Author Topic: Building a "strategic bomber" unit  (Read 2482 times)

theagent

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 345
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #30 on: 19 March 2024, 12:56:02 »
The problem with using Cargo space for bombs is that you can't just dump them.  IIRC, there are rules for unloaded Cargo from a Cargo Bay, which preclude their use in combat as a "poor-man's bomb bay".

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13473
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #31 on: 19 March 2024, 13:54:51 »
I'd think that it's better to make the omnifighter that is designed to be intended to take the role, though. Having the temporary quirk is somewhat weird without a good reason.
...
Although I wonder that the fighter still have enough space to add the guns to be suffered by the negative quirk, but it is makes sense at least.

Oh sure, but I was suggesting it as a way to use canon units & only be a custom pod or scenario specific rule for a campaign, v/s creating whole new units from scratch.

As for the Guns, I was thinking the quirk would apply to the bombs themselves. 
That weapon modifier would be to those, not any small guns the thing still carried.
So instead of applying it to an Gauss Rifle or LRM-20 you would apply it to the bomb bay.




The problem with using Cargo space for bombs is that you can't just dump them.  IIRC, there are rules for unloaded Cargo from a Cargo Bay, which preclude their use in combat as a "poor-man's bomb bay".
Hence the idea to use the quirks for an Omni-fighter.     The temp quirk is there to represent racks.
Cargo for bombs is exactly how they are used normally.  The internal bay is set up with a cargo tonnage & the bombs fill that.

The quirk for bomb bay really should be represented by a piece of gear, not a quirk.
Based on the difference between a Regular v/s a OS-Missile Rack, I'm thinking the Bomb Rack should be 1/2 ton item.
I mean, you already get "Free" external racks at the cost of speed, so an "Internal" one should be fairly light outside of the devoted "Cargo" space.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1923
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #32 on: 20 March 2024, 03:35:44 »
Oh sure, but I was suggesting it as a way to use canon units & only be a custom pod or scenario specific rule for a campaign, v/s creating whole new units from scratch.

As for the Guns, I was thinking the quirk would apply to the bombs themselves. 
That weapon modifier would be to those, not any small guns the thing still carried.
So instead of applying it to an Gauss Rifle or LRM-20 you would apply it to the bomb bay.

Although I will raise the hand for the using the other weapons, but that's makes sense more than my one. Still, it's risky a bit, for Internal Bomb Bay already gives the unit a situational penalty on bombing. So not even 10+ to explodes on a lower side but also every single bombing requires an another roll that jams at 10~11 and explodes at 12 seems too harsh.

Well, Inaccurate Weapon is too difficult to apply on here(-1 points per every 5 damage points on a weapon) so I wonder that which one is better to replace that either. Perhaps, since bombs are must be one-use weapons(unless you put a TAG on it), for OS missiles have about 20% of BV than its normal versions should the rack enough to carry the bombs worth for 25 damage total gives the pods -1 point each?

The quirk for bomb bay really should be represented by a piece of gear, not a quirk.
Based on the difference between a Regular v/s a OS-Missile Rack, I'm thinking the Bomb Rack should be 1/2 ton item.
I mean, you already get "Free" external racks at the cost of speed, so an "Internal" one should be fairly light outside of the devoted "Cargo" space.

With that weight, you could also expect for lack of a problem for the chance of internal explosion on a 10+ against lower hits on the same turn when it makes a bombing run. Anyway that's more like the houserule so it is not the place to discuss that.

Vehrec

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1230
  • Mr. Flibble is Very Cross
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #33 on: 05 April 2024, 18:15:10 »
An 18-ton missile is huge, and is even heavier than a fully-loaded X-15.  Even testing large ballistic missiles on B-52s resulted in missiles in the 5-ton range, and the same holds true for Russian and Chinese tests.

I could only find onel larger attempt, dropping a 30-ton Minuteman ICBM out the back of a C-5 and air-lighting it, which was evidently attempted only once.

As for glide bombs, can't we drop homing Arrow IV missiles?

The Arrow IV isn't quite a glide bomb, any more than it's a proper theater-SAM.  Even if it was acceptable in the role (it's very heavy for a bomb with a wing-kit) it's range is very disappointing, only able to get a couple of hexes away from it's launch position even if dropped very high and very fast. 

The Poor Arrow IV has too man hats, to be honest.  It's an anti-ship missile.  It's a heavy Anti-air weapon.  It's a hypersonic glide vehicle, it's an air-launched cruise missile, it's a Surface-to-Air missile, it's a mine dispenser, it's a mine-clearing weapon, it's everything to every job.  And if you load it on a plane, its weight increases 25-fold.  I shouldn't be to harsh on it-but its clear that the air combat game is very much not the focus.  Which makes strategic air combat even harder to do.
*Insert support for fashionable faction of the week here*

Takiro

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1432
  • BattleTech: Salient Horizon
    • Your BattleTech
Re: Building a "strategic bomber" unit
« Reply #34 on: 14 May 2024, 14:20:47 »
Brings me back to the heady days of the Small Craft bomber discussions we had. Those were the days.

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=20786.msg464540#msg464540
« Last Edit: 14 May 2024, 20:21:12 by Takiro »

 

Register