Register Register

Author Topic: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?  (Read 29908 times)

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #60 on: 03 July 2012, 14:05:04 »
Is there any rule preventing VTOLs with LRM's from using indirect fire? If not, you can use a modified version of the the old Cold War Apache/Kiowa tag team with LRM gunships being spotted for by scout VTOL's.

EDIT: If this does indeed work, see the Warrior H7C, which is a canon design at the original tech level that replaces the AC/2 with an LRM-10.

No rule I'm aware of, so yes, that works just as it would for any other LRM-equipped unit.

Of course, like any other LRM-equipped unit, the gunship isn't immune to the other side returning the favor if they can get a spotter of their own into position. :)

Dave Talley

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2911
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #61 on: 03 July 2012, 14:10:03 »
Would not the Warrior Qualify? I mean it has an Autocannon and LRMs, and doesn't transport anything, it is as close to an attack chopper as you get until, the Yellow Jacket, Hawk Moth, and Donnar.

nope, its either an a AC or LRMs

although the Lrm10 version is decent, and it can get +3 mod without flanking IIRC
Resident Smartass since 1998
“Toe jam in training”.
I agree. Conditionally. I have no qualms kicking the favorite faction in the crotch--repeatedly. But the fact of the matter is, I prefer to kick EVERYBODY in the crotch as often as possible, like a game of whack a mole, only here's it's whack a crotch. Because we're playing in a wargame universe, and if you're NOT getting kicked in the crotch (repeatedly), then you're not in the ****** game.
- Herb

clansittingducks: is it wrong to want to take a baseball bat to their groin so hard their testicles fly out of their eyes upon impact?

Brother Jim

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 843
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #62 on: 03 July 2012, 14:20:42 »
Swap out the SRM4 and ammo for an LRM5 and ammo.

Edit: A standard H-7 with the above change is 325 BV2 and 494,700 C-Bills.
« Last Edit: 03 July 2012, 14:25:48 by Brother Jim »

House Davie Merc

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 889
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #63 on: 03 July 2012, 14:37:30 »
C.  Be a fun change of pace to play with and against

 ;D

Most of the players that I know wouldn't agree with the "against " part after the first game .  }:)

I have to wonder if the players that don't think VTOLs are capable units in the 3025 era
have ever played against someone that knows how to use them .

I consider them a faster, less armored, but still  TW level  legal LAM .

A lot of players don't consider the BV cost to improve the gunnery of mechs to be worth it .

That means in the average match up that's a BV limited game where nobody knows what
the other is bringing to the table  -the VTOL is often un-hittable .

Much the same way that if someone must face combined arms units with infantry in built up terrain
armed only with mechs that lack anti-infantry weapons their in for a surprise . The infantry
are going to tare the mechs up .

The simple Warrior H7C carries an LRM-10 with 24 rounds and  costs around 500 BV .
It can move at something like 10/15 or 9/14 ( They changed it to 25 tons didn't they ?  .

At any rate name a mech that can do that for that cost .

A lance of H7Cs can keep moving positions and fire indirectly using either infantry
on a ridge far away or a Ferret to keep them all mobile .
Most 3025 ground units simply can't do anything about it .


Indirect fire using all VTOLs is why they were banned by most of the
players I know .
« Last Edit: 03 July 2012, 14:39:48 by House Davie Merc »

Sir Chaos

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2036
  • Artillery Fanboy
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #64 on: 03 July 2012, 15:04:26 »
Problem is that if SRMs are the primary armament, coming in for a strike puts it in range of the target's own SRMs and MLs, which are bad news for a helo.

Use the terrain to avoid being fired at over long range, and/or use high speed to make long-range fire against them pointless. Against regular-rated 3025 units, a Warrior variant can easily reduce the enemy to 12+ shots at long range.

Then, either slip behind an isolated mech or one busy shooting at something else in the opposite direction - or behind a turretless vehicle or a VTOL, then unleash the SRM at short range. Usually I fire 2x standard SRM-4 and 2x inferno, preferably two VTOL against one mech; against anything but a fast light or lower-end medium, they usually get enough inferno hits to generate the maximum +15 heat, which for most 3025 mechs is enough to render them defenseless. If the enemy has potent rear-facing weapons (or a turret with short-range weapons), stay in medium or long range, which still makes things harder for him than for you.

In short, use them much like you would use light, fast backstabber mechs - the Javelin JVN-10N comes to mind -, only faster and cheaper.

I only use then against the MegaMek bot so far, but up to now, they have always carried their weight. Not counting the many assists they provided by shutting down mechs with heat or immobilizing vehicles, in my current campaign they killed (over the course of eight battles so far) an Archer (ammo cook-off through heat), a Wasp, a Demolisher, an LRM Carrier, a Maxim, a Hetzer and a Scorpion, at the cost of 4 VTOL lost out of 8.
"Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl."
-Frederick the Great

"Ultima Ratio Regis" ("The Last Resort of the King")
- Inscription on cannon barrel, 18th century

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #65 on: 03 July 2012, 18:00:50 »
I hope this doesn't come off too harsh, BUT, IMHO, someone fielding a 15/23 Vtol that lets you have LoS w/ them is highly incompetent & deserves to get shot.  Seriously, there is just no excuse for EVER being in LoS w/ that kind of Mobility.

That works for me.  If the weapons carried by my normal forces keep the VTOL from ever showing its face then I have neutralized a portion of the enemy's BV at absolutely no cost.

I think the Warrior with the AC 2 is waaaaay to under whelming for that role, especially with the speed advantage it has over 95% of the units in 3025 Tech.

Harassers are supposed to draw attention, and be enough of a pest to draw attention. 14 hexs is medium range for LRMs, but long range for most other weapon systems.  With a Warrior you can move 10 hexs at a cruise so getting your target modifer to +4 is easy while dropping yourself into the medium bracket and making it easier to hit with your own gunners 4 LRM 5s, and using that variant which I thank Brother Jim for doing the math on for me, your spending 570 BV. 

If you try and use them headed to head your going to take enough fire to down them, but if you use a couple as flankers/harassers they would be waaaay more effective than the standard Warrior.  In the end though I suppose it only matters in friendly games where you are allowed use customs.

The way you use harassers is to send them out to annoy the enemy before they ever get into range of the main body of your forces.  Those Warriors will plink away at targets of opportunity without exposing themselves to return fire to soften the enemy up and probably scatter their formation like crazy which works great against less disciplined forces.  The absolute worst case scenario is that you have expended a few tons of AC ammo to do a little bit of damage before they meet your main forces, but you may also bait them into wasting some of their LRMs, break up their formation, or even TAC out something important which are all a good return on a handful of dirt cheap VTOLs.

It is true they are much more limited in utility once the real fighting starts, but their range does make it possible to hover for better accuracy once the enemy has shifted their focus to your 'Mechs and tanks.  You could also dart in to use the SRMs as finishers, but given how fragile the Warrior is I would be very reluctant to do this without something much more dangerous (think Atlas) in the brawl to keep attention off the chopper.


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 #66 on: 03 July 2012, 18:21:35 »
Use the terrain to avoid being fired at over long range, and/or use high speed to make long-range fire against them pointless. Against regular-rated 3025 units, a Warrior variant can easily reduce the enemy to 12+ shots at long range.

Then, either slip behind an isolated mech or one busy shooting at something else in the opposite direction - or behind a turretless vehicle or a VTOL, then unleash the SRM at short range. Usually I fire 2x standard SRM-4 and 2x inferno, preferably two VTOL against one mech; against anything but a fast light or lower-end medium, they usually get enough inferno hits to generate the maximum +15 heat, which for most 3025 mechs is enough to render them defenseless. If the enemy has potent rear-facing weapons (or a turret with short-range weapons), stay in medium or long range, which still makes things harder for him than for you.

In short, use them much like you would use light, fast backstabber mechs - the Javelin JVN-10N comes to mind -, only faster and cheaper.

I only use then against the MegaMek bot so far, but up to now, they have always carried their weight. Not counting the many assists they provided by shutting down mechs with heat or immobilizing vehicles, in my current campaign they killed (over the course of eight battles so far) an Archer (ammo cook-off through heat), a Wasp, a Demolisher, an LRM Carrier, a Maxim, a Hetzer and a Scorpion, at the cost of 4 VTOL lost out of 8.

A single, lonesome 'mech ripe for backstabbing is not that common an occurrence with proper maneuvering tactics. If your helo gets into SRM range, the 'mech can torso twist, flip arms or simply open up on the helo; common 'mech weapons like LL's, PPC's, AC/5/10's and the like can put some major hurt on a helo; so can the ubiquitous ML's, ISLPL's, LRM's, SRM's and even (heaven forbid) AC/20's... not to mention the Gausses (gaussi?) and ER versions of the above.

The main fragility of the helo in BT is not the rotor (not just the rotor, that is), but the terrible vehicular crit check penalty they get. In other words; SRMs are excellent VTOL killers.

Bring a VTOL into SRM range and expect it to get hurt bad. How to avoid this?

Range.

The minimum ranged weapons you want are LRMs; this allows you to safely engage your targets outside of SRM range with a reasonable chance of hitting. 2-class AC's are better.

Speed is your friend, as are terrain obstacles... but this is useless if you are plating in a 2x2 or less postage-stamp battlefield; VTOL's need space to maneuver in order to be effective. VTOLs in BT should NEVER operate alone; heavier units are excellent for drawing fire and keeping potential targets occupied, while infantry (BA and conventional) have great synergy with VTOLs even if they are not transports.

Dave Talley

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2911
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #67 on: 03 July 2012, 18:34:57 »
hmm
 a simple swap turns the warrior 7C's Lrm10 ans SRM4 into 4 LRM 5s and 2 tons

not much concentrated damage but face it, his job is to distract and annoy, if he actually gets a head hit or something its a bonus
and he can always go up a few levels and call in LRMs from the mechs or carriers
Resident Smartass since 1998
“Toe jam in training”.
I agree. Conditionally. I have no qualms kicking the favorite faction in the crotch--repeatedly. But the fact of the matter is, I prefer to kick EVERYBODY in the crotch as often as possible, like a game of whack a mole, only here's it's whack a crotch. Because we're playing in a wargame universe, and if you're NOT getting kicked in the crotch (repeatedly), then you're not in the ****** game.
- Herb

clansittingducks: is it wrong to want to take a baseball bat to their groin so hard their testicles fly out of their eyes upon impact?

Sir Chaos

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2036
  • Artillery Fanboy
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #68 on: 03 July 2012, 18:44:34 »
A single, lonesome 'mech ripe for backstabbing is not that common an occurrence with proper maneuvering tactics. If your helo gets into SRM range, the 'mech can torso twist, flip arms or simply open up on the helo; common 'mech weapons like LL's, PPC's, AC/5/10's and the like can put some major hurt on a helo; so can the ubiquitous ML's, ISLPL's, LRM's, SRM's and even (heaven forbid) AC/20's... not to mention the Gausses (gaussi?) and ER versions of the above.

The main fragility of the helo in BT is not the rotor (not just the rotor, that is), but the terrible vehicular crit check penalty they get. In other words; SRMs are excellent VTOL killers.

Bring a VTOL into SRM range and expect it to get hurt bad. How to avoid this?

Range.

Speed. +4 and +5 TMM are your friends, especially if the shooter is moving and/or firing at the VTOL as a secondary target.

Quote
The minimum ranged weapons you want are LRMs; this allows you to safely engage your targets outside of SRM range with a reasonable chance of hitting. 2-class AC's are better.

Speed is your friend, as are terrain obstacles... but this is useless if you are plating in a 2x2 or less postage-stamp battlefield; VTOL's need space to maneuver in order to be effective. VTOLs in BT should NEVER operate alone; heavier units are excellent for drawing fire and keeping potential targets occupied, while infantry (BA and conventional) have great synergy with VTOLs even if they are not transports.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I don´t operate them alone - I send them around the flanks of the enemy force while the mechs engage head-on, I use them to hunt down light mechs or hovercraft (or VTOL) that break through to my artillery or try to backstab my main mech force. And if the terrain is broken enough, getting the VTOL into a position where only one or two mechs can attack them is not necessarily hard.
"Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl."
-Frederick the Great

"Ultima Ratio Regis" ("The Last Resort of the King")
- Inscription on cannon barrel, 18th century

Stormfury

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4429
  • Death couldn't stop me. How will you?
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #69 on: 04 July 2012, 00:13:01 »


Eww, way to slow IMHO,  and too much Armor,  lets face it, the Rotors won't last that long.

Rotors do a lot better under the current rules set; they can only take one point of damage per damage cluster, and you have to roll a 12 any way to hit them. IME the killer for VTOLs now is side-slipping or normal weapons fire; before, they would have been taken down with less damage so less armour was needed on the sacrificial goats. Now they can take more damage, so you want more armour on them as a result.

That said, the problem with 3025 technology is that the decent "main guns" are all so heavy and short-ranged that it's difficult to have a VTOL that's mobile enough to be worth using. The energy weapon with outrider missile pods was a nod to the Apache of today; if you just use a PPC, a fusion-powered chopper can go 10/15 with 104 points of armour, which is not that bad all things considered. I think the 140 Fusion Engine it would use is on other things, too. A Large Laser-toting chopper could go 11/17 with a Fusion engine and 96 points of armour, and both of those are under 1.5 million each.

Use of an ICE to power them dooms the concept entirely, though.
Mordin Solus: We need a plan to stop them.
John Shepard: We fight or we die. That's the plan.
Ashley Williams: Wow. That's the plan? Is it just me, or did Shepard have better plans before he died?
Urdnot Wrex: Silence! This is the best plan anyone, anywhere has ever had!
Garrus Vakarian: Yes! I AM SO THERE I AM THERE ALREADY!
Tali'Zora vas Normandy: *Facepalm*

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #70 on: 04 July 2012, 01:31:57 »
Rotors do a lot better under the current rules set; they can only take one point of damage per damage cluster, and you have to roll a 12 any way to hit them. IME the killer for VTOLs now is side-slipping or normal weapons fire; before, they would have been taken down with less damage so less armour was needed on the sacrificial goats. Now they can take more damage, so you want more armour on them as a result.

It is technically possible to strip both points of armor, you just need big weapons to do it.  Of course, cutting a Gauss Rifle blow down to two damage on a rotor hit is probably going to be a net win, but that is another story entirely.

Quote
That said, the problem with 3025 technology is that the decent "main guns" are all so heavy and short-ranged that it's difficult to have a VTOL that's mobile enough to be worth using. The energy weapon with outrider missile pods was a nod to the Apache of today; if you just use a PPC, a fusion-powered chopper can go 10/15 with 104 points of armour, which is not that bad all things considered. I think the 140 Fusion Engine it would use is on other things, too. A Large Laser-toting chopper could go 11/17 with a Fusion engine and 96 points of armour, and both of those are under 1.5 million each.

Use of an ICE to power them dooms the concept entirely, though.

The ICE is the killer in 3025.  With fusion engines at such a premium you really want to reserve them for 'Mechs or high end tanks, so your VTOL is essentially guaranteed to be stuck with an ICE.  That said, you could make LRMs work as was mentioned previously and the AC 5 might also be viable, but I think the Warrior really has the right idea with the popgun to keep it out of range of absolutely everything.  You might be able to take that concept further with a twin-AC 2 chopper, but I suspect you will have trouble beating the Warrior unless you pull the SRMs (I like a Machine Gun or two in case you need to swat infantry, but extra ammo for the AC and extra armor are also good things to bring, and lowering the overall weight is always a possibility).


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

Gryphon

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 325
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #71 on: 04 July 2012, 04:00:34 »
Standard Warrior has 10 tons of allocated weapons. That's an LRM15, two tons of ammo, an MG, and 100 bursts...just in case.

Just saying...

I am especially growing to like the idea of VTOLs that loiter out at 12-14 hexes behind cover while much faster models sprint around sighting for them. Basically any LRM VTOL paired with Ferrets. If you really want to be mean about it, have a few of the mentioned SRM boats hiding nearby to jump anyone that tries to bushwhack your LRM platforms...just in case...

Say half a dozen LRM boats, a pair of SRM escorts, and a quarter of very brave spotters zipping form cover to cover while spotting for the LRM boats. It won't stop an enemy flat, but it will slow him down, and any losses you take are worth the time you get to redeploy your forces appropriately, and any actual damage is gravy, right? And if you are facing an enemy like a "typical" pirate raiding force, 1-2 lances of largely light to medium mechs, then this sort of harassment might turn them around and send them off to seek greener pastures. Granted, this is sort of story related I guess, but it would be neat to play this out, and if the pirates press on, hit them with a militia force that has had time to dig in and prepare. A platoon or two of dug in infantry, a lance or two of light tanks, a couple of low end field guns run by a third platoon of infantry, also dug in, a lance of hovercraft or wheeled vees to flank and harass, and a lance of light or low end "militia" mechs to give them a spine.

Sure it's not your typical scenario most of us seem to play, but then, if you flip it and have a group of players attacking a planet with a slightly better than average defense force, then it starts to make it more interesting. Heh, to make it really interesting, have a single artillery piece in play, but deliberately fudge the roles so it never seems to connect, and make it clear the VTOLs were/are spotting for that threat too! This will add some urgency to deal with the threat of the helicopters, since in 3025 very few people are willing to court two or three 5 point cluster hits!

mbear

  • Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
    • Tower of Jade
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #72 on: 20 July 2012, 08:18:34 »
I was playing around with Heavy Metal Vehicle yesterday, and was thinking,"why are there no Helicopter Gunships in BT?"  I've used Warriors before , and think the LRM version is alright, and use the AC 2 pretty well for what it can do, but why no "EEEEEEP, QUICK SWAT IT!!!!" VTOLs?  I  made a cheese Warrior with 5 LRM 5s by changing out the SRM and AC 2, and switching from a ICE to a fusion,  I'm sure you can do a 2 LRM 10 one same weight specs.  Switching to a flying SRM 4 platform would be pretty fearsom as well, as 40 SRMs would be visious as well.

Thought, opinions, thrown objects welcome!
One of my custom VTOLs has a 7/11 movement curve and a single AC/10. Does a pretty good job of backstabbing.

Hellraiser

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7941
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #73 on: 30 July 2012, 23:51:52 »
The minimum ranged weapons you want are LRMs; this allows you to safely engage your targets outside of SRM range with a reasonable chance of hitting. 2-class AC's are better.

I disagree only to point out that 10 free HS & a PPC makes for a solid choice.

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

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #74 on: 31 July 2012, 00:27:36 »
I disagree only to point out that 10 free HS & a PPC makes for a solid choice.

That was discussed earlier, and while it would work well, the economics are a killer in 3025 when fusion engines were barely available to 'Mechs, let alone VTOLs which are on the bottom of the list in terms of vehicle survivability so they would not be available.


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

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7611
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #75 on: 31 July 2012, 03:34:34 »
VTOL's have very different requirements then 'Mechs on engines, if they are competing for engines chances are you're doing something wrong

MOrab46019

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 388
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #76 on: 31 July 2012, 04:21:04 »
I would take out the srms. Take the ice out. Throw in a fusion and add another AC/2.

DoctorX

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #77 on: 31 July 2012, 05:17:07 »
.....
« Last Edit: 31 July 2012, 06:03:07 by DoctorX »
"Proper Previous Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance"

Richard Marcinko, CDR. US Navy (Ret)

billtfor3

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 906
  • Smashing Liao and Kurita since 3025!
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #78 on: 31 July 2012, 05:42:03 »
Sorry Doc, not cheesy really,  but way to slow.  Speed is life for a VTOL.
SGT Mark McKinnon, Recon Lance McKinnon's Company, 7th Crusis Lancers, Federated Suns



Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #79 on: 31 July 2012, 05:48:31 »
DoctorX, you should really move that somewhere else, fan designs are not supposed to be in any section except their respective design boards.

VTOL's have very different requirements then 'Mechs on engines, if they are competing for engines chances are you're doing something wrong

Yes, but how many of those parts are shared, and how many more can be easily reworked to fit into the larger engine?  Any fusion powered VTOL is going to get stripped for parts when it becomes a choice between keeping a 'Mech running and keeping the VTOL running with no questions asked.  When you combine this with the general difficulty of making new fusion engines during the succession wars and how easy it is to blast a VTOL into a worthless pile of scrap, it is not hard to see that new fusion engines would be prioritized to 'Mechs and old fusion powered VTOLs would be scrapped one way or another which will quickly result in few or no VTOLs with fusion engines.

Also, Urbanmech.


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

Coldstone

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Every battle is a lesson, waiting to be learned.
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #80 on: 31 July 2012, 06:04:04 »
I would go for a 30 Ton Heli with ICE Engine, 40 Points of Armor (12 Front, 10 Sides, 6 Aft, 2 Rotor).

8/12 is the speed. Weaponload is a single AC 10 with 2 Tons of ammo.

If you want more speed, change the AC for an LRM Launcher.

If you go for a LRM 15 with 2 Tons of Ammo, you can pump the Speed to 9/14, can build in 2 MGs with half a ton of ammo AND get an additional half ton of Armor. (15, 11/11, 9 , 2)


You could also build a fast Harrasser with Quad SRM 4, 2 Tons of ammo and an additional half ton of Armor.

In 3025, 8/12 or 9/14 is anough speed, since the absence of LBX or HAGs make VTOLs extremely hard to hit.


With a fusion powered VTOL, I would go for a bevy of med lasers with Tac ops rules. There a VTOL can do Strafing runs.
« Last Edit: 31 July 2012, 06:15:55 by Coldstone »
Music is a mysterious thing. Sometimes it makes people remember things they do not expect. Many thoughts, feelings, memories... things almost forgotten... Regardless of whether the listener desires to remember or not.

Only in death does duty end.

DoctorX

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #81 on: 31 July 2012, 06:29:03 »
Sorry Doc, not cheesy really,  but way to slow.  Speed is life for a VTOL.

If used properly (hiding behind hills/woods, pop-up attacks, or with other units) it could be effective. to get more speed you can always swap .... out for an AC/2 and remove one of the ... and boost the speed to something more comfortable. Like I also said you can .... to get some more speed and still retain the ... and the twin ...


(at the request of Diablo48 my original post and all references to it have been self "censored")
"Proper Previous Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance"

Richard Marcinko, CDR. US Navy (Ret)

foxbat

  • Tunnel Rat
  • Global Moderator
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3095
    • classicbattletech.fr
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #82 on: 31 July 2012, 06:45:31 »

(at the request of Diablo48 my original post and all references to it have been self "censored")

Or you could post your design in the fan designs board, and provide a link to it in this thread... just sayin'  ;)
Hanse Davion is my shepherd.
We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender! Winston Churchill, June 1940

DoctorX

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #83 on: 31 July 2012, 06:46:55 »
Or you could post your design in the fan designs board, and provide a link to it in this thread... just sayin'  ;)

I do not know how to do that. Can you be of assistance?
"Proper Previous Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance"

Richard Marcinko, CDR. US Navy (Ret)

mbear

  • Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
    • Tower of Jade
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #84 on: 31 July 2012, 07:04:22 »
I do not know how to do that. Can you be of assistance?
1. Copy your post.
2. Go to the Fan Boards section.
3. Open up the Combat Vehicles board.
4. Start a new thread
5. Paste your post into that thread.
6. Post.
7. Copy URL of post from browser addressbar.
8. Come  back to this forum.
9. Edit your post with the design in it. (I mean "hit the edit button")
10. Put a link to your design in your post:
<URL=Combat Vehicle Post URL you Copied in Step 7>Here's a design that I did.</URL>
(Note that the <> should be square brackets).

That should put a link to your vehicle design (in the fan boards) in your post in this thread.

DoctorX

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #85 on: 31 July 2012, 07:25:55 »
1. Copy your post.
2. Go to the Fan Boards section.
3. Open up the Combat Vehicles board.
4. Start a new thread
5. Paste your post into that thread.
6. Post.
7. Copy URL of post from browser addressbar.
8. Come  back to this forum.
9. Edit your post with the design in it. (I mean "hit the edit button")
10. Put a link to your design in your post:
<URL=Combat Vehicle Post URL you Copied in Step 7>Here's a design that I did.</URL>
(Note that the <> should be square brackets).

That should put a link to your vehicle design (in the fan boards) in your post in this thread.


Thank you for your assistance mbear. I would have posted it there, but I am having difficulties understanding the design fan boards (see my post for assistance there) which is the reason I did not post it there.
"Proper Previous Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance"

Richard Marcinko, CDR. US Navy (Ret)

mbear

  • Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
    • Tower of Jade
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #86 on: 31 July 2012, 07:31:27 »
Thank you for your assistance mbear. I would have posted it there, but I am having difficulties understanding the design fan boards (see my post for assistance there) which is the reason I did not post it there.
Ah.

HeavyMetal Pro has an export option that they're using, I think.

In the meantime, you can use the <code></code> tag to lay out your design. (again, replace <> with []). When you post your design, find the pound sign (#) in the row above the smileys. Then just paste your design between the CODE tags. Formatting will be as you have it set up in your file.

Code: [Select]
Text    text    text

Now I'm going to stop so we don't get in trouble for hijacking the thread.

Back on topic: If you use VTOLs as a harasser or flanker unit, they do pretty well. Longer ranged weapons often let them do a better job because you can stay at longer ranges, away from enemy fire. If you're facing missile boats, an AMS of some sort can be a lifesaver. Ferro-lamellor armor renders LBX clusters useless, preventing the #1 cause of VTOL death - Rotor destruction.

Of course if you go head to head with a 'Mech, you're going to be in a world of hurt.

DoctorX

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #87 on: 31 July 2012, 07:39:35 »
HeavyMetal Pro has an export option that they're using, I think.

If it does, I can't find it (unless I'm not using the newest version...I've got V5.22 R03) but then again, I'm not that smart...lol.


In the meantime, you can use the <code></code> tag to lay out your design. (again, replace <> with []). When you post your design, find the pound sign (#) in the row above the smileys. Then just paste your design between the CODE tags. Formatting will be as you have it set up in your file.

Seriously...its that easy? Damn am I stupid.
"Proper Previous Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance"

Richard Marcinko, CDR. US Navy (Ret)

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7611
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #88 on: 07 August 2012, 04:12:31 »
DoctorX, you should really move that somewhere else, fan designs are not supposed to be in any section except their respective design boards.

Yes, but how many of those parts are shared, and how many more can be easily reworked to fit into the larger engine?  Any fusion powered VTOL is going to get stripped for parts when it becomes a choice between keeping a 'Mech running and keeping the VTOL running with no questions asked.  When you combine this with the general difficulty of making new fusion engines during the succession wars and how easy it is to blast a VTOL into a worthless pile of scrap, it is not hard to see that new fusion engines would be prioritized to 'Mechs and old fusion powered VTOLs would be scrapped one way or another which will quickly result in few or no VTOLs with fusion engines.

Also, Urbanmech.

That's simple the factory dates from before the succession wars and it's easier to run the factory full tilt then scaling different lines so you end up with a surplus of 60-rated engines and given 'Mechs production levels most people would likely prefer a different 'Mech to the Urbie

ianargent

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 188
Re: Why no true VTOL Gunships in 3025?
« Reply #89 on: 07 August 2012, 08:35:12 »
That's simple the factory dates from before the succession wars and it's easier to run the factory full tilt then scaling different lines so you end up with a surplus of 60-rated engines and given 'Mechs production levels most people would likely prefer a different 'Mech to the Urbie
See Savannah Master...
Yes, KF drive vessels, assuming they survive the atmospher[ic reentry] (they take 100 points of damage per hex per turn of velocity in the atmosphere), do tend to use an aggressive lithobraking method for landing.

 

Register