Infantry in CBT - the POLL

[pheonixstorm]

Hidden units are in Total Warfare

[Weirdo]

Hidden units are TW. Digging In is TacOps. Fast Movement is also TacOps, and I find that one alone does wonders for the utility of infantry. You'd be amazed how much more ground they can cover with that one extra hex. Foot troops can cross a street in a single turn, and can actually cross a mapsheet  in the course of a game, and motor/mechinf have zero issues keeping up with your typical assault tank or mech, hence my earlier comments about their utility as escorts.

[Daemion]

I've seen a few interesting discussion involving NON-special equipped ( non-BA, non-motorized, non-mechanized) Infantry, a.k.a.PBI's. Most seem to be of the mind that they're pretty much pointless and only useful to soak up damage or distract enemies.

So, simply for the sake of curiosity, I thought I'd submit a poll about them :))

I'm working this from a perspective of setting, and largely ignoring the rules aspect, since the rules don't meet my expectations.

I believe that Infantry have their uses at the right place at the right time. Mostly stuff that we won't see in the standard game, but maybe once in a while in the RPG.

I honestly think they shouldn't be trying to fight armored units, and really shouldn't have the in-game capacity to do anything to armored units without the right weaponry.

This is why I wish to see a return of BattleTroops in some fashion, and put infantry combat on it's own level for building-sweeping fights between platoons, or even companies. I personally would love coordinating a game like this between a game of Armored Combat in raids where a team of infantry must extract a person of interest or some other target for a raid while the Mechs and Tanks are busy distracting one another.

In an urban environment, traps, kill-zones with established dug-in points and heavy weapons are where Infantry Shine best, either manning the big guns or trying to take out said big guns. But, they aught to be the one-shot that they should be, and I find the rules focus on the wrong aspect of infantry to their detriment.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

If we expand the context of the discussion into Alpha Strike, then my opinion is that regular foot infantry usually perform well above their points cost when integrated as part of a combined force.

Do you really want a unit's one and only shot for the round to be spent on the stupid 4 point infantry platoon that only plinks for 1 point of damage when there's that mech/tank over there that's threatening you with way more damage?

[Domi1981]

Drop the building on them, or set the building on fire, set the forest on fire or target the hex with artillery. The Vulcan and Firestarter exist for a reason.

[marked as validation material for the Ares comittee]
Your mech license has been revoked until further notice.

[Nastyogre]

Infantry are fantastic and if someone can't get use out of them then frankly it's just that they're not skilled enough to use them properly. PBIs are not a unit for novices.

 I agree. That being said, they can still end up hammered by Frag or X class AC's or some Firestarter slides in a burns and machine guns them to crispy meat chunks. They still die easily. It's also fairly easy to mitigate their combat power. However,  ignore the PBI and you may suffer.

[StoneRhino]

I find that Battletech becomes pretty damn 2 dimensional when the game is just mechs. Someone I know has tried so many times to try and convince people to just play "mech only". I believe that is really just mental laziness as it is an attempt to reduce the options of other players without having to do anything in game. It then becomes a game of rock em sock em robots. Its along the same line as trying to get people to play a game on a 1x1 map area, its not interesting in the least and becomes TurretTech.

Infantry, of all kinds, along with vehicles is what helps to shape what a mech is by representing what it isn't. Sure, the add additional rules, but if you are oh so concerned about rules then you would never bother playing with mechs as they are most complex units in the games. Infantry rules are extremely simply when compared to the rules for mechs.

As for how useful standard infantry is, there have been several games where people have decided that it was better to face an assault mech then a few platoons of infantry. Some people have complained, a lot, about the infantry even though I have not used more then 3 platoons per 10k force in 4 years. These are standard, straight out of TW, infantry as opposed to custome designs.

Other times people over commit to try and kill a platoon of infantry. To me it is rather amusing because while they are feeling powerful for using excessive amounts of BV to kill a tiny unit, I am putting rounds into their highest BV units. Units that were left without anyone to screen for it. It is hardly the checkmate move that they think it is, even if I hate losing my infantry.

I have seen some people use swarms of infantry to no effect. Those that saw them didn't give a damn about them.  Using infantry effectively is not connected to their numbers. Its not about zerging at a target. There was a difference in skill in the use of infantry that determined how the opposing player perceived them. Those that struggled to use them freaked out when facing them. Those that used them consistently felt less compelled to react to a zerg rush by them. The zerg rush is amusing to see on the map, I will say that much.

[Daryk]

You should post that in the Infantry Expectations thread...  O0

[Black_Knyght]

I kind of considered this a different question, so I posted it as a poll. 8)

Gotta admit I'm a bit surprised by the results too. ;)

[Weirdo]

Me too. A lot more folks around here with good taste than I thought. :)

[Alexander Knight]

Me too. A lot more folks around here with good taste than I thought. :)

Especially with ketchup....

[Weirdo]

I'll take your word for it, I'm no Kurita player. :)

[Kovax]

Having played against more than one gamer who felt that anything less than an Assault 'Mech wasn't worth fielding, and any more than a single mapsheet was a waste of table space, I realize that infantry are not for every player.  If you want to play Turretech (where's the registered trademark symbol when you need it?), there's nothing more that you need to learn about the game or tactics, and all you need to do is roll big numbers.  If you want variety, mental challenges, and something to teach you new ways of looking at and dealing with the situation, then the more options the better.  Infantry significantly increases the options.

While Infantry can be semi-effective against 'Mechs in the right circumstances, they're potentially lethal to vehicles, even though outclassed.  I'm not too thrilled with playing just 'Mechs and Infantry, but in a 'Mech, vehicle, and infantry (with APCs, or at least better than "foot" mobility) combined arms scenario, you've got a lot of stuff with potential to affect the situation at any given moment.  Granted, it takes a lot more time and thought to play out, but it's generally worth the extra effort.

[Alsadius]

In principle, I like them - they're an important part of any plausible fictional universe, and they do play fairly balanced overall.

In practice, I find they slow the game down horribly, and tend to make bad rules(buildings as armour, most notably) worse. I tend to not actually enjoy playing with infantry under the rules as they stand, even with MegaMek speeding everything up.

[Patton1945]

We had to ban infantry due to all the field guns, and the use of nothing but Mauser IIc or federated-Barrett weapons in custom infantry platoons.

Seriously, though, why do the Federated-Barrett weapons have such ridiculously high damage vales?

[Sartris]

Fighting for Team SuperFriends has its perks

[Weirdo]

Stuff like that is why Don't Be A Jerk is our group's biggest rule. It solves the vast majority of fun/balance issues that pop up.

No Customs is our second biggest rule, though admittedly conventional infantry are the only exception.

[SCC]

Shouldn't Field Guns cost more then regular infantry? Or where they simply too powerful?

[Weirdo]

If the field gun platoons are mechinf, the cheapness wouldn't surprise me. Their vulnerability to regular mech-grade weapons brings down their BV greatly.

[truetanker]

I can make a Clan Squad with 3 damage points each out to 15 hexes...

All using the Errata'ed Infantry Weapons list.

I tend to mate the Support Autocannon with four Pulse Laser Rifles per Squad, makes a formidable unit.

TT

[StoneRhino]

Having played against more than one gamer who felt that anything less than an Assault 'Mech wasn't worth fielding, and any more than a single mapsheet was a waste of table space, I realize that infantry are not for every player.  If you want to play Turretech (where's the registered trademark symbol when you need it?), there's nothing more that you need to learn about the game or tactics, and all you need to do is roll big numbers.

I would suggest that is one of the cancers of the game. A mentally lazy game is no fun, regardless of the format. Tabletop or digital, if there is zero challenge then its not going to be fun. When people start pushing for such I start to lose interest in playing against them. If someone does not want to use infantry that's fine, but trying to lobby to remove elements of the game is a serious personal negative.

TW was a step forward for Battletech. I'm not really sure how the Battletech manual book is going to affect the game, so I am really looking forward to seeing how the new starter boxes turn out.

[truetanker]

Infantry, or Battle Armor, with a good speedy transport makes a quicker MechWarrior Rescue OP than waiting for a friendly Mech's hand.

TT

[Black_Knyght]

I would suggest that is one of the cancers of the game. A mentally lazy game is no fun, regardless of the format. Tabletop or digital, if there is zero challenge then its not going to be fun. When people start pushing for such I start to lose interest in playing against them. If someone does not want to use infantry that's fine, but trying to lobby to remove elements of the game is a serious personal negative.

TW was a step forward for Battletech. I'm not really sure how the Battletech manual book is going to affect the game, so I am really looking forward to seeing how the new starter boxes turn out.

Seconded! In truth THAT is a sentiment I can get behind!

[Daemion]

Field Guns wouldn't be so powerful if they didn't have its tonnage in points of something beyond hardened armor. Seriously, with motorized, it's one point per non-Anti-Infantry attack, maybe two if it's not in cover. And, that's for something big enough that 28 men shouldn't be providing any armor to it in any capacity. The gun should be providing the armor for the gunnery team. And looking hand-held weapons rules, any attack against an unarmored gun should be knocking it out of action.

[SCC]

Field Guns wouldn't be so powerful if they didn't have its tonnage in points of something beyond hardened armor. Seriously, with motorized, it's one point per non-Anti-Infantry attack, maybe two if it's not in cover. And, that's for something big enough that 28 men shouldn't be providing any armor to it in any capacity. The gun should be providing the armor for the gunnery team. And looking hand-held weapons rules, any attack against an unarmored gun should be knocking it out of action.

It's a bit hard to make out what your saying here at first, but I'm pretty sure your saying that their too hard to kill because they still use normal infantry damage rules? Well there are a few ways around that. First of all is standard vehicle mounted anti-infantry weapons, MGs, Falmers, and the like, now they might not be good choices because of so short range. Other options include other infantry, hover are probably one of the better choices, but so are jump. And finally many weapons now have alternate munitions that work well against infantry.

Also keep in mind the guns themselves are under a move or fire rule, so threatening them may prove effective.

[Weirdo]

*a lot of stuff I only think I understood*

Why would we be expecting commonality between Field Gun rules and Handheld Weapon rules? Aside from both involving guns, they've got nothing in common.

[Kidd]

Field Guns wouldn't be so powerful if they didn't have its tonnage in points of something beyond hardened armor. Seriously, with motorized, it's one point per non-Anti-Infantry attack, maybe two if it's not in cover. And, that's for something big enough that 28 men shouldn't be providing any armor to it in any capacity.

So, more incentive to use anti-infantry weapons  O0

you can add house-rule if you like; off the top of my head I suggest rolling for critical hits, where any successful crit will result in 1 gun destroyed.

The gun should be providing the armor for the gunnery team. And looking hand-held weapons rules, any attack against an unarmored gun should be knocking it out of action.

The gun mantlet is only so big, and can't possibly shield all the crew. Given the exposure of the crew and the relatively small profile of the gun its more probable the crew will die first from fragments etc before the gun is damaged.

[Daemion]

It's a bit hard to make out what your saying here at first, but I'm pretty sure your saying that their too hard to kill because they still use normal infantry damage rules? Well there are a few ways around that. First of all is standard vehicle mounted anti-infantry weapons, MGs, Falmers, and the like, now they might not be good choices because of so short range. Other options include other infantry, hover are probably one of the better choices, but so are jump. And finally many weapons now have alternate munitions that work well against infantry.

Also keep in mind the guns themselves are under a move or fire rule, so threatening them may prove effective.

They also have a fixed arc, which can be dodged.

Yes, they are too powerful because they're under the infantry damage system. Narative-wise, it doesn't follow or make any lick of sense. It's effectively immobile when its set up to fire. It's big enough to be considered a vehicle in its own right. How is it you have to pick off the crew to render it inoperative?

Why would we be expecting commonality between Field Gun rules and Handheld Weapon rules? Aside from both involving guns, they've got nothing in common.

Mech Handheld Weaponry is pretty much the same gun with a slightly different trigger mechanism, assuming the Mech is strong enough to carry a particular gun.

So, an Archer could carry a Light AC/5 with a ton of ammo and a ton of armor. That weapon gets hit, it loses armor points as per standard damage rules. It takes more damage than it has armor, it's knocked out, though it could still work as a club.  If it had, say, two tons of ammo, and no armor, it would be knocked out, when hit. In a BattleMech's hands.

I basically have the same issue of how field guns take damage as I do with how MechInf take damage. It doesn't make narrative sense and isn't consistent with other examples of matching items in the game.

[Weirdo]

Given that infantry MGs are very different from BA MGs are very different from mech MGs, I have no issue whatsoever with the idea that a mech LB 10-X and an infantry LB 10-X might be very different beasts.

[Orin J.]

Given that infantry MGs are very different from BA MGs are very different from mech MGs, I have no issue whatsoever with the idea that a mech LB 10-X and an infantry LB 10-X might be very different beasts.

Or at the least, the same beast wearing very different pants.