Author Topic: 3025 groundcraft  (Read 1879 times)

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1429
3025 groundcraft
« on: 16 November 2014, 23:02:29 »
Partly inspired by Phobos's post http://bg.battletech.com/forums/aerospace/the-ultimate-dedicated-ground-support-small-craft-series/, I started wondering if smallcraft could really change the tactics of ground combat.  The answer seems to be 'yes' if I understand the rules correctly.  Consider the following.

Poltergeist
200 Ton spheroid smallcraft 3025 with Inner Sphere technology
3 Thrust   
5 Max thrust
   
5 Integrity
760 fuel points
5.16 Burn-days   

Armor:   
77 Nose
77 Left Side
77 Right Side
77 Aft

Cost 11029.5K
BV 1012

Tons   Component
39    Engine   
  9.5 Fuel
  0.5 Pumps
  2    Structure
  1.5 Control Systems   
25    Crew   (5 steerage quarters, 3 crew, 1 gunner, 1 drone operator)
  2.5 Drone Carrier Control
18    Armor
17    Heat Sinks (24, including 7 free)
60    4x Thumper Artillery (only usable on ground as per Fortress dropship)
12    Ammo (60 shots each)
13    Cargo

There are about four keys to the Poltergeist design.

The first is a 'scoot' maneuver.  Aerospace initiative always beats ground force initiative.  As a consequence, if threatened by ground forces, the Poltergeist can liftoff, gaining 1 altitude for 2 thrust points, side slip 1 battletech sheet for 3 thrust points, then descend and land for free.  Since this is a spheroid dropship, it can land almost anywhere.  The scoot makes the Poltergeist essentially unhittable by conventional forces. 

The second is the Thumper Artillery which has a range of 21 boards (=357 hexes) doing 15 points of AE damage in the central hex and 5 points of AE damage in adjacent hexes.  The downside of artillery is that it is somewhat inaccurate and shots resolve 1 or more rounds later, so you must guess where the enemy will be.  The upside is that to-hit modifiers imposed by the target do not apply---you can hit the Locust as easily as the Atlas.  Thumper artillery also supports cluster munitions which do only 10 AE damage, but kill infantry units not in buildings, resolves attacks on mechs with an expected 1.666 points of head damage, while vehicles have an expected 0.333 critical rolls per hit.  Both cluster and regular rounds also function as Flak.  There are special rules for Flak artillery attacks, but they remain plausibly effective against airborne units.

The third key is the combination of a drone carrier control system and the cargo space for a VTOL drone.  The primary function of the drone is as a scout for the artillery.  It discovers the enemy, and then the mothership delivers the pain.  There is no vehicle bay obviously, so the deployment mechanism is cumbersome---you carry the drone in cargo, and deploy it on the ground.  Using fractional accounting rules, you can make a cheap 3-ton 25/38 VTOL drone that is armored against small-arms and imposes a +7 to-hit penalty routinely via movement.  But, there is more---a drone moves at the same time as the carrier control system, and (hence) always moves after ground units while the Poltergeist is aloft.  Combining with the speed, this means the drone can stay beyond long range in plausible circumstances.

The fourth key is endurance.  Every crew member is allocated steerage quarters implying 40 days of life support per ton of consumables.  As a smallcraft, it has some integral support provided by the crew.  The engine can provide thrust for 5 days.  The VTOL is fusion based and hence range unlimited.  The thumper artillery uses ammunition, but it's very miserly at 20 shots/ton.  And there are 10 tons of free cargo space left over after leaving space for 1 drone.  In short, this is a self-contained long duration unit.

There isn't a good parallel to the Poltergeist as a unit.  It's faster than almost all ground units, delivers lethal attacks at ranges beyond what nearly all other units can hope to match, has high endurance, and can "drop" from deep space.

What's the downside?   The Poltergeist is useless against an underground or underwater enemy.   The Poltergeist is useless against aerospace units while aloft.  The artillery inaccuracy makes use in urban environments impose high collateral damage.  The Poltergeist is poor for "hold-at-all-costs" operations against a close assault.  These are nontrivial downsides, but the upsides of general ground combat capability seems imposing.

Edits: fixed typo and realized that cluster rounds only do 10 damage.

Phobos

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 664
Re: 3025 groundcraft
« Reply #1 on: 17 November 2014, 06:30:13 »
Very interesting twist with the Drone VTOL (Will actually try to incorporate that into my own design, but will probably have to modify the HQ variant, since the 3xLong Tom variant really has no tonnage left to spare for anything). Although I'm not 100% positive that Drone systems were available in 3025.
« Last Edit: 17 November 2014, 06:32:37 by Phobos »

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1429
Re: 3025 groundcraft
« Reply #2 on: 17 November 2014, 09:49:20 »
Drone tech is listed as 'Early Spaceflight' and never went extinct.  Furthermore, it is common enough there is a cannon unit (the Hi-Scout Drone Carrier) which uses drone tech.

Artillery & Cluster rounds are 'Pre-Spaceflight'.

I discovered one drawback---the damage of cluster rounds is only 10AE rather than 15AE.  The upside is that the collateral damage is reduced.   (I'll update the original post.)

Bartholomew bartholomew

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 167
Re: 3025 groundcraft
« Reply #3 on: 17 November 2014, 23:20:28 »
The other downside would probably be that this would be used in a regimental unit sized or above scenario. And would be the first focus target of the opposing side aerospace units. Would not even try to get it with ground units, and instead would send something like a couple of chippewa's after it.

Would be a good chance that even with defending aerospace units it could be knocked down to the ground with some losses. And would be far more likely for that sort of attack than an artillery unit behind lines. Dunno, it looks cool. But just not likely to last long.

Prince of Darkness

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1533
Re: 3025 groundcraft
« Reply #4 on: 18 November 2014, 00:52:33 »
It is also horribly affected by ECM- if the Line of sight between carrier and drone is cut at any point the drone stops working, and since the craft has to be landed to fire it could be forced away just by the presence of ECM. Still, not a bad idea, but i'd prefer Arrow IV artillery for much closer artillery support.
Cowdragon:
I'm going to type up your response, print it, fold it in half, and look at it like a I would a centerfold. THAT's how sexy your answer was.

Red Pins

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4060
  • Inspiration+Creativity=Insanity
Re: 3025 groundcraft
« Reply #5 on: 18 November 2014, 00:55:29 »
Interesting.  I don't know enough of the Aero rules to poke holes in it, though.  It seems you've rediscovered the tactics used by the Lyran Fortress-Class DropShip unit in the Fourth Succession War with Small Craft.  Now, I wonder if the Small Craft themselves could be created as drones...

It is also horribly affected by ECM- if the Line of sight between carrier and drone is cut at any point the drone stops working, and since the craft has to be landed to fire it could be forced away just by the presence of ECM. Still, not a bad idea, but i'd prefer Arrow IV artillery for much closer artillery support.

...Perhaps use an observation satellite?
...Visit the Legacy Cluster...
The New Clans:Volume One
Clan Devil Wasp * Clan Carnoraptor * Clan Frost Ape * Clan Surf Dragon * Clan Tundra Leopard
Work-in-progress; The Blake Threat File
Now with MORE GROGNARD!  ...I think I'm done.  I've played long enough to earn a pension, fer cryin' out loud!  IlClan and out in <REDACTED>!
TRO: 3176 Hegemony Refits - the 30-day wonder

Korzon77

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2444
Re: 3025 groundcraft
« Reply #6 on: 18 November 2014, 00:57:36 »
On ECM, if it looses the drone, then it has to go back to traditional artillery fire with a spotter-- but it's still useful. The fact that it would be targeted may be a plus-- the enemy can be forced to dedicate a lot of firepower to kill the unit, which isn't oing to be used anywhere else.

Phobos

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 664
Re: 3025 groundcraft
« Reply #7 on: 18 November 2014, 05:23:10 »
Exactly. I always pictured my ground support SCs with temporary ASF support as well. If the enemy engages with his ASF, what's stopping you from laying a trap with your own BETTER and heavier ASFs and actually use the fact that it is so darn obvious to go after these vessels against him?

Prince of Darkness

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1533
Re: 3025 groundcraft
« Reply #8 on: 18 November 2014, 08:57:25 »
On ECM, if it looses the drone, then it has to go back to traditional artillery fire with a spotter-- but it's still useful. The fact that it would be targeted may be a plus-- the enemy can be forced to dedicate a lot of firepower to kill the unit, which isn't oing to be used anywhere else.

Except drone VTOLs stop in ECM- if its in the air, it ain't gonna be no more  :D !
Cowdragon:
I'm going to type up your response, print it, fold it in half, and look at it like a I would a centerfold. THAT's how sexy your answer was.

sillybrit

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3939
Re: 3025 groundcraft
« Reply #9 on: 18 November 2014, 09:41:49 »
A nice idea to add the drone as a spotter to the old small craft artillery concept, although as noted ECM could be an issue.

Another thought: who preps the drone? If it's being carried as cargo, it has to be unloaded on the ground, then prepped by a tech team to power it up and make it ready for launch. Not at home to check my books to say how long that will all take, but I do recall that a team of a lead tech and astechs is required to prep any unit carried as cargo.

Maybe a work around would be to have the drone carried on a separate small craft that has a light vehicle bay instead of the artillery. That way the drone would be ready to go out of the box.

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1429
Re: 3025 groundcraft
« Reply #10 on: 18 November 2014, 18:45:21 »
Several good comments here.

W.r.t. opposing ASF, if you were going to have a unit which is an ASF target, you would probably want it to have 18 tons of armor and 60 point AE flak attack.  This is formidable enough that I didn't think using some cargo to increase armor protection was necessary, but of course that option could be exercised.

W.r.t. ECM, there isn't much ECM on the battlefield in 3025.  That does become more of a concern later, but if you are going to have an ECM-vulnerable unit, you would probably chose for it to be extremely fast, with a beyond-long-range mission, extremely cheap, and small enough that you can easily carry 1 or 2 spares.

W.r.t. Arrow IV, it's definitely superior.  A later-tech version would use Arrow IV, more advanced armor, and double heat sinks.  I was just being minimal here.

W.r.t. deployment scenarios, I was imagining being much more aggressive than regimental level.  Why not deploy all the way down to lance level?

It is pretty easy to have a small craft with one light vehicle bay, a full tech team, and a significant amount of storage for additional drones/parts.   I wanted at least one drone integral to this design so that it wasn't absolutely reliant on a second smallcraft.

W.r.t. deployment time, I was assuming that at least one crew member of the smallcraft was a tech.  This is not explicitly stated, but it seems hard to justify a crew of 3 with no tech capability.  If necessary, a minor variation would be adding one person who is explicitly a tech with a 5 ton steerage quarter.  The deployment time according to Stratops rules with one tech is an expected 32.5 minutes.  I find this confusing though---does the Hi Scout Drone carrier really take such a long time to deploy it's drones?  They are carried as "drones" rather than explicit cargo.  Can that be done here?

And I have another rules confusion.  Can a Fortress use direct fire rules on units 7 to 17 hexes away?  Plausibly yes?  But it's odd because the Long Tom isn't explicitly in a side arc.

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1429
Re: 3025 groundcraft
« Reply #11 on: 23 November 2014, 16:12:34 »
I figured out the answer to my own question, at least w.r.t. smallcraft.  Total Warfare says that all smallcraft use the same arcs as in space.  Consequently, direct fire should be fine so long as the unit being fired at is in the nose arc.

This rule doesn't seem to make much sense for spheroid smallcraft, but it is there.