Forums of the Megaverse®

The Beta Missile Payload is as follows (per Art of the Shadow Chronicles, I use the 2E RPG designations):
-40 SRMs in x2 MM-20 launchers, but these are blocked when connected to an Alpha (190mm size)
-16 SRMs in the x2 MM-16 launchers (340mm size)
-it also has 6 wing hard points with variable configurations possible
-2x (yes 2) top mounted 3-shot Medium Range Missiles (560mm size, not in the 2E RPG, see AoTSC pg139. As this is a dual system it can't be the Super Shadow Fighter module's missiles depicted on pg84 where I count one module with 9 visible)

In TSC OVA Marcus makes a comment that Mia has "a Beta full of missiles". Since Mia would only really have 16 extra missiles over Marcus as depicted (wings are empty) for sure (and the MRM launcher can not tell if its there or not, and the Syncro-Booster module is not present). This doesn't make much sense in relation to what the Beta is capable of. While thinking about this issue and how to reasonably arrive at a "beta full of missiles" several issues arose.

1. The dual MM-20 launchers have several issues. The least of which is that they are prevented from firing while connected to an Alpha. These launchers open downward, which they can't do when connected to an Alpha (a speculative exception might exists for the Guardian Mode). This has me wondering why the MM-20 doors even open down, it would make more sense to have them open upward so they would be available in all known configurations. The only reason I could see for this is that the MM-20 is a Beta Battloid Mode only system (akin to the Alpha's MMDS-16, this restriction is supported by the animation as the MM-20 is only used in Battloid IINM). Which still runs into the issue that the UEEF proper doesn't seem to employ the Beta solo (in the canon comic/animation) so why engineer in that much punch that can't be used and why give IT a reload capacity which could be better employed by the usable MM-16).

The following independent thoughts have crossed my mind related to this, none are acknowledge in AotSC or RT.com Infopedia (or the 2E RPG):
-the MM-20 and MM-16 need to be switched in terms of who has reloads (this give the Beta 32 Missiles available and 20 blocked, instead of 16 available and 40 blocked).
-the MM-20 launcher gets redesigned for post 2042 Beta's (like the one Mia uses in TSC in 2044) to avoid the issue.
-the MM-16 is the only missile system (complete with 2 sets of reloads), but the Series Use Beta from Point-K was modified to use the more common Alpha 190mm missile sacrificing the reloads for the MM-16 to give a 2 volleys of 190mm missiles, and the M-20 uses what would have been a reload hatch for the MM-16. This option might also be more expansive potentially than just the inclusion of MM-20s.

2. Are the MM-16 launchers really supposed to be Medium Range Class missiles? They are 340mm in diameter, much larger than the KNOWN Medium Range Missiles on the Logan (275mm) or the VF-1 (300mm). Other aspects like Length/Volume can obviously be a factor here pushing them into the SRM class. I know RT.com says they are SRM, but I think it might have to be considered. It doesn't necessarily change impact of Marcus statement (unless the missiles standard at the time is more like the AGAC than what was shown).

3. Art of the Shadow Chronicles (pg139) mentions an optional 2x (yes 2) top mounted 3 shot Medium Range Missiles (total payload 6, diameter is 560mm). This system isn't present in the 2E RPG, but appears to be a reference to the 1E RPG's MRM launchers for the Beta. These can't be the Syncro-Cannon/Booster module as the Beta only gets 1x of them, and when the booster is open (w/cannon ejected) it has 9 visible (what I think are) missiles identified (more actually that would be hidden).

Speculative (w/o any real support) option would be that this is not the only missile configurations, you could trade each 560mm for 4x of the 190mm easily for a total of 24x 190mm variety. Theoretically a trade of 1:12 is possible, though a 1:9 or 1:10 seems a more plausible limit. This speculative option alone if taken to plausible limits would I think explain Marcus statement (without any other modifications).

4. The Cargo Bay (RPG calls it a bombbay, but RT.com Infopedia and AoTSC call it a cargo bay) is said to be capable of deploying ordnance that is limited in size only by the bay doors, while the RPG seems to limit it to bombs the text in AotSC and RT.com suggest other options might be possible. One issue with the bomb bay doors is how you can fit the various size bombs per the RPG (light, medium, heavy). If we assume the type used in the animation (Ep83) are "light", the issue of how to load/carry/deploy medium and heavy bombs remains and I have three solutions:
1. The Beta uses a common case for all 3 bombs, with only the amount/type of explosive loaded into the bombs being changed. The amount of explosives changes the mass, which reduces the number it can carry (by mass, but not volume).
2. The UEEF constructed the medium and heavy class bombs in segments that "slither" from the bay to the hatch and once free "lock" themselves into a rod mode or just drop to the ground like a snake would. We can build robot snakes/tentacles in the real world, and we know the Masters had them on their City Ship ("The Trap"), so the notion isn't completely without some foundation. This does seem unlikely and be more "expensive" to produce, but it would certainly be a possibility.
3. The Beta deploys the larger ordnance through the front cargo door (Ariel/Marlene uses it to board the Beta in Ep83), this might require some degree of allowances to allow the cargo bay to be configured to store and deploy them through the larger hatch. Most likely feeding it out the hatch at an angle, unless the floor can be made to slope downwards.

Another option that RT.com/AotSC leave open that and the RPG doesn't, but would explain Marcus's statement is to allow the cargo bay to "eject" missiles in a manner similar to the Dorsal Fast Pack Boosters (of the VF-1) when they fire their missile payload (as seen in the animation) This would require the Beta to be in Fighter Mode, but would be extremely possible. The Bombs (in lineart appear to be) ~225mm diameter with length of 450mm (when compared to a male CVR-3, assuming 1.8m height is ~8 diameters tall, and the bomb appears to be ~2 diameters long). This would give the Beta an extra 16 missiles, Plus 2 (4 at most) more at the ready just before the doors seems plausible to. You might also be able to double the payload (in the bomb rack area) using the open area of the cargo bay with some hardware additions for reload. Even without pushing it, one is looking at 18-20 missiles (34-36 with reload) sized to match the known bombs, combine that with MM-16 (34-36 w/o reloads for either) and getting a "Beta full of missiles" starts to make more sense (with other options it makes even more sense).

ShadowLogan wrote:-2x (yes 2) top mounted 3-shot Medium Range Missiles (560mm size, not in the 2E RPG, see AoTSC pg139. As this is a dual system it can't be the Super Shadow Fighter module's missiles depicted on pg84 where I count one module with 9 visible)

It actually is the Shadow Beta’s synchro cannon module launchers… see the line art on page 76.

ShadowLogan wrote:In TSC OVA Marcus makes a comment that Mia has "a Beta full of missiles". Since Mia would only really have 16 extra missiles over Marcus as depicted (wings are empty) for sure (and the MRM launcher can not tell if its there or not, and the Syncro-Booster module is not present). This doesn't make much sense in relation to what the Beta is capable of.

Goodness, it’s almost like the first(-and-only) episode of Robotech’s Shadow Chronicles OVA’s story was written by a fan who’s not actually that familiar with the series and adapted into a screenplay by an elderly executive who’s probably never actually seen the show thanks to the tiny budget having no room for luxuries like hiring actual screenwriters or a real studio to handle the production work.

ShadowLogan wrote:While thinking about this issue and how to reasonably arrive at a "beta full of missiles" several issues arose.

Well, naturally… if you try to make sense of the senseless, you’re sure to run aground on a few issues here and there.

ShadowLogan wrote:This has me wondering why the MM-20 doors even open down, it would make more sense to have them open upward so they would be available in all known configurations.

… it’s almost like the aircraft wasn’t originally designed with those launchers… like they were put on there by mistake or something…

ShadowLogan wrote:3. Art of the Shadow Chronicles (pg139) mentions an optional 2x (yes 2) top mounted 3 shot Medium Range Missiles (total payload 6, diameter is 560mm). This system isn't present in the 2E RPG, but appears to be a reference to the 1E RPG's MRM launchers for the Beta. These can't be the Syncro-Cannon/Booster module as the Beta only gets 1x of them, and when the booster is open (w/cannon ejected) it has 9 visible (what I think are) missiles identified (more actually that would be hidden).

As noted above, see page 76… it IS actually exactly that.

ShadowLogan wrote:4. The Cargo Bay (RPG calls it a bombbay, but RT.com Infopedia and AoTSC call it a cargo bay) is said to be capable of deploying ordnance that is limited in size only by the bay doors, while the RPG seems to limit it to bombs the text in AotSC and RT.com suggest other options might be possible.

One of those rare cases where the RPG actually got it more correct than the Infopedia did… it’s a bomb bay on the original design, albeit one with a crawlspace passing through it that’s used to embark/disembark and can be used to carry a small group of people in a pinch.

ShadowLogan wrote:3. The Beta deploys the larger ordnance through the front cargo door (Ariel/Marlene uses it to board the Beta in Ep83), this might require some degree of allowances to allow the cargo bay to be configured to store and deploy them through the larger hatch. Most likely feeding it out the hatch at an angle, unless the floor can be made to slope downwards.

Given how that bay is accessed from the inside, this is pretty definitely not the case as it would require the munitions to roll down the hatchway, which is no larger than the bomb bay doors on the underside and has slightly less clearance on account of containing a stepladder to facilitate climbing into the bay or the cockpit. It would also potentially not be accessible in flight when the aircraft is docked since the egress hatch runs through the docking umbilical used to route thrust from the Alpha’s engines.

ShadowLogan wrote:Another option that RT.com/AotSC leave open that and the RPG doesn't, but would explain Marcus's statement is to allow the cargo bay to "eject" missiles in a manner similar to the Dorsal Fast Pack Boosters (of the VF-1) when they fire their missile payload (as seen in the animation)

The bomb bay is gravity-fed, it wouldn’t work in zero-g or during hard maneuvering.

Seto wrote:It actually is the Shadow Beta’s synchro cannon module launchers… see the line art on page 76.

Sorry, but that does not add up. In no way does the Text from the Tech File (pg138) match up with the Line Art (pg84 or pg76) when you drill down beyond just the aspect they are missile launchers. Though the linearts don't exactly match up either, so either there are multiple types of booster/missile pods or one of them was drawn incorrectly.

The text (pg138-9) doesn't give bank dimensions (#x#) for any launcher on any of the mecha, only a payload, size/type of missile, and number of launchers. So we can't say if the lineart is showing one or more launchers. There is precedent that the lineart on pg76/84 could be counted as one system, but there is also precedent it could be counted as multiples if we look at other known weapon system descriptions and their visual depiction in animation/lineart.

The size of the missiles in the lineart (pg84) isn't known, not even via the caption, but I would estimate that you could line up ~32.5 individual "missiles" from the lineart along the axis length they are orientated. The text (pg138) states 560mm for a size, assuming same axis as the booster that means you could only get ~17.32 of them along the stated official length of 9.7m. Now the lineart count isn't as precise as basing it on the text owing to perspective and hand measurements, but there is a pretty big gap to account for (32.5 v 17.32).

Is the size actually stated in the lineart on pg76? I'd estimate ~30 of the missile diameters in height (ignoring the wings and the cannon contribution beyond the top of shoulders, if we include them it will be even more). The Beta's battloid mode height officially is 13.7m (w/o cannon), or the equivalent of 24.46 missile diameters at the stated size of the text on pg138. So regardless of which lineart page I look at there is still the issue that the missile diameters vs dimension does not match up. If we go with the OSM size of the Beta in either mode instead of the RT size, you'll have fewer 560mm missiles in relation to each measurement, but that won't change the lineart counts unless the text entry is in error on their size.

IINM you've said the OSM states " 3 barrel laser bomb launchers x2" is part of the weapon systems of the TLEAD (Beta), which isn't in the official RT stats, though it looks like it might have converted to missile launcher and/or made optional in RT depending on where you look. (Seto the quote is from you in a post you made here: https://mechatalk.net/viewtopic.php?t=16791). So there is some precedent for a system similar to what the Tech File (pg138) says coming from the OSM (and the old 1E RPG), at least in terms of numbers (2x3) if not what it is ("laser bomb launcher" vs "medium range missile launcher").

Seto wrote:The bomb bay is gravity-fed, it wouldn’t work in zero-g or during hard maneuvering.

I don't see a reason the inclusion of missiles as an option has to have the bomb/cargo bay to be "plug and play" ready. It would be reasonable going by AotSC/Infopedia that the bays can be reconfigured to properly deploy these other types of ordnance, which could include some type of powered deployment system. AotSC/I doesn't place a limit on the ordnance type, only on its size, which is in contrast to the OSM/RPG admittedly. So if one is looking to give the Beta additional capabilities in the RPG based on AotSC/Infopedia there is some flexibility based on those sources it just might not be "plug and play" hardware like in Windows, but require manual configuration like in MS-DOS or installation of drivers in Windows.

Seto wrote:Well, naturally… if you try to make sense of the senseless, you’re sure to run aground on a few issues here and there.

Even without considering Marcus's statement directly, the various issues still can come up though, all Marcus really does is allow it to be put in to a single package:
-MM-20's ability to fire
-MM-16 short range missile has a larger diameter than two other known medium range missiles, so should they really be a Medium Range Missile?
-AotSC/Infopedia are more general in what is carried than the RPG/OSM stats and what that can translate to if one wanted to expand RPG options
-dual top launchers in AotSC
-is the Point-K Beta really "normal" for a Beta fighter, given how it is used elsewhere.

ShadowLogan wrote:Sorry, but that does not add up. In no way does the Text from the Tech File (pg138) match up with the Line Art (pg84 or pg76) when you drill down beyond just the aspect they are missile launchers. Though the linearts don't exactly match up either, so either there are multiple types of booster/missile pods or one of them was drawn incorrectly.

If we're being completely honest, it's more like your guesses about the art don't match the conclusion... but that's the ONLY additional hardware included on the Beta, and the stock model doesn't seem to have the launchers. Process of elimination, y'know? The AotSC writeup describes the missile launchers you're talking about as OPTIONAL hardware, and that boom is part of the airframe... it doesn't come off.

ShadowLogan wrote:IINM you've said the OSM states " 3 barrel laser bomb launchers x2" is part of the weapon systems of the TLEAD (Beta), which isn't in the official RT stats, though it looks like it might have converted to missile launcher and/or made optional in RT depending on where you look.

You aren't mistaken, I have in fact indicated that the Genesis Climber MOSPEADA OSM identifies the large boom on the top of the TLEAD in its Armo-Soldier mode to be a "laser bomb launcher". What kind of weapon a "laser bomb launcher" is... well... your guess is as good as mine because the OSM declines to actually describe it and the weapon is never used in the course of the series.

Last I recall, Robotech's official stance on that dorsal boom was that it was a composite sensor pod... more or less the de facto head of the Beta since that was where all the sensors were while the cockpit was in the head that's actually directly on top of the torso. I believe the RPG goes with the sensor pod explanation as well.

ShadowLogan wrote:I don't see a reason the inclusion of missiles as an option has to have the bomb/cargo bay to be "plug and play" ready. It would be reasonable going by AotSC/Infopedia that the bays can be reconfigured to properly deploy these other types of ordnance, which could include some type of powered deployment system. AotSC/I doesn't place a limit on the ordnance type, only on its size, which is in contrast to the OSM/RPG admittedly. So if one is looking to give the Beta additional capabilities in the RPG based on AotSC/Infopedia there is some flexibility based on those sources it just might not be "plug and play" hardware like in Windows, but require manual configuration like in MS-DOS or installation of drivers in Windows.

The whole point of "dumb" gravity bombs is that you don't NEED hardware or software support... just a way to arm them and a door to drop them from. The Infopedia and the RPG both list it as a bomb bay. If it were designed for ordnance other than bombs, I would expect it to be called a weapons bay or ordnance bay the way it is on modern stealth fighters which have internal weapons bays capable of accommodating the needs of bombs OR missiles.

I'm not sure if it's necessarily different from the OSM... theoretically there's nothing stopping the TLEAD from using high explosives or any other kind of bomb that'd fit in a case small enough for the bomb chutes to accommodate it, the napalm bombs were just standard issue for... reasons? (Napalm doesn't really seem like a great option to fight giant robot crabs from beyond the furthest stars, truth be told. Giant robots tend to be made of metal and thus are somewhat disinclined to burn down.)

Without an extensive retrofit to include ways to program a guidance system and powered launch capability, I don't see the TLEAD/Beta as using its bomb bay for missiles.

ShadowLogan wrote:-is the Point-K Beta really "normal" for a Beta fighter, given how it is used elsewhere.

That may be less an indicator of design intent and more of usage... a shortage of qualified pilots and/or the mission requirements on the table may have been sufficient to have the Betas be issued minimal armament and shuffled out to function as boosters.

I don't really have anything to say about the topic itself, but regarding Beta armaments...

ShadowLogan wrote:The dual MM-20 launchers have several issues. The least of which is that they are prevented from firing while connected to an Alpha. These launchers open downward, which they can't do when connected to an Alpha (a speculative exception might exists for the Guardian Mode). This has me wondering why the MM-20 doors even open down, it would make more sense to have them open upward so they would be available in all known configurations.

Raised, the lower missile bay hatch would interfere with systems on top: upper missile bay, maybe head and sensor wings; below it's more out of the way. This way, when separated from the Alpha, the Beta can fire all of its missiles at once. Also, in independent flight mode, a lifted-open hatch would interfere with the aircraft's streamlining on top, while the lower aircraft is already a bit of a mess anyway.

ShadowLogan wrote:Which still runs into the issue that the UEEF proper doesn't seem to employ the Beta solo....

The Spacy doesn't, but maybe the Army does? (The RPG hints at this.)

ShadowLogan wrote:The Cargo Bay....

The bottom bay is

• A limited bomb bay: along the walls are slots for a particular small bomb, which it ejects from small hatches on the sides, but there doesn't seem to be provision for any other weapon.
• A crude passenger compartment: a pair of hatches in the middle of the bay form a floor, and a couple of ledges right above to form cramped benches; there's not much to prevent passengers from being tossed around if the Beta does any aerobatics. The presence of passengers does not interfere with the bomb mechanisms.

All this suggests the Beta designers were emphasizing independent ground operations over joined space operations. The lower missile bay hatch is fine when the Beta isn't joined, and the lack of bomb bay options might suggest a preference for underwing ordinance (which perhaps we never see because starships are too cramped to allow underwing loading).

Seto wrote:If we're being completely honest, it's more like your guesses about the art don't match the conclusion... but that's the ONLY additional hardware included on the Beta, and the stock model doesn't seem to have the launchers. Process of elimination, y'know? The AotSC writeup describes the missile launchers you're talking about as OPTIONAL hardware, and that boom is part of the airframe... it doesn't come off.

The process of elimination results in the dual triple shot system being a RT-ized version of the OSM's laser bomb launcher.

First the Missiles in the art work, if we use them as a measuring stick the result does not come close to the stated size of the missile in the text when the same thing is done against the known size. That is hardly guess work.

Second we know the other missile launchers on the Beta come in 2x4/5 banks of missiles per launcher location, then the 5 triple barred beam guns are each counted per location. That sets precedent that we could count the optional pods in the lineart as one system and not representative of the text in question. This may be closer to guess work, but it isn't the only evidence working against the idea the 2x3 system in the text is the lineart optional booster module(s).

Seto wrote:You aren't mistaken, I have in fact indicated that the Genesis Climber MOSPEADA OSM identifies the large boom on the top of the TLEAD in its Armo-Soldier mode to be a "laser bomb launcher". What kind of weapon a "laser bomb launcher" is... well... your guess is as good as mine because the OSM declines to actually describe it and the weapon is never used in the course of the series.

I think if we are left to guess what a "laser bomb launcher" is, then it is reasonable that for Robotech purposes the system may have been "switched out" for something else or even possibly have multiple options to have been switched out for. We know change like that have happened before in RT (it really runs on PC not HBT, VHT-1 main cannon, Alpha VTOL Engine, etc).

Seto wrote:Without an extensive retrofit to include ways to program a guidance system and powered launch capability, I don't see the TLEAD/Beta as using its bomb bay for missiles.

The missile could use the same arming system as the dumb-bomb for arming purposes, guidance/targeting cues could be handled post launch.

The main hang up is a controlled powered deployment system so it can function in space. It should be noted though that technically neither the Infopedia NOR AotSC Nor the PB RPG (1E or 2E) actually state you can not deploy ordnance in space (the closest restriction I can see is that it is limited to Fighter Mode in the RPG, but that makes sense given the location of the chutes) indicating that it might already be capable of powered deployment.

Seto wrote:That may be less an indicator of design intent and more of usage... a shortage of qualified pilots and/or the mission requirements on the table may have been sufficient to have the Betas be issued minimal armament and shuffled out to function as boosters.

True, but with a sample size of 1 showcasing the full abilities of the Beta/TLEAD it is worth considering that it might actually be non-standard to all the other Betas that only used in the booster role.

ESalter wrote:Raised, the lower missile bay hatch would interfere with systems on top: upper missile bay, maybe head and sensor wings; below it's more out of the way. This way, when separated from the Alpha, the Beta can fire all of its missiles at once. Also, in independent flight mode, a lifted-open hatch would interfere with the aircraft's streamlining on top, while the lower aircraft is already a bit of a mess anyway.

[/quote]
I agree if they raised upward they would block the pop-up launchers, but there is no indication the two systems can fire together in the first place. Regardless though it shows the hatches where designed poorly.

ShadowLogan wrote:The process of elimination results in the dual triple shot system being a RT-ized version of the OSM's laser bomb launcher.

That doesn't follow any kind of logical reasoning process.

As noted previously, that boom isn't removable... whereas AotSC describes the missile launchers in question as explicitly optional hardware and the notation is absent entirely from the TV spec. That'd tend to eliminate the non-optional "laser bomb launcher" that RT asserts is a sensor suite right off the bat, as if RT officially considering it a sensor suite didn't already do that.

ShadowLogan wrote:I think if we are left to guess what a "laser bomb launcher" is, then it is reasonable that for Robotech purposes the system may have been "switched out" for something else or even possibly have multiple options to have been switched out for. We know change like that have happened before in RT (it really runs on PC not HBT, VHT-1 main cannon, Alpha VTOL Engine, etc).

But, as noted previously, Robotech considers the "laser bomb launcher" on the OSM spec to be a sensor boom/mast... not a piece of optional/modular equipment. The way it's written up for the RPG it's more or less the actual "head" of the Beta in Battloid mode.

ShadowLogan wrote:The missile could use the same arming system as the dumb-bomb for arming purposes, guidance/targeting cues could be handled post launch.

That'd still require special additional hardware, given that practically all guided ordnance in Robotech is shown to be of the "fire and forget" variety (either full-active or full-passive homing). Given that UEEF missile guidance proving useless against the Haydonites was essentially one of the main plot points of the OVA, that they do not have a command guidance system present would tend to be a fairly obvious point since they wouldn't have had to blind-fire missiles if they could provide post-launch guidance information.

ShadowLogan wrote:The main hang up is a controlled powered deployment system so it can function in space. It should be noted though that technically neither the Infopedia NOR AotSC Nor the PB RPG (1E or 2E) actually state you can not deploy ordnance in space (the closest restriction I can see is that it is limited to Fighter Mode in the RPG, but that makes sense given the location of the chutes) indicating that it might already be capable of powered deployment.

... call me a cynic if you like, but I'd argue they probably felt it was pretty obvious that you can't drop bombs in space because there's nothing to pull them down in a zero-g environment.

(Admittedly a point of logic that seems to have been lost on the writers of Star Wars: the Last Jedi, but still...)

ShadowLogan wrote:

Seto wrote:That may be less an indicator of design intent and more of usage... a shortage of qualified pilots and/or the mission requirements on the table may have been sufficient to have the Betas be issued minimal armament and shuffled out to function as boosters.

True, but with a sample size of 1 showcasing the full abilities of the Beta/TLEAD it is worth considering that it might actually be non-standard to all the other Betas that only used in the booster role.

Considering how many weapons systems went unused, I'd hardly call the TLEAD/Beta that Bernard and co. salvaged "showcasing the full abilities" of the aircraft.

There is, thus far, no evidence to suggest that the Betas used as boosters are in any way different from the "hero" one used by the protagonists in the series. Officially there are only two variants, the regular variant and shadow stealth variant. Logically, the booster-use Betas probably just don't load any weapons systems that wouldn't be used in space or would be obstructed by the Alpha, such as the missile launchers in question.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:Raised, the lower missile bay hatch would interfere with systems on top: upper missile bay, maybe head and sensor wings; below it's more out of the way. This way, when separated from the Alpha, the Beta can fire all of its missiles at once. Also, in independent flight mode, a lifted-open hatch would interfere with the aircraft's streamlining on top, while the lower aircraft is already a bit of a mess anyway.

I agree if they raised upward they would block the pop-up launchers, but there is no indication the two systems can fire together in the first place.

Why wouldn't they be able to fire together? Firing lots of missiles at once is a normal thing in "New Generation" and Robotech in general.

ShadowLogan wrote:Regardless though it shows the hatches where designed poorly.

That depends on what you want. A lowering hatch allows simultaneous fire from both bays when the Beta is operating independently.

Seto wrote:As noted previously, that boom isn't removable... whereas AotSC describes the missile launchers in question as explicitly optional hardware and the notation is absent entirely from the TV spec.

Who says they have to remove the booms? The booms could act as a "bay" for all sorts of equipment*, be it a missile launcher, sensor suite(s), spotlights, or gun array. Plus you have to figure the booms are removable if nothing else to repair battle damage or for general repairs (since the booms move, the actuators could fail and need to be replaced).

*To use a desktop computer build as an example the case will have varying numbers of internal bays that come in 3.5" and 5.25" sizes and you can fit different hardware in those bays, a 5.25" bay can hold: cooling fans, CD/DVD-drives, extra dongles ports, floppy/flash disk drives, fan controllers, hard disks, etc. The Real world CIA A-12 (family precursor to the SR-71) was modified to become the USAF YF-12, one of the modifications was the conversion of the A-12's 4 reconnaissance sensor bays into 3 missile carrying bays and the fire control system with the remaining bay.

Seto wrote:That'd still require special additional hardware, given that practically all guided ordnance in Robotech is shown to be of the "fire and forget" variety (either full-active or full-passive homing). Given that UEEF missile guidance proving useless against the Haydonites was essentially one of the main plot points of the OVA, that they do not have a command guidance system present would tend to be a fairly obvious point since they wouldn't have had to blind-fire missiles if they could provide post-launch guidance information.

I am not sure the Haynonites necessarily rule this out in any way. Most of the UEEF Missiles we see for full size mecha are the 190mm variety being deployed, followed by 340mm, and then 78mm. All of these missiles though launch in a similar manner, which is not how the they would launch here. Given we are likely looking at a specially designed missile for the system, it would be reasonable they would employ a guidance setup tailored to this launch method.

The missiles might still be able to use the bomb communication method with the Beta, it depends on how "expansive" the method really is.

Seto wrote:... call me a cynic if you like, but I'd argue they probably felt it was pretty obvious that you can't drop bombs in space because there's nothing to pull them down in a zero-g environment.

While I agree the bombs aren't going to act the same once deployed in space as near the surface of a planet/moon, deployment is still possible.

Per Lineart We know the Launch Chutes include "rollers" (which could be powered), but they aren't in the common area open chutes when Annie/Marlene improvise passenger bench seat. At the very least missiles might only be viably stored in the Launch Chutes (2) and not the Common Area Chutes (4). To store them in the common Area Chutes would require special equipment to feed them down and hold them in place (then again the bombs need some way to secure themselves so they don't spill into the walkway from turns I would think, which means you might only need a to be able to feed them down).

Seto wrote:Considering how many weapons systems went unused, I'd hardly call the TLEAD/Beta that Bernard and co. salvaged "showcasing the full abilities" of the aircraft.

The Point-K Beta per the Infopedia writeup actually uses all but one of the weapon systems (wing hard points). All 5 gun batteries are used ("Metamorphosis" shows fighter mode, "Relfex Point" shows arm guns), the MM-20s are used in "Sympthony of Light", and the MM-16 along with Cargo/Bomb-Bay in "Reflex Point".

The only weapon the non-Point-K Betas are shown to use in the 85Ep animation was the MM-16 (Ep85 by a Shadow Combiner).

Now compared to the OSM stats, you have them missing the wing hard points and the "laser bomb launcher" on the recovered unit, and the rest remain the same.

ESalter wrote:Why wouldn't they be able to fire together? Firing lots of missiles at once is a normal thing in "New Generation" and Robotech in general.

Except that those massive volleys are from a single integrated system. You are talking about using the MM-16 coupled with the MM-20, that never happens even with the down opening design on the Beta. The Alpha has two missile systems, the MM-60 and the MMDS-8 yet they are never fired together.

In the RPG, generally when you can combine weapon systems for an attack it is noted but isn't in the Beta entry.

ESalter wrote:That depends on what you want. A lowering hatch allows simultaneous fire from both bays when the Beta is operating independently.

Or you know you could just use multiple covers that open up 90deg to the sides or up/down a smaller angle so the covers in an open position are inline with the dorsal hull. Note I am not saying the MM-20 cover as shown opens this way, but rather we put new hatches on said structure so it doesn't have to open.

ShadowLogan wrote:Who says they have to remove the booms? The booms could act as a "bay" for all sorts of equipment*, be it a missile launcher, sensor suite(s), spotlights, or gun array. Plus you have to figure the booms are removable if nothing else to repair battle damage or for general repairs (since the booms move, the actuators could fail and need to be replaced).

For one, that's a primary sensor system for the Beta... who's going to sacrifice a half dozen key sensor systems for a half dozen missiles?

For two, nothing official indicates that that is modular equipment... where this missile launcher system you're on about is explicitly optional hardware.

ShadowLogan wrote:I am not sure the Haynonites necessarily rule this out in any way. Most of the UEEF Missiles we see for full size mecha are the 190mm variety being deployed, followed by 340mm, and then 78mm. All of these missiles though launch in a similar manner, which is not how the they would launch here. Given we are likely looking at a specially designed missile for the system, it would be reasonable they would employ a guidance setup tailored to this launch method.

I'm fairly certain it does, because if you're providing guidance instructions to a missile remotely after launch then there's nothing stopping you from providing terminal guidance to it in-flight. If they'd had that capability, then the Haydonites wouldn't have been a problem requiring blind-firing of regular missiles.

ShadowLogan wrote:While I agree the bombs aren't going to act the same once deployed in space as near the surface of a planet/moon, deployment is still possible.

If you're dependent on gravity to get the bombs clear of the bay, you're pretty much hosed in a zero-gravity or microgravity environment.

Seto wrote:For one, that's a primary sensor system for the Beta... who's going to sacrifice a half dozen key sensor systems for a half dozen missiles?

That depends on what sensor systems are specifically in the booms now. Going off the 2E RPG description (#5 pg114 TSC RPG-manga), there is no clear distinction between what is in the "T" and the actual proper head.

The features listed create unnecessary redundancy with the Alpha when connected (in this state it typically is unmanned), but you know losing things like visible/IR spotlights, the 100 decibel loudspeaker, and external audio pickup is just so critical. Losing the optics could be an issue, but as I pointed out we really don't know which systems are actually in the proper head vs "T-Boom". Sacrificing the redundant sensors for extra missiles in the Combiner Setup would make sense. And if those missiles have sensors of their own, the pilot might be able to tap into them (IIRC in Gulf War I A-10 pilots used their missile's sensors like this).

Seto wrote:For two, nothing official indicates that that is modular equipment... where this missile launcher system you're on about is explicitly optional hardware.

I guess anytime a part breaks they have to replace the whole mecha then? Or the design doesn't allow for new hardware versions to be installed?

Seto wrote:I'm fairly certain it does, because if you're providing guidance instructions to a missile remotely after launch then there's nothing stopping you from providing terminal guidance to it in-flight. If they'd had that capability, then the Haydonites wouldn't have been a problem requiring blind-firing of regular missiles.

They'd still have that problem:
-supply and demand, not enough missiles being capable of it
-majority of missiles in use might not be capable of it (190mm Alpha missiles probably make up the majority of the UEEF missile inventory for full scale mecha)
-in order to actually target-lock a Shadow Equipped Target Mecha (Haydonite, or Edwards) requires specific sensors and those sensors have to be tied into the missile guidance/targeting systems (indications they aren't by default IIRC the SSFA/SSFB from TSC).

Seto wrote:If you're dependent on gravity to get the bombs clear of the bay, you're pretty much hosed in a zero-gravity or microgravity environment.

To an extent yes, deployment is just going to be a more complex maneuver requiring the mecha to "drop away" from the bomb/missile instead of the reverse.

A powered system is of course preferred, and we know such an ejection system exists in Robotech on the VF-1's dorsal FAST PACK launcher from the animation (missile ejects out the side before igniting the engine).

The ordance itself could power itself out of the chute by use of a gas thruster to push it in the proper direction down the chute, this would require obviously either an add-on modification kit OR purpose built into. (For safety I would think it would be cold gas system like the Gemini HHMU, Shuttle MMU, ISS SAFER, or Skylab's ASMU this one was actually used inside the station). Gas Thruster need not be the only approach, other options might also be possible along this line.

ShadowLogan wrote:That depends on what sensor systems are specifically in the booms now. Going off the 2E RPG description (#5 pg114 TSC RPG-manga), there is no clear distinction between what is in the "T" and the actual proper head.

As I said previously, they kind of imply that the "T" is the actual head (in terms of where the bulk of the Battloid mode sensors are concentrated) while the thing on top of the torso is just "the cockpit".

ShadowLogan wrote:Sacrificing the redundant sensors for extra missiles in the Combiner Setup would make sense. And if those missiles have sensors of their own, the pilot might be able to tap into them (IIRC in Gulf War I A-10 pilots used their missile's sensors like this).

The obvious flaw in this reasoning is that a Beta that you essentially have to "bench" a significant portion of the Beta fleet solely to function as boosters if you gut their sensor systems like that... which defeats the entire point of the combiner being able to split up for independent operation.

ShadowLogan wrote:I guess anytime a part breaks they have to replace the whole mecha then? Or the design doesn't allow for new hardware versions to be installed?

There's a pretty significant difference between the amount of time and labor necessary to remove and replace an optional bolt-on component like a missile pod or drop tank and what it takes to remove and replace a heavily-integrated system with a lot of power and data bus connections like a fixed composite sensor system built into the airframe. The missile launcher in the Beta's synchro gunpod's a quickly and easily removable system designed to be attached or detached easily in the field, but the sensor boom on the top would need to be a heavily integrated system to function.

ShadowLogan wrote:They'd still have that problem:
-supply and demand, not enough missiles being capable of it
-majority of missiles in use might not be capable of it (190mm Alpha missiles probably make up the majority of the UEEF missile inventory for full scale mecha)
-in order to actually target-lock a Shadow Equipped Target Mecha (Haydonite, or Edwards) requires specific sensors and those sensors have to be tied into the missile guidance/targeting systems (indications they aren't by default IIRC the SSFA/SSFB from TSC).

While you could easily argue the absence of missiles with the capability constitutes a supply and demand problem, the glaring question remains as to why this wouldn't be used at any point when the UEEF expected and spent a year planning for combat with shadow-stealthed opponents like Ghost Squadron...

ShadowLogan wrote:To an extent yes, deployment is just going to be a more complex maneuver requiring the mecha to "drop away" from the bomb/missile instead of the reverse.

As long as the bomb is in physical contact with the aircraft, it's not really a viable maneuver since friction alone will help keep the bomb from exiting the bay... not to mention the increased risk of the bombs ending up jammed in the chute without a uniform force pulling them down.

ShadowLogan wrote:A powered system is of course preferred, and we know such an ejection system exists in Robotech on the VF-1's dorsal FAST PACK launcher from the animation (missile ejects out the side before igniting the engine).

Yes, but that is a purpose-built MISSILE LAUNCHER... not a bomb bay explicitly designed and built to handle "dumb" gravity bombs.

ShadowLogan wrote:The ordance itself could power itself out of the chute by use of a gas thruster to push it in the proper direction down the chute, this would require obviously either an add-on modification kit OR purpose built into. (For safety I would think it would be cold gas system like the Gemini HHMU, Shuttle MMU, ISS SAFER, or Skylab's ASMU this one was actually used inside the station). Gas Thruster need not be the only approach, other options might also be possible along this line.

Which just adds more unnecessary complexity to a system that isn't designed to handle missiles anyway.

Seto wrote:As I said previously, they kind of imply that the "T" is the actual head (in terms of where the bulk of the Battloid mode sensors are concentrated) while the thing on top of the torso is just "the cockpit".

Maybe the wording changed between Manga and Full-Size Editions or your looking at something else, but
"5. Head and Sensor Pod: The head and narrow, back mounted sensor pod have the following optical sensors and enhancements:"-pg114 Manga-TSC

So I don't see the text indicating the "T" is pure sensors and the "head" is the cockpit (I thought the Lineart was clear on the cockpit reconfiguration location ends up in front of the Center-Line tri-cannon).

Seto wrote:The obvious flaw in this reasoning is that a Beta that you essentially have to "bench" a significant portion of the Beta fleet solely to function as boosters if you gut their sensor systems like that... which defeats the entire point of the combiner being able to split up for independent operation.

First: by all indications Betas already operate as unamnend units when connected with an Alpha (in the UEEF proper), with no indication they can act as Semi/Full-Autonomous Drones when separated (Like the Shadow Drone aor Ghost Drone, or the GMP's Golem).

Second: the specific sensors lost may not be critical to operations. Look at how they are positioned by default in F/G-Modes (I know there is lineart showing they can reposition), they aren't being used which says IMHO they aren't critical. The pilot would obviously be in a pickle if they switch to Battloid mode, but that assumes that the actual "head" doesn't have some sensors to take over.

Seto wrote:the glaring question remains as to why this wouldn't be used at any point when the UEEF expected and spent a year planning for combat with shadow-stealthed opponents like Ghost Squadron...

This assumes though that targeting systems for the missiles on the <insert mecha list> can communicate with all the mecha's sensors.

Seto wrote:As long as the bomb is in physical contact with the aircraft, it's not really a viable maneuver since friction alone will help keep the bomb from exiting the bay... not to mention the increased risk of the bombs ending up jammed in the chute without a uniform force pulling them down.

I agree in the specific case of the Beta's internal bay it likely isn't as viable (you have tight fit, plus the shape of the cute likely requires more complex maneuvers), but in a general sense it would be viable.

Seto wrote:Yes, but that is a purpose-built MISSILE LAUNCHER... not a bomb bay explicitly designed and built to handle "dumb" gravity bombs.

That purpose built missile launcher in this case has more in common with the Beta's Cargo/Bomb-Bay than the Beta's MM-16/20s: the missile is moved into position and then ejected out the side before the missile's engine ignites (contrast with the MM-16/20 where the missiles ignite in the launcher). The mechanisim(s) that moves the missiles into position and ejects them could move a gravity bomb of similar size and shape, though I think in the case of the Beta it would be used for deploying something with propulsion (missile, sub-satellite, probe) than without in space unless you are ditching weight to give you a bit of extra range.

Seto wrote:Which just adds more unnecessary complexity to a system that isn't designed to handle missiles anyway.

Not necessarily, the complexity is shifted from the Cargo/Bomb-Bay and Chutes themselves to the missile, though it would be simpler to just say the bay does powered deployment. The system just activates causing the missile (bomb or other payload) to act like its in a gravity well for deployment. Cold Gas Thrusters should be safe IMHO, they've been used inside the habitable volume of Skylab. An alternative would be to use magnetic repulsion between the bombs (sacrifice one bomb per chute) to push one that is "released" to drop down the chute.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:Why wouldn't they be able to fire together? Firing lots of missiles at once is a normal thing in "New Generation" and Robotech in general.

Except that those massive volleys are from a single integrated system. You are talking about using the MM-16 coupled with the MM-20, that never happens even with the down opening design on the Beta. The Alpha has two missile systems, the MM-60 and the MMDS-8 yet they are never fired together.

In the RPG, generally when you can combine weapon systems for an attack it is noted but isn't in the Beta entry.

The details of the rules don't even try to match the series. I don't care if Kevin Siembieda gave the missile bays different names, and that his rules don't allow the big multitarget missile volleys we see in the series. In the actual series itself, firing lots of missiles at once is a normal thing.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:That depends on what you want. A lowering hatch allows simultaneous fire from both bays when the Beta is operating independently.

Or you know you could just use multiple covers that open up 90deg to the sides or up/down a smaller angle so the covers in an open position are inline with the dorsal hull. Note I am not saying the MM-20 cover as shown opens this way, but rather we put new hatches on said structure so it doesn't have to open.

An outside-opening bay cover would get in the arms' way in battloid mode, but a partially opening split up-down cover does look like it would work.

Regarding something you wrote earlier:

ShadowLogan wrote:Are the MM-16 launchers really supposed to be Medium Range Class missiles? They are 340mm in diameter, much larger than the KNOWN Medium Range Missiles on the Logan (275mm) or the VF-1 (300mm). Other aspects like Length/Volume can obviously be a factor here pushing them into the SRM class. I know RT.com says they are SRM, but I think it might have to be considered. It doesn't necessarily change impact of Marcus statement (unless the missiles standard at the time is more like the AGAC than what was shown).

According to the uRRG, the Beta's upper missiles are "Coralsnakes," a heavy short-range missile. The uRRG entry may be worth a look: it gives the upper launchers a reload.

ShadowLogan wrote:Maybe the wording changed between Manga and Full-Size Editions or your looking at something else, but
"5. Head and Sensor Pod: The head and narrow, back mounted sensor pod have the following optical sensors and enhancements:"-pg114 Manga-TSC

Nah, the wording there is pretty consistent… but previous versions of the Robotech lore had generally implied that most of the sensors were not in the “head”, since the head fits so flush to the body that there’s no clearance for close-in sensor use and there’s practically no room in the cockpit/head for anything except the pilot.

ShadowLogan wrote:First: by all indications Betas already operate as unamnend units when connected with an Alpha (in the UEEF proper), with no indication they can act as Semi/Full-Autonomous Drones when separated (Like the Shadow Drone aor Ghost Drone, or the GMP's Golem).

Granted, that appears to be the case for the very small subset of Betas we see main characters using in Robotech, but we can’t say for sure that that’s the typical application. After all, they had plenty of Alpha-Beta combiners that weren’t operating from Horizonts, so there would be an opportunity to put a pilot in there for separate operations… and the RPG indicates that they also operate solo in squadrons of their own.

It doesn’t make sense to gut key systems on an aircraft that could easily wind up forced to fly or fight solo, or one that WILL end up flying/fighting solo after a drop. There’s just no logistical sense to it.

ShadowLogan wrote:Second: the specific sensors lost may not be critical to operations. Look at how they are positioned by default in F/G-Modes (I know there is lineart showing they can reposition), they aren't being used which says IMHO they aren't critical. The pilot would obviously be in a pickle if they switch to Battloid mode, but that assumes that the actual "head" doesn't have some sensors to take over.

There’s nothing stopping that boom from being deployed in any mode, but in bomber mode the aircraft doesn’t have much call for telescopic cameras when radar is the primary sensor system.

ShadowLogan wrote:This assumes though that targeting systems for the missiles on the <insert mecha list> can communicate with all the mecha's sensors.

Wait, weren’t you just arguing that munitions were more or less standardized a post or so ago?

ShadowLogan wrote:Not necessarily, the complexity is shifted from the Cargo/Bomb-Bay and Chutes themselves to the missile, though it would be simpler to just say the bay does powered deployment.

Which, ultimately, means more complexity because you have to manufacture this capability into every bomb case.

ESalter wrote:The details of the rules don't even try to match the series. I don't care if Kevin Siembieda gave the missile bays different names, and that his rules don't allow the big multitarget missile volleys we see in the series. In the actual series itself, firing lots of missiles at once is a normal thing.

Well, in Macross... not s’much in MOSPEADA.

ESalter wrote:According to the uRRG, [...]

“According to some guy’s fanfic…”

The uRRG is a masterpiece of misinformation, the very crystallization of Did Not Do Research and substituting wild guesses for answers.

Seto wrote:a "laser bomb launcher". What kind of weapon a "laser bomb launcher" is... well... your guess is as good as mine because the OSM declines to actually describe it and the weapon is never used in the course of the series.

Well if it is not a solid projectile launcher (bomb, missile, bullet), and we are speculating.... X-Ray Laser? Or something that operates conceptually similar to an X-Ray Laser at the basic level (maybe not generating X-Ray frequencies or using Nuclear Explosives). It sort of works with the naming convention to a large degree (are there alternate possible translations?)

Seto wrote:Nah, the wording there is pretty consistent… but previous versions of the Robotech lore had generally implied that most of the sensors were not in the “head”, since the head fits so flush to the body that there’s no clearance for close-in sensor use and there’s practically no room in the cockpit/head for anything except the pilot.

If we're looking at previous versions of Robotech lore, the only one AFAIK that even addressed the booms are the 1E RPG where they are quite clearly identified as Missile Launchers (Medium Range to boot). Then you have the older OSM's "Laser bomb launcher". So precedent exists here on this specific topic is that it can-be/has-been/might-be a weapon system. IINM the origin of the telescopic array might be from the uRRG (its in their Beta file and their design note section for the Beta).

Seto wrote:Granted, that appears to be the case for the very small subset of Betas we see main characters using in Robotech, but we can’t say for sure that that’s the typical application. After all, they had plenty of Alpha-Beta combiners that weren’t operating from Horizonts, so there would be an opportunity to put a pilot in there for separate operations… and the RPG indicates that they also operate solo in squadrons of their own.

It doesn’t make sense to gut key systems on an aircraft that could easily wind up forced to fly or fight solo, or one that WILL end up flying/fighting solo after a drop. There’s just no logistical sense to it.

That IS the Case for EVERY non-Point-K Beta in the entire 85Episodes (last 25 episodes arc) PLUS Sentinels OVA PLUS TSC OVA. There is never any indication given to a crewed Beta Fighter outside of the Point-K unit operating with a joined Alpha. The only instances of a crewed combiner AFAIK come from the RPG and Sentinels Novels (likely the Sentinel Comics to, but I've never read them) outside of the Point-K unit.

I know we are told there are solo units of Betas operating. We just do not see them, and I don't think its ever been officially stated purpose for the Beta to allowed downed pilots to transfer to get a new ride quickly (I know it could be done).

As for not making sense, how many questionable design choices does the UEEF make? Still I agree from certain avenues it won't make sense, but then it only fails to make sense if you consider optical sensors to be critical when facing the Invid and those are the only optical sensors.

Seto wrote:but in bomber mode the aircraft doesn’t have much call for telescopic cameras when radar is the primary sensor system.

However you'd think the UEEF would deploy said cameras when engaging Ghost Squadron at Optera (knowing what they would face) or even at SSL (SSFA's connected to Beta, or even Skull's recon flight) since their radar would be known to be useless. That isn't what we see in Prelude or TSC from the Combiners.

Seto wrote:Wait, weren’t you just arguing that munitions were more or less standardized a post or so ago?

I do think munition guidance system became pretty standardized, the Alpha's 190mm SRMs likely take up a large quantity of the UEEF missile inventory after all for a variety of reasons. Other missile types exist and may or may not share guidance type with the Alpha's 190mm SRM (some like the Cyclone likely don't).

Backing up a few posts to untangle things, You said earlier: "If they'd had that capability [terminal guidance], then the Haydonites wouldn't have been a problem requiring blind-firing of regular missiles." I disagree because if the UEEF Mecha's missile guidance system is only taking cues from specific sensors, sensors that are vulnerable to shadow-systems, then they would still have a problem. Just because the (ex) the Alpha has optic sensors that aren't vulnerable, does not means that missile guidance system on the Alpha can communicate with those sensors. Yes it can be modified/updated to communicate obviously, but it wasn't ready (only the SSFA apparently could given its missiles tracked) at the time of Operta operation to deal with Edwards or in time for mass deployment in Ep84-5/TSC.

ESalter wrote:The details of the rules don't even try to match the series. I don't care if Kevin Siembieda gave the missile bays different names, and that his rules don't allow the big multitarget missile volleys we see in the series. In the actual series itself, firing lots of missiles at once is a normal thing.

Firing lots of missiles is a normal thing in the series and I do not dispute that. What is also normal in the series is that the Beta never fires both missile launcher types togther, even when it could it still fired only one of the two dual launchers (EP83/EP85), at the very least indicating it can't be done.

I agree the rules (and stats) don't match the series on several levels, though they do allow firing lots of missiles as a normal thing.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:The details of the rules don't even try to match the series. I don't care if Kevin Siembieda gave the missile bays different names, and that his rules don't allow the big multitarget missile volleys we see in the series. In the actual series itself, firing lots of missiles at once is a normal thing.

Firing lots of missiles is a normal thing in the series and I do not dispute that. What is also normal in the series is that the Beta never fires both missile launcher types togther, even when it could it still fired only one of the two dual launchers (EP83/EP85), at the very least indicating it can't be done.

I agree the rules (and stats) don't match the series on several levels, though they do allow firing lots of missiles as a normal thing.

Herm... Taking it from the Deluxe Gold Edition of Shadow Chronicle here... There IS a rule to fire a "multi-target missile volley", at least in effect. It's called "Random Missile Assault" and can be found in the Space Combat section. (P.168 here. Which doesn't mean a thing if you have another version of that book.)
It doesn't specify anywhere that it should be limited to spaceships, is clearly exemplified to fire against a group of Veritech Fighters, and it does let you attack more than one target given that the minimum number of missiles can be fired and that you aren't too specific with your aim. (Which, considering a fast paced battle, shouldn't be for that precise circumstance.)

Furthermore, considering that one has to compare between Kickboxing, Wrestling (even if these are both prohibited) and the damage section in order to understand how to read one's H-t-H skill... and that these are in totally different sections of the book, but probably only there in order to save space... I feel particularly safe telling you that the "Random Missile Assault" should and can be used by any mecha in any circumstances.
Especially if you don't have to conserve ammo, or that it's your only option against superior number.

xunk16 wrote:Herm... Taking it from the Deluxe Gold Edition of Shadow Chronicle here... There IS a rule to fire a "multi-target missile volley", at least in effect. It's called "Random Missile Assault" and can be found in the Space Combat section. (P.168 here. Which doesn't mean a thing if you have another version of that book.)
It doesn't specify anywhere that it should be limited to spaceships, [...]

On review, it doesn't look like that rule is in the original ("manga size") core rulebook for RT2E... and I believe that's a part of the spaceship combat rules, intended to handle ship-based anti-aircraft defenses, which is probably why the rule isn't in the non-deluxe core book.

xunk16 wrote:[...] is clearly exemplified to fire against a group of Veritech Fighters, and it does let you attack more than one target given that the minimum number of missiles can be fired and that you aren't too specific with your aim. (Which, considering a fast paced battle, shouldn't be for that precise circumstance.)

Yeah, that last bit is where it wouldn't line up with the show... all three shows, but most blatantly and frequently the Super Dimension Fortress Macross animation, depict VFs locking onto and engaging multiple hostiles at once very deliberately. The VF-1 is frequently shown locking onto half a dozen or more enemies simultaneously with its missiles, the Auroran/AGACs is infrequently (due to its late introduction) shown doing something similar using its submunition missiles, and the Legioss/Alpha is also shown doing this on a few occasions with small numbers of Inbit/Invid. It's not surprising that multiple lock-on is one of the more frequently added houserules.

(Those who use the RPG to play games in the Macross setting find this number keeps going up, with the later VFs locking onto a dozen or more targets at a time for missile spam... with the current top dog being capable of a whopping 128 simultaneous long-range missile locks from a single aircraft, canonically. More if you consider that the aircraft in question - the RVF-25 - can control up to six QF-4000 Ghosts remotely as well, and each one of them can lock onto a dozen or more targets as well.)

Seto Kaiba wrote:Yeah, that last bit is where it wouldn't line up with the show... all three shows, but most blatantly and frequently the Super Dimension Fortress Macross animation, depict VFs locking onto and engaging multiple hostiles at once very deliberately. The VF-1 is frequently shown locking onto half a dozen or more enemies simultaneously with its missiles, the Auroran/AGACs is infrequently (due to its late introduction) shown doing something similar using its submunition missiles, and the Legioss/Alpha is also shown doing this on a few occasions with small numbers of Inbit/Invid. It's not surprising that multiple lock-on is one of the more frequently added houserules.

(Those who use the RPG to play games in the Macross setting find this number keeps going up, with the later VFs locking onto a dozen or more targets at a time for missile spam... with the current top dog being capable of a whopping 128 simultaneous long-range missile locks from a single aircraft, canonically. More if you consider that the aircraft in question - the RVF-25 - can control up to six QF-4000 Ghosts remotely as well, and each one of them can lock onto a dozen or more targets as well.)

Isn't this where the targeting computer limit comes in? After all, even the "Random Missile Assault" has to be fired in some direction, and its missiles must be given signatures - to be recognized by their internal computers - in order to go fetch targets on their own. (Which also limits this to payload of guided missiles... a rare occurrence in Palladium's Robotech. Meaning that HQ did value your ability to use this before sending you out. On the other hand, the rule also doesn't clearly prohibit from -and might even imply in favor of - using conventional missiles. "Even guided missiles are dumb." One would thus be free to assume that even "standard unguided missiles" might be able to clobber up a close in formation squadron [Gm's approval required].) The only difference that remains, being in the way the rule is written, not so much in the "visual" effect. Furthermore, even if it is the spaceship combat section, mecha aren't prevented to participate into those : which rather makes relevant the exclusion of the limitation to spaceships as instigators of the attack. (In fact, they are rather welcomed as a lot of rules deals with their condition either as attackers or defenders.)
Now as I understand it, the only pertinent peculiarity exposed here, is that the missiles does the definitive aiming, not the pilot; which basically selects "all those not-so-particular dots" on the screen while everything is moving. It does imply a high level of automation, but so would a multiple target lock. Especially if you want to avoid Freindly IFF from being accidentally selected. Hence the missiles tagging the first "enemy" signature they encounter and blowing it to smithereens, then moving on... (automating the process of such "volley" synonym, in the rules, for ambience?)
In both cases... selecting the further away targets would probably be hard (using a 2D screen!), or irrelevant considering the capacity to shoot down missiles. Hence the rule aiming at "the first relevant enemy signature detected" even if an enemy unit zooms at the last moment in front of your missiles.
Which would be consistent with most multiple locks I remember from the show...

But... as you state, if it isn't in the manga sized edition... that can be a problem.
Making the difference between an house rule for a book that has none, or a rule that has a different name but does the job : moot.
From a gaming perspective at least.

In the end, it only differs from the show according to the understanding one has of what is going on on those computer screens.
Most of the time, there wouldn't be much of a difference. You still could launch all of your missiles, and you still would be limited by the targeting computer's capacity for the original "general direction" of the assault. Then... if some are dodged, or lost, they'd simply continue to drift until a valid signature has been detected. Or that a "dumb" missile hit something in a straight line. (But heroes doesn't miss... so that is a rather hard thing to compare to the show!)
At the least, it could be considered as a programming choice, to prevent the loss of a big payload being sent at once. Just in case a precise target would cease to exist prior to that "volley" finding its intended signature.

A friendly unit could always play "go fetch" and attach to the missile afterwards, linking to it in order to deliver a deactivation code. (THAT is not in the rules... Nor in the shows... I'm assuming here.)

But... Where it does defy the shows (which are silent on the subject, or used IFF to tag Breetai's Regults?), for example, is if you have a squadron of UEEF Alpha fighters helping a lost Zentraedi garrison on some forgotten Tirolian colony.
If for some reason the missile's computers weren't updated recently enough... it would be well into their parameters to fire both on Regults AND invid. Whichever present itself first. In turn, this would probably have the CAG order to refrain from "Random Missile Assault" or "Multiple Lock-On"... whatever you call it at your table.

The accepted signature bank grows with the passing eras, while the targeting capacity remain mostly the same. (As illustrated in going from the VF-1 to the Alpha, though the reverse can be either true or false trough Master Saga and the UEEF sourcebook - which either limits it drastically, or renders it limitless through IFF techology.) But nothing is directly said about old targets being removed from the computers. At the least, maybe a skilled pilot / co-pilot could manually remove them with a computer roll - 1 or 2 actions? - prior to firing the "Random Missile Assault". Or an AEW unit might update the targeting computers of its squadron prior to / in the midst of engagement? In fact, the data-banks of most veritechs are so intense that there is probably more signature slots available than mecha offered for play. (I did not count.)
To which extent that means the signatures refers to "precise units in a precise battle" is actually left to the Gm's discretion.
If one does interpret the rules as referring to individual units... Then there should probably be an officer, somewhere, which is pinpointing the signatures and identifying them as such. One could then argue this is a "bridge bunny" job and leave it at that... cancelling the only apparent remaining point that separate one rule from the other; but still implying that an unknown target wouldn't be judged as "enemy" by the missile's programming.
(Except for IFF technology users which would consider any "unknown" as potential enemies. With their targeting computer assigning numbers to targets as they come in, and flushing its registry as they outnumber its capacity.)

In which case, it still equals "launching a whole damn lot of missiles on a bunch of on-screen close enemies, selected rapidly, on a 2D screen which, getting a good roll, will flash a grape of little balls of light into the background".

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:The details of the rules don't even try to match the series. I don't care if Kevin Siembieda gave the missile bays different names, and that his rules don't allow the big multitarget missile volleys we see in the series. In the actual series itself, firing lots of missiles at once is a normal thing.

Firing lots of missiles is a normal thing in the series and I do not dispute that. What is also normal in the series is that the Beta never fires both missile launcher types togther, even when it could it still fired only one of the two dual launchers (EP83/EP85), at the very least indicating it can't be done.

Why? The Alpha CAN fire all its missiles at once, but it usually doesn't.
And from a production standpoint, I can't imagine the show's creators caring enough to decide the Tread can't fire both missile bays at once, and then not bothering to mention it anywhere.

xunk16 wrote:Herm... Taking it from the Deluxe Gold Edition of Shadow Chronicle here... There IS a rule to fire a "multi-target missile volley", at least in effect. It's called "Random Missile Assault" and can be found in the Space Combat section. (P.168 here. Which doesn't mean a thing if you have another version of that book.)

Rules like this exist in various places, I know they are in the 1E RT RPG rules (SB3), Rifts Phase World DB3, Macross 2 RPG (Deckplans), and in 2E RT RPG Genisis Pits SB (pg97). I would not be surprised if it was in other books I don't have.

So nothing new here, and these rules limit when it can to capital space-ship engagements. Expanding them beyond the intended scope would be a house-rule fix.

xunk16 wrote:I have no idea for using this on ghost, from an aircraft, in the Macross setting. And the books were clearly written / sold with Robotech in mind... So a Ghost here would work by remote controller teams and A.I.s, thus not preventing it to follow the same guidelines. If the team can be located in an aircraft and benefit from it's bonuses, ultimately, the firing is done by the remote controller computer, or the drone itself. Usually 4 guys for 12 drones.

Seto is referring to a setup in the Macross OSM universe, not the Robotech Macross era. The RVF-25 is a dead give away, it is also a post 2040s SDF:M universe design. The Macross II universe has the (Space) Valkaryie's (in SAP) controlling some number of squire drones in the PB RPG.

Basically Macross comes in 3 universes (possibly more, but these are the main distillations):
-Super Dimensional Fortress Macross (this includes SDF:M, Macross Plus, Macross 7, Macross Zero, Macross Frontier, Maross Delta, and probably some I'm missing)
-Macross Do You Remember Love (includes DYRL movie, Macross II OVA/movie IINM, possibly some other stuff)
-Robotech Macross (shares 36 episodes of animation footage with SDF:M, This story was continued by adapting SDC: SC and GCM animation and attempting to make new animation in the Sentinels OVA and TSC OVA, Love Live Alive hybrid of old/new animation)

Seto wrote:the Auroran/AGACs is infrequently (due to its late introduction) shown doing something similar using its submunition missiles, and the Legioss/Alpha is also shown doing this on a few occasions with small numbers of Inbit/Invid.

AGAC missile use is rare in the 11 episodes it appears in, I know they get used on an Assault Carrier, but Bioroid kills via AGAC missiles I think the number is like 4 (all in "Clone Chamber"). That is also arguably one of the few instances where missiles in a general sense are shown to actually be effective in this era (granted most missile use is also anti-ship role instead of anti-mecha).

The Alpha's largest screen count in 85ep proper is a combined 37 between Rook and Rand I counted at one time (someone else counted 36 between the two, his results are up at the uRRG under research and on the RT.com forums). The best I think Scott did was 16 with a salvo of missiles to set off a Reflex Furnace Overload that did the actual destruction, otherwise his missile volleys tend to only really take out a few at a time (not much better/worse than the VF-1/Super really on average). I've never done a TSC count, but I don't think it really gets any higher than this (ignoring dialogue).

ESalter wrote:Why? The Alpha CAN fire all its missiles at once, but it usually doesn't.

Technically even the Alpha never fires all of its missiles at once. The Alpha-H/I/Z is equipped with (2E RPG named systems) the MM-60 AND MMDS-8, they never fire together. IINM the VF-1 FAST Packs don't actually fire together with the wing stations either. IIRC even the Invid Battloid is similarly restricted.

The show's creators might have felt it would be an obvious restriction.
So the rules restrictions aren't without precedent, and when you can fire different systems together it is noted (ex. Glaug Weapon arms).

ESalter wrote:And from a production standpoint, I can't imagine the show's creators caring enough to decide the Tread can't fire both missile bays at once, and then not bothering to mention it anywhere.

Well, you’re not technically wrong… it’s just that, from a production standpoint, that second set of launchers in the front of the TLEAD's body don’t actually exist. You won’t find them in the animation model sheets for the AB-01 TLEAD because they weren’t part of the design. They’re an animation error. That’s why they make so little sense in the context of the TLEAD's design… they're not supposed to be there.

xunk16 wrote:Isn't this where the targeting computer limit comes in?

I don’t think so… because the rules-as-written for combat in general essentially restrict combat to one-on-one regardless of the weapon being used.

The targeting computer section of the Onboard Computer System item just identifies how many objects the radar can identify and track at one time in TWS mode. The number of targets it can track in ACM or AGM modes is going to be lower because the scan priority is different, and the number of targets that a lock and firing solution can be maintained for are going to be lower still.

xunk16 wrote:After all, even the "Random Missile Assault" has to be fired in some direction, and its missiles must be given signatures - to be recognized by their internal computers - in order to go fetch targets on their own.

Eh, not really… most missiles in Robotech are using active radar guidance, so as long as the ship firing is firing in the vicinity of radar-reflective objects is start homing in on the nearest object that isn’t broadcasting a correct IFF code. The missile don’t need to be able to identify what a moving object is, just whether or not it’s a friendly.

This strikes a sharp contrast to what we see mecha doing in the animation, which is deliberately locking onto and engaging multiple specific targets simultaneously. The difference is between a command to “saturate that area with fire and hope we hit something” vs. “see that guy, that guy, and that guy? Wreck their sh*t”.

xunk16 wrote:On the other hand, the rule also doesn't clearly prohibit from -and might even imply in favor of - using conventional missiles. "Even guided missiles are dumb." One would thus be free to assume that even "standard unguided missiles" might be able to clobber up a close in formation squadron [Gm's approval required].)

This is kind of another place where Palladium’s rules don’t really line up with the show… or real-world terminology. In the real world, an unguided missile is called a rocket. What makes a rocket a missile is the inclusion of a guidance system.

Mind you, Palladium’s definition of “unguided” seems to encompass every guidance technology in the semi-active category (radar, laser, etc.) that isn’t an ECCM-equipped fire-and-forget active radar seeker or passive infrared seeker… those get lumped under “smart” missiles. One of the few things Palladium got right in their Macross II RPG was to admit that most missiles in the animation are actually “smart” missiles.

xunk16 wrote:Furthermore, even if it is the spaceship combat section, mecha aren't prevented to participate into those : which rather makes relevant the exclusion of the limitation to spaceships as instigators of the attack.

If it’s only part of the spaceship combat rules, it only applies to spaceships unless houserule’d otherwise.

xunk16 wrote:Now as I understand it, the only pertinent peculiarity exposed here, is that the missiles does the definitive aiming, not the pilot; which basically selects "all those not-so-particular dots" on the screen while everything is moving.

No, the aiming is done by the pilot in cooperation with the FCS. The pilot tells the FCS what he wants to kill, and the FCS feeds the relevant data to the missile’s seeker head and any relevant additional guidance systems (e.g. a missile guidance radar or guide laser oscillator) to direct its course to the target. The missile is never in the driver’s seat here. It just does what it’s told by the FCS prior to launch and/or by the guide beam it’s following (in the event that it’s semi-active homing).

xunk16 wrote:In both cases... selecting the further away targets would probably be hard (using a 2D screen!), or irrelevant considering the capacity to shoot down missiles. Hence the rule aiming at "the first relevant enemy signature detected" even if an enemy unit zooms at the last moment in front of your missiles.
Which would be consistent with most multiple locks I remember from the show…

That would be why HUDs display helpful things like range data for individual targets… this ain’t sci-fi tech, we’ve had this sh*t since the 1960s.

We see far too many instances of specific targets being selected for it to be “whomever’s closest”... especially since an exploding enemy aircraft or mecha doesn’t stop being radar-reflective, it actually gets MORE radar-reflective, so if they worked on the logic you’re describing it would be impossible to engage more than one target at a time because all the missiles would keep tracking the first thing they hit until the wreckage dissipated enough to no longer present a significant return.

xunk16 wrote:But... Where it does defy the shows (which are silent on the subject, or used IFF to tag Breetai's Regults?), for example, is if you have a squadron of UEEF Alpha fighters helping a lost Zentraedi garrison on some forgotten Tirolian colony.
If for some reason the missile's computers weren't updated recently enough... it would be well into their parameters to fire both on Regults AND invid. Whichever present itself first. In turn, this would probably have the CAG order to refrain from "Random Missile Assault" or "Multiple Lock-On"... whatever you call it at your table.

The missile isn’t the one selecting targets, the FCS is (via the pilot’s direction)... you don’t have this issue because as long as the friendlies are broadcasting a correct IFF code, the FCS won’t include them in the list of potential targets. (Or, since the FCS is capable of using other means besides IFF to identify potential targets, all that has to be done is to exclude certain patterns in the FCS from target prioritization.)

Why does this random barrage defy the show? Because we clearly see many instances where multiple targets were locked onto and engaged simultaneously with deliberate care… not just a random spray of fire. We see these missiles independently tracking separate targets at the same time… targets which are not necessarily flying in close formation.

Seto Kaiba wrote:If it’s only part of the spaceship combat rules, it only applies to spaceships unless houserule’d otherwise.

Well, you all seems so convinced, I won't try to push it. (... Further than this post. You still have a Beta to refine.) Without a confirmation from palladium staff or the right to post direct quotes, the house-rule judgment is no different that a character witness and its subjective interpretation of the editing. In the end, it is the rule we have. It is sad though, that these rules didn't got to be seen outside of a limited edition release. They definitely not just deal with the spaceship part of "space" battles. And the "Random Missile Assault" is not limited to space either, by text or meaning.
In fact, the logic behind these rules (the whole chapter) are probably the only insight they ever gave on how to manage the amazing distances and speed that you eventually end up with playing aerospacecraft of any kind, or size.
That and large scale fighting of any kind, even if its just about numbers.
As such, it is rather an essential tool for the whole game to be playable.

Seto Kaiba wrote:I don’t think so… because the rules-as-written for combat in general essentially restrict combat to one-on-one regardless of the weapon being used.

The targeting computer section of the Onboard Computer System item just identifies how many objects the radar can identify and track at one time in TWS mode. The number of targets it can track in ACM or AGM modes is going to be lower because the scan priority is different, and the number of targets that a lock and firing solution can be maintained for are going to be lower still.

Yeah, that is a thing with the choice they made to explain the introduction to combat section as an example fight. But the part where the initiative is rolled only once, then maintained, but can be lost (to the bottom of the list)... wouldn't really make sense in a 1 Vs 1 environment. So... This isn't probably what you meant. Especially when the W.P. Paired Weapons also lets you attack and / or parry multiple adversaries. True though, that each attack is generally ruled up close and personal as a relation between the weapon and the defence used. Which doesn't mean that some actions can't be a succession of these little inserts.

As for the Radar, it is generally separated and sometime greater than the computer target tracking, yes. You pointing this relation (and explanation of missile mechanics), however, brings me to a maximum of "X" signatures than can be registered by a missile before firing a "Random Missile Assault". That given number would indeed be below the aforementioned Radar and Computer Tracking capacity. So... Despite being obscurely phrased, it would definitely serve the same purpose as a "lock limit".
And it would still be above the numbers eluded to from the anime. (More than a dozen.) Serving the purpose wonderfully.
(Where "X" = censorship of the number prohibited from being quoted? How far does this "no stats allowed" go?)

Seto Kaiba wrote:Eh, not really… most missiles in Robotech are using active radar guidance, so as long as the ship firing is firing in the vicinity of radar-reflective objects is start homing in on the nearest object that isn’t broadcasting a correct IFF code. The missile don’t need to be able to identify what a moving object is, just whether or not it’s a friendly.

This strikes a sharp contrast to what we see mecha doing in the animation, which is deliberately locking onto and engaging multiple specific targets simultaneously. The difference is between a command to “saturate that area with fire and hope we hit something” vs. “see that guy, that guy, and that guy? Wreck their sh*t”.

[...]

No, the aiming is done by the pilot in cooperation with the FCS. The pilot tells the FCS what he wants to kill, and the FCS feeds the relevant data to the missile’s seeker head and any relevant additional guidance systems (e.g. a missile guidance radar or guide laser oscillator) to direct its course to the target. The missile is never in the driver’s seat here. It just does what it’s told by the FCS prior to launch and/or by the guide beam it’s following (in the event that it’s semi-active homing).

[...]

That would be why HUDs display helpful things like range data for individual targets… this ain’t sci-fi tech, we’ve had this sh*t since the 1960s.

We see far too many instances of specific targets being selected for it to be “whomever’s closest”... especially since an exploding enemy aircraft or mecha doesn’t stop being radar-reflective, it actually gets MORE radar-reflective, so if they worked on the logic you’re describing it would be impossible to engage more than one target at a time because all the missiles would keep tracking the first thing they hit until the wreckage dissipated enough to no longer present a significant return.

Acknowledged. My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. (I shouldn't have checked so hastily for that part.) It's not always explained to the fullest, but the Alpha and VF-1 respectively incline towards this version of the truth. However, the missile registering a limited amount of signatures before firing does also follow that logic of "pointing these guys".
As for exploding objects... I would guess the missiles would be all programmed to recognize such a specific signature change. At least the "guided" ones.
It does seem like the first thing you would want to exclude from the firing solution index. The group tracking of "Volleys" in the rules, however, does imply that it isn't always sufficient. There is cases where a whole missile volley will miss or explode as one.

Seto Kaiba wrote:This is kind of another place where Palladium’s rules don’t really line up with the show… or real-world terminology. In the real world, an unguided missile is called a rocket. What makes a rocket a missile is the inclusion of a guidance system.

Mind you, Palladium’s definition of “unguided” seems to encompass every guidance technology in the semi-active category (radar, laser, etc.) that isn’t an ECCM-equipped fire-and-forget active radar seeker or passive infrared seeker… those get lumped under “smart” missiles. One of the few things Palladium got right in their Macross II RPG was to admit that most missiles in the animation are actually “smart” missiles.

There is no argument countering the fact that the Palladium lingo lives in a world of its own. But then again, most games indulge in this one way or another. (Though arguably not as much.) In the end, it remains the language we have to use for arbitration, however tempting it is to house-rule. I'm assuming these choices were made in order to keep things clear and separate, but then again, I'm assuming this in the face of often pretty poor phrasing / organization of ideas; that sends one scrounging from one book to the next for the definite quote that will explain it clearly. Their will to save space in order to cram more mecha in and have the rules on as few pages as possible is admirable, but most often than not result in a certain barrier / challenge to comprehension.
Or a free add-on puzzle. Depending on your mood that day.

What you are pointing here as the Macross II variant of the rules does seem, however, to have survived into the 2[sup]nd[/sup] ed of Robotech. In fact, it is confirming the doubt that made me overcomplexify my prior argument, in order to avoid misquoting them. Which backfired (un)gloriously.
The only real difference given between guided and unguided missiles seems to be the mention of a strike / dodge bonus.
Meaning that if no bonus is present, the missile would be "Unguided"... Which doesn't prevent the same text from saying that all missiles have a way to "lock-on" target... being optical, thermal, radio, or laser. (Quoting from memory for the sensor types.)
Thus, if we are to take for account the will of Palladium to produce "retro-compatible products only", as authorial intent at least, one would be left to assume that "Guided" is not at all used in the real-world meaning, but only as a game term. With this out of the way, the whole game indeed makes a lot more sense.
I might be taking it too far by applying this to "Random", but re-reading the description given... the terms hardly apply to anything else but the exact number of missiles eventually ending up on the respective targets.

However, in here, instead of stating all missiles as "smart", they states all missiles are "dumb". Which is probably only a subjective way to describe machine intelligence in opposition to heuristic and organic intelligence. But I digress. Thanks also for pointing this out. I'm sure it'll come in handy later.
Though it rather supports my claim that the "Random Missile Assault" is the game phrasing equivalent to what was claimed here as missing.
With the proverbial "game balance" probably being in the way of letting the players pinpoint adversaries as precisely as they wishes.
Which does contradict real life systems, yes, and most evidently the tastes of some here, but not terribly so the animation.
Most multiple locks are done against on-screen targets that stand "close" (as in the same field of view) together.
If another kind is used for Robotech, it sadly escapes my memory at the moment.
As far as I can tell, there is not much difference between "I selected these guys and they are all dead", or "I sent missiles against that precise bunch and they are all dead" in an animated scene.

Seto Kaiba wrote:Why does this random barrage defy the show? Because we clearly see many instances where multiple targets were locked onto and engaged simultaneously with deliberate care… not just a random spray of fire. We see these missiles independently tracking separate targets at the same time… targets which are not necessarily flying in close formation.

If you have a clear example you can quote, I'll be happy to go back and carefully look it up. I must admit I did not freeze frame the whole show in order to form my comprehension of it. If I am indeed mistaken about "selecting targets carefully" in that context... Then sorry for the inconvenience.
I was going with the overall assumption of mechas blooming in flowers of missile exhaust, then all missiles zigzagging towards more or less charging targets.
Is there any? A shot of a character programming his multi-target lock? Better yet, taking the time to choose the exact number of missiles to hit each?
And then the missiles evading enemy targets in order to plunge toward the selected ones?

xunk16 wrote:It is sad though, that these rules didn't got to be seen outside of a limited edition release.

Oh, they did… it just took a number of additional books, since ships weren’t introduced into the regular RPG lineup until like the New Generation sourcebook. (The same approach was taken with previous licensed game lines, like Macross II deferring spaceship combat rules until a dedicated spaceships book was penned.)

xunk16 wrote:They definitely not just deal with the spaceship part of "space" battles. And the "Random Missile Assault" is not limited to space either, by text or meaning.
In fact, the logic behind these rules (the whole chapter) are probably the only insight they ever gave on how to manage the amazing distances and speed that you eventually end up with playing aerospacecraft of any kind, or size.

The rules are for ship-to-ship combat, even if they do also address ships firing on mecha and so on. It’s natural they wouldn’t be limited to space operations, since ships in the three original TV shows (and thus, Robotech) are perfectly capable of atmospheric flight thanks to raw thrust or manipulation of gravity.

xunk16 wrote:Yeah, that is a thing with the choice they made to explain the introduction to combat section as an example fight. But the part where the initiative is rolled only once, then maintained, but can be lost (to the bottom of the list)... wouldn't really make sense in a 1 Vs 1 environment. So... This isn't probably what you meant. Especially when the W.P. Paired Weapons also lets you attack and / or parry multiple adversaries.

Eh… the combat rules really are generally structured for one-on-one combat, be it on foot or in a giant robot. W.P. Paired Weapons does enable you to attack or defend against two opponents at once but it’s explicitly only applicable to hand-to-hand combat (on foot). The text is pretty clear it was meant for sharp or blunt hand-to-hand weapons (swords, knives, clubs, etc.) and that using that for handguns comes with a significant penalty for both hands and that it can’t be used with a two-handed weapon or vehicle-mounted weapons. You can’t use it in a mecha. You can smack two people with golf clubs, or fire two handguns (badly), but you can’t shoot at two targets in one attack with an airplane, tank, or robot.

xunk16 wrote:(Where "X" = censorship of the number prohibited from being quoted? How far does this "no stats allowed" go?)

Mostly, they just don’t want us quoting chapter and verse from books… the mods don’t seem to have any real problem with citing specific figures for comparison’s sake as long as it serves the purposes of discussion. Basically, use the minimum necessary amount.

xunk16 wrote:Acknowledged. My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. (I shouldn't have checked so hastily for that part.) It's not always explained to the fullest, but the Alpha and VF-1 respectively incline towards this version of the truth. However, the missile registering a limited amount of signatures before firing does also follow that logic of "pointing these guys".

That’s not really on the missile, TBH. That’s on the FCS, the sensors feeding it information, and the availability of any involved outside guidance mechanisms. As long as the radar, cameras, or other sensors and the FCS were up to the task, you could theoretically fire every missile on any given fighter at a separate target if you were within range of that many targets. The bottleneck comes from the FCS’s ability to work with the sensors to compute firing solutions with enough precision for the missile to lock onto and track the target and (for semi-active guidance) the key hardware to project the guidance beam (which most aircraft usually only have 1-2 of).

xunk16 wrote:As for exploding objects... I would guess the missiles would be all programmed to recognize such a specific signature change. At least the "guided" ones.

If it were that easy, chaff countermeasures wouldn’t be a thing… that’s literally the weakness in radar guidance that chaff exploits. By scattering radar-reflective metallic shavings around, they trick a radar guided missile into thinking the radar return from that cloud of metallic debris is the target aircraft and detonating prematurely.

xunk16 wrote:There is cases where a whole missile volley will miss or explode as one.

Which, when you think about it,is the most unrealistic thing of all… there’s the old joke that the military calls them missiles instead of hitiles for a reason.

xunk16 wrote:The only real difference given between guided and unguided missiles seems to be the mention of a strike / dodge bonus.

Which is a fair reflection of what’d happen if a semi-active guided missile misses vs. one with an active radar or passive infrared seeker, which could re-acquire the target or, as has happened in several noteworthy accidents, accidentally acquire a new target (that isn’t necessarily hostile)... a very real danger of using passive infrared missiles in dogfights.

xunk16 wrote:If you have a clear example you can quote, I'll be happy to go back and carefully look it up. I must admit I did not freeze frame the whole show in order to form my comprehension of it. If I am indeed mistaken about "selecting targets carefully" in that context... Then sorry for the inconvenience.

[/quote]
There are a few good examples in the TV series I can dig up, the best (or most blatant) cases I could name come from Macross’s sequels though… including ones where the actual aiming and target designation mechanism is shown in operation in great detail.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:Why? The Alpha CAN fire all its missiles at once, but it usually doesn't.

Technically even the Alpha never fires all of its missiles at once. The Alpha-H/I/Z is equipped with (2E RPG named systems) the MM-60 AND MMDS-8, they never fire together. IINM the VF-1 FAST Packs don't actually fire together with the wing stations either. IIRC even the Invid Battloid is similarly restricted.

The Alpha's body missiles are multi-purpose attack weapons; the ones in the head are for point defense. They have no reason to fire together. The Armored Veritech Valkyrie's small missiles are antiaircraft weapons; its underwing missiles nuclear-level anti-ship weapons. They have no reason to fire together. Both the Beta's missile bays are anti-mecha weapons.
And it doesn't matter what names Siembieda gave the launchers.

ShadowLogan wrote:The show's creators might have felt it would be an obvious restriction.

How is it obvious? And why would the show's creators care?

ShadowLogan wrote:So the rules restrictions aren't without precedent, and when you can fire different systems together it is noted (ex. Glaug Weapon arms).

The RPG rules are nonsense; they claim missiles are unguided, for example. I wouldn't point to them as evidence of anything.

ESalter wrote:The Alpha's body missiles are multi-purpose attack weapons; the ones in the head are for point defense. They have no reason to fire together. The Armored Veritech Valkyrie's small missiles are antiaircraft weapons; its underwing missiles nuclear-level anti-ship weapons. They have no reason to fire together. Both the Beta's missile bays are anti-mecha weapons.

The VF-1's wings can carry other missile configurations theoretically, they aren't limited to anti-ship missiles.

So what if the Beta systems have the same purpose, the guns on the Beta (and even Alpha) have the same purpose but they can't fire together (the Beta isn't the best case here, but the Alpha is better). It would be reasonable to only be able to fire one weapon system at a time. The only time I could see a Beta fire both systems if it had an occupied secondary operator station (which it doesn't have), but that would be considered a separate attack.

ESalter wrote:And it doesn't matter what names Siembieda gave the launchers.

To an extent no, but it does help clarify that they are separate and distinct and certainly beats out a lengthy description such as used in the RT.com Infopedia.

ESalter wrote:How is it obvious? And why would the show's creators care?

Well it would be obvious when you consider not once did someone do this with a Beta (fire the MM-16/MM-20) or even bring up the issue via dialogue (either GCM or RT:NG).

GCM Show's Creators would likely say one of the missile systems is an AE. RT's...

ESalter wrote:The RPG rules are nonsense; they claim missiles are unguided, for example. I wouldn't point to them as evidence of anything.

In 2E yes, that is a C&P issue from RUE, though the reality is that "guided" vs "unguided" comes across as reference to autonomous guidance for the missile in a RT sense. If the Alpha's MM-60 Missiles DO NOT have some form of guidance be it off-board (via Alpha) or on-board (via self guidance) then they could not fire and track properly to the same target as the various launch locations are pointing every which way, and they aren't said to be guided.

Megaversally in 1E RT and Macross 2 (and a few other lines) non-mini missiles are guided by default (and Mini's in Mac2 are guided), and they also have such restrictions in place to.

Proposal:

First I think it should be assumed all missiles in robotech are guided one way off another. That said:

Multi-lock missile attack

Must make a weapon systems skill check at -5% per additional target beyond the first. IE 4 targets is a -15% penalty

Must fire an equal number of missiles at each target. IE 4 targets would require 4, 8, 12 etc missiles to be fired.

If skill check us successful, you make a single attack roll to hit all locked targets. Targets all use this roll for their defensive actions as necessary.

If the skill check fails you lose your action as you were unable to achieve a lock to fire

ShadowLogan wrote:The VF-1's wings can carry other missile configurations theoretically, they aren't limited to anti-ship missiles.

... and how! The VF-1 is one of very few aircraft in the RT2E RPG that can take every category of aircraft-mountable bomb and missile.

There are too many possible configurations of ordnance, OSMly, to count thanks to the VF-1's long service life... every possible flavor of munitions from dumb bombs to laser and TV guided bombs to every flavor of missile under the sun.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:How is it obvious? And why would the show's creators care?

GCM Show's Creators would likely say one of the missile systems is an AE.

This.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:The RPG rules are nonsense; they claim missiles are unguided, for example. I wouldn't point to them as evidence of anything.

In 2E yes, that is a C&P issue from RUE, though the reality is that "guided" vs "unguided" comes across as reference to autonomous guidance for the missile in a RT sense. If the Alpha's MM-60 Missiles DO NOT have some form of guidance be it off-board (via Alpha) or on-board (via self guidance) then they could not fire and track properly to the same target as the various launch locations are pointing every which way, and they aren't said to be guided.

Megaversally in 1E RT and Macross 2 (and a few other lines) non-mini missiles are guided by default (and Mini's in Mac2 are guided), and they also have such restrictions in place to.

Precisely... basically a more succinct version of the previously posted explanation rehashing the issue.

jaymz wrote:First I think it should be assumed all missiles in robotech are guided one way off another.

That's not really something that needs to be assumed... an unguided missile is called a rocket.

(Never mind the various cases we can clearly point to of almost every missile used having some kind of evident homing capability.)

jaymz wrote:Multi-lock missile attack

Must make a weapon systems skill check at -5% per additional target beyond the first. IE 4 targets is a -15% penalty

Must fire an equal number of missiles at each target. IE 4 targets would require 4, 8, 12 etc missiles to be fired.

If skill check us successful, you make a single attack roll to hit all locked targets. Targets all use this roll for their defensive actions as necessary.

If the skill check fails you lose your action as you were unable to achieve a lock to fire

Not an untenable idea for Robotech, I suppose.

I wouldn't apply it to a Macross setting game, since VFs therein use an eye-tracking pointing system and the integrated airframe control AI to designate targets for the FCS to lock onto and fire on... locking onto a target in that setting is as simple as looking at it.

And what about beyond visual? Perhaps this could mimic beyond visual and I'll cook up something else to equate to what you are describing?

(Not meaning to thread Jack just seemed tangentially pertinent to the firing of missiles above)

jaymz wrote:Proposal:

First I think it should be assumed all missiles in robotech are guided one way off another. That said:

Multi-lock missile attack

Must make a weapon systems skill check at -5% per additional target beyond the first. IE 4 targets is a -15% penalty

Must fire an equal number of missiles at each target. IE 4 targets would require 4, 8, 12 etc missiles to be fired.

If skill check us successful, you make a single attack roll to hit all locked targets. Targets all use this roll for their defensive actions as necessary.

If the skill check fails you lose your action as you were unable to achieve a lock to fire

The only suggestion I have would be to have it consume an extra 1 or 2 action(s) as this is somewhat the equivalent of taking an "Aimed Shot" or "Called Shot" when using guns since you are taking the time to line up your shot so to speak.

I'm not sure on making it cost more actions since if you fail the skill check you lose the chance to attack entirely.....that said I've done a more refined thing. I'll pm you to keep from sidetracking the thread.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:The Alpha's body missiles are multi-purpose attack weapons; the ones in the head are for point defense. They have no reason to fire together. The Armored Veritech Valkyrie's small missiles are antiaircraft weapons; its underwing missiles nuclear-level anti-ship weapons. They have no reason to fire together. Both the Beta's missile bays are anti-mecha weapons.

The VF-1's wings can carry other missile configurations theoretically, they aren't limited to anti-ship missiles.

What does the Valkyrie's ability to carry other ordinance have to do with the Beta's missile bays?

ShadowLogan wrote:So what if the Beta systems have the same purpose, the guns on the Beta (and even Alpha) have the same purpose but they can't fire together (the Beta isn't the best case here, but the Alpha is better).

I don't understand what you're writing about here.

• The Alpha (basically) has only one gun.
• The Beta has two sets of guns, but they're for two separate modes; physically, they CAN'T fire together.

ShadowLogan wrote:It would be reasonable to only be able to fire one weapon system at a time. The only time I could see a Beta fire both systems if it had an occupied secondary operator station (which it doesn't have), but that would be considered a separate attack.

You're begging the question. You're

• calling the Beta's missile bays two separate systems
• and saying that firing each is a separate attack.

Neither of these things is true.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:And it doesn't matter what names Siembieda gave the launchers.

To an extent no, but it does help clarify that they are separate and distinct and certainly beats out a lengthy description such as used in the RT.com Infopedia.

No, it doesn't, since they aren't "separate and distinct."

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:How is it obvious? And why would the show's creators care?

Well it would be obvious when you consider not once did someone do this with a Beta (fire the MM-16/MM-20)...

Why, in the particular scenes in question, should they fire both types of missiles at once? After all, the Alpha doesn't fire every missile every time it fires a missile.

ShadowLogan wrote:...or even bring up the issue via dialogue (either GCM or RT:NG).

That's my point...I'm sort of wondering what you think was going on here. Do you imagine the designer telling the animators, "Be sure never to show the upper and lower missile bays firing together"? And then not including this fact in the show or the artbooks? Why?

ShadowLogan wrote:GCM Show's Creators would likely say one of the missile systems is an AE. RT's...

I don't know what this means. What's an "AE"?

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:The RPG rules are nonsense; they claim missiles are unguided, for example. I wouldn't point to them as evidence of anything.

In 2E yes, that is a C&P issue from RUE, though the reality is that "guided" vs "unguided" comes across as reference to autonomous guidance for the missile in a RT sense. If the Alpha's MM-60 Missiles DO NOT have some form of guidance be it off-board (via Alpha) or on-board (via self guidance) then they could not fire and track properly to the same target as the various launch locations are pointing every which way, and they aren't said to be guided.

Megaversally in 1E RT and Macross 2 (and a few other lines) non-mini missiles are guided by default (and Mini's in Mac2 are guided), and they also have such restrictions in place to.

I wrote that the Robotech RPG is inaccurate, and you responded with a discursion on Palladium missiles rules. How does that relate to my statement?

ESalter wrote:What does the Valkyrie's ability to carry other ordinance have to do with the Beta's missile bays?

If a VF-1 w/FAST Packs can not fire its wing missiles with the FAST Pack missiles, even when configured to carry missiles for the same purpose, then it stands to reason the Beta would similarly be limited. Just because the MM-16 and MM-20 have the same purpose, does not mean they can fire together. In fact there is more to indicate they can not fire together than they can fire together.

ESalter wrote:I don't understand what you're writing about here.

The Alpha (basically) has only one gun.
The Beta has two sets of guns, but they're for two separate modes; physically, they CAN'T fire together.

The Alpha has 2 sets of guns, jet lasers and the gunpod.

Re: the Beta. That is my point, they Beta has 5 guns, but they can't all fire together. If you have weapons designed for the same purpose that can't fire together here, why should I think that the MM-16/MM-20 is any different? None of the other multi-missile systems can fire together without it being stated.

ESalter wrote:You're begging the question. You're

calling the Beta's missile bays two separate systems
and saying that firing each is a separate attack.

Neither of these things is true.

OFFICIALLY the Beta does have two separate systems, the only place they are considered one system is at the <b><u>UNOFFICIAL</b></u> ROBOTECH REFERNCE GUIDE (and fansites using them as a reference).

RT.com's Infopedia and Art of the Shadow Chronicles and the 2E RPG all list 2 different missile system, and these had input from HG:
-x2 MM-20 chest missile launchers firing 190mm size missiles each holding x10 with one set of reloads (total capacity 40)
-x2 MM-16 shoulder missile launchers firing 340mm size missiles each holding x8

The Chest Launchers (MM-20) are an animation error by all indications on known OSM data (OSM weapons loadouts I've seen only list 48 air to air missiles with no size breakdown, and I have yet to see LINEART for the flip-down chest launchers). Robotech's total standard missile supply is 56 missiles vs the OSM's 48 missiles in the same configuration (none in the bomb/cargo bay, none on the wings, and not counting the "laser bomb launcher"). The uRRG in their additional notes states the existence of the chest/shoulder launchers is based on the animation. THEY lumped the two different firing missiles together in a single system (BIMMS), but HG officially has not given any indication they are part of the same system (nor does the 2E RPG) and by all indications they are 2 separate systems.

ESalter wrote: don't know what this means. What's an "AE"?

AE = Animation Error.

Animation errors happen when something is depicted incorrectly.

ESalter wrote:What does the Valkyrie's ability to carry other ordinance have to do with the Beta's missile bays?

He was pointing out a false assumption in your argument.

You stated that the VF-1's underwing missiles are nuclear-level anti-ship weapons... but the VF-1 can carry multiple types of ordnance on those pylons including missiles of the same type as the small missiles used in the Super and Armored Packs (by the RPG's standards, anyway).

ESalter wrote:You're begging the question. You're

• calling the Beta's missile bays two separate systems
• and saying that firing each is a separate attack.

Neither of these things is true.

The Beta's two sets of launchers in RT ARE separate systems though.

ESalter wrote:No, it doesn't, since they aren't "separate and distinct."

Officially, they are.

ESalter wrote:Why, in the particular scenes in question, should they fire both types of missiles at once? After all, the Alpha doesn't fire every missile every time it fires a missile.

Well, they wouldn't regardless because that second set of launchers isn't supposed to be there... so the subject never would've come up anyway.

ESalter wrote:That's my point...I'm sort of wondering what you think was going on here. Do you imagine the designer telling the animators, "Be sure never to show the upper and lower missile bays firing together"? And then not including this fact in the show or the artbooks? Why?

... that's literally what animation model sheets are FOR. That's how the designers communicate to the animators what bits of a design do what, how they move, why they move, and so on.

So, yes... it can be clearly demonstrated that the designers communicate this kind of thing to the animators. There are marginal notes ALL OVER the animation model sheets for almost every design in Macross and MOSPEADA. The key designs are done in so much detail that the functions of almost every button and switch are identified. (With some entertaining in-jokes hidden here and there, particularly in Macross... (my personal favorite is the computer that controls the VF-1's thermonuclear reactor is magic. Literally M.A.G.I.C., the Matrix of Gravity and Inertia Control.)

Mind you, the designers wouldn't have needed to communicate anything about the "lower missile bays" in question because they are not part of the actual design. They're an animation error in the original Genesis Climber MOSPEADA. The spec for the AB-01 TLEAD as provided on its animation model sheets are as follows:

AB-01 TLEAD = TRANSPORT LEGIOSS ESCORT ARMORED DREADNOUGHT
Armo-Bomber Mode
Total Length: 8.72m
Total Wingspan: 18.36m
Total Height: 3.7m
Maximum Speed: Mach 2.8 @ 18,000m

Armo-Soldier Mode
Total Height: 10.5m
Total Width: 7.48m
Maximum Speed: 210km/h

Engines: Main Engine AB-S-101 (2,040shp) x 2; Sub-Engine ATF-404 (1,800kgf) x 1
Armaments:

• 3x 30mm Vulcan cannon
• 2x 3 barrel rapid-fire laser cannon (arms)
• 48x air-to-air missile (internal) in 2 dorsal pop-up launchers (4W x 2H x 3D layout)
• 2x 3 barrel laser bomb launcher (dorsal)
• 72 internally-carried napalm bombs

Weight: 26,400kg
Crew: Pilot only

Note that nowhere on that list will you find the "chest" launchers... they were not part of Shinji Arimaki's design for the TLEAD, and there is no art of them in the show's animation model sheets.

The wing pylons are similarly absent. They were present in one piece of developmental art for the TLEAD, but were removed from the final design.

ESalter wrote:I don't know what this means. What's an "AE"?

Animation Error.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:What does the Valkyrie's ability to carry other ordinance have to do with the Beta's missile bays?

If a VF-1 w/FAST Packs can not fire its wing missiles with the FAST Pack missiles, even when configured to carry missiles for the same purpose, then it stands to reason the Beta would similarly be limited. Just because the MM-16 and MM-20 have the same purpose, does not mean they can fire together. In fact there is more to indicate they can not fire together than they can fire together.

We never see an Armored Veritech Valkyrie with anti-aircraft missiles under its wings; they only carry anti-ship missiles.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:I don't understand what you're writing about here.

The Alpha (basically) has only one gun.
The Beta has two sets of guns, but they're for two separate modes; physically, they CAN'T fire together.

The Alpha has 2 sets of guns, jet lasers and the gunpod.

I suspect the nose lasers are a production error; I'd be cautious in using them to explain in-universe facts.

ShadowLogan wrote:Re: the Beta. That is my point, they Beta has 5 guns, but they can't all fire together. If you have weapons designed for the same purpose that can't fire together here, why should I think that the MM-16/MM-20 is any different? None of the other multi-missile systems can fire together without it being stated.

The Beta guns are physically unable to fire together because they are literally pointed in different directions. Do you really think they're a good model for a pair of adjacent missile launchers?

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:You're begging the question. You're

calling the Beta's missile bays two separate systems
and saying that firing each is a separate attack.

Neither of these things is true.

OFFICIALLY the Beta does have two separate systems, the only place they are considered one system is at the <b><u>UNOFFICIAL</b></u> ROBOTECH REFERNCE GUIDE (and fansites using them as a reference).

RT.com's Infopedia and Art of the Shadow Chronicles and the 2E RPG all list 2 different missile system, and these had input from HG:
-x2 MM-20 chest missile launchers firing 190mm size missiles each holding x10 with one set of reloads (total capacity 40)
-x2 MM-16 shoulder missile launchers firing 340mm size missiles each holding x8

You're begging the question. Neither the website nor the art book say the two types of missile can't fire together. You're mistaking your personal word choice ("separate systems") for an argument.

ShadowLogan wrote:The Chest Launchers (MM-20) are an animation error by all indications on known OSM data (OSM weapons loadouts I've seen only list 48 air to air missiles with no size breakdown, and I have yet to see LINEART for the flip-down chest launchers).

So, you're saying I can't use designer intent as an argument since the designer didn't intend it? Fair enough, but I still wonder why, absent designer intent, you would imagine the two missile bays would be unable to fire together.

ShadowLogan wrote:...HG officially has not given any indication they are part of the same system (nor does the 2E RPG) and by all indications they are 2 separate systems.

Again, you're mistaking your word choice for an argument. The online "Mecha Database" doesn't say the two missiles can't fire together; that's something YOU wrote. In other words,

• You call the different missiles "separate systems."
• You define "separate systems" as being unable to fire together.
• You imagine the Mecha Database says the missiles can't fire together.

Put another way, you're mistaking your personal definitions for an argument.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote: don't know what this means. What's an "AE"?

AE = Animation Error.

Thank you, now I get it.

ESalter wrote:We never see an Armored Veritech Valkyrie with anti-aircraft missiles under its wings; they only carry anti-ship missiles.

1. You’re mixing up your terms here… when equipped with the Armored Pack, the VF-1 doesn’t typically carry anything on its wing pylons because the wings are folded underneath the Armored Packs and any munitions hung there would be inaccessible.
   
2. When equipped with the FAST Pack (AKA “Super Pack”) the wings are free and any kind of pylon-mounted weaponry can be used. This is true both for the RPG and the animation itself. Just because anti-ship missiles are the weapon typically mounted doesn’t mean they’re the only choice.

In fact, there’s plenty of art showing the VF-1 mounting other weaponry on its pylons when the Super Pack is fitted, and the Japanese production materials that Robotech draws on for its factual information make no bones about the VF-1 being able to take any combination of weaponry on its pylons as long as the pylons are unobstructed.

ESalter wrote:I suspect the nose lasers are a production error; I'd be cautious in using them to explain in-universe facts.

I appreciate quality irony, and it seldom comes much finer than this.

You’re arguing that something you suspect is a production error should not be considered… while clinging to something OBJECTIVELY KNOWN TO BE A PRODUCTION ERROR as though it were unquestionable gospel truth.

For the record, you’ll find the nose lasers on the official Robotech spec for the Alpha and the RPG’s spec, same as you would the missile launchers you’re on about.

Whether the nose lasers are OSM-ly a thing is unclear (because they’re not on the spec but they ARE in the storyboards), but the “chest” missile launchers on the TLEAD/Beta are identified by MOSPEADA's creators as an animation error.

ESalter wrote:You're begging the question. Neither the website nor the art book say the two types of missile can't fire together. You're mistaking your personal word choice ("separate systems") for an argument.

It’s not really his personal choice of words, the official Robotech spec does identify them as separate launchers… meaning they are separate systems.

The RPG follows suit and considers them separate weapons systems (weapons systems 3 and 4 in the Beta stats), which does - by the RPG’s rules - mean they have to fire separately.

(It’s not really an issue in an accurately-specc’d TLEAD, where all 48 missiles are located in the dorsally-mounted pop-out launchers and there are no chest launchers.)

ESalter wrote:Fair enough, but I still wonder why, absent designer intent, you would imagine the two missile bays would be unable to fire together.

Generally, on a military aircraft, it’s not possible to fire two different types of missile at once due to guidance system limitations… the pilot would have to fire one, switch weapons systems, and fire the second in quick succession. Common practice during the Cold War was to fire a SARH missile and quickly follow up with an infrared seeking missile for a guaranteed kill either as a one-two punch or insurance in case one or the other missed. It required the pilot to switch the active armament because, even though those missiles were hung cheek-by-jowl on the pylons together, they were separate weapons systems.

So it is clear SARH - Semi Active Radar Homing.

As for the rest....I see crap ton of information and proof they are separate and one person arguing "NUH-UH!" with virtually nothing to back it up......

Seto to me is the most knowledgeable when it comes to macross and to a slightly lesser degree robotech just due the sheer amount of official canon published materials the man owns (i still need to pick his brain on a few minor thigns to adjust my rewrites of robotech and macross mecha)

Shadow is likely the closest to Seto in Robotech knowledge due to his exhaustive research to make things more clear and precise technically.

between the two of them if there is an answer, let alone if they actually agree, then be sure it is the right one.

@Seto
Technically per RT Dialogue in EP24 the VF-1 with Fast Packs (aka VF-1 Super) IS referred to as the "Armored Veritech", so it can be used synonymously. It's just very uncommon to encounter it.

@ESalter

ESalter wrote:We never see an Armored Veritech Valkyrie with anti-aircraft missiles under its wings; they only carry anti-ship missiles.

By either edition of the PB RPG the Armored Veritech can carry either on its wings in said configuration. The Infoepdia doesn't address the Armored Veritech configuration, but we know it can use anti-ship missiles w/o it

ESalter wrote:I suspect the nose lasers are a production error; I'd be cautious in using them to explain in-universe facts.

They are considered official for RT (infopedia) and the discontinued 2E PG RPG. You can see them in the END credits (around the 20-23sec zone) being fired by an Alpha in all 85episodes (TV Broadcast version). Their use in the animation was "cut" from IINM Ep83 (its in GCM version of the episode, I know it was cut from Legacy/TV-broadcast version and I am not sure if it was restored or not in the Remastered version).

ESalter wrote:The Beta guns are physically unable to fire together because they are literally pointed in different directions. Do you really think they're a good model for a pair of adjacent missile launchers?

The Beta Arms can reposition themselves to some degree to fire in the line art and it would not be a stretch to give them a wider arc (given its the same joint for battloid mode it would be possible to rotate them 180deg):
-there is the artwork depicting the Beta's wing hardpoints that has the wing/forearm rotated. You can find it at Gearsonline (combo-01 and combo-02), the uRRG even has it under the additional Alpha images (a cut down version of the image appears in the Beta entry, but you can't tell the assembly is rotated).
-there is lineart showing the combiner stack doing a braking maneuver, the forearm/wings rotated like a Tilt-Wing aircraft and the Beta legs are deployed forward (gearsonline combo-05, also found in the 1E Ref Field Guide pg28).

ESalter wrote: but I still wonder why, absent designer intent, you would imagine the two missile bays would be unable to fire together.

Nothing in the animation, the Infopedia (official/cannon), the Art of the Shadow Chronicles, or 2E RPG indicates the MM-16 and MM-20 can fire together. There is no statement or depiction of them firing together, meaning they can not. Any statement that says they can fire together is pure speculation at this point.

ESalter wrote:You call the different missiles "separate systems."

Because they are identified separately in various places that are sanctioned by HG (at one time or another), even by the OSM they are "separate" given one is regarded as an AE. The only place I know of that lumps them as "one system" is the uRRG and even they do not say you can fire the different missile types together using the BIMMS (which I would point out is the uRRG designation, so its not official).

ShadowLogan wrote:@Seto
Technically per RT Dialogue in EP24 the VF-1 with Fast Packs (aka VF-1 Super) IS referred to as the "Armored Veritech", so it can be used synonymously. It's just very uncommon to encounter it.

Did not recall that little detail... for the last ~18 years, Robotech has been using the OSM terms instead, including in the 2E RPG.

Can't imagine why they'd want to call it "Armored" when the pack... isn't.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

ShadowLogan wrote:@Seto
Technically per RT Dialogue in EP24 the VF-1 with Fast Packs (aka VF-1 Super) IS referred to as the "Armored Veritech", so it can be used synonymously. It's just very uncommon to encounter it.

Did not recall that little detail... for the last ~18 years, Robotech has been using the OSM terms instead, including in the 2E RPG.

Can't imagine why they'd want to call it "Armored" when the pack... isn't.

Well it amounts to one line in the episode (via Max in the hangar), it's also called "modified" and "new" by others (Rick & Gloval). Post Ep24 when the add-ons are used I don't recall any special descriptors used, and there aren't a lot of them (EP27 and Ep30).

Maybe "ARMORED" was meant as an acronym, though what/how it breaks down would be anyone's guess even IF it is meant to break down would be anyone's guess.

I would chalk it up to the breakneck speed with which the dialogue was written and put in a similar category as "animation error"

ShadowLogan wrote:Well it amounts to one line in the episode (via Max in the hangar), it's also called "modified" and "new" by others (Rick & Gloval). [...]

Maybe "ARMORED" was meant as an acronym, though what/how it breaks down would be anyone's guess even IF it is meant to break down would be anyone's guess.

No clue how they could've gotten that... Max's line in the original dialog was "They mounted FAST packs?".

Probably best to avoid overthinking it. It's likely just another senseless dialog goof like "a Beta full of missiles".

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:We never see an Armored Veritech Valkyrie with anti-aircraft missiles under its wings; they only carry anti-ship missiles.

By either edition of the PB RPG the Armored Veritech can carry either on its wings in said configuration.

What does that have to do with Beta missile bays?

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:I suspect the nose lasers are a production error; I'd be cautious in using them to explain in-universe facts.

They are considered official for RT (infopedia) and the discontinued 2E PG RPG.

My point is, the show's mecha designer didn't think to himself, "I'm going to give this fighter a gun pod, and also nose guns, and I've got to make really sure they never fire together!"

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:The Beta guns are physically unable to fire together because they are literally pointed in different directions. Do you really think they're a good model for a pair of adjacent missile launchers?

The Beta Arms can reposition themselves to some degree to fire in the line art and it would not be a stretch to give them a wider arc (given its the same joint for battloid mode it would be possible to rotate them 180deg):
-there is the artwork depicting the Beta's wing hardpoints that has the wing/forearm rotated. You can find it at Gearsonline (combo-01 and combo-02), the uRRG even has it under the additional Alpha images (a cut down version of the image appears in the Beta entry, but you can't tell the assembly is rotated).
-there is lineart showing the combiner stack doing a braking maneuver, the forearm/wings rotated like a Tilt-Wing aircraft and the Beta legs are deployed forward (gearsonline combo-05, also found in the 1E Ref Field Guide pg28).

So you're saying that every time the Beta Fighter fires its forward guns it should flip its wings upside-down to fire its rear guns too? Why should it do that? Why should the show depict that?

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote: but I still wonder why, absent designer intent, you would imagine the two missile bays would be unable to fire together.

Nothing in the animation, the Infopedia (official/cannon), the Art of the Shadow Chronicles, or 2E RPG indicates the MM-16 and MM-20 can fire together. There is no statement or depiction of them firing together, meaning they can not. Any statement that says they can fire together is pure speculation at this point.

Why? Why wouldn't they be able to fire together? Robotech mecha fire multiple missile bays all the time. Do you imagine that the man who designed the Tread said, "Be sure the two sets of missile bays never fire together." Why? Do you imagine that the man who wrote the Mecha Database said, "It's important that, for no reason, the two pairs of missile bays can't fire together, but I'm not going to write that fact down." Why?

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:You call the different missiles "separate systems."

Because they are identified separately in various places that are sanctioned by HG (at one time or another), even by the OSM they are "separate" given one is regarded as an AE. The only place I know of that lumps them as "one system" is the uRRG and even they do not say you can fire the different missile types together using the BIMMS (which I would point out is the uRRG designation, so its not official).

You're still using the word "system" like it means something, but it doesn't.
You think the fact that different missiles are listed on different lines (how else would they be listed?) means they're different "systems," and you think "system" means that it doesn't fire at the same time as other "systems," but all these definitions are in your head; they have nothing to do with the writer's intentions. The actual Mecha Database entry says nothing about them being unable to fire together, and of course Robotech mecha fire multiple missile bays all the time.

ESalter wrote:What does that have to do with Beta missile bays?

Are you actually reading his, or anyone else's, replies? This has been explained. Your argument here seems to be built more on denial of the facts and evidence before you than having any kind of a factual basis for your views.

ESalter wrote:My point is, the show's mecha designer didn't think to himself, "I'm going to give this fighter a gun pod, and also nose guns, and I've got to make really sure they never fire together!"
[...]
Why? Why wouldn't they be able to fire together? Robotech mecha fire multiple missile bays all the time. Do you imagine that the man who designed the Tread said, "Be sure the two sets of missile bays never fire together." Why? Do you imagine that the man who wrote the Mecha Database said, "It's important that, for no reason, the two pairs of missile bays can't fire together, but I'm not going to write that fact down." Why?

But it can, in fact, be demonstrated that the show's mechanical designers DID think that sort of thing while designing the mecha.

The designs, and the specifications, created by the show's mechanical designers do account for weapons and other systems being inaccessible in certain modes or under certain circumstances.

To give an example, the AFC-01 Legioss specs by designer Shinji Arimaki cite two different top speeds for the Legioss's Armo-Diver (RT: Guardian) mode to reflect that the Legioss's Armo-Diver mode has different levels of engine thrust available depending on whether or not its arms are deployed. If the arms are deployed, the Legioss's Armo-Diver mode has a top speed of 312km/h. When those arms are stowed, the sub-engines up the available top speed to 680km/h. They also note which launchers are unavailable in Armo-Fighter mode due to being obstructed by the aircraft's body, and at what angles they have to fire to get proper clearance from the airframe for the missile. Macross designers Shoji Kawamori and Kazutaka Miyatake loaded their animation model sheets with very similar notes, diagramming even details as trivial as how the connectors of the pilot's seat lap belt work and how the aircraft's nosewheel hook connects to the catapult shuttle.

Shinji Arimaki wouldn't have had to indicate that multiple missile launchers on the TLEAD can't fire together because the TLEAD he designed ONLY HAS ONE SET OF LAUNCHERS... the ones on top of the aircraft. The ones on the front are an animation error.

ESalter wrote:You're still using the word "system" like it means something, but it doesn't.

It does mean something. It means that the launchers are separate, both physically and in the software layer of the aircraft's Fire Control System.

In reality, military aircraft can generally only fire one missile launcher (or paired launcher) at a time because the FCS only supports one missile system being active at any given time.

ESalter wrote:

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:We never see an Armored Veritech Valkyrie with anti-aircraft missiles under its wings; they only carry anti-ship missiles.

By either edition of the PB RPG the Armored Veritech can carry either on its wings in said configuration.

What does that have to do with Beta missile bays?

Now if I remember correctly, that came in with the idea that different missiles are used for different jobs and won't generally be fired together unless they are kinda equipped to that effect beforehand. Thus, depending on the situation, it could be appropriate to fire the load of the wing hard-points with other missiles; which doesn't mean the plane is built for it.

ESalter wrote:

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:I suspect the nose lasers are a production error; I'd be cautious in using them to explain in-universe facts.

They are considered official for RT (infopedia) and the discontinued 2E PG RPG.

My point is, the show's mecha designer didn't think to himself, "I'm going to give this fighter a gun pod, and also nose guns, and I've got to make really sure they never fire together!"

Cinema is done in different ways in different countries and Anime is no exception. In France, for example, you have what is called a dialogist which job is purposefully to re-write any lines in order for the flow of conversation to seem both more realistic and witty. (In almost all other cultures, the scenarist will actually take care of the dialogues at the same time as scene breakdown and action requirement.)
In anime, you generally have "Mecha Designers" which jobs are to apply as much engineering and architectural skills as possible to convey a sense of realism in the technology proposed. Sometime, this is still limited due to the idea presented being relatively far-fetched, like a plane transforming in mid-flight. But that doesn't prevent the Mecha Designer to have to calculate what kind of power and mechanism would be needed in order for it to work, leading sometime to stuff like that "M.A.G.I.C." joke quoted before by Seto. (Power sources that takes no space at all are a recurring trope in the mecha genre.)
While this is mostly due for the sake of easing the suspension of disbelief, the Mecha Designer usually also has to develop what these kind of potentials could mean in order for the writer to know what kind of scenes would be coherent with the given technologies.
It is also a great help when dealing in little details that should be prioritized when animating complex technologies.

For the Beta, at least in Robotech, the frame was shelved for a long while due to "design problems".
The description of multiple weapons systems being oriented in impractical directions depending on modes seems related to that statement.
The recoil and aerodynamics would also have to be taken into account when planning these, so I guess the thing being already more or less of a brick would limit weapon placement. Such as it is, opening the massive chest launchers while flying into an atmosphere would probably be akin to a certain crash risk.

ESalter wrote:

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:The Beta guns are physically unable to fire together because they are literally pointed in different directions. Do you really think they're a good model for a pair of adjacent missile launchers?

The Beta Arms can reposition themselves to some degree to fire in the line art and it would not be a stretch to give them a wider arc (given its the same joint for battloid mode it would be possible to rotate them 180deg):
-there is the artwork depicting the Beta's wing hardpoints that has the wing/forearm rotated. You can find it at Gearsonline (combo-01 and combo-02), the uRRG even has it under the additional Alpha images (a cut down version of the image appears in the Beta entry, but you can't tell the assembly is rotated).
-there is lineart showing the combiner stack doing a braking maneuver, the forearm/wings rotated like a Tilt-Wing aircraft and the Beta legs are deployed forward (gearsonline combo-05, also found in the 1E Ref Field Guide pg28).

So you're saying that every time the Beta Fighter fires its forward guns it should flip its wings upside-down to fire its rear guns too? Why should it do that? Why should the show depict that?

While the exact line you describe most probably did not happened, the way the targeting computer does work would probably have been a topic of discussion. For example, if the character would need to fire-link two systems in order to fire them in concert, that would probably mean an insert on the pilot pressing some buttons, or flicking some switches, beforehand. Since one of the systems we are speaking of here is in part an "animation error" (most probably a last minute decision from the director and animators to make an attack seem more violent by launching more missiles); such questions would not be addressed directly by the original mech design work.
However, that doesn't make the reminder's of Seto's argument irrelevant.
Especially as to how systems must be engaged and fire separately for ease of command. (And ammo allocation, which is kind of a big deal on a battlefield.)
If you have no idea of the high engineering and deep thought that must go with the designing of a real mecha, then I strongly suggest you check up on MegaBots. They did the relatively incredible thing of creating a real mech... and while their attempt has its flaws, they revealed in their work the difficulties generally ignored about mecha-pilot interfaces.
There is only so much an A.I. can do to assist. Intuitively knowing how many weapon system to use on a given attack is not (yet) one of them. The main problem being that these decisions will affect the combat readiness of a given unit for the reminder of a battle.
Thus the pilot must have an interface somewhere to stay in control. Now considering it could be hard to aim with both the given systems at the same time, or require a very precise stance from the whole mecha, it is doubtful they would be automatically fire-linked. (Since this would automatically lead to the mecha moving into the correct stance for the combined firing solution, and not necessarily at a good moment. At least, if we are speaking of the chest / dorsal + wing combination. Though the same can be said if you were trying to fire the dorsal and the hip bomb bay.)

ESalter wrote:You're still using the word "system" like it means something, but it doesn't.
You think the fact that different missiles are listed on different lines (how else would they be listed?) means they're different "systems," and you think "system" means that it doesn't fire at the same time as other "systems," but all these definitions are in your head; they have nothing to do with the writer's intentions. The actual Mecha Database entry says nothing about them being unable to fire together, and of course Robotech mecha fire multiple missile bays all the time.

Hum... I guess to the contrary it would have all to do with the writer's intention. If they didn't wanted this to be separate, then they would have written a single MMDS with multiple launchers and variable loads. The Alpha's MM-60 is a good example of this.
Different systems means generally different firing solutions before each volleys or shot. (Except when fire-linking.) You could see this as different windows opened at the same time on a computer, each requiring different clicks to operate. (Though of course, battle ergonomics would ask for a more practical selection method.)
In the RPG, that would translate as different actions being spent for each firing cycle.
Technically, the OS could permit to program a routine run of each system at once, but that would restrict the pilot input depending on parameters.

However... This could be mitigated if you are planning on integrating the RRT rules : which technically authorize to fire multiple ranged weapons systems, in the same turn, by spending more actions. (See RRT P.16 - Choose a weapon system.) It has been proposed to use the RRT rules in an RPG situation, by the writers, at least for large scale combat. Since there is no other equivalent to "Command Points" than actions... But then I'll probably be rundown with home-rule accusations for my holistic reading of the rules again.

Now... While I do not subscribe to Seto's philosophy of considering that Robotech doesn't offers some depths to reflect and expand upon, or that the dialogues are more or less random ramblings messed up at the last minute (namely, that bit about the "Armored / FASTpack" confusion could have been a "writer's intent" to show the confusion of the characters constantly adapting to new systems; reinforcing the theme of the Characters in Robotech being imperfect humans trapped inside a greek tragedy "fate" thing - and if it was a mistake, that it still is the effect created) ; this does not negate that in the current situation, his technical approach is very correct. As far as I can tell.

The Gearsonline lineart combo-05 can also be found in the Shadow Chronicle Deluxe Gold Edition at p.78.
However... I'm a bit lost to what we're speaking about now. The 2nd Edition of the RPG list the three protuberance above the fist (and thus at the back end of the plane combo configuration) as the Forearm Pulse Beam Canons.
What does this have to do with missiles? (I'm asking because it's the only part that would be rotated beside the wing itself...)
And why would a pilot want to rotate the arm all the way in order to fire them, while the fighter mode already has two EU-14s that can only be used in that configuration? Plus... There would probably be sensors to calculate the angle into which the arm is; which means they already could be used to fire backwards should a pursuer be there. Interestingly enough, if they are indicated as the primary weapon of the Battloid mode, they are not prohibited from use in other modes such as other weapons. (Though I would probably guess there should be a penalty to fire these while flying...)

I can see how the MM-20 could be blocked by the Alpha being in front of their doors... No matter in which direction they would open. You'd still have to have space for the missiles to get out...
But like the MM-16 MDS... except the aforementioned exception, both can be fired in any modes.
Then there is the bomb bay which can only be fired in fighter mode... (From the hips, I can see how this would be difficult.)
And of course the wing hard-points.

Now given that this is an RPG and that a player could try and modify his Beta to his personal tastes...
And forgetting about the FPBCs...
I don't see why someone couldn't hack / program and re-construct to fill the whole thing with fire-linked missile systems.
The best way to fire these all at the same time (Why would someone ever do that? Overkill hit and run tactics?), would probably be during a breaking manoeuvre, slowing down toward the target in guardian mode. This would require to open the chest doors and dorsal at the same time... then orient the wings hard-points in firing position. (Aren't they already articulated? According to lineart?) Using the bomb bay doors to fire missiles that would have to be side dropped would probably have to mean some adjustment to the leg joint, or creating a new frontal exit port for these. (There was a mention of a frontal door at the beginning, but I'm entirely unsure of what we're speaking of in that case.)

Still... The original case was being made with "a beta full of missiles". Which could simply be a figure of speech. And not necessarily include the firing of the whole payload at once.
I also guess the "Mia" you are referring to is "Maia" Sterling. Which does mean we are in a case where there IS an Alpha blocking the chest missiles path. (Or am I not remembering the correct scene here?)
In that configuration, the whole dorsal and bomb bay (which can load "smart bombs") could be filled with "missiles" and pack a significant punch (at short range at least). All this with minimal internal adjustment. The beta, being suspended in space as a kind of insect abdomen, would also not have his legs in the way of the bomb bay doors.
Wings are out of the question from your own original assessment. But then not the Alpha's missiles themselves. Which would make the Beta (without chest launcher) still a 33 "missiles" add-on at the least. Not only 16 as previously stated.
Not taking into account that there could have been wing mounted missiles not seen on screen.
And taking into account that "A beta full of missiles & Smart bombs" doesn't sound as punch-y...
I would say the stats already covers the fact that having a beta attached is a great help.

With this said...
I'm not sure re-working the inside reloading mechanism would be that easy since the background data for the Beta states it was flying high on his way to cancellation. It might well have been a space issue, related to the transformation capabilities of the mecha itself. A bit like Harguns having to transport their legs and arms into a truck until the technology became available to miniaturize the servos and motors of the MODAT 5's legs. Something to do with transported weight, power requirement, and articulation solidity. Plus, in the case of the Beta, "aerodynamics"... (You don't want to make these worst in that precise case!)
They only revived the program because they needed the TREAD capacity (according to SC RPG).
In that light, re-working the bomb bay in order to fire missiles torpedo-style (meaning that they would fire and fly away on their own fuel after having been dropped) might be an easier upgrade. One that even the UEEF might try and implement by the time of Shadow Chronicle.
As for the resistance on earth... the Franken Mecha rules deeply suggest one might try and re-work the whole internal transformation sequence. But by this point, your Beta "full of missile" would probably deserve a new designation as a stand-alone unit, and not only a recuperated failed design used as a booster.

ESalter wrote:What does that have to do with Beta missile bays?

Given that the VF-1 isn't shown to fire wing missiles at the same time with FAST Pack missiles it is an example of different systems being unable to fire together, even if they have same role which is what you think they should be able to do.

ESalter wrote:My point is, the show's mecha designer didn't think to himself, "I'm going to give this fighter a gun pod, and also nose guns, and I've got to make really sure they never fire together!"

We've shown the MM-20 system in question is an Animation Error based on the original shows armament specs (and even the lineart).

ESalter wrote:So you're saying that every time the Beta Fighter fires its forward guns it should flip its wings upside-down to fire its rear guns too? Why should it do that? Why should the show depict that?

No I am not saying that, I am saying that it is a hypothetical option. The Beta could fire all 5 guns at the same target and how it would do so, by the 2E PB RPG though the guns have different ranges which would limit when such an attack would occur. It is also not going to happen in the RPG by the rules since the combined attack is not listed as an option for all 5 guns, though there is nothing to indicate the guns are limited to battloid mode.

ESalter wrote:Why? Why wouldn't they be able to fire together? Robotech mecha fire multiple missile bays all the time. Do you imagine that the man who designed the Tread said, "Be sure the two sets of missile bays never fire together." Why? Do you imagine that the man who wrote the Mecha Database said, "It's important that, for no reason, the two pairs of missile bays can't fire together, but I'm not going to write that fact down." Why?

All the examples of firing multiple missile bay mecha (Alpha, VR-041, Invid Commander, AGAC, VF-1 add-ons, Zentreadi FPA, Zentreadi Artillery Pods, Zentreadi Fighter Pod, Zentreadi Cyclops, even the Beta) involves:
A. the same size missile (ex. the Alpha doesn't fire its 78mm AND its 190mm missiles together)
B. those bays are considered part of the same system (ie when the Alpha fires all its 190mm missiles from its 12 bays, those bays are part of the same system: MM-60).

Neither of which apply to the Beta. The Beta has both 190mm and 340mm missiles, which means they are not the same size. They also are firing from what is considered separate systems (MM-16 and MM-20) in canon.

ESalter wrote:You think the fact that different missiles are listed on different lines (how else would they be listed?) means they're different "systems," and you think "system" means that it doesn't fire at the same time as other "systems," but all these definitions are in your head; they have nothing to do with the writer's intentions. The actual Mecha Database entry says nothing about them being unable to fire together, and of course Robotech mecha fire multiple missile bays all the time.

The Infopedia entries are based on the Animation/OSM notes. Given the Animation doesn't have the two different sized missiles firing together, it is a strong indicator they can not fire together. The Alpha lumps its 12 separate bays (2 per forearm, 2 shoulders, 3 per leg) into a single line entry in the Infopedia, illustrating if multiple bays are intended to fire together they would be on the same line.

There is also the real life precedent that you can only use one weapon system at a time. For the RPG, it also requires a declared statement that you can fire them together.

Seto wrote:Shinji Arimaki wouldn't have had to indicate that multiple missile launchers on the TLEAD can't fire together because the TLEAD he designed ONLY HAS ONE SET OF LAUNCHERS... the ones on top of the aircraft. The ones on the front are an animation error.

PERSONALLY I think what I am going to do is treat the MM-20 as an optional system that can be swapped out for an MM-16 reload system (2 full sets of reloads). It makes more sense, allows for optimized mission "variants" to be encountered, and less of a hassle than treating it as an IMU modification (which would beg the question what else might be IMU related in the Point-K Beta).

xunk16 wrote:In anime, you generally have "Mecha Designers" which jobs are to apply as much engineering and architectural skills as possible to convey a sense of realism in the technology proposed.

This isn't really limited to mechanical designers, or anime. Animation is expensive to produce, and both animators and animation directors want clear direction from above regarding what they have to draw. The screenplay writers, storyboard artists, character designers, mechanical designers, background designers, and a host of other specialisms exist to provide unambiguous guidance about what they're meant to be drawing. The level of detail will vary depending on how important a particular design is to the story, but when it comes to the designs of important characters and high detail stuff like original mechanical designs (everything from personal electronics to giant robots and spaceships) the level of detail provided is generally VERY high to ensure the animators draw them correctly in the finished product.

A character design's animation model sheet is usually quite a complex thing unless they wear only one outfit for the entire series. There'll be full-body front, rear, side, and angle views of the characters for most if not all of the outfits they wear in the series. Close-up detail views indicating how to draw, shade, and highlight the character's hair. Headshots at various angles to show how to draw certain facial expressions. Close-ups showing how to draw, shade, and highlight accessories and decorations like patches, rank pins, jewelry, glasses, shoes, painted fingernails, and other common items which the character might have on their person on a regular basis. Freyja Wion, one of the main characters from Macross Delta, had a whopping THIRTY-SIX pages of animation model sheets that detail her appearance, wardrobe, and accessories... and there are several characters like Lynn Minmay and Mylene Jenius who can top that figure handily. (The current leader in that regard is Max's daughter Mylene Jenius from Macross 7, whose design spans more than SIXTY pages.)

Mechanical design animation model sheets for things like mecha are almost invariably large, but depending on the designer can veer straight into the colossal thanks to the level of detail involved. The model sheets for the Macross in the original SDF Macross TV series show even fiddly details like what directions the radar antenna on the top of the ship's bridge tower rotate, how the chairs on the bridge rotate, seating arrangements for the conference room, designs for the tableware in the officer's mess, layouts for crew quarters (including the bathrooms!) that even show what directions the doors open in, and other seemingly trivial details like phones, vending machines, and even the design of the pipe the captain isn't allowed to smoke on the bridge. The VF-1's model sheets show a similar level of detail, everything from the big stuff down to fiddly details like all the moving parts involved in connecting to the catapult shuttle, what all the buttons on the stick and throttle lever are for, how the lap belt's connector works, what directions various inspection panels open, how moving parts like the control surfaces, thrust vectoring nozzles, canopy, and even the boarding ladder all move, the shapes of the shell casings for the gunpod, where the various comms antennae are, details of what safety and formation markings go where, and even how the stolen Zentradi uniform that Max nicks from a Zentradi officer should move during the fighter's transformation and GERWALK-mode flight.

So ESalter's argument that the designers don't go into the level of detail where they would dictate what weapons are available at a given time is pretty silly on the face of it... they not only go to that level of detail, the better mechanical designers often go PAST that level of detail and stop somewhere in the vicinity of deciding where they sourced the leather for the upholstery.

(One of my favorite examples of how detailed mechanical designers sometimes get when given the chance is Akira Yasuda's design for the YG-111 Gundam G-Self from Reconguista in G. Yasuda-san didn't stop at designing a giant robot, he went further into figuring out operator comfort during long sorties and the logistics of biological necessities like storing meals in the cockpit and even how a space-safe flush toilet could be incorporated into the pilot's seat... complete with a system for auditory privacy. To my unending horror, THIS GOT USED IN THE SERIES. You can find the design for its flush toilet on page 28 of Akira Yasuda Gundam Design Works - ISBN978-4-7580-1550-9.)

xunk16 wrote:Sometime, this is still limited due to the idea presented being relatively far-fetched, like a plane transforming in mid-flight. But that doesn't prevent the Mecha Designer to have to calculate what kind of power and mechanism would be needed in order for it to work, leading sometime to stuff like that "M.A.G.I.C." joke quoted before by Seto. (Power sources that takes no space at all are a recurring trope in the mecha genre.)

Depending on the setting and the knowledge base of the engineer, this can sometimes end up in shockingly realistic territory. Several of the technologies described as part of the VF-1's engines have been defictionalized, and the design itself bears a STRIKING resemblance to one of the NASA design proposals for a fusion turbine drafted more than two decades later.

(Power sources for mecha are typically fairly compact, but it's quite rare for them to be so compact you could say they take up no space at all... MOSPEADA is one of the few instances I can think of. Most of the mecha shows I've researched have power sources that vary from the size of a garbage can to the size of several refrigerators or a small car.)

xunk16 wrote:The recoil and aerodynamics would also have to be taken into account when planning these, so I guess the thing being already more or less of a brick would limit weapon placement. Such as it is, opening the massive chest launchers while flying into an atmosphere would probably be akin to a certain crash risk.

Devil's advocate checking in... you wouldn't really have to worry about recoil much when you're dealing with missiles and laser weapons.

I'd imagine the TLEAD's biggest problem - and the reason they didn't put any weapons in the front of it besides those 3 Vulcan cannons, is that the missile launchers that are the bone of contention here are directly adjacent to the main engine intakes. Having turbines constantly ingesting exhaust smoke feels like a bad idea.

xunk16 wrote:Now... While I do not subscribe to Seto's philosophy of considering that Robotech doesn't offers some depths to reflect and expand upon, or that the dialogues are more or less random ramblings messed up at the last minute (namely, that bit about the "Armored / FASTpack" confusion could have been a "writer's intent" to show the confusion of the characters constantly adapting to new systems; [...]

That's not really "my" philosophy... it's more Harmony Gold's candid admission. (Literally, it was the reason given for rejecting the fanon "VF-7 Sylphid" idea. The show's dialog says something about launching all veritechs while a Sylphid is onscreen, and fans have been taking that as proof the Sylphid is a VF for years. To HG, it's just a dialog goof caused by slapping the show together in a HUGE hurry due to the cost of studio time.)

ShadowLogan wrote:PERSONALLY I think what I am going to do is treat the MM-20 as an optional system that can be swapped out for an MM-16 reload system (2 full sets of reloads). It makes more sense, allows for optimized mission "variants" to be encountered, and less of a hassle than treating it as an IMU modification (which would beg the question what else might be IMU related in the Point-K Beta).

Sounds like a good fix. I'll try to remember this.
(We might not have a Beta in our games for a while... starting prior to the SDF-1's crash and all.)

Seto Kaiba wrote:Devil's advocate checking in... you wouldn't really have to worry about recoil much when you're dealing with missiles and laser weapons.
I'd imagine the TLEAD's biggest problem - and the reason they didn't put any weapons in the front of it besides those 3 Vulcan cannons, is that the missile launchers that are the bone of contention here are directly adjacent to the main engine intakes. Having turbines constantly ingesting exhaust smoke feels like a bad idea.

Hum... I wouldn't know. My experience for missiles IRL is very limited. But I was thinking in the line of WWII documentaries where you can actually see the vehicle mounted missile battery shake while a great batch is launched in succession. After all, the thrust needed to keep the missile flying would impart some force firing from inside the chest batteries, no? This might not be as much as I think though... (But the books sometime mention the need to fire in symmetry from dual batteries in order to keep the whole thing balanced.)
As for laser weapons, my problem wasn't really with recoil. But the EU-14s would cause some drag if they were external instead of internal. Plus this would need a pretty solid hard-point in order to support the stress of re-entry. (Or at the very least, a way to collapse them inside the mecha.) Since the whole thing seems built like it has internal space issues... Making them fire from a fixed position saves a lot of complexity to the whole.
However, opening such imposing bay doors on the front of a flying vehicle would create an impressive drag that the pilot should compensate. While this would be much less than dropping a Thunderbird 2 styled wagon (or having the centre of a plane being an empty square afterwards), I imagine it would be akin to a massive air brake, affecting speed and other things.
Since some less aerodynamic vehicles have problems to fly below certain speeds, I thought this might have been a problem. Though the engines able to serve a TREAD role would most probably be strong enough to take it. (Anything will fly if you push it hard enough.)

As for the exhaust smokes getting redirected toward the main engine intakes; what kind of problem are we talking about here?
Is it a risk to clog it or smother it until it fails? Or simply a bigger maintenance coming since there would be carbon residue in the whole mechanism?
Also... despite the EU-14s being energy weapons with "unlimited ammo"; wouldn't them being inside the turbines cause potential issues with overheating?
On the one hand, the air intake would cool it; but on the other, there might be some moving parts and potential friction in there...

Seto wrote:That's not really "my" philosophy... it's more Harmony Gold's candid admission. (Literally, it was the reason given for rejecting the fanon "VF-7 Sylphid" idea. The show's dialog says something about launching all veritechs while a Sylphid is onscreen, and fans have been taking that as proof the Sylphid is a VF for years. To HG, it's just a dialog goof caused by slapping the show together in a HUGE hurry due to the cost of studio time.)

In the interest of fairness, the Sylphid was x3 dialogue/on-screeen instances in 3 different episodes, and there is some circumstantial bits in the design (it still has gaps IMHO).

This also shows that HG's policy isn't exactly consistent when we look at other mecha and what the OSM says relating to AE. Case in point MM-20 on the Beta (or Alpha's secondary weapons). I know there is more to this, but don't want to rehash.

Let's look at reality here guys.

Robotech just DID NOT take the time or effort the creators of the originating 3 series' did (and even back then in anime they were in fact quite detailed in hat they wanted and made it make sense as best they could) in regards to making sure all the shyte in the show made sense. It was a slapdash assembly of story, dialogue, and script making, fully admitted too by those who made it. That makes debate like this, frankly, silly and waste of time from the outset. I think it is great people want to ADD that kind of logic and detail to Robotech but face it, the creators didn't so why do so now when we just do not have the details required to do so and can only speculate and interject our own biases and beliefs of their intentions?

To ME? That pretty much means I can do whatever the hell I want and same for anyone else to varying degrees. Want a VF-7 Sylphid? Frak it, make one (I did based on some work by others -shrugs-). Want nose lasers on the Alpha? Have at it. The SDF-2 is REALLY in the lake with the SDF-1? Or not? Go for it. I know I have quite literally rewritten just about ALL of the RPG stats for mecha etc from both editions of the RPG and added in some of my own items to fill in some gaps i saw that needed filling. I suggest everyone else just do the same for how they view it since no one person can or will be right for everything anyway.