BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat

BattleTech Game Universe => The Inner Sphere => Topic started by: Iceweb on 01 April 2020, 14:54:01

Title: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Iceweb on 01 April 2020, 14:54:01
A while back I asked what the inner sphere thinks of the Hunchy IIC, now I was wondering what the IS thinks of LAMs. 

A WOB commander operating during the Jihad was approached by a man with an interesting battle ROM.  It showed a modified wasp suddenly transforming in the middle of the fight.  He was then told that the owner of that machine had hit some hard times, and could be persuaded to sell, if the price was right.   

Now that commander didn't exactly need a scout mech, but is the lure of being able to claim you have a LAM in your reserves worth anything?  How hard is it for a standard mek jockey to learn to pilot a LAM?  Is there any type of contact that a merc would be able to use, you want my LAM doing that, over some other bidder?   

I know the clans think of LAMs as a dead tech that they aren't interested in, but is there a mystique in the sphere of the height of the Star League. 
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Daryk on 01 April 2020, 18:28:07
The main problem is that a MechWarrior without flight training is just the same as any random person off the street without flight training: they need to go to flight school, and that's anything but short or easy.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 01 April 2020, 19:05:23
A while back I asked what the inner sphere thinks of the Hunchy IIC, now I was wondering what the IS thinks of LAMs. 

A WOB commander operating during the Jihad was approached by a man with an interesting battle ROM.  It showed a modified wasp suddenly transforming in the middle of the fight.  He was then told that the owner of that machine had hit some hard times, and could be persuaded to sell, if the price was right.   

Now that commander didn't exactly need a scout mech, but is the lure of being able to claim you have a LAM in your reserves worth anything?  How hard is it for a standard mek jockey to learn to pilot a LAM?  Is there any type of contact that a merc would be able to use, you want my LAM doing that, over some other bidder?   

I know the clans think of LAMs as a dead tech that they aren't interested in, but is there a mystique in the sphere of the height of the Star League.

the WOB actually put the Royal Wasp LAM back into production (even developing a new and improved variant) and designed their own LAM's. so the WoB would probably not be terribly interested in an aging succession wars model.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: AlphaMirage on 01 April 2020, 19:12:08
WoB used LAMs and was the last Canon faction to do so this I think they would be received poorly.

For all the supposed power of a LAM they are just not that impressive or available in enough quantity to be very effective or their parts easy to come by in universe.

Let it die on the pile of abandoned weapon tech
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Daryk on 01 April 2020, 19:15:01
Eh... it's hard, not impossible...
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: dgorsman on 01 April 2020, 19:23:36
If someone from WoB could get a good deal, they might consider turning it around as a contract bonus to entice certain mercenary units into employment.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Empyrus on 01 April 2020, 19:43:18
The LAMs were excellent scouts and good raiders. But other than that, they're largely useless (because comparable ASF or 'Mech is better at the intended roles), and smaller armies of the Great Houses (compared to the SLDF) can't really afford that specialized equipment, or need it.
As noted, training is an issue. Dual-training pilots takes a lot of time and resources. Implicitly not all people can be trained as MechWarriors, and i'd imagine it is a small subset of MechWarriors who also make for reasonable ASF pilots.
The Succession Wars were not kind on industry, especially for stuff like LAMs. Making them a logistical burden.
That the Word of Blake used LAMs probably doesn't even register to most (doesn't help that even among them these things were rare really), after all a lot of Blakist equipment got repurposed, with only certain signature stuff like the Celestials that got truly bad rep.

Ultimately, a dead-end technology. It is pretty telling that even recovered of LosTech never put LAMs back into production. They weren't important or desired.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Daryk on 01 April 2020, 19:53:46
I think that was more driven by a certain lawsuit than popularity among the fans...
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Empyrus on 01 April 2020, 19:55:14
I think that was more driven by a certain lawsuit than popularity among the fans...
I'm not commenting on real worlds stuff (because that never ever ends well), only in-universe POV.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Daryk on 01 April 2020, 19:56:45
Irece was making spare parts throughout the Succession Wars.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Empyrus on 01 April 2020, 20:00:36
And only spare parts. Its industry wasn't expanded to manufacturing LAMs themselves when tech was being recovered. No one built new factories, or even new spare part manufacturing.

Only WoB did, and that was in pursuit of wunderwaffe, something miraculous to change the course of the war, ultimately being pure waste of resources.

And even post-Jihad when everyone is crazy with all the new tech, no one bothers with LAMs.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Daryk on 02 April 2020, 02:40:51
Again, that was an out of character decision by TPTB at the time.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: smcwatt on 02 April 2020, 06:28:20
The FWL used to have battalions of them. The Marik Guard used to be 75% LAMs, but the Lyrans ROFL-stomped them on Callison in the Fourth War (caught them on the runway), so not so much after that.

SMc.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: phoenixalpha on 02 April 2020, 09:11:42
In game, they are in a bad place - not good enough against a comparable mech or ASF so they would get trashed in a 1-1 fight. Out of game - they would be amazing units but only for special forces. They would be the ultimate strike unit. The tactical flexibility would be amazing. Think real world paratroop units. They lack the might of a standard unit as they cant carry the same equipment as a standard military unit, but they can deploy anywhere at short notice much like a LAM.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Empyrus on 02 April 2020, 09:29:53
Think real world paratroop units.
Amusing comparison, since paratroops kinda went out of style. That is not to say they're useless, it is just difficult to make use of them.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: phoenixalpha on 02 April 2020, 09:51:47
Amusing comparison, since paratroops kinda went out of style. That is not to say they're useless, it is just difficult to make use of them.
Ok then... maybe we'll come up to date a bit then... helicopter or fixed wing aircraft deployed troops.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Syzyx on 02 April 2020, 11:09:11
Trying to ignore player bias on the issue, canon details seem to show the view of LAMs and their desirability shift in the IS over time.

During the 3rd SW a few LAMs were worth risking entire battalions to claim. However the same can be said of a company or two of Spiders.

During the 4th SW LAMs appear to be going out of style. They are rarely mentioned, but when they are it is with high regard.

Thereafter LAMs pretty much fall off the radar altogether. This seems to coincide with the proliferation of recovered technology.

In my mind this makes sense as things shifted from chivalric style limited war of the 3rd SW back to the Hegemony style state wars of the past. Individual heroes or small players with big impact stopped being the pinnacle and masses of efficient units took their place as the go-to paradigm.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: grimlock1 on 02 April 2020, 13:04:41
The FWL used to have battalions of them. The Marik Guard used to be 75% LAMs, but the Lyrans ROFL-stomped them on Callison in the Fourth War (caught them on the runway), so not so much after that.

SMc.
That says more about the Lyran's planning and the Free Worlder's lack thereof, than it does about the effectivness of LAMs.

In my limited experience, they are great for generating or threatening a flanking maneuver, on 2x2 maps, but only if you have a couple.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Daryk on 02 April 2020, 17:31:20
*snip*
This seems to coincide with the proliferation of recovered technology.
*snip*
It coincides with the aforementioned RL problems at the time.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Empyrus on 02 April 2020, 17:33:25
It coincides with the aforementioned RL problems at the time.
Why keep mentioning that since that's done and can't be done anything about, and the thread question is about how the IS sees them?

There's no indications whatsoever anyone within the Inner Sphere was keen on retaining LAMs during the tech renaissance of 3030s and onward.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: massey on 02 April 2020, 17:43:28
Rule-wise, LAMs have always been either completely broken, or total crap.  There is no in between.  I didn't know anyone who wanted to play with them, because there really wasn't a way to balance them.  While they were cool, they weren't really fun.  Originally LAMs could carry bombs and used the old strafing rules.  They weren't so hot against aerospace fighters, but if your opponent didn't have them?  They were monsters.

TPTB tried to throw LAM-lovers a bone by bringing them back for the Jihad, but then pissed the same group off by saying "oh yeah, LAMs were never really very good".  This went against basically all the previous background information, when they were seen as super valuable and wonderful, and rare but not actually lostech.  I understand the real world reasons for it, but the explanation seemed forced.  It is what it is.

In-universe, the way to use LAMs is with overwhelming concentration of force.  An Overlord dropship carries 36 mechs and 6 aerospace fighters.  Or it can carry 6 aerospace fighters and 36 kinda crappy aerospace fighters.  And with that kind of force you can blast right through the air defenses that would normally be used against a Battalion.  You can redeploy anywhere you need to, avoid the bulk of your opponent's forces, and pick them apart at your leisure.

A Phoenix Hawk LAM is going to get blasted to pieces by a Warhammer or a Marauder (unless you really abuse the Airmech rules).  But 4 Phoenix Hawks at once against that Warhammer will chew it to bits.  Unfortunately, we're back to square one, because that's not going to make for a fun game.  LAMs really come into their own when you consider strategic movement and positioning of large units.  That's just not Battletech though.  Battleforce maybe, but not Battletech.

So what do the people of the Inner Sphere think of them?  An amazing piece of technology, but one that's best in groups.  They'll probably look to sell it to somebody who specializes in that sort of thing.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Daryk on 02 April 2020, 18:52:32
Why keep mentioning that since that's done and can't be done anything about, and the thread question is about how the IS sees them?

There's no indications whatsoever anyone within the Inner Sphere was keen on retaining LAMs during the tech renaissance of 3030s and onward.
Because the only reason for that was RL concerns.  Too much farther down this road lies thread lock...
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Major Headcase on 02 April 2020, 21:19:55
I would totally  have a blast playing a company of Urbanmech LAMs... I would paint them all like rusty old UPS trucks and name the unit "Special Delivery" and infiltrate your city unseen...  :D
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Giovanni Blasini on 03 April 2020, 01:43:17
LAMs excel as raiders and special operations units, even under new rules.  The problem is that after the Third Succession War, the scale of warfare increased dramatically, where during the Fourth Succession Wars you had multi-regiment units beating the snot out of one another.  That's not a role conducive to the LAM, so I could see them ending up as just another specialty unit assigned at the RCT level.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: phoenixalpha on 03 April 2020, 08:51:41
Didnt Wolf's Dragoons have one assigned to their command lance (ie the command lance of the whole 5+ regiments) circa 4th SW?
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: grimlock1 on 03 April 2020, 09:46:46
A Phoenix Hawk LAM is going to get blasted to pieces by a Warhammer or a Marauder (unless you really abuse the Airmech rules).  But 4 Phoenix Hawks at once against that Warhammer will chew it to bits.  Unfortunately, we're back to square one, because that's not going to make for a fun game. 
The same is true if you dropped stock P-Hawks into those same match ups.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Daryk on 03 April 2020, 16:06:32
The Dragoons had a bunch of LAMs all through their TO&E.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: massey on 03 April 2020, 17:45:57
The same is true if you dropped stock P-Hawks into those same match ups.

100% true.  The difference is that LAMs can cover an enormous amount of ground very quickly.  In fact they can do it so fast that normal Battlemechs can't respond.

Large formations of Battlemechs wouldn't all hang out on the same mapsheet.  A Battalion would probably be spread out over several miles, more if you include their scouting forces.  What a group of LAMs can do is engage them piecemeal, before reinforcements can arrive.  You don't fight company vs company.  You fight company vs lance, one after the other.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Warship on 03 April 2020, 20:04:23
I always envisioned them as being used by Special Forces, especially Death Commandos.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 04 April 2020, 00:22:18
LAMs excel as raiders and special operations units, even under new rules.  The problem is that after the Third Succession War, the scale of warfare increased dramatically, where during the Fourth Succession Wars you had multi-regiment units beating the snot out of one another.  That's not a role conducive to the LAM, so I could see them ending up as just another specialty unit assigned at the RCT level.
agreed. in warfare where multiple regiments are going at it, a LAM's fragility makes it only really useful for very limited roles in hitting less guarded enemy facilities, or general recon. (which apparently is how the Star League employed them)

but between the end of the 2nd war and the start of the 4th, when warfare was largely an extended series of small unit raids, they would be more useful. when your targets generally only have maybe a company of mechs scattered around in lance sized lots a planet and a few battalions of infantry supporting them, and your objective is largely to damage or steal logistical targets, the mobility and flexibility of a LAM would be much more useful.

the redevelopment of advanced tech didn't help them either. their opponent machines suddenly developed 50% to twice the armor, firepower, and/or speed, using technologies they themselves largely could not exploit (XL's, endo, ferro, etc), ad then the arrival of the clans where one mech had nearly the same combat ability as a full lance of succession wars machines made them even more vulnerable.
the WoB did their best to update them during the jihad but even with clan tech weaponry the results were still pretty limited.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Daryk on 04 April 2020, 05:07:32
And the new Wasp with hands and bomb bays to stuff full of loot is especially good at that kind of thing...
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: massey on 04 April 2020, 10:10:27
LAMs would be good even with multiple regiments on the field.  You just need regiments of LAMs too.  Now, they aren't going to stand up to a large group of heavies and assaults, unless you have overwhelming numbers.  But they'd still be useful in every situation besides "everybody smashes into each other on these two mapsheets".

To me the explanation that makes the most sense, is that LAMs just never got a chance in a post-3050 world.  The Clan Invasion happened, and suddenly the Inner Sphere needed massive numbers of Battlemechs to replace their losses and to throw in front of the Clan meatgrinder.  LAMs would have been a much lower priority -- they're a scalpel, not a hammer.  But the Inner Sphere was in panic mode, and what they needed were a lot of hammers.

You don't need to have a dumb "the Clans destroyed the last factory" retcon.  You don't need to retroactively change the rules and say that they can't use most advanced tech.  You just say that LAMs are more complicated to design, and the Inner Sphere needed new mechs right now.

LAMs are a great strategic weapon when you can pick and choose where you engage and how the fight is going to go.  But when you're caught with your pants down and the enemy catches you by complete surprise, they aren't as good.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Hellraiser on 04 April 2020, 11:19:42
Irece was making spare parts throughout the Succession Wars.

I thought they were making full Stinger LAMs, it was noted as the only source of new LAMs IIRC.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Hellraiser on 04 April 2020, 11:25:41
On the mapboard LAMs were only good because of the cheesy way 2nd Edition did the Movement for Land-Air-Mech mode.


No one ever ran a LAM in Mech or ASF mode with any real success.

The Stinger was a bit weaker than a Fire Javelin & would get crushed by a Centurion-1D in the air.


I think that the way Wolf's Dragoons had a couple of them attached to the Brigade Command group makes the most sense.

Or the way the SLDF had a company of them with each Striker Regiment.


They are decent at Recon, and that is it.

But I wouldn't ever want to have them as a main component that had to see major combat in a force.

Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Daryk on 04 April 2020, 11:52:19
Recon and rear area raiding... two things they're excellent at, not just one.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Hellraiser on 04 April 2020, 15:42:38
I guess as long as that rear area doesn't have some Partisan's or spare Medium Mechs in the area that's true.

Given the way Fuel is now handled for them, I don't think I want them flying too far.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Daryk on 04 April 2020, 16:31:02
Those are the rear areas you avoid...
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: massey on 04 April 2020, 18:51:06
I guess as long as that rear area doesn't have some Partisan's or spare Medium Mechs in the area that's true.

That's the beauty of them.  See some Partisans?  Change into mech mode and bust them up.  Get in the same hex and they can't even shoot at you, while you kick them to death. 

Again, the advantage is that in a normal engagement, your opponents will have prepared for a conventional force distribution.  Say a Battalion normally comes with 6 aerospace fighters, a Regiment with 18.  Your opponent will have built his force accordingly.  If he's got a lance of Partisans, then he's counting on them to defend something important.  He's planning on shooting down your ASFs with that.  But if you can take them out with a lance of LAMs?  It frees up your ASFs to do something else.

LAMs are like the tight end in football.  Not as good at catching the ball as a receiver, not as good at blocking as a lineman, but they can do either one.  It's the coach's job to get them in position to make plays.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: marcussmythe on 04 April 2020, 21:11:01
Ask your favorite military friend how useful a tank batallion would be if those tanks (at the price of being second rate tanks) could turn into second rate fighters capable of VTOL operations, surface to space to surface redeployment on a strategic scale but at an almost tactical response time, before going back to ground and turning into ground assets.

At the table, the rules on equipment, etc. keeps then under control.

In universe, as a theatre commander?  Ill take all of them. 
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: SCC on 05 April 2020, 00:31:51
That's the beauty of them.  See some Partisans?  Change into mech mode and bust them up.  Get in the same hex and they can't even shoot at you, while you kick them to death. 

Again, the advantage is that in a normal engagement, your opponents will have prepared for a conventional force distribution.  Say a Battalion normally comes with 6 aerospace fighters, a Regiment with 18.  Your opponent will have built his force accordingly.  If he's got a lance of Partisans, then he's counting on them to defend something important.  He's planning on shooting down your ASFs with that.  But if you can take them out with a lance of LAMs?  It frees up your ASFs to do something else.

LAMs are like the tight end in football.  Not as good at catching the ball as a receiver, not as good at blocking as a lineman, but they can do either one.  It's the coach's job to get them in position to make plays.
You'll have to land and change into 'Mech mode before the Partisans shoot you down, or any of the other air defense the enemy has deployed (remember that before you can hit any rear area target you'll have to cross the enemies lines, which will have integral air defense), and get out before any reaction force catches you and then you'll have to cross the enemies lines again and risk getting shot down AGAIN.

Also keep in mind that the backstab that light 'Mech live by, which includes LAMs, doesn't work in battles of say a battalion or more because the enemy will be arranged into multiple lines.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: bear on 05 April 2020, 08:18:40
in universe, Special-ops units like the Blackhearts and Seventh Kommando would probably be the best suited to use LAMS effectively.  fly in from a pirate point in orbit, switch to mech mode in the dark, strike and fly away.  switch to air-mech mode to cause chaos and uncertainty about who or what is even attacking
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: massey on 05 April 2020, 17:18:02
You'll have to land and change into 'Mech mode before the Partisans shoot you down, or any of the other air defense the enemy has deployed (remember that before you can hit any rear area target you'll have to cross the enemies lines, which will have integral air defense), and get out before any reaction force catches you and then you'll have to cross the enemies lines again and risk getting shot down AGAIN.

Also keep in mind that the backstab that light 'Mech live by, which includes LAMs, doesn't work in battles of say a battalion or more because the enemy will be arranged into multiple lines.

How much anti-air do you think your enemy has?  You're describing what seems like a huge amount of specialist defenses.  I don't think the average planetary battle is going to have that amount of stuff.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: dgorsman on 05 April 2020, 17:29:07
I suspect the normal procedure when encountering unexpected air defences would be to switch to AirMech mode, descend, and take advantage of blocking terrain, or if that's too difficult switch to Mech mode and run around them.  Once clear, switch back to fighter mode and proceed to target.  That's more options than pure fighter, VTOL/WiGE, or ground units have.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Lazarus Sinn on 06 April 2020, 11:54:23
I like LAMS and still use them form time to time. I had a character for years who piloted a P-Hawk LAM. It was his command Mech. He had a wingman in a one as well. It allowed me to move all over the place fast to see for myself what was going on. We deployed as a rapid response force to support our units and to hit REMF targets and to rapidly take advantage of any exposed targets of opportunity. It was an RCT sized unit and the two P-Hawk LAMS in the command unit and the four Stinger LAMS in our recon/quick strike unit turned the tide of many a battle.

I am not sure about the new rules regarding not being able to use advanced tech. I will have to look into that. But if they hurt the playability and/or make for poor story telling in game I will ignore or modify them as I see fit.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 April 2020, 12:42:41
I like LAMS and still use them form time to time. I had a character for years who piloted a P-Hawk LAM. It was his command Mech. He had a wingman in a one as well. It allowed me to move all over the place fast to see for myself what was going on. We deployed as a rapid response force to support our units and to hit REMF targets and to rapidly take advantage of any exposed targets of opportunity. It was an RCT sized unit and the two P-Hawk LAMS in the command unit and the four Stinger LAMS in our recon/quick strike unit turned the tide of many a battle.

I am not sure about the new rules regarding not being able to use advanced tech. I will have to look into that. But if they hurt the playability and/or make for poor story telling in game I will ignore or modify them as I see fit.

Those rules badly hurt a LAM at the tactical layer, but I think it varies by era.  LAMS show pretty well in 3025 (they get the same equipment everyone else does), and again by the 3100s as long as your building mixed tech base.  In between, where there are no Clan LAMS, and the IS doesnt have access to clanspec weapons, its pretty bad.

At an operational layer, the advantages of a LAM remain IMHO compelling.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Lazarus Sinn on 06 April 2020, 17:28:47
Those rules badly hurt a LAM at the tactical layer, but I think it varies by era.  LAMS show pretty well in 3025 (they get the same equipment everyone else does), and again by the 3100s as long as your building mixed tech base.  In between, where there are no Clan LAMS, and the IS doesn't have access to clanspec weapons, its pretty bad.

At an operational layer, the advantages of a LAM remain IMHO compelling.

In our games LAMS are basically LosTech in the 3025 era. Our GM knew I liked them and decided the only way we would be able to have them and be able to keep them operational was to have found them with the supplies needed to keep them going. So that is how we got ours. We found them and a bunch of other neat stuff when the 2750 readout came out. I do not think he thought I would latch on to one of the P-Hawks as a command Mech.

Since we had the facilities, we pimped them out with advanced comms, sensors, weapons, etc. from the 2750 technical readout. We allowed DHS in the engine only, but that was enough. By incorporating the LosTech in them they were a match for other mechs in the same weight class. I rarely used them against fighters because they were simply too valuable.

You have to pick your battles when using them because they are so valuable.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 April 2020, 18:17:06
Amusingly, lacking advanced components, they arent THAT expensive - at least not when compared to the likes of the XXL units.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Hellraiser on 06 April 2020, 18:24:16
That's the beauty of them.  See some Partisans?  Change into mech mode and bust them up.  Get in the same hex and they can't even shoot at you, while you kick them to death. 

...........

LAMs are like the tight end in football.  Not as good at catching the ball as a receiver, not as good at blocking as a lineman, but they can do either one.  It's the coach's job to get them in position to make plays.

Trying to kick a Partisan to death in a 30 Ton mech when 3 other Partisans are 100 meters away should be interesting.

Seriously, they are entirely too fragile to ever want to engage in combat & risk getting shot at.

The Tight End in football won't break a spine the first time he gets tackled.   Hit a Stinger hard enough to force a PSR to fall over & it is probably a hurting unit just from armor damage at that point.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Daryk on 06 April 2020, 19:12:16
That situation calls for artillery...
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: massey on 06 April 2020, 23:47:35
Yeah, the advantage of LAMs is that you've got so much strategic movement that you can pick your battles.  You don't have your 30 ton mech attack four 80 ton tanks.  You have your lance drop in on one tank and gang up on it.  When you can go wherever you want, you attack when you outnumber your opposition.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Lazarus Sinn on 07 April 2020, 10:02:55
Yeah, the advantage of LAMs is that you've got so much strategic movement that you can pick your battles.  You don't have your 30 ton mech attack four 80 ton tanks.  You have your lance drop in on one tank and gang up on it.  When you can go wherever you want, you attack when you outnumber your opposition.

Units who fought us quickly learned to guard there rear areas and supply lines. This also helped us because it drew forces away from the front line battles to guard the REMFs.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: massey on 07 April 2020, 10:56:03
Units who fought us quickly learned to guard there rear areas and supply lines. This also helped us because it drew forces away from the front line battles to guard the REMFs.

And that's just the most straightforward use of them.  Imagine the strategic ability to reinforce your units almost on demand.

Let's say I have a battalion, and my opponent has a battalion.  I'm moving to attack his city.  I separate into 3 companies, each one maybe 25 miles apart.  Heavy company is making for his spaceport, Strike company is headed for his power plant, and Scout company is sprinting around the outskirts of the city aiming for his munitions stockpile.

My opponent will either have to split his forces, or allow two of my targets to be taken uncontested.  Again, we're talking about equal force sizes here (my opponent doesn't have free anti-air defenses that he can put anywhere he wants -- those have to come from his existing force structure).  So he splits up with one of his companies defending each target.

But Scout company has a surprise.  It's made up of 2 lances of LAMs (we'll say 2 P-Hawks, 3 Stingers, 3 Wasps) and one lance of speed demon mechs (2 Locusts, 2 Spiders).  And instead of attacking its target, the Locusts and Spiders disengage and run away, while the LAMs transform and zip over to one of my other companies that are about to hit their target.  The LAMs arrive within like two minutes (still before the battle has begun) and change back into mech mode.  Now Heavy Company has two extra lances of mechs (even if they are lights and mediums) to deal with the defenders.

True, no one is attacking the munitions depot, not yet anyway.  And my opponent has a fresh company there that didn't get attacked.  But they can't reposition nearly as quickly as my LAMs can.  Heavy company is crushing the defenders at the spaceport (all things being equal except I've got 66% more mechs), and I've got probably half an hour before the first reinforcements for the defender can arrive.  These are all basically "out of combat" actions that can be done well before you engage the enemy.  And there's nothing he can do about it without having specialized forces that just happen to be in the right position.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Lazarus Sinn on 07 April 2020, 14:22:18
And that's just the most straightforward use of them.  Imagine the strategic ability to reinforce your units almost on demand.

Let's say I have a battalion, and my opponent has a battalion.  I'm moving to attack his city.  I separate into 3 companies, each one maybe 25 miles apart.  Heavy company is making for his spaceport, Strike company is headed for his power plant, and Scout company is sprinting around the outskirts of the city aiming for his munitions stockpile.

My opponent will either have to split his forces, or allow two of my targets to be taken uncontested.  Again, we're talking about equal force sizes here (my opponent doesn't have free anti-air defenses that he can put anywhere he wants -- those have to come from his existing force structure).  So he splits up with one of his companies defending each target.

But Scout company has a surprise.  It's made up of 2 lances of LAMs (we'll say 2 P-Hawks, 3 Stingers, 3 Wasps) and one lance of speed demon mechs (2 Locusts, 2 Spiders).  And instead of attacking its target, the Locusts and Spiders disengage and run away, while the LAMs transform and zip over to one of my other companies that are about to hit their target.  The LAMs arrive within like two minutes (still before the battle has begun) and change back into mech mode.  Now Heavy Company has two extra lances of mechs (even if they are lights and mediums) to deal with the defenders.

True, no one is attacking the munitions depot, not yet anyway.  And my opponent has a fresh company there that didn't get attacked.  But they can't reposition nearly as quickly as my LAMs can.  Heavy company is crushing the defenders at the spaceport (all things being equal except I've got 66% more mechs), and I've got probably half an hour before the first reinforcements for the defender can arrive.  These are all basically "out of combat" actions that can be done well before you engage the enemy.  And there's nothing he can do about it without having specialized forces that just happen to be in the right position.

This is why I like them.  :)
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Hellraiser on 07 April 2020, 16:46:31
Yeah, the advantage of LAMs is that you've got so much strategic movement that you can pick your battles.  You don't have your 30 ton mech attack four 80 ton tanks.  You have your lance drop in on one tank and gang up on it.  When you can go wherever you want, you attack when you outnumber your opposition.

I was referring to 4 on 4 myself. 

No numbers advantage for either side.


But I still don't see the limited fuel supply of LAMs letting them just fly around all day looking for targets.

That Aero mode is for very quick recon flights for a mech unit.

It lacks the reserves to operate like a real recon bird.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Daryk on 07 April 2020, 16:55:36
I think you can do recon at WiGE speeds...
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: massey on 07 April 2020, 17:07:40
I was referring to 4 on 4 myself. 

No numbers advantage for either side.


But I still don't see the limited fuel supply of LAMs letting them just fly around all day looking for targets.

That Aero mode is for very quick recon flights for a mech unit.

It lacks the reserves to operate like a real recon bird.

If you're just using it to redeploy, you only need to make one quick flight.

And certainly, in a 4 on 4 fight or something like that, LAMs are at a disadvantage.  They can't use all the advanced equipment that other mechs can, and they sacrifice 10% of their tonnage.  But I think this topic (what does the Inner Sphere think of LAMs) is more of a background related question.  The biggest advantage of LAMs is not something that shows up on the tabletop in any current game.  But it's a huge benefit in some unmade version of Battleforce.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Hellraiser on 07 April 2020, 17:09:11
True, no one is attacking the munitions depot, not yet anyway.  And my opponent has a fresh company there that didn't get attacked.  But they can't reposition nearly as quickly as my LAMs can.  Heavy company is crushing the defenders at the spaceport (all things being equal except I've got 66% more mechs), and I've got probably half an hour before the first reinforcements for the defender can arrive.  These are all basically "out of combat" actions that can be done well before you engage the enemy.  And there's nothing he can do about it without having specialized forces that just happen to be in the right position.

Thoughts.

Good:
1.  I love the idea of Mobile Reinforcement.
   I had a ASF Squadron that was our "light/recon" Squadron out of an Aero unit (4 Seydliz & 2 P-Hawk-LAM).
They were forbidden from engaging in combat in most circumstances.  They did recon & left the fighting for SparrowHawks & Larger.
The LAMs would often do as your describing but not to support a full heavy mech company.
Instead they would sometimes support the light Recon Lance that was out ahead of the unit.   (Biggest slowest mech was a Jenner)
Having 2 Mediums added to 4 Lights does give you a nice edge when you run into the other guy's picket/screen.

Bad:
2.  That is an insane # of LAMs in a single unit.  Post SLDF.   :)
3.  Attacking with equal #s means those defenders have some sort of advantage.  Even if its just hidden units instead of greater #s.
  I'm still not tossing my LAMs into that grinder on a larger scale.  They really are too precious to use post SLDF era.


While similar, the difference in our examples, for me, comes down to chance of injury by the LAM.

Backing up your "Crusader" as it attacks an enemy "Warhammer".   No thank you.  Not the Job of the LAM crew.
Backing up my Locust as its surprised by the enemy "Assassin".   Ok, I'll try that.

Maybe if the enemy has a straggler or just a wide front where I can concentrate all 8 of your LAMs into a 9 on 1 fight.... sure...maybe.
I'm not looking for them to ever be on anything close to equal footing in a fight & certainly don't want them transforming in range of enemy guns.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Hellraiser on 07 April 2020, 17:11:26
The biggest advantage of LAMs is not something that shows up on the tabletop in any current game.  But it's a huge benefit in some unmade version of Battleforce.

Agreed.

The L.A.Mode was uber on the table top in BT2E which is why there is so much Love/Hate towards them.

They needed the Nerf bat big time.

But at a "larger tactical / lower strategic" level, they are nice for sure.

Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Shiro15 on 07 April 2020, 17:16:10
The LAMs were highly regarded in the Inner Sphere.
In the old FASA-1620-Kurita House Book (page 45) it is mentioned that House Kurita dod not want its military to rely on other houses or Star League facilities.
In the Draconis Combine Lexatech Industries produced the Stinger LAM in 2688 "and even the First Lord began to commision the uniquie StingerLAM for its Regular Army, much to the Kurita family's satisfaction (...)"

LexaTech survived the four Succession Wars and was producing StingerLAMs (not only spare parts) until Clan Nova Cats conquered the manufacture centre and razed it, because the Clans considered LAMs as an insult of their warrior code.

In the original Technical Readout 3025 many battles are described, where LAMs were used.

Even on the original cover of the Stackpole Novel "Blood Legacy" you can see two LAMs flying over the head of coordinator takashi Kurita who prepares for battle against the invading Smoke Jaguars and Nova Cats in front of his GrandDragon.

In the Era report / Star League Source Book 2750 on page 43 the 1st Rasalhague Regulars are described.
This elite reigiment was equipped with a large portion of Star League Mechs and a full company of Land-Air-Mechs.
Quote: "Of these, the First’s Land-Air ‘Mechs were their crown jewel; producedin the Combine at the LexaTech Industries facility on Irece, the entire company boasted the latest in cutting-edge design."

So I think that for the Inner Sphere - at least for the people of House Kurita - the LAMs are a symbol of high-tech-Mechs, highly respected and honored.
For the Clans the LAMs were an insult and the Nova Cats destroyed the LexaTech-LAM-production centre (Alone for this barbaric act they deserved their extinction some decades later :) ).
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Retry on 11 April 2020, 10:01:22
You'll have to land and change into 'Mech mode before the Partisans shoot you down, or any of the other air defense the enemy has deployed (remember that before you can hit any rear area target you'll have to cross the enemies lines, which will have integral air defense), and get out before any reaction force catches you and then you'll have to cross the enemies lines again and risk getting shot down AGAIN.

Also keep in mind that the backstab that light 'Mech live by, which includes LAMs, doesn't work in battles of say a battalion or more because the enemy will be arranged into multiple lines.
The classic Partisan has an effective range of about half a kilometer, so that's not particularly difficult to do.  The guns themselves are only "okay" in an AA role, considering how heavy the platform is.  Arrow IV ADA would be far more dangerous, but on the strategic scale that's still not too tricky to transform a mapsheet or 2 away and advance in AirMech mode (using cover) or on foot, as long as you have decent intel and don't just fly right into a trap (in which case a LAM isn't going to handle the situation any worse than regular Battlemechs or ASF.).

Seriously, they are entirely too fragile to ever want to engage in combat & risk getting shot at.
But I still don't see the limited fuel supply of LAMs letting them just fly around all day looking for targets.

That Aero mode is for very quick recon flights for a mech unit.

It lacks the reserves to operate like a real recon bird.
To some extent, that speaks more on the current designs than it does for the LAM as a concept.  There's nothing stopping new LAM designs built from scratch from adding a ton or 3 of extra fuel, or using maximum armor for their weight class.

It might be tricky to do that and get decent firepower and have a solid airspeed to complete the platform, but it's possible.  I've done it, despite the best efforts of the LAM construction rules.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: RifleMech on 13 April 2020, 03:14:41
How the IS sees LAMs depends on the era. They were considered highly valuable for their abilities, especially in the roles of scouts and raiders. The IS would spend a year rebuilding a badly damaged LAM when they were scrapping other Mechs. They'd also launch planetary invasions just to capture spare parts for LAMs.

By the time of the Clan Invasion though you didn't hear much about them. Logically, LAMs should have received some recovered lostech to make them even more effective in their roles as scouts and raiders. Then the Clans destroyed the last LAM factory and suddenly all LAMs are extinct.

I believe that was mostly do to real life problems. We did get Tactical Handbook which updated the rules but by then hatred of ubber 100 OMNI LAMs had been set in ferrocrete. Then came other issues and LAMs disappeared all together. If not for those issues I think LAMs could have been updated, and the Houses look into ways to start new factories. It's possible that they still could have faded but it wouldn't have been so sudden.

After the Clan Invasion LAMs are in museums or the occasional merc unit. The Houses might still have some for elite special units but we don't here about them. The Jade Falcons secretly experiment with some but they don't go anywhere, more because of Clan attitudes than the LAMs actual effectiveness. For the most part though LAMs even rarer than they used to be. They could have been brought back but priorities kept that from happening.

Then suddenly the WoB has LAMs. Lots of LAMs. Old SLDF LAMs, new upgraded variants, and all new designs. I don't know how they got all the LAMs. Personally, I think the WoB went about "obtaining" LAMs where ever could and weren't too particular about how they did it or the condition the LAMs were in. But that's me.

After the Jihad some in the IS are under the impression that LAMs weren't worth much and only the SLDF could build them. They were also under the impression that the SLDF only did so because they had money to do so. They even use how LAMs died again with WoB to prove that point. That obviously doesn't stand up to LAM history, much less the actual costs of LAMs versus the more advanced tech being used, but that's the impression they have. They are right in how long it takes to train a LAM pilot though. So for now, at least until the Third League arrives and gives us the Urbanmech LAM, LAMs would be super rare and possibly have some stigma to them. Although I do hope that the Hell's Horses use of QuadVees will spark renewed interest in LAMs.



Any who, to answer the OP's question, I think the WoB Commander would have purchased the LAM, functioning or not. If working, and allowed to keep it, I think he'd use it. Otherwise, he'd sent it back to Terra, or a hidden world, to either be completely refurbished or stripped for parts.



PS
I counted 18 LAMs scattered throughout Wolf's Dragoons. There were a couple Lances of 3-4, a couple pairs, and a couple individuals, some being a 5th unit in a Lance.

PPS
I believe the Dragoon's TO&E is for after their 2nd supply run and they began getting units from Blackwell, so it's possible the number of LAMs could have been greater.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: SCC on 18 April 2020, 05:46:36
How much anti-air do you think your enemy has?  You're describing what seems like a huge amount of specialist defenses.  I don't think the average planetary battle is going to have that amount of stuff.
The situation you described to me screamed multi-regiment engagement, and that's what you should probably use as your yardstick whenever evaluating anything for it's role in BT.

Amusingly, lacking advanced components, they arent THAT expensive - at least not when compared to the likes of the XXL units.
FASAnomics, I could go into detail but it's not important for this thread.

Yeah, the advantage of LAMs is that you've got so much strategic movement that you can pick your battles.  You don't have your 30 ton mech attack four 80 ton tanks.  You have your lance drop in on one tank and gang up on it.  When you can go wherever you want, you attack when you outnumber your opposition.
Pretty sure that most military's don't have single tanks running around like this.

And that's just the most straightforward use of them.  Imagine the strategic ability to reinforce your units almost on demand.

Let's say I have a battalion, and my opponent has a battalion.  I'm moving to attack his city.  I separate into 3 companies, each one maybe 25 miles apart.  Heavy company is making for his spaceport, Strike company is headed for his power plant, and Scout company is sprinting around the outskirts of the city aiming for his munitions stockpile.

My opponent will either have to split his forces, or allow two of my targets to be taken uncontested.  Again, we're talking about equal force sizes here (my opponent doesn't have free anti-air defenses that he can put anywhere he wants -- those have to come from his existing force structure).  So he splits up with one of his companies defending each target.

But Scout company has a surprise.  It's made up of 2 lances of LAMs (we'll say 2 P-Hawks, 3 Stingers, 3 Wasps) and one lance of speed demon mechs (2 Locusts, 2 Spiders).  And instead of attacking its target, the Locusts and Spiders disengage and run away, while the LAMs transform and zip over to one of my other companies that are about to hit their target.  The LAMs arrive within like two minutes (still before the battle has begun) and change back into mech mode.  Now Heavy Company has two extra lances of mechs (even if they are lights and mediums) to deal with the defenders.

True, no one is attacking the munitions depot, not yet anyway.  And my opponent has a fresh company there that didn't get attacked.  But they can't reposition nearly as quickly as my LAMs can.  Heavy company is crushing the defenders at the spaceport (all things being equal except I've got 66% more mechs), and I've got probably half an hour before the first reinforcements for the defender can arrive.  These are all basically "out of combat" actions that can be done well before you engage the enemy.  And there's nothing he can do about it without having specialized forces that just happen to be in the right position.
Where are the fixed defenses in this case? Specifically air defense?

The classic Partisan has an effective range of about half a kilometer, so that's not particularly difficult to do.  The guns themselves are only "okay" in an AA role, considering how heavy the platform is.  Arrow IV ADA would be far more dangerous, but on the strategic scale that's still not too tricky to transform a mapsheet or 2 away and advance in AirMech mode (using cover) or on foot, as long as you have decent intel and don't just fly right into a trap (in which case a LAM isn't going to handle the situation any worse than regular Battlemechs or ASF.).
Board ranges do not match in-universe ranges.

As for using LAMs as a fast response unit to plug holes in you lines, it sounds like a good way to plug that hole but lose your 'Mechs (Esp. LAMs) as your most likely dispatching a company of Stingers to hold off a company of 50-ton pocket heavies at best and full on assault 'Mechs at worst.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: idea weenie on 19 April 2020, 04:44:37
LAMS should be given your longest range energy weapon, plus good sensors, and a few short-range weapons.

You don't want them getting hurt, so you keep them at range.  The long-range energy weapon means no ammunition worries, so they can take a free shot every turn.

Good sensors, plus if friendly artillery is in range means the LAMs are serving as forward observers rather than direct combat units.  If someone wants to hunker down, the LAMs call in artillery to share the love.

If heavy forces sortie, the LAMs withdraw faster than they can be pursued.  If light forces that can keep up with them sortie, the LAMS change into AirMech mode and run away really fast.  If light forces are sent out that can keep up with AirMech mode, these light forces may not be able to survive being shot at.  If the light forces get close, that is what the short-rang weapons are for, to kill them ASAP.

The key would be that LAMs are mobile harrassers.  Enemy forces will likely call for artillery soon, and you don't want your expensive scout units underneath when it arrives.  Use them as scout forces, not direct combatants.  Like Savannah Masters, not Mechs.

In a strategic sense, think of them as a mosquito in a tent.  They may only do a little damage, but are very annoying/distracting.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Daryk on 19 April 2020, 04:53:41
So... an ER something big, TAG, and a couple of pulse lasers?  Sounds like a winner to me.
Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: RifleMech on 19 April 2020, 06:35:44
Which makes me question why LAMs weren't being upgraded after lostech was recovered. I would have thought that they'd be among the first units upgraded.

Title: Re: How are LAMs thought of by the IS?
Post by: Shiro15 on 19 April 2020, 06:55:09
On the one hand LAMs are extremely flexible weapon and effective systems.
You can take one Leopard-Fighter-Carrier, fill it with 6 LAMs and have 3 ASF-lances for long range raid operations. The combat values for a Stinger LAM (30 t, 3 Med lasers) are superior if compared with 3025-light fighters like the Liao-Thrush, Marik-Cheetah, Steiner-Seydlitz.
The Stinger LAM is equipped with 3x medium laser weapons - so no ammo is needed for this 30t-weapon-system.
At least House Kurita also has no problems in producing spare parts and additional Stinger LAMs because they had a manufactury centre until the Nova Cats conquered and destroyed it.

On the other hand the LAM-pilot has to be trained in two different parts: As a MechPilot and as a Aerospace-Fighter-Pilot. Its hard enough to find veteran Mechpilots or veteran ASF-pilots - and it will be much more difficult to get a veteran in combination.

Nevertheless as a specialized long range operation unit LAM-lances can threaten deep line supply centres of the enemy. So the enemy has either to weaken its frontline to put guards on these supply centres or to risk that the highly mobile LAMs attack them.

Just one example for the tactical advantage of LAMs.