Alternative Emplacment Rules

[Death by Lasers]

  I'm not a big fan of the emplacement rules.  As they are written now not only are fortifications way too expensive (you can build a better armed and armored and mobile tank for the cost of an equivalent pillbox) but they have no defense against artillery.  All the artillery has to do is scoot and shoot and by the time any counter battery fire lands it's well out of danger.  You could technically kill the entire Mt. Diablo fortification complex with a lone Longtom and a few days time and relatively cheap pile of Lt. Ammo.  If this was only a fluff problem then it wouldn't be an issue.  Unfortunately, it spills over into gameplay as the best way to kill emplacements is to plink them to death at range or site in artillery.

  With this I introduce the new improved emplacement rules!  These rules will not only make emplacements more "realistic" but far more importantly make the best way of killing them more exciting.  This will make so the best way to kill an emplacement is through either close combat or infiltration by infantry, a much funner prospect than dancing and plinking at 20 hexes or spending 20 turns calibrating artillery fire (this later method would be so boring as to be unplayable).  We do this by splitting the emplacement into two distinct components: the surrounding encasement and the emplaced weapons inside the encasement.

  First we have the encasement itself.  It represents the meters of solid reinforced ferrocrete surrounding your emplaced weapons.  You get 10 Capital points of protection per point of emplacement CF.  So a 15 CF light emplacement would be encased by 150 points of Capital encasement.  You cannot add armor to the encasement.  A mech/vehicular unit cannot enter the encasement although infantry may enter as per the standard rules for entering buildings.  All damage applied to the encasement is absorbed by it and does not transferred to the units or emplaced weapons inside.  The mass of a unit standing on the encasement must exceed ten times the Capital CF in tonnage of the encasement to collapse it.

  Next we have the emplaced weapons.  The emplaced weapons are built using the current emplacement rules with regards to structure, armor, weapons, and receiving damage.  This emplacement may fire out of a designated single hex-face firing port with the same span of fire as a mech's forward firing arc.  To attack the emplacement you may target it directly at +2 to hit penalty instead of the -4 immobile target bonus to represent the fact that the firing port represents a small and difficult to hit target.  Obviously, you must have a direct line of sight to the firing port to target the emplacement directly.  Emplacements cannot be targeted by indirect fire.  All splash damage that strikes the emplacement's hex is absorbed into the emplacements surrounding encasement.  Direct fire artillery may target the emplacement but must do so directly (a direct fire artillery attack directed at the emplacement's hex will only damage the encasement).

  The emplacements would have the same price as is listed in TacOps representing the relative low cost of ferrocrete compared to vehicular armor.  I might also make it so you would have two types of emplacements: the basic type that only has a port for the emplaced weapons to fire out of and a second type that has no emplaced weapons but has a port for infantry to fire out of.

    So here we have it.  These rules would give you emplacements that are virtually immune to all but the heaviest artillery fire and with emplaced weapons that are difficult to disable at long range because of the +2 to hit targeting penalty.  They would however suffer from limited firing arcs, be vulnerable to infiltration by infantry, and can be overwhelmed by direct fire by units willing to close the distance and fire down the gun-ports.  These emplacements could work as supplement to the current rules with current emplacements being exposed turrets and these being ferrocrete encased gun ports.

  Just imagine the D-Day type scenarios you could have with these rules.  We have some enemy mechs hunkered down in a bunker built in the side of a mountain surrounded by encasements.  You bombard the place day and night but the shells aren't having the desired effect.  You have only one choice: direct assault!  You send in the mechs charging through bunkers and minefields, landing infantry to infiltrate the encasements under cover of smoke, charging in Atlases and Assault mechs actually having to assault the fortifications, closing the distance to get close enough to target the firing points.  No prancing at extreme range, no shooting and scooting artillery for hours on end, no artificially using stupid tactics to make the game interesting.  No, you charge because that's the best tactic to use, the tactic the rules support.  You charge because that is what has to be done.  Huzzah! 

[Red Pins]

Nice.  I like that.

I use homebrew weapons to arm C3 tow vehicles and their trailers to support 'pillboxes' of what I call portable turrets (moved by flatbed trailers with hoists) of between 5-20 tons.

[Daemion]

It's interesting, but I disagree on the +2 to-hit penalty. But, that has a lot to do with how I see things working in BT. Gun ports are big. Now, the infantry ports on the other hand, I can see that working with the +2. I say that like all things with buildings, if you want the option, you have to pay for it. In this case, cost. Because for you to get that modifier requires the same thing that makes Mech Cockpits hard to hit while 'immobile'.

My reasoning: You want to be able to clear out the guns so that your infantry aren't taking heavy fire while they scoot in.  And, only the best equipped emplacements would be so hard to crack that you need a full battalion to strike at a single corner. 

Another option is to give such gun emplacements an extended minimum range to show that they cannot engage close targets due to traverse limitations. Except for infantry ports. ;)

So, I take it that the non-emplacement is a way of making a truly hardened wall span?

[Death by Lasers]

  The thing is the +2 is the entire point.  Without the +2 modifier the best way to kill bunkers is to snipe them.  The modifier reflects the fact that the overwhelming majority of the weapon system is behind ferrocrete like in WW2 anti-tank bunkers.  Also, why would carving a slit out of a ferrocrete box cost extra c-bills?

  The thing to remember is that gun ports are not big, they are small.  That's the whole point of bunkers and pillboxes, to cover as much of the guns as possible and leave an opening just big enough for the gun to poke out of.  If dug in field guns get a +2, the firing port of a bunker should grant a +2 modifier to its incased gun.

Some Examples from Google:

[idea weenie]

What if you had a 'heavy mount' option for ballistic weapons that required the mounting unit to be immobile the prior turn, the firing turn, and the next turn to get the benefits?  The benefit is a range bonus to the firing unit.  It has to be immobile on turn X and deploying the supports, it gets the firing bonus on turn X+1, and has to remain immobile on turn X+2 (or the supports get ripped off).

Since buildings are immobile all the time, they can spend the tonnage for the heavy mount and always have the range bonus.

(Yes, i am thinking of the Siege Tank from Starcraft)

[Death by Lasers]

   The heavy mount idea reminds me of the rules for Dropships guns getting -2 targeting bonus when on the ground.  Not a bad idea for an advanced fortress, especially for something large like Castle Brian.

  For my encasements I'm imagining something simpler like a WWII anti-tank bunkers. 

[idea weenie]

I wonder if you can eventually get to the point where the firing platform is massive enough that it gets the inherent bonus?  For example, a 200 ton Dropship might not get the bonus, but a 100 kiloton Dropship should not feel any recoil issues from an AC/2 (or impacts causing lawn dart rolls, but that is another issue).  You'd still spend the tonnage for the heavy mount, but the mounting unit is massive enough that it is effectively deployed all the time.

It would be similar to a targeting computer, but used for range enhancement instead of accuracy.  Assuming a 25% range bonus, and weapon with ranges of 4/8/12, it would become 5/10/15.  So it gets 3 hexes with better to-hits, and 3 extra hexes at long range.

Targeting computers should include the heavy mount in terms of tonnage.  So assuming an Inner Sphere Autocannon where the autocannon mass is 8 tons and the heavy mount is an additional 4 tons, this means the Targeting Computer would mass 3 tons (25% of 12 tons total) instead of 2 (25% mass of 8 ton autocannon).


For the anti-tank bunker, I wonder if you could get a discount for using a smaller 'building' than normal.  I.e. if the bunker only gets the hardened building bonus for 3 of the 6 sides, it would get a 25% cost reduction (cost = .5 + hexsides covered/6).  (So fire coming in from 3 of the 6 sides gets the reduction due to the hardening, the other 3 sides gets no protection.)

[Death by Lasers]

For the anti-tank bunker, I wonder if you could get a discount for using a smaller 'building' than normal.  I.e. if the bunker only gets the hardened building bonus for 3 of the 6 sides, it would get a 25% cost reduction (cost = .5 + hexsides covered/6).  (So fire coming in from 3 of the 6 sides gets the reduction due to the hardening, the other 3 sides gets no protection.)

  Interesting idea.  It would basically turn the encasement into a blast shield.  I don't think I've ever seen it done like that historically, probably because one of the main purposes of the concrete encasement is to protect the AT/Machine Gun from artillery and need full coverage for that.  It would make sense though that if you only have a partially encased gun it would be cheaper.  Maybe reduce the structure cost by 10% for every wall you remove including the roof.

  Since the gun would be entirely exposed on the open sides any splash damage coming from that direction would apply to the gun.  Also, on the exposed side the gun would have to get the full -4 immobile target penalty since there is no encasement covering it up on those sides.

  I can't see it being a good idea in most cases unless your encasement is buried in the side of hill and only needs to shield its front in ferrocrete.

[Daemion]

  The thing is the +2 is the entire point.  Without the +2 modifier the best way to kill bunkers is to snipe them.  The modifier reflects the fact that the overwhelming majority of the weapon system is behind ferrocrete like in WW2 anti-tank bunkers.  Also, why would carving a slit out of a ferrocrete box cost extra c-bills?

  The thing to remember is that gun ports are not big, they are small.  That's the whole point of bunkers and pillboxes, to cover as much of the guns as possible and leave an opening just big enough for the gun to poke out of.  If dug in field guns get a +2, the firing port of a bunker should grant a +2 modifier to its incased gun.

Some Examples from Google:

Small is not the point. As I said, I'm looking at accuracy differently than you are - starting from the notion that lasers don't miss, and this is a hyper-futuristic setting. A small target means nothing to a laser with an optic enhanced scope.

If you're going off the cinematic spray-and-pray style, then sure, a modifier for size works. But, for me, it doesn't. Those slits you showed? They're as big as any Mech torso.

You're not paying extra C-Bills for a slit in concrete. You're paying C-Bills for your gun to 'dodge', thus getting that +2 mod. Remember, the Head on an immobile Mech is actually just as big as any of the side torsos, so the 'size' notion does not fly in that regard, and yet it gets a +3 to be directly targeted. Why? Something else is going on. (And, no, the magic armor does not explain high-to-hits, for me. Not completely. It explains the ranges.)

[Daemion]

Now. I would recommend that the slit might have an armored window that functions like a turret, and if you're not paying for the 'dodge' effect, you could pay for 'armoring' your weapon.

My recommendation on how that works:

Any unit can target the gun in the emplacement, but if they hit, they do no damage to the structure and must roll a critical hit chance of 8 plus to damage/destroy the gun.

They can also attack the building, but the check against damaging the gun receives a -3 penalty. (…Or -X where X is the building class above light. So light = -0, medium = -1, heavy = -2 and hardened = -3.)

[Death by Lasers]

  Truth be told I do not understand the "lasers don't miss" notion, but to each his own.

[Daemion]

 :)

Think about the ranges the game is played at.

What's the speed of light again?

Whatever a laser is pointing at is going to receive that blast instantaneously on the game board. Heck, a light second is 299,792 km, or somewhere over 180,000 miles. (That's in a single second.)

So, yeah. Lasers shouldn't really miss until you get into multiple light seconds.

That's why small holes don't matter. Add that to a computer controlled system that knows where the laser is pointed and can zap a gnat at a mile, (I do exaggerate, here  ^-^) and it doesn't matter if you have an eye-hole or a giant bay window.

So, knowing this, how is it possible that laser to-hits are so high?  (At the very least and not getting into other weapons.)

I know what I attribute it to, and for me, it's something built into the combat units. Size really doesn't play into it.

[Death by Lasers]

  Have you played a Mechwarrior game?  You can totally miss with lasers.  Plus its a moot point as Battletech does assign modifiers for changing your target profile: all you have to do is go Hull Down and you get a +2 modifier, use partial cover and you get a +1 modifier, or be in woods to get a +1 modifier.  In all these cases target profile matters, it's built into the rules.

 

[idea weenie]

For laser accuracy, I'd wonder if there could be a basic infrared targeting system.  If a hot spot appears in front of the laser, and it is not a friendly (so it would need access to the main sensors and IFF), it will fire the laser rapidly.

So the lasers get fired at a shorter duration, meaning they do half heat and half damage (both FRU).  Since you are targeting based on heat, the firing unit gets a bonus to-hit based on enemy heat/10, FRU.

However you are trying to track a target based on heat signature.  So you get a targeting bonus or penalty based on local heat modifiers (i.e. extreme temperature rules), and the system will target the hex itself if there is a hex that is on fire between the firing unit and the targeted unit.  If the target is on fire though, the firing unit gets another bonus to hit based on the heat produced by the fire (+1 for every 5 pts of heat, FRU).

So if a unit on your side can get an enemy Mech set on fire, then infrared triggering systems will allow your side's lasers to get a nice bonus to-hit.  This is easily countered by breaking line of sight, or just standing in a hex that is on fire.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

... all you have to do is go Hull Down and you get a +2 modifier...

Umm, it's not true. Hull-down matters only when you already have partial cover, otherwise it does not matter.

[Daemion]

  Have you played a Mechwarrior game?  You can totally miss with lasers.   

Yes I have, and I don't consider those accurate representations.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

Yes I have, and I don't consider those accurate representations.

You can't make an argument based on the time lag between firing the gun and hitting the target alone. Following such logic, humans firing small arms should not miss at short ranges, at least when firing single shots (so that we do not have to worry about recoil). In reality, they do miss, and the reasons are attributed to different factors.

[Death by Lasers]

Umm, it's not true. Hull-down matters only when you already have partial cover, otherwise it does not matter.

  They way it was written it sounds like I was saying you can just hull-down in the open but yeah I meant hull-down behind cover or in a fortified hex (or half-level hex) if you are a tank.  The point being changing your target profile effects your to hit chance.  So our encasement would act as a fortified hex for our emplaced gun because the gun's hull is covered by the encasement like a vehicles hull is covered when hulled down in a fortified hex.

[Daemion]

You can't make an argument based on the time lag between firing the gun and hitting the target alone. Following such logic, humans firing small arms should not miss at short ranges, at least when firing single shots (so that we do not have to worry about recoil). In reality, they do miss, and the reasons are attributed to different factors.

I know there are other factors involved, and you're talking about solid objects which are very subject to atmospheric effects.

I'm starting with lasers, which are also subject to atmospheric effects, but in different ways.

But, fine. If you want to work forward from primitive fire controls instead of backward from 'this is futuristic sic-fi', go for it. I'm just pointing out that there are other points of view to how things work in the BTu.

I look at this, and I need a better fictional justification beyond 'it's smaller so it's harder to hit'. Doesn't work for me.

[Daemion]

  They way it was written it sounds like I was saying you can just hull-down in the open but yeah I meant hull-down behind cover or in a fortified hex (or half-level hex) if you are a tank.  The point being changing your target profile effects your to hit chance.  So our encasement would act as a fortified hex for our emplaced gun because the gun's hull is covered by the encasement like a vehicles hull is covered when hulled down in a fortified hex.

Don't get me wrong. I kinda like what you're trying to do, but I'm looking for a better fiction example other than it's smaller.

And, you're looking at the wrong examples. You're working on an emplacement. A hull-down tank is not an emplacement. It can still move. At the very least, they can push forward or backward. The turret can still wiggle. If there's enough room, the tank's main body can twist about a little. (I can't help but wonder if the BD Vedette's design is how all tanks in BT should have been made - main body on an independent gimbal to the tracks and the turret. Partly for stabilized firing platform, partly for active defensive motions when trying to avoid successful damage from incoming attacks that have an easy time of making contact.)

Is the gun inside the emplacement doing the same thing? Is the emplacement itself?

Let's look at some other 'static' things on a BT board. Trees. They flap around in the wind, and yet they still get the static -4 modifier if you're shooting at them. Buildings are far more rigid. Neither of them get a partial cover or size modifier.

edit: What about the good old wood-shed or outhouse? Personally I wouldn't equate them as even a building, but an art deco piece for the map. But, if it were to be made into a building, it certainly is a light building, with all of one hit point. It doesn't get a size modifier. /edit.

Combat units do. When do Mechs and Tanks get a -4 immobile modifier?

(PM me if you want me to tell you why I think the way I do. It's already detracted from what you started as it is.)

All I'm really asking for is a different application of the +2 mod, and/or a better fictional depiction of why it's happening.

I actually ignore a lot of advanced rules applied in official books because of the same problems - they're inconsistent with a unified view when applying them to the game universe.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

I know there are other factors involved, and you're talking about solid objects which are very subject to atmospheric effects.

Actually, what I meant was that mostly, only fire controls matter, for both ballistic and laser weapons. Time of flight is almost negligible in both cases. The whole argument should revolve around fire controls, not type of a weapon.

[Daemion]

Cool. Then we are mostly on the same page. My view incorporates a lot of things, though.

edit:

Actually, what I meant was that mostly, only fire controls matter, for both ballistic and laser weapons. Time of flight is almost negligible in both cases. The whole argument should revolve around fire controls, not type of a weapon.

I'm sorry, I'm probably being a little vague, aren't I?

I'm with you on it being about 'fire control'. But, I don't buy into FC making an instant hit weapon worse in a setting that has seen 500-700 years of tech advancement beyond what we have now.

Case-in-point: Ask any tread-head gunner from an Abrams crew if that small port-hole is going to make a difference on the placement of his shot. He'll probably say he can make the shot easily. Why? Not necessarily his skill, but because of the FCS built into the Abrams. Now, if he can't miss 90% of the time with a metal dart that's subject to wind issues, why would a high-powered laser be any worse?

And, BattleTech failure rates are disproportionately high. Something happened between the 21st and 28th century that made the Abrams gun, with a 90% success rate obsolete. But, it's more than just 'magic armor'. The game hints at being mobile as a big defense adding to the failure rate. Part of that might be passive 'ambient ECM'. Does your pillbox have that in its frame somewhere? But, I like to imagine it goes a step further - a Defense Control System, or DCS, if you will, which can predict where a shot is going to land, when it's about to discharge, and use the 'magic armor' and a bit of 'jinkiness' to make absolute, undeniable contacts turn into burnt paint and small dents.

Does your pillbox have that? Does the gun inside the pillbox have that? If not, then size of porthole won't matter, because it's not sporting the tech necessary to get the +2 modifier you insist it has.



edit 2: But, as I said - it's a different view than most people use for BT. I'm not surprised when nobody puts any better thought into the 'why's of tech working and just go for straight rules performance. That's why we have Tac Ops and all those rules there that a lot of vocal people wish were mainstream BT.

 #P

[Col Toda]

I treat the existing rules as a challenge .  Either have a hardened building with armor behind a level 2 hill that to even see the emplacement you have to get into short range of the emplacement's weapons . Say an enemy mech jumpd over the hill the emplacement opens up with it's TSEMP or other weapons weapons then you have a choice of which targets to kill . The emplacement , the trailers with iOS SRMs or the trailers with LRM launchers and very limited ammo . The BV of trailers that do not move on it's own with almost no armor would get prioritized. The other way is geometry have your emplacement down a hole at - 2 or - 3  shooting Arrow IV and LRMs and they have to go through mine fields and active units to get into a position to see it well enough to target or spot for it .

[idea weenie]

I treat the existing rules as a challenge .  Either have a hardened building with armor behind a level 2 hill that to even see the emplacement you have to get into short range of the emplacement's weapons . Say an enemy mech jumpd over the hill the emplacement opens up with it's TSEMP or other weapons weapons then you have a choice of which targets to kill . The emplacement , the trailers with iOS SRMs or the trailers with LRM launchers and very limited ammo . The BV of trailers that do not move on it's own with almost no armor would get prioritized. The other way is geometry have your emplacement down a hole at - 2 or - 3  shooting Arrow IV and LRMs and they have to go through mine fields and active units to get into a position to see it well enough to target or spot for it.

Make sure there are no rivers on the map or the players will want to perform the Hercules maneuver on the Augean stables.  A second option is a player wondering just how many tons of fuel are needed to fill up the level 2 or 3 hole, so they can serve defender flambé.  Or pull a Ngo maneuver and get some concrete mix to seal up the base (using modified Firestarters).

[Daemion]

Here's an idea that might help if you don't want to have the weapons mounted on a strange juking platform:

Gun emplacements are generally very stable firing platforms, and thus they can engage at the same ranges that Aerospace fighters use on the low altitude map.  So, when things get within a couple maps, it's all short range for your guns. This would make cover very important for an approach.

Just figured I'd throw out an alternative.