]

That's precisely what I'm asking; but I'm taking it as a serious question, not as a dismissive send-off. 

[Fireangel]

Read him again, he asked "WHY BOTHER"

But his entire post is asking "why bother" with full-function LAMS, while DW is asking about non-transforming WiGE-movement only "airmechs".

I'm wondering how viable an Air-Mech design would be.  Not an LAM: no conversion gear, no Battlemech mode, and no Fighter mode; just an Air-Mech.  Admittedly, its Walk and Run ratings would be severely curtailed (1/3 normal, according to the Quick-Start rules in the 3085 Record Sheets); but the vastly improved jump jet performance (in both degree and kind - triple the MP and WiGE-plus mobility) should easily make up for that.  As well, an Air-Mech would take damage the way that a mech does rather than the way a vehicle does, making it a more robust alternative to WiGE vehicles as well as being a bit more versatile than them (can do everything a WiGE vehicle can, plus the ability to hover and gain additional levels of elevation). 

Not having the new rules, I can't fully answer, but even if the airmech is a "mech-shaped WiGE" its higher damage thresholds, multiple hit locations and resistance to motive crits would make it a force to be reckoned with.

So, what are the down-sides?  You'd still need to train the pilot in both Aerospace and Battlemech Piloting, although you could skimp on the Battlemech Piloting considering how much more likely the craft is going to be relying on its AirMech MP and you wouldn't need to bother with Aerospace Gunnery training at all; it does have the "Going In" problem if it makes use of its AirMech Flank MP, a problem that WiGE vehicles apparently don't share; and design-wise, you still may need more hardware: you need to purchase a jump jet and (probably) a heat sink for every 3 points of AirMech Cruise MP that you want, whereas a WiGE or VTOL vehicle gets its full Engine MP (and then some) for the "simple" cost of 10% of your tonnage for lift equipment.  (I'm assuming that Air-Mech construction would be the same as Battlemech construction for the most part.)  Still, it's possible that those jump jets and heat sinks would end up taking up 10% or less of the Air-Mech's tonnage for comparable Cruise and Flank ratings; so that may not actually be a problem.  Combat-wise there's more to hit in an Air-Mech; but that might be a blessing in disguise, being part of the Air-Mech's relative robustness vs. a WiGE vehicle. 

Training is not an issue. Since it cannot change to fighter mode it never becomes an "aero unit", so neither aerospace piloting nor gunnery is ever an issue. Maybe a new piloting category could be used: Piloting/Airmech, with standard 'mech gunnery used normally.

For construction, standard LAM rules could suffice, fluffed, as you suggest" as "lift equipment" instead of "LAM conversion" equipment.

The engine limits would remain in place, but since the thing does not convert/transform, XL engines and endo steel could be used.

What else?  The only remaining downsides that I can think of for an Air-Mech vs. a WiGE vehicle are logistical in nature: more expensive and hard-to-come-by parts.  Is that it?  The only reason why Air-Mechs aren't viable is the bang-for-the-buck ratio?  Or is there something I'm missing? 

A 'mech with a WiGE MP of 3x walking MP standard for a non-WiGE version and no WiGE motive crit vulnerability is quite a bit of bang for the buck. 8)

[Dataweaver]

Thank you.   :)

Training is not an issue. Since it cannot change to fighter mode it never becomes an "aero unit", so neither aerospace piloting nor gunnery is ever an issue. Maybe a new piloting category could be used: Piloting/Airmech, with standard 'mech gunnery used normally.

The Quick-Start rules in the 3085 Record Sheets say that you need Piloting/Mech when the Air-Mech is using its Walking or Running MP, and you need Piloting/Aerospace when it's using its Cruising or Flanking MP.  Personally, I don't think that piloting an Air-Mech through the air would be at all like piloting an Aerospace Fighter; it has much more in common with a WiGE or VTOL vehicle in terms of performance characteristics, and I'd probably house-rule one of those as the skill needed to manage Air-Mech Cruise or Flank MPs. 

For construction, standard LAM rules could suffice, fluffed, as you suggest" as "lift equipment" instead of "LAM conversion" equipment.

Actually, I was saying that an Air-Mech wouldn't need "lift equipment"; that's what its jump jets provide.  As I see it, an Air-Mech wouldn't need any special equipment that adds tonnage or can be damaged; the differences between Battlemech Construction and Air-Mech construction would exist entirely in the added cost of the specially-purpose structure. 

The engine limits would remain in place, but since the thing does not convert/transform, XL engines and endo steel could be used.

I'll have to double-check this (I'm guessing the bit about "no XL Engines and no endo steel" being related to the conversion gear is mentioned in the concluding Jihad book?); but if it's true, that's another mark in the "pro" column for the Air-Mech. 

[majesticmoose]

Well that same question was asked with proto-mechs.  They have a hybrid glider version.

If you check out the War of Reaving product they have the construction rules for glider protos.  there are some advantages, and some (IMO overwhelming) disadvantages.

Basically, if we take the glider construction rules as an example, an air-mech would suffer from a reduced movement compared to a LAM air mech, but increased movement over a traditional Mech.  they would also not be able to mount Jump Jets, a significant road block.

My thoughts are ground speed is always 1/1, the WiGe cruise is (engine/tonnage)+2, flank calculated as normal.  However, if a torso gets blown out, that's it!!!  mech crashes and likely explodes, or at the least is so badly crippled that it can only walk 1 hex per turn.

I would hazard it would follow all the normal rules for LAM air-mech movement. Use aero piloting for WiGe and Mech pilot for traditional ground movement.

Personally, while the concept is interesting, it's even less versatile than a LAM while still not bringing much new to the game tactically.  we have super heavy WiGe vehicles and the air-mech would only provide a slight advantage in durability.  Also, without an atmosphere these guys would be useless, so that is another issue to consider.

[Dataweaver]

I don't have Wars of Reaving, so I was unaware of the "glider protomechs".  I'll have to look them over when I can.  Thanks for the info.

[ShadowRaven]

Well, I think Cray was a little off. Especially since we are talking about something without conversion gear so comparing it to an aerospace fighter is off. Some of what he said still has merit. Namely the training. Pilots are going to need to understand and be relativly proficient in two areas of piloting. WiGE and ground bound, which isn't a game breaker, but it can be a hassle fluff wise.

That said, the ability to move through difficult terrain, even slowly, as a mech rather then over it as a WiGE combined with an increase in protection against vehicle cripleing crits can be a definate benefit. Still, all in all, I see these as being a very niche unit, suffering some of the weaknesses that majesticmouse mentioned. A fun idea to play around with for sure, but not one likely to see action beyond prototype stage

[Khymerion]

I dunno...  I kinda would like the idea of a high speed ground raid capable WiGE that could walk slowly into cover or rough terrain to hide since it has arms and and legs and such.   It definitely might be a fun campaign piece honestly or a limited production vehicle for specialty work.

Sure, it will have problems.   Sure it will not the best and knowing how half the people here think, it will have to posses a million limitations and nerfs and hindrances on it like anything in the game that isn't a straight giant robot mech or space rocket fighter to keep the focus entirely on those two things... but I could see a place for it for some people.

[Dataweaver]

Well that same question was asked with proto-mechs.  They have a hybrid glider version.

If you check out the War of Reaving product they have the construction rules for glider protos.  there are some advantages, and some (IMO overwhelming) disadvantages.

Basically, if we take the glider construction rules as an example, an air-mech would suffer from a reduced movement compared to a LAM air mech, but increased movement over a traditional Mech.  they would also not be able to mount Jump Jets, a significant road block.

The premise behind the Glider Protomech construction rules appears to be that they don't get "jump jets" because they get a full "WiGE flight system" instead; the inability to jump is nothing if you have the ability to fly.  That's also the reason why Glider Protomechs aren't allowed to take partial wings: they already have full wings by virtue of being gliders. 

The Air-Mech equivalent to this would be to forgo the jump jets that an LAM would have in exchange for a "10% of tonnage" lift system that would operate in a manner similar to a WiGE Lift System, very likely up to and including some sort of Tonnage-based Suspension Factor that figures into the calculation for its Cruise MP (not just a flat +2 Cruise MPs).  Since an LAM in AirMech mode has a Walk MP that's 1/9 of its Cruise MP, you'd need a Cruise MP of 14 to 22 in order to have a Walk MP of 2; so saying that an Air-Mech's Walk MP is automatically 1 is a reasonable simplification.   Still, it wouldn't hurt to say that Walk MP = Cruise MP/10 (minimum 1), and Run MP = Flank MP/10 (minimum 1).  Or, just as likely, Run MP = Walk MPx1.5, rounded up. 

Suspension Factors for an Air-Mech would probably be comparable to Suspension Factors for a WiGE design; but I could see an argument for them being somewhat higher, if LAMs in Air-Mech mode are anything to go by - especially if you're going to keep the special rules for Air-Mech Flank speed. 

My thoughts are ground speed is always 1/1, the WiGe cruise is (engine/tonnage)+2, flank calculated as normal.  However, if a torso gets blown out, that's it!!!  mech crashes and likely explodes, or at the least is so badly crippled that it can only walk 1 hex per turn.

I would hazard it would follow all the normal rules for LAM air-mech movement. Use aero piloting for WiGe and Mech pilot for traditional ground movement.

I'd be more inclined to use the air-mech critical hit rules from the Quickstart rules instead of a flat "lose a torso location and you crash" ruling.  That said, those aforementioned Lifting systems need critical hit slots, too, and it would make sense for them to be in the side torsos.  Net result would actually be a bit more severe than what you're suggesting: you can end up being grounded without losing your side torso. 

Personally, while the concept is interesting, it's even less versatile than a LAM while still not bringing much new to the game tactically.  we have super heavy WiGe vehicles and the air-mech would only provide a slight advantage in durability.  Also, without an atmosphere these guys would be useless, so that is another issue to consider.

"Even less versatile than a LAM" is like saying "even smaller than a giant".  Perhaps the only thing that LAMs have going for them is their versatility: they certainly can't keep up with Battlemechs or Aerospace Fighters in their own domains. 

Combat WiGE vehicles cannot exceed 80 tons, whereas LAMs and Air-Mechs presumably can't exceed 50 tons, if past construction rules are any guide.  There would likely be 55- to 80-ton WiGE vehicle designs that would outperform a 50-ton Air-Mech; but there are also 200-ton tank designs that can outperform a 100-ton Battlemech.  That doesn't mean that Battlemechs are inferior to tanks.  Keep the comparisons fair: a 50-ton Air-Mech vs. a 50-ton WiGE combat vehicle. 

Yes, Air-Mechs in a vacuum (but on a planetary surface) are restricted to their pathetic Walk and Run MPs; but a WiGE vehicle in a vacuum is immobile.  Still, it doesn't pay to deploy either in such conditions.  OTOH, an Air-Mech could be deployed in space in a manner similar to how a Battlemech could be deployed, using its propulsors to maneuver in a similar manner to how a Mech can use its jump jets.  They wouldn't have full access to their Cruise and Flank MPs; but I could still see them being reasonably effective in such a situation. 

[cray]

Read my post again: I'm not talking about LAMs.  No conversion gear, no Battlemech mode, no Aerospace mode.  Just the Air-Mech mode.

You asked about airmech viability. I didn't give a dismissive send-off, I addressed (in detail, I thought) why airmechs serve no purpose in the context of the BattleTech universe. There's no benefit to a clumsy hybrid of wings, bad legs, and arms when you can keep the full BattleMech and add VTOL flight via the miracle of fusion rocketry.

Robotech struggles under different limitations than BattleTech. BT has given a clear answer about airmech viability: it might be functional, but it's a waste of effort. Wings add nothing when a 3-ton standard fusion engine (a 100-rated engine) can lift a 100-ton 'Mech off the ground.

It might be trickier to pilot a VTOL 'Mech than I first proposed, but airmechs are dead ends in the context of the BattleTech universe.

[Dataweaver]

Why do you keep on mentioning Robotech?  That has nothing to do with my questions.  I'm not a Robotech fan who's trying to contaminate Battletech with my neato veritechs; I'm a Battletech fan who's looking at the pros and cons of a hypothetical unit that is largely consistent with published rules of the game. 

As well, I posted this topic on one of the Game System subforums because I'm looking for feedback involving the relevant game systems; if I had been looking for answers about how they do or don't fit into the Battletech setting, I would have asked the question on one of the Game Universe forums. 

[glitterboy2098]

in the fluff for the protomech extended jump jets in war of Reaving we are told the Cloud Cobra's have been working on VTOL systems for mechs and protomechs, with the goal of giving those units the same kind of sustained flight as the Sylph Battlearmor. said battlearmor flies by application of Cray's "strap enough engines to a brick" approach. the battlearmor is fluffed as being extremely difficult to control...and in the WoR fluff for the XJJ's, we are told that the mech and protomech VTOL projects have been unable to produce results.

frankly, in light of that fluff, and the fact that the cloud cobra's are already crosstraining their phenotypes (elementals and Aeropilots, to support the Sylph), i'd assume they'd give up and decide to start building their own LAM's before they ever figure out how to give a mech sustained flight through brute force.

sure, you could boost a mech into orbit if you strapped a aerospace fighter engine to it's butt. but getting it to hover, or to hover while it travels horizontally, and shifts it's mass to aim and fire weapons...that is a much more difficult task. just look at the rules for spheroid dropships in atmosphere. and they have dozens of crew and no arms and legs..

[Dataweaver]

Ah; I see what happened now.  Cray wasn't so much addressing my questions concerning AirMech performance as he was advocating a Mech-scale counterpart to BattleArmor VTOL propulsion.  From a rules perspective, such a thing probably would completely overshadow AirMechs if it were feasible, though that would depend on the implementation details.  The real problem, though, is that it would just as completely overshadow the "grounded" Battlemechs that are the heart of Battletech. 

If I were to allow VTOL Mech thrusters in the game, I'd require one of two approaches: either "VTOL-Mech as Mech counterpart to VTOL vehicles (i.e., dedicate 10% of the Mech's tonnage to a "VTOL System" that works in a manner analogous to VTOL Vehicles); or "VTOL Thrusters as oversized Jump Jets" (e.g., each VTOL MP requires one critical slot and 3 tons, and generates at least 3 Heat points whenever used, and possibly an Aerofighter-like fuel expenditure to boot). 

The latter case defines what I think is a key point concerning the concept: such a "brute force" method of flight would have some serious heat management and fuel consumption challenges, even if the control system issues could be resolved.  In comparison, the former case bears a lot of resemblance to the AirMech concept: in effect, you'd be taking a VTOL vehicle and grafting arms and legs onto it.  Ground movement would be as clumsy for this sort of VTOL/Mech hybrid as it would be for an AirMech; and if it loses its "rotors", it loses all air mobility. 


Personally, I think that VTOL Mechs of either variety are the sort of thing that one would encounter in the Battletech setting's holovids (cf. Show within a Show), along with whole companies of LAMs, privately owned and operated Warships, Battlemechs that convert into vehicular "transport modes", viable artificial intelligence, and all sorts of other flights of fancy that ignore the logistical and/or engineering restrictions of the Battletech setting.  Such things make for great entertainment, both for denizens of the Battletech Universe and for players of the Battletech games; but they should be viewed as fictional even within the context of the fictional Battletech Universe.  Think of it as "Level Four Battletech": not just optional rules, but options that flagrantly violate established facts about the setting. :D

Though, occasionally, an idea that first appears in a holovid somehow makes it into the "real" setting: I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the inspiration for the LAM came from a holovid series.  More generally, a "Level Four" option that proves popular enough might spawn a similar Level Three option as fans of the holovid in question find ways to resolve (or at least cope with) the engineering and logistical difficulties, and actually implement the option.  In a sense, the holovids act as a sort of "sandbox" that lets you play around with the rules of the game without being tied down by all of the setting assumptions; and the best of the sandbox ideas can then be imported into the "real" world.  (In a similar sense, the Historical supplements can be thought of as in-setting "docu-dramas" covering those eras; one might even say that in the wake of the Jihad, there was a surge in the popularity of such docu-dramas.)

[Red Pins]

...Actually, I've removed the conversion gear from my AU's version of LAMs and called them PAMs (Permanent AirMechs), fluffing it as a standard design.  When you get down to it, the only REAL impact of a LAM on the construction rules was the conversion gear - I kept the requirements for crit spaces, but fluffed it as mass and space for assorted aeronautics and fuel.  My AU Clans are a bit more primitive than either the real Clans or IS in some respects, and 'dumbing it down' let me add them to my groups.

I even added Heavy PAMs (between 60-75 tons), which suffer a reduction to x2 their Jump distance.  I also ruled they needed to land at the end of each Movement Phase.  You can have a copy of their rules if you're curious.
 

PERMANENT AIRMECHS

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

Frankly, I haven't noticed any difference in game play - but I play by the old Tactical Handbook rules, and I'm not interested in converting back and forth, just the AirMech mode.

[sillybrit]

<snip>"VTOL Thrusters as oversized Jump Jets" (e.g., each VTOL MP requires one critical slot and 3 tons, and generates at least 3 Heat points whenever used, and possibly an Aerofighter-like fuel expenditure to boot).  <snip>

Perhaps as a matter of interest, that's the approach taken by VTOL Battle Armor thrusters: at heart they're simply enhanced versions of the standard Battle Armor jump jets. Clan Cloud Cobras found that the biggest problem was not increasing the thrust, but controlling it.

[Dataweaver]

@Red Pins: One thing about your fluff: you indicated that the LAM that had damaged conversion gear had considerably lower maintenance requirements than its companions that retained conversion capability.  That, I think, is a very true point: the conversion gives maintenance techs nightmares; and without it, would a dedicated Air-Mech really be that much harder to maintain than a battlemech or aerospace fighter? 

Also, I'm of two minds of which way to go for dedicated Air-Mechs: on the one hand, treating an Air-Mech as an LAM sans conversion gear is fully consistent with all of the existing rules pertaining to Air-Mechs; that has the advantage of going with the Principle of Least Change (a corollary to the Law of Unintended Consequences: "the less you change, the fewer complications will arise").  OTOH, the "Glider Mech" approach has a certain elegance to it: you're not purchasing a do-nothing engine and a bunch of jump jets that are the real source of your propulsion. 

If I go the latter route, I'd be inclined to propagate the changes: LAMs would need to take both lift gear and conversion gear, would be forbidden from taking jump jets, and would have Jump MPs in Battlemech mode equal to their Walk MPs.  At that point, I'd be inclined to rework the jump jet stats so that any Battlemech could devote 10% of its tonnage to jump jets and get a Jump MP equal to its Walk MP, with smaller Jump ratings using proportionally less of the Mech's tonnage.  And then I'd have to go through the jump-capable Mech designs and rework them to account for the change in jump jets. 

Despite the work that would be involved, there's something to be said for this approach: the jump propulsion comes from the engine, and the jets merely act as a way to convert the engine's power into a burst of aerial thrust.  Of course, now I'm reexamining the underlying assumptions of Battletech's propulsion systems; and that has the potential to open up several whole new cans of worms.  Such is the danger of violating the Principle of Least Change... ::)

[majesticmoose]

@Red Pins: One thing about your fluff: you indicated that the LAM that had damaged conversion gear had considerably lower maintenance requirements than its companions that retained conversion capability.  That, I think, is a very true point: the conversion gives maintenance techs nightmares; and without it, would a dedicated Air-Mech really be that much harder to maintain than a battlemech or aerospace fighter? 

Also, I'm of two minds of which way to go for dedicated Air-Mechs: on the one hand, treating an Air-Mech as an LAM sans conversion gear is fully consistent with all of the existing rules pertaining to Air-Mechs; that has the advantage of going with the Principle of Least Change (a corollary to the Law of Unintended Consequences: "the less you change, the fewer complications will arise").  OTOH, the "Glider Mech" approach has a certain elegance to it: you're not purchasing a do-nothing engine and a bunch of jump jets that are the real source of your propulsion. 

If I go the latter route, I'd be inclined to propagate the changes: LAMs would need to take both lift gear and conversion gear, would be forbidden from taking jump jets, and would have Jump MPs in Battlemech mode equal to their Walk MPs.  At that point, I'd be inclined to rework the jump jet stats so that any Battlemech could devote 10% of its tonnage to jump jets and get a Jump MP equal to its Walk MP, with smaller Jump ratings using proportionally less of the Mech's tonnage.  And then I'd have to go through the jump-capable Mech designs and rework them to account for the change in jump jets. 

Despite the work that would be involved, there's something to be said for this approach: the jump propulsion comes from the engine, and the jets merely act as a way to convert the engine's power into a burst of aerial thrust.  Of course, now I'm reexamining the underlying assumptions of Battletech's propulsion systems; and that has the potential to open up several whole new cans of worms.  Such is the danger of violating the Principle of Least Change... ::)

Again, if the guiding star is to change as little as possible, I'd check out the rules for a Glider Proto-mech.  It is basically a PAM (permanent Air-mech) in proto form.  And it's what the line devs have already outlined as a direction for official unit construction. 

In your own game feel free to do as you want, though if you go JJ= air-mech thrust I would reduce the permanent one to a x2 multiplier, since they don't have the conversion gear weighin them down.

[Red Pins]

Again, if the guiding star is to change as little as possible, I'd check out the rules for a Glider Proto-mech.  It is basically a PAM (permanent Air-mech) in proto form.  And it's what the line devs have already outlined as a direction for official unit construction.

...Too late!   [stupid]

There just happen to be construction rules included for a PAM variant of my AU's Extra Light Mechs - units between 10 to 19 tons.  Nasty little things - the 16 ton ELM/PAM is a penetrator, for behind the scenes intelligence gathering.

[Dataweaver]

Again, if the guiding star is to change as little as possible, I'd check out the rules for a Glider Proto-mech.  It is basically a PAM (permanent Air-mech) in proto form.  And it's what the line devs have already outlined as a direction for official unit construction. 

That's fine for Protomechs; but Battlemechs aren't Protomechs.  See my earlier post for my thoughts on an adaptation of the Glider Protomech rules for use by full-sized Mechs.  Those are the rules to which I was referring as the second option in my last post. 

In your own game feel free to do as you want, though if you go JJ= air-mech thrust I would reduce the permanent one to a x2 multiplier, since they don't have the conversion gear weighin them down.

With all due respect, this doesn't make any sense to me: first, the fact that they don't have the conversion gear weighing them down is already neatly accounted for by the fact that they're not dedicating any of their tonnage to conversion gear; changing the multiplier strikes me as double-dipping.  Second, the premise is that the lack of conversion gear would weigh them down less, which, if anything, would increase their mobility; changing the multiplier from x3 to x2 reduces their mobility, significantly.  No; if I'm going to stick with the "jump jets as air-mech thrust" approach, I'm going to stick with the x3 figure. 

[majesticmoose]

Wrong kind of weighing them down.

Let me restate this, with less metaphor.

Air-mech mode has a special mechanic for WiGe movement.  This rather large bonus is partially a legacy issue (LAMS have IIRC always had a x3 bonus) and partially a (and this is opinion) large bonus to compensate for their construction limitations.  Conversion weight gear and lack of advanced materials does trade off with this well.

If making a fixed form air-mech, a x3 multiplier is, especially with adv con materials, a savagely overpowered kind of unit.  So if you are going to create a fixed air-mech unit, I would highly advise against normal JJ movement x3. 

My point with Proto-mech gliders and their construction rules stems from the similarities and differences between WiGe vehicle construction rules, Glider construction rules, and Mech construction rules.

Compare glider to WiGe vehicles:  Suspension factor is not utilized.  The proto mounts an engine that directly affects the movement speed (not indirectly through JJ mounting).  There is a "speed bonus" on the flanking MP (sysnonomous with running MP) which affects the actual engine size, just as with Quad proto construction. The proto does not mount lift equipment.

For all intensive purposes, the Glider is built as a proto with a speed bonus, and the actual movement mode rules change, but it is built as a proto first, and a glider second.

So, by extrapolation: a fixed air-mech (or glider mech) should be built as a mech first, with a restriction on JJ's, and a speed bonus (in this case applied to walk/cruise since mech engines are calulated on walk not run as a proto).  No tonnage for lift, control or other elements. 

Again, this is my opinion, and we are unlikely to ever see an official rule for these kinds of units.  But I'd put money that in the event an official rule ever did come down, the rules would resemble what I proposed.  But it's just a guess.

Hopefully I made my position more clear.  sometimes i get buried inside my mind a touch.

[ckosacranoid]

even for soemthing quick you should need to add the tonage for a partial wing for the effect to be able to move and meybe a couple of tons for fuel meybe to power the trust for the unit to move. the fuel would burn much better then airo psace fights though, meybe use the rates for airplanes.
this is a cool idea though if nothing else to be able to use battletech rules for a alt world seting or something. i know many other anime and game worlds have flying mech that are very cool. and it would not be that far out to be usefull though.

[StoneRhino]

These things really make the skidding and crashing rules worth a laugh. I have to ask though, with the new rules, how is damage placed? I remember with the old aerotech rules, not sure about tac handbook, the wings were extremely fragile. Lose a wing, go crashing into the ground.

[StoneRhino]

Not sure how the cost and the BV would work out, but would an air-mech be viable? I'm sure there would be some times where it would be fun to try. Would someone in the BT universe really rely upon it? Well, its not really a mech, its not really a fighter, Its not really a LAM. The dedicated fighter and mech have their advantages over the LAM. The LAM's advantage over both is that it can be both. An air-mech design would lack the flexibility of the LAM, which would make it even less likely to be produced.

From what it sounds like, the only advantages of the design are through the rules. There would be no actual advantages gained in a "in universe" perspective. I am going to go out on a limb and say that it is likely that a AMech would be far more costly then a bunch of vtols that will exceed its armor and damage output. Wigis as well will likely cost less and require lower levels of tech. Hovercraft are going to require less. Then a LAM's requirements would also allow it to do far more then a AMech, justifying the additional expenditure.

It really sounds as though the airmech, as presented in this thread, is really just looking to skirt some rules in order to go for optimization in a game, nothing more. "It doesn't need this!" and "It can do this!" but nothing to really suggest a use outside of inflating target numbers and using mech based rules for weapons.

[Red Pins]

Not sure how the cost and the BV would work out, but would an air-mech be viable? I'm sure there would be some times where it would be fun to try. Would someone in the BT universe really rely upon it? Well, its not really a mech, its not really a fighter, Its not really a LAM. The dedicated fighter and mech have their advantages over the LAM. The LAM's advantage over both is that it can be both. An air-mech design would lack the flexibility of the LAM, which would make it even less likely to be produced.

From what it sounds like, the only advantages of the design are through the rules. There would be no actual advantages gained in a "in universe" perspective. I am going to go out on a limb and say that it is likely that a AMech would be far more costly then a bunch of vtols that will exceed its armor and damage output. Wigis as well will likely cost less and require lower levels of tech. Hovercraft are going to require less. Then a LAM's requirements would also allow it to do far more then a AMech, justifying the additional expenditure.

It really sounds as though the airmech, as presented in this thread, is really just looking to skirt some rules in order to go for optimization in a game, nothing more. "It doesn't need this!" and "It can do this!" but nothing to really suggest a use outside of inflating target numbers and using mech based rules for weapons.

...Oh, they're fun to play as airmechs - the 2/3 ground movement penalty (of the obsolete rules) really makes for a crisis whenever it misses a PSR.  It draws a huge amount of attention when players realize its almost helpless, and works well in my AU.  Overall, I think they're worth it, but to each his own.