Register Register

Author Topic: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?  (Read 32880 times)

Eldragon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 153
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #270 on: 24 August 2012, 15:56:12 »
Relying on my enemy having worse judgment in "target priority" than I do myself sounds like a rather dubious proposition to me. You know, in the "this tactic will totally work because I'm smart and they're dumb" sort of way that's just asking for karmic payback.

I think I'd rather have the range and movement modifiers, thanks. I can count on those. ;)

It's not about expecting your enemy to be dumb, but rather just using VTOL like you would a Spider or Wraith. Jump into the rear arc and have at it.
 
Besides, can you really count on movement modifiers? The dice can be a cruel mistress.

You don't have any control over how the the dice land, the one thing you do have control over is positioning.

Not that there is anything wrong with the long range plinker VTOL, but I would rather let my big expensive mechs use superior range and movement modifiers and let my cheap ICE engine vehicles be the cannon fodder.  :)



A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #271 on: 24 August 2012, 16:14:59 »
It's not about expecting your enemy to be dumb, but rather just using VTOL like you would a Spider or Wraith. Jump into the rear arc and have at it.

And the same basic principle applies on defense against either: if my enemy has mobile but short-ranged backstabbers, it quite naturally behooves me to watch my respective backs...and by "watch" I mean "make sure as much firepower as I can arrange is covering each just in case one of these things gets cheeky". That way said backstabbers either still try but risk serious repercussions, or they hold off waiting for an opening that I don't intend to give them, and one way or the other their threat potential goes down quite a bit.
 
Quote
Besides, can you really count on movement modifiers? The dice can be a cruel mistress.

You don't have any control over how the the dice land, the one thing you do have control over is positioning.

The dice are more reliable than my telepathy. At least as far as real life goes I'm just no longer a big believer in psychic powers. ;)

Quote
Not that there is anything wrong with the long range plinker VTOL, but I would rather let my big expensive mechs use superior range and movement modifiers and let my cheap ICE engine vehicles be the cannon fodder.  :)

Well, if your 'Mechs stand back while the vees charge in, "cannon fodder" is indeed going to be an apt description for the latter. I'm just having some trouble reconciling that label with any pretense of being actually an effective part of a combat force. :)

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #272 on: 24 August 2012, 16:19:26 »
The problem with target priority is that in order to exploit it you generally have to cripple yourself.  Many big assaults can flip their arms, so getting behind them does not really impact their ability to kill you.  Trying to backstab them will put you at short range and an easy target for their big guns, so if you are packing enough firepower to be a threat they will just swat you like a bug.  If on the other hand you are lightly armed enough to not be a priority, they will simply ignore you because you are not a threat and the VTOL will be little more than a waste of BV.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

Jayof9s

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2361
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #273 on: 24 August 2012, 16:23:24 »
Relying on my enemy having worse judgment in "target priority" than I do myself sounds like a rather dubious proposition to me. You know, in the "this tactic will totally work because I'm smart and they're dumb" sort of way that's just asking for karmic payback.

I think I'd rather have the range and movement modifiers, thanks. I can count on those. ;)

It isn't so much about relying on someone being dumb as giving them the choice "Am I going to leave my back open to the heavy/assault 'Mech that's at short range and has a +1 or +2 TMM or leave my back open to this this 25 ton VTOL at short range with just a pair of SRMs with a +5 TMM?"

You'd be dumb to turn your back on the 'Mech to try and take out the VTOL when you'll need some where around a 10+ to hit it. And the more forces you spend ensuring the VTOLs can't get that backshot are forces that are probably poorly deployed to contribute to the rest of the fight. And any amount of force you use to ensure that you aren't getting backshot, is probably worth more than what a few VTOLs cost. Either way, they're doing their job.

If you don't think combat VTOLs have a place on the battlefield, you've simply never played against anyone that has made good use of them.

Eldragon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 153
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #274 on: 24 August 2012, 16:24:46 »
And the same basic principle applies on defense against either: if my enemy has mobile but short-ranged backstabbers, it quite naturally behooves me to watch my respective backs...and by "watch" I mean "make sure as much firepower as I can arrange is covering each just in case one of these things gets cheeky". That way said backstabbers either still try but risk serious repercussions, or they hold off waiting for an opening that I don't intend to give them, and one way or the other their threat potential goes down quite a bit.

So in that case you are diverting firepower away from my expensive mechs towards my cheap VTOLs, which is exactly what I want you to do.

Speedy backstabbers like VTOL do exactly what light cavalry have been doing in war since man first rode a horse: Preventing you from directing the full might of your forces at my forces.

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #275 on: 24 August 2012, 16:49:39 »
So in that case you are diverting firepower away from my expensive mechs towards my cheap VTOLs, which is exactly what I want you to do.

Speedy backstabbers like VTOL do exactly what light cavalry have been doing in war since man first rode a horse: Preventing you from directing the full might of your forces at my forces.

Kindly make up your mind whether your VTOLs are part of "your forces" or not. If they are, then properly engaging them can hardly be considered a waste of my time since this thread is basically all about proving that they're threat enough to be worthy of that attention to begin with; if they're not, who do they really belong to and what are they doing on the battlefield in the first place? :)

It isn't so much about relying on someone being dumb as giving them the choice "Am I going to leave my back open to the heavy/assault 'Mech that's at short range and has a +1 or +2 TMM or leave my back open to this this 25 ton VTOL at short range with just a pair of SRMs with a +5 TMM?"

Well...yeah, I'd say that a plan that relies on me letting that 'Mech get that close while there are still enemy VTOLs buzzing about as well is calling me pretty dumb. ;) And again, if the VTOLs are armed heavily enough to be an actual threat, they're no longer simply an expendable "distraction"; at that point they're a proper valuable part of your force and doing my best to make you lose them is actually worth my time.

Fireangel

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3404
  • 7397 posts right down the toilet...
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #276 on: 24 August 2012, 16:52:06 »
So in that case you are diverting firepower away from my expensive mechs towards my cheap VTOLs, which is exactly what I want you to do.

Speedy backstabbers like VTOL do exactly what light cavalry have been doing in war since man first rode a horse: Preventing you from directing the full might of your forces at my forces.

The problem with that idea is that it works both ways; Infantry or armour support units can concentrate their efforts into clearing the airspace around 'mechs from annoying VTOLs; something that a light 'mech might easily shrug off can be devastating to a VTOL.

Target priority also includes threat assessment; The target must balance just how easy it is to take out a VTOL with just how dangerous that VTOL can be; if you invest heavily into high-tech SRM-boat VTOLs, you will lose more of them than you would if you had invested in... PPCs.

Diverting firepower has benefits that are directly proportional to the kind of firepower that is actually diverted: if the VTOL must enter SRM range to attack, the target can use its secondary armament to deal with it, which may not be as impressive if the secondary armament isn't even being used against enemy units at the time.

BUT, when you need to use your LLs, AC/10's, PPC's and LRMs to deal with the VTOL you are diverting more significant firepower from the target.

If I need to "waste" one turn of fire to reduce your overall firepower by significant percentages, I'll do that; I know how to fire and maneuver.

Eldragon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 153
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #277 on: 24 August 2012, 17:58:37 »
...

Really you should just try running a combat VTOL attack.

A well executed VTOL attack doesn't give the opponent the opportunity to attack just the VTOL. Its always "There is a VTOL behind me, and a Mech to my front, and I can't cover both."

 Its not the case that you are sacrificing them, but the relative cost of an ICE engine VTOL relative to the firepower means you can lose a few and not weep over the loss.

 Next time you play a game of CBT, bring a pair of Cavalry VTOL (They are much better in groups).  Plan the attack so that the VTOL get behind enemy mechs right when your mechs are at medium range.  And observe as the enemy is forced to pick between being exposed to your mech or your VTOL. They are as effective as a Spider or Wraith, but for a fraction of the cost. Of course, they die easy too.

Finally, head games are a big part of any board game.  Its worth throwing someone out of their comfort zone. Since most people don't know how to deal with combat VTOL; you can use that to your advantage.


Jayof9s

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2361
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #278 on: 24 August 2012, 18:16:29 »
Kindly make up your mind whether your VTOLs are part of "your forces" or not. If they are, then properly engaging them can hardly be considered a waste of my time since this thread is basically all about proving that they're threat enough to be worthy of that attention to begin with; if they're not, who do they really belong to and what are they doing on the battlefield in the first place? :)

Yes, they are part of my forces. I use them very often and I have been very successful with them. And that's using the standard Warriors that could be mproved on. And in later eras, the much maligned Yellowjacket, often paired with Hawkmoths. Also, I thought this thread was why there aren't (better) VTOL gunships in a certain era, not "convince everyone that VTOLs should be combat units"  ::)

I could argue all day different ways I've had them work for me in actual games but you'll likely just respond that the person was dumb to let it happen, so I won't bother:

Well...yeah, I'd say that a plan that relies on me letting that 'Mech get that close while there are still enemy VTOLs buzzing about as well is calling me pretty dumb. ;)

Beazle

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 481
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #279 on: 24 August 2012, 19:25:24 »
Also, I thought this thread was why there aren't (better) VTOL gunships in a certain era, not "convince everyone that VTOLs should be combat units" 

This. ^

People keep talking about all the different high tech options to make VTOLs more deadly, but the topic is about 3025.

Honestly, if we're going to look at why there aren't certain things in the 3025 era, then you really have to look metagame.

3025 was were BT got started, and it was all about Mechs.  VTOLs weren't really a big part of the game, and didn't really get much attention.  It wasn't until later on that vehicles in general became a larger part of the game, (due to the fiction, and rules changes) and by then we had new toys to play with (read LVL2 tech), which meant that nobody was interested in buying books of obsolete vehicle designs, so they didn't print any.

Instead we got all new designs based on rediscovered tech to help us fight off the Clans.

I'm in the mood for an analogy so think of it this way.

Vehicles in 3025 were that nerdy nice guy who could never get the girls back in school, by the time they matured enough to realize what a catch he really was, he was already friend-zoned and forgotten.

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #280 on: 24 August 2012, 21:19:00 »
The problem with that idea is that it works both ways; Infantry or armour support units can concentrate their efforts into clearing the airspace around 'mechs from annoying VTOLs; something that a light 'mech might easily shrug off can be devastating to a VTOL....

The LBX Vedette is a great unit for this.  Dirt cheap, readily available, and eats VTOLs for breakfast.  Bonus points if you scatter a few of them around the edges of your force so they can cover eachother against VTOLs trying to pick them off.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

Fireangel

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3404
  • 7397 posts right down the toilet...
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #281 on: 24 August 2012, 22:01:29 »
The LBX Vedette is a great unit for this.  Dirt cheap, readily available, and eats VTOLs for breakfast.  Bonus points if you scatter a few of them around the edges of your force so they can cover eachother against VTOLs trying to pick them off.

For 3025, a plain vanilla Vedette or Scorpion with flak ammo is going to ruin a helo's day.

Jim1701

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1760
  • "Don't Panic"
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #282 on: 24 August 2012, 22:06:11 »
For 3025, a plain vanilla Vedette or Scorpion with flak ammo is going to ruin a helo's day.

Not too much as long as the VTOL uses some caution.  Flak damage is applied as a single damage grouping so it limits the potential harm as long as the VTOL has a decent amount of armor and keeps its speed up. 

Fireangel

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3404
  • 7397 posts right down the toilet...
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #283 on: 24 August 2012, 22:08:51 »
Not too much as long as the VTOL uses some caution.  Flak damage is applied as a single damage grouping so it limits the potential harm as long as the VTOL has a decent amount of armor and keeps its speed up.

Still has a bonus to hit, decent range and a single bad motive crit will ruin someone's day.

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #284 on: 24 August 2012, 22:18:47 »
Still has a bonus to hit, decent range and a single bad motive crit will ruin someone's day.

That and it chews through the rotor in short order even with the damage reduction.  Also, with how cheap these tanks are it is easy to get groups of them to put more flack on target which brings the choppers down even faster.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7634
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #285 on: 25 August 2012, 01:23:28 »
No rocket launchers, that's why there aren't any VTOL gunships in 3025, that said if RL's ever become introductory expect that to change

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #286 on: 25 August 2012, 01:35:32 »
No rocket launchers, that's why there aren't any VTOL gunships in 3025, that said if RL's ever become introductory expect that to change

Well, while I don't think we have official availability ratings for "prototype" RLs (the ones with -1 to the cluster roll) yet, the tech to make them has clearly been available throughout the entire Star League era -- the Periphery powers used them all the way back in the Reunification War, and the Pentagon powers are noted for making use of them again in Operation Klondike against each other and the nascent Clans. Add that the Marians presumably had to engineer their "improved" (i.e. now regular) versions from something, and a case can be made that designers who genuinely want them should probably be able to get their hands on at least some of those earlier models even in 3025.

The rest is a question of rules levels and scenario-specific constraints more than anything else.

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #287 on: 25 August 2012, 02:32:22 »
You can use the new equipment and redo the older vehicles to get close to their 3025/3026 fluff. The only difficulty I can see is trying to use VTOL Jet Boosters before 3009. You could do it since it's "centuries" old technology but you'd have to impose house ruled penalties for it.

I think the biggest reason you don't see true gun ships in that era is that vehicles were second to mechs. Stripping vehicles for parts from good vehicles to keep the mechs going was still going on. So you had a mentality of why put a valuable equipment, especially fusion engines into vehicles when they're needed to keep the important mechs running? Especially, when you had a line of mechs waiting for parts. Now days, things are different. Vehicles get a lot more respect. Depending on the circumstances it really wouldn't surprise me if damaged mechs were being stripped to keep vehicles working. Mechs may always be Kings of the battlefields but they now have queens with big scepters and aren't afraid to use them when the king gets out of line.

Cannonshop

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2571
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #288 on: 25 August 2012, 07:25:26 »
Back on the original topic, (the claim of "no True gunships in 3025)  There WERE... in fact, one of the best, the Developers had to change the construction rules because they really couldn't design better, even with newtech.

The original Warrior H-7.  Best use of suspension factor, warload, speed, range, and COST (which was, sad to say, an actual issue in the canon in the 3rd succession war) on the primary, with a good secondary version for missile-boating (admittedly, the LRM 10 isn't popular with min/max types).

Literally, folks, the Devs had to change the math, as in the order of operations used in generating these, to make the successors (later era designs) look less...pathetic in terms of over-all performance envelope.

Within the limits not only of the technology tree at the time, but also era IRL in which the design originated, the ORIGINAL, as in Pre-TRO 3039(Nerfed) H-7 pretty much pinnacled that class-it even had art that LOOKED GOOD, instead of the chibi-choppah art that replaced it.

Taking the requirements for a good Attack VTOL in the era of stompy robots, and the limitations of the rules (and all that heavy, heavy, heavy equipment that was available, nothing light, esp. compared to the modern day), in 3025, if you run out of Warriors, you ran out of gunships-because within the limits of 3025 tech, "tournament rules", a 'better' VTOL Gunship would end up looking, for the most part, just like the original  (this isn't including the option of FCEs, which if you DID include them, would handle the rounding change just fine, no loss of MP whatsoever...however those rules didn't even exist until the most recent decade of real-time game existence.)

Even the Clans' vaunted Donar, was basically a slowed-down H-7 (9/14 instead of 10/15) with a fusion engine (enabling a massive energy weapon-but still requiring additonal heat sinks, aka weight sinks and cost multiplication), and Streak SRM instead of standard...for a design published in TRO 3060, while the much-beloved-in-some-quarters Yellowjacket AND Hawk-Moth are both basically overweight, slowed versions of the H-7's AC/5 variant, minus the secondary weapon.

Your other 3025 choices (if you're Comstar, that is) that match the same requirements (long AND short firepower, survivable speed in the air, decent crash protection) is the fusion-driven Pinto VTOL-which just reverses the armament pattern (short-range non missile, long range missile) at significant cost increase (and only if you're Comstar or Comstar supplied do you GET one-for hte price of a good light 'mech.)

For the PRICE, the 3026 spec H-7 was THE gunship of its Era and was competitive with, and could maintain a role IN the later eras with significantly fewer changes than were made in the Canon, all the way up to the point that the Staff literally had to change the rules to make the lesser-yet-far-more-expensive VTOLs published later even competitive against the original.

It's really easy to summarize WHY this is...

Weight Limit and Suspension Factor curve.  Superlights like the Ferret basically match the warload of a jeep.  Heavies (Yellowjacket and cousins) struggle under the weight of weapons like a poorly designed LIGHT 'mech, often with similar movement curves.  It's the 21-15 ton "Middle weight" where your suspension factor allows you to carry MORE weapons and associated hardware, than a comparable Light 'mech of similar tonnage and speed.

In the larger game, all VTOLs are "Light" units, but within the class, there are definite, and significant, class distinctions, which can be broken down to super-light (Ferret), "Light" (Marten)-both under 20 tonnes, "Medium" (H-7), and "Heavy" (everything 25 tons and above),

The "Medium" range (over 20 tons, under 25) has the distinction of having the most efficient distribution of warload for airspeed of the three, along with having the best Rotor (at and below 20 tons, you only pack 4 points total on the rotor-two armor, two IS, and below a certain point, there's only ONE point of IS, but over 20 tons it plateaus-three IS two armor-making those incidental hits take longer to kill you under both mun-I mean Maxtech, and TW rules.)

How is this? because between 21 and 25 tons, you have the best suspension factor, enabling a smaller proportion of engine mass to get a specific cruising speed, which translates into a larger proportional warload than either the lower mass VTOLs, or the bloaties at the upper end.

The truly telling part, is that you can build a Cyrano (minus the active probe) at 15 tons, and it will match the published 30 ton version, with better crash protection (armor). you lose 1 pt. of IS in the rotor.



It's because of engine mass and suspension factor mixed with weight limitations.  For their mass, the 3026 pre-dumbing down version (lasted about 20 years in play, btw, including some of the most nitpicky periods in the community) of the H-7 was hard to match, harder to top...it was simply THAT efficient within the limitations of the rules (30 ton ceiling, tiered suspension factors).  On gunships, both oog and IG, bigger stopped being 'better' once you passed the top end of the middle weights.
I beats the Urbie to death with my CHARGER!!!

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #289 on: 26 August 2012, 01:57:39 »
I must say I fully agree with you.  Even in the modern era the only VTOL that I consider a real competitor to the old Warrior is the Recon variant of the Clan Donar, and that is as much a function of its electronics as anything else.

There are a handful of other useful designs like the Arrow IV Yellow Jacket which I believe holds the distinction of being the single most mobile artillery piece in cannon.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

Greyhind

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 635
  • I'm Watching You
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #290 on: 26 August 2012, 05:04:06 »
I must say I fully agree with you.  Even in the modern era the only VTOL that I consider a real competitor to the old Warrior is the Recon variant of the Clan Donar, and that is as much a function of its electronics as anything else.
What about the Aeron?

Belisarius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1371
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #291 on: 26 August 2012, 11:34:55 »
There are a handful of other useful designs like the Arrow IV Yellow Jacket which I believe holds the distinction of being the single most mobile artillery piece in cannon.

Agreed! I can't say enough good about the Yellow Jacket AIV. If you want the ability to deliver effectively while making the best use of terrain, it's for you.

I personally like the lighter end of the spectrum, too. Once we get MM to begin allowing VTOLs to use external ordnance, I'll be making great use of lighter VTOLs with rocket pods. That would make the H7 a right terror as well.

Ian Sharpe

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2139
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #292 on: 26 August 2012, 12:38:09 »
What about the Aeron?

While I think its the best looking VTOL we have, the Aeron falls short because it uses an IS ERLL.  That puts it one hex outside of the extremely common LB-10, inside the range of LB-5s, LRMs, Clan LPLs, and ERPPCs.  I consider HAGs a whole different animal because they're death to VTOLs, and I'm not playing hex counting games to stay at 25 and not 24 with say, a Donar. 

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #293 on: 26 August 2012, 16:04:45 »
While I think its the best looking VTOL we have, the Aeron falls short because it uses an IS ERLL.  That puts it one hex outside of the extremely common LB-10, inside the range of LB-5s, LRMs, Clan LPLs, and ERPPCs.  I consider HAGs a whole different animal because they're death to VTOLs, and I'm not playing hex counting games to stay at 25 and not 24 with say, a Donar.

That and the Aeron uses ECM for its electronics payload which is the least useful part of the Donar's EW kit (I would actually like to pull it for a bigger engine or a pair of Light Machine Guns).  The BAP version is a little bit better because that is the part you actually want, but it costs the Aeron its TC which makes things even worse for trying to leverage that tiny range advantage over the 10-X and does nothing to solve all the other range problems it has.

The Hawk Moth is actually the best new VTOL the IS has gotten thanks to the reach of its LGR, but it suffers from limited speed and a total lack of secondary utility which is why I place the good old Warrior above it.  The ideal would be a new Warrior variant with a 2-X and BAP (along with something to fill the remaining weight) to give it more range and recon capabilities, but we have yet to see anything like that.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

Cannonshop

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2571
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #294 on: 26 August 2012, 16:40:22 »
That and the Aeron uses ECM for its electronics payload which is the least useful part of the Donar's EW kit (I would actually like to pull it for a bigger engine or a pair of Light Machine Guns).  The BAP version is a little bit better because that is the part you actually want, but it costs the Aeron its TC which makes things even worse for trying to leverage that tiny range advantage over the 10-X and does nothing to solve all the other range problems it has.

The Hawk Moth is actually the best new VTOL the IS has gotten thanks to the reach of its LGR, but it suffers from limited speed and a total lack of secondary utility which is why I place the good old Warrior above it.  The ideal would be a new Warrior variant with a 2-X and BAP (along with something to fill the remaining weight) to give it more range and recon capabilities, but we have yet to see anything like that.

If we do, it'll probably be running under a different nameplate, likely with skateboard art to represent it, and probably fedsuns-only-exclusive.

IF they don't just make it a Klan Kopter or RoTS.

The problem is 10/15 with an LBX-2 and an SRM-4 under 30 tonnes with an Active Probe would result in another design that dominates its' class and makes the "Flagship" designs (Yellowjacket-base, Hawk Moth, Donar, etc. ) look silly.

Esp. if it's FCE instead of Fusion or XL fusion.  (at which point, it becomes cheaper than the H9X while filling more roles more readily at less risk.)
I beats the Urbie to death with my CHARGER!!!

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #295 on: 26 August 2012, 17:01:24 »
If we do, it'll probably be running under a different nameplate, likely with skateboard art to represent it, and probably fedsuns-only-exclusive.

IF they don't just make it a Klan Kopter or RoTS.

The problem is 10/15 with an LBX-2 and an SRM-4 under 30 tonnes with an Active Probe would result in another design that dominates its' class and makes the "Flagship" designs (Yellowjacket-base, Hawk Moth, Donar, etc. ) look silly.

Esp. if it's FCE instead of Fusion or XL fusion.  (at which point, it becomes cheaper than the H9X while filling more roles more readily at less risk.)

I was thinking of pulling or downgrading the SRM rack to keep the ICE because I like the cheap powerplant, but really the important part is the combination of the 2-X and BAP because the IS could use something like that somewhere.

As for the Clans, while the 2-X would be a nice range boost, the Donar Recon is really a fantastic design that can do most of what you need out of a VTOL even with tonnage wasted on junk like the ECM and slightly subpar speed.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

Nikas_Zekeval

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 890
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #296 on: 26 August 2012, 18:09:36 »
If we do, it'll probably be running under a different nameplate, likely with skateboard art to represent it, and probably fedsuns-only-exclusive.

IF they don't just make it a Klan Kopter or RoTS.

The problem is 10/15 with an LBX-2 and an SRM-4 under 30 tonnes with an Active Probe would result in another design that dominates its' class and makes the "Flagship" designs (Yellowjacket-base, Hawk Moth, Donar, etc. ) look silly.

Esp. if it's FCE instead of Fusion or XL fusion.  (at which point, it becomes cheaper than the H9X while filling more roles more readily at less risk.)

Actually I like the idea of the LGR as the weapon for a VTOL gunship.  Long reach, and damage that is as much as the average damage of a H-7's alpha strike.  The biggest issue is the amount of mass in the weapon makes it damn hard, short of light fusion, XL fusion, or Fuel Cells to fit speed, the LGR, and minimal armor.

Though as an aside, you can bump an H-7 up to 25 tons, and keep all the stats of the fractional accounting original AFAICT.
« Last Edit: 27 August 2012, 00:25:46 by Nikas_Zekeval »

Ian Sharpe

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2139
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #297 on: 26 August 2012, 20:40:31 »
That and the Aeron uses ECM for its electronics payload which is the least useful part of the Donar's EW kit (I would actually like to pull it for a bigger engine or a pair of Light Machine Guns).  The BAP version is a little bit better because that is the part you actually want, but it costs the Aeron its TC which makes things even worse for trying to leverage that tiny range advantage over the 10-X and does nothing to solve all the other range problems it has.

The Hawk Moth is actually the best new VTOL the IS has gotten thanks to the reach of its LGR, but it suffers from limited speed and a total lack of secondary utility which is why I place the good old Warrior above it.  The ideal would be a new Warrior variant with a 2-X and BAP (along with something to fill the remaining weight) to give it more range and recon capabilities, but we have yet to see anything like that.

I don't mind the ECM if ghost targets are in effect, but yeah, its not a unit that wants to be close to anything, limiting the ECM's value.  If its had a binhc of secondaries, like SRMs or SPLs or your MGs, it would be much more useful. 

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7634
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #298 on: 26 August 2012, 21:54:36 »
What's different about the original Warrior H7?

Ian Sharpe

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2139
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #299 on: 26 August 2012, 22:07:59 »
What's different about the original Warrior H7?

Its 9/14 now rather than 10/15, since fractional accounting went away.