How does the DCMS organize C3 units at the battalion/regimental level?

[iamfanboy]

So I have 7 lances worth of my Sword of Light regiment, which is within spitting distance of a full battalion. Currently one company is organized around C3, and another is not - mostly because the minis don't have C3 variants.

However, C3 doesn't work beyond a company level. So how does the DCMS organize their C3 units at a higher level than that? For me, this is more than academic, because I tend to play Alpha Strike and battalion level games are hardly out of the question (especially if you move/shoot a lance at a time rather than a model at a time). So it'd be nice to have my force at least nominally in line with what the background dictates.

I see several possible options, but I don't know which one is true:

1) DCMS organizes C3 as one company a battalion, meant to serve as a strike force and rigid backbone.

2) DCMS organizes C3 into a unified battalion, and sends the individual companies out to reinforce the other battalions of the regiment.

3) As above, but the DCMS keeps the battalion together so that breakdowns in network integrity can be integrated into new networks quickly.

4) DCMS organizes C3 at the regimental level, with one company per regiment meant to operate as troubleshooters/strike force.

5) At the regimental level, with the entire regiment being networked.

6) Sir, it depends on the amount of C3M/S units available, with all the above being possibilities, sir!

With one more problem: Do C3 battalions adhere to the 10-lance structure, with the Sho-sa lance in its own single-lance network, or does it go with a 9-lance structure, with the Sho-sa's lance in a company network?

[RoundTop]

It will be what you want it to be.

Honestly we don't have much to go on here amongst all the novels and sourcebooks.

That said, not all C3 has to be Company level. I expect while the DCMS has company level C3, it is not as common as Lance level C3.

So #3 is pretty much out. C3 requires maintenance to switch to a different master/slave combination. This cannot be done during a battle. Only as setup for it (Just like loading ammo). So it doesn't slot in as easily there.

So #6 is the main answer.

There is one big glaring thing though.  C3 networks cannot go beyond 12 units (6 for C3i, 3 for CEWS). Ever.  No matter what.  You can organize this as SSSM, SSSM, SSS(MM) OR SSSM, SSSM, SSMM. Each master can only handle 3 children, and no C3 can handle more than 12 units.

So a battalion would be 3 C3 companies (If all equipped). They are not tied together.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/C3_Command_Unit

How you mix the lances up is pretty much up to you. Technically you could have 2 lances of nothing but slaves, and one as nothing but masters. (But ECM is a pain, and you have to keep track of which members in each lance are assigned to each master).

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I'm of the opinion that in practice, C3 is only put into networks at the tactical level.  That is, you don't field a C3M and 3 C3Slave units in the same lance, and you don't field a 12 unit C3 network as a company on your TOE.

It makes too much sense to break them out across your force, and only configure C3 networks on the fly as compatible units find themselves in the line of fire.  It doesn't make logistical sense to say that a carefully planned C3 network force makes it into battle together when rag tag/mix-n-match forces are the norm for what usually makes it onto the battlefield.  You can manage homogeneity for C3, but you can't manage it any other time?  I don't buy it.

For my own headcanon, a force "heavy" on C3 is about 1/3 to 1/4 C3 capable.  Such a company would have 1 C3M and 3 C3 Slaves across the entire force, but odds are slim they'd all be in the same lance.

[jshdncn]

You can use your non-C3 force to support your C3 equipped force. For example ECM set to ECCM to protect your network is a powerful setup; a good brawler can keep your spotters from getting cut off and is a credible threat on its own.

[Kidd]

The DCMS has more indigenous dual-master variants than other militaries I THINK. So that gives a clue - they tend to use company networks more than other militaries do.

How they deploy them probably is exactly how you would: it all depends on what your regiment looks like, how many C3 units you can get, and very importantly, what models they consist of. From there you figure out your strategy, your "concept of operations" i.e. how you will use them. All your C3s are "battle" Mechs? You might use them to overmatch and break the enemy's battle units. Got a lot of C3s with long guns and fast-moving C3 slaves? You might use them as fire support in conjunction with C3 spotters to destroy the enemy from afar. If you have a company network you might fight your unit as a battalion, if you have lots of lance networks you might fight in independent companies... etc etc.

As for your scenarios.... remember C3 only works in either lance or company sized blocks. So when you say "DCMS organizes C3 into a unified battalion", I have to assume you mean a single battalion consisting of 36 C3-equipped Mechs linked into 3 to 9 C3 networks.

1), 2) and 3) are the same, but situational... I would expect an elite regiment to be well-trained in operating in any of these configurations. Also 36 C3 Mechs in a regiment is definitely some Sword of Light elite unit.

4) is more likely in less-well-supplied units.

5) is right out. There is not a single regiment in the FMs marked 100% C3-equipped.

@TDC - You homogenise when you can. If you really only have a C3M and a handful of C3Ss you make do, form the network and work out how best to employ it. Thats what all unit commanders do. "Rag-tag mix and match" is subjective. Obviously its hard to randomly roll a complete and workable C3 lance out of 12 Mechs, but you can form something very coherent out of 108 randomly rolled Mechs, if say 20% of them are C3-equipped.

You only spread C3 Mechs across formations if it benefits you somehow, eg having a C3 spotter in the Recon Lance, and fire support C3s in the Fire Lance, maybe the C3M in the command lance, AND you fight as a united company. Otherwise its the same as not using C3 at all... or worse.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

A recon lance serves as a perfectly fine example.

With perspective to C3, you're necessarily going to have one of three possibilities:
1) No C3 on any member of the lance
2) Some C3, but not a viable 4 unit network in that recon lance
3) A C3M and 3 slaves

#1 isn't relevant to a discussion of how you organize your C3, which leaves 2 and 3.  In order to be 3, a recon lance needs to force in a C3M somehow.  Granted, that's actually somewhat feasible for the DCMS even if not anyone else... but still needing a C3M puts a lot of constraint on the composition compared to just having some number of slaves across the lance.  Maybe even 4 slaves!

OTOH if you deploy your C3 into pre-defined lances, your C3 network takes holes whenever your TOE does.  All you have to do is play 1 campaign game where you try to match networks to the TOE before you see that it's far simpler to just build a network out of the mechs that happen to be included in the battle, rather than forcing entire lances into battle just so their C3 network is intact.

Another lesson from campaign play is if you're planning on fielding an actual 12 unit network, you better have a lot more than just those 12 C3 units available.  Losses are a bitch, but especially for C3 units if you use "hardwired"/predefined networks.

[iamfanboy]

So I have my answer, as such - we don't know. So I'll configure it as a central C3 company that serves as a spearhead, with two non-C3 companies as flankers and support. Perhaps with a sprinkling of lance-level C3, since I already have five C3M 'Mechs (even if the DRG is not an ideal master) and DEFINITELY want to add a Naginata.

So #3 is pretty much out. C3 requires maintenance to switch to a different master/slave combination. This cannot be done during a battle. Only as setup for it (Just like loading ammo). So it doesn't slot in as easily there.

Is this canon? What's the reference on how long it takes? Besides, it would probably be done (if it were done) in a timeframe similar to reloading - you take a pause in the battle to reconfigure the C3 setup with fit units and send the remainder to be repaired. It doesn't seem as though it'd be impossible...

The DCMS has more indigenous dual-master variants than other militaries I THINK. So that gives a clue - they tend to use company networks more than other militaries do.

They produce 4 of the 9 units with dual masters, and the other factions have one or two. So, yeah, I think they form company level networks pretty often. They also have the nifty underwater C3M Avatar config...

You only spread C3 Mechs across formations if it benefits you somehow, eg having a C3 spotter in the Recon Lance, and fire support C3s in the Fire Lance, maybe the C3M in the command lance, AND you fight as a united company. Otherwise its the same as not using C3 at all... or worse.

The interesting thing about C3 organization is it doesn't really reward the traditional recon/battle/command lance TOE - C3Ms are simply too heavy for a recon command unit to carry, and if that C3M gets destroyed then the entire recon force is cut off from the rest of the company.

Instead, each individual lance network should have a recon element, a striker/skirmisher, and two fire support/brawler/juggernauts. Perhaps the recon elements of all three lances work together as a recon demi-lance, without sending a delicate C3M out there, but the ACTUAL lance as defined by the network is an entirely autonomous unit, even in a company-level network. If you just had one lance network in a larger company, then how you outline above is exactly how I'd do it.

And while I saw this relationship with Battletech and BV2, C3 was always too expensive to USE at a company level so I never did - and Alpha Strike really highlighted the relationship. I really like it, but I wanted to know if I'd be breaking some canocity if I did it my way. Not that I tend to worry about that a LOT, but I do try to keep it in mind. :D

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Is this canon? What's the reference on how long it takes? Besides, it would probably be done (if it were done) in a timeframe similar to reloading - you take a pause in the battle to reconfigure the C3 setup with fit units and send the remainder to be repaired. It doesn't seem as though it'd be impossible...

Whereas loading ammo has some low TN for the task, setting network relationships for C3 doesn't even have an easy TN... it's just automatically successful.  The only canonical constraint is not being able to do it in the context of an active battle.  From a campaign or role-playing perspective, it "probably" takes a minute or two of twiddling computer settings.  Easy peasy automatically successful squeezy; it just takes too much time to do under fire.

[Kidd]

Instead, each individual lance network should have a recon element, a striker/skirmisher, and two fire support/brawler/juggernauts. Perhaps the recon elements of all three lances work together as a recon demi-lance, without sending a delicate C3M out there, but the ACTUAL lance as defined by the network is an entirely autonomous unit, even in a company-level network. If you just had one lance network in a larger company, then how you outline above is exactly how I'd do it.

The perfect Mech company should be set up so that it can break into 3 lances each with recon, battle and command elements, then reform as an independent company unit for battalion-scale ops. But this doesn't even happen IRL let alone Battletech, and perfection is boring - so I prefer to determine beforehand if the unit fights on a lance or company level.

Dude, list your Mechs either here or in the Noncanon Units sub, it'll be fun to fiddle with your Orbat O0

@TDC - There's a difference in approach when one is starting a campaign and when reorganising between battles.

When starting, I suggest not pre-fragmenting the C3 formation on the assumption that it will be fragged by future losses. Nobody starts a battle that way. When continuing, usually having incomplete C3 nets is preferable to having totally unusable nets or complete nets with unlinked nodes left out.

Eg if I have say 4 C3Ms and 10 C3Ss, I'd rather deploy them as 4 nets (probably 4-4-3-3) rather than 3 nets (4-4-4) and 2 unused, or (4-4-4-2). Its usually more effective. The constraint is usually how many C3Ms are available. Excess of C3Ss aren't usually a problem. And above all, the function of the lance overrides maximising the C3 net construction; no mixing brawlers and recon unless the unit is designed to fight that way:

So to take that hypothetical recon lance - I'll always start off with a complete C3 net. When I lose a Slave, I'll plug in a spare unconnected Slave if available AND its a recon Mech, or a non-C3 recon Mech, rather than a C3 75-ton brawler. What I absolutely won't do is have another Mech connected to a different C3 net in a different lance, simply for the sake of connection... that degrades the effectiveness of BOTH networks. If the C3M is lost I either pull a spare C3M from somewhere, or dissolve the lance and plug the surviving C3Ss into holes in other C3 nets, or run them unlinked - this is probably a must if they're the designated recon lance for the battalion. Form follows function.

If this is what you mean by reconfiguring nets between battles then we are in accord.

[iamfanboy]

The perfect Mech company should be set up so that it can break into 3 lances each with recon, battle and command elements, then reform as an independent company unit for battalion-scale ops. But this doesn't even happen IRL let alone Battletech, and perfection is boring - so I prefer to determine beforehand if the unit fights on a lance or company level.

Dude, list your Mechs either here or in the Noncanon Units sub, it'll be fun to fiddle with your Orbat O0

Heh, okay. A lot of Unseen in this list, btw. With a picture at the end of the entirety. But it has a fair few non-Dragon Battlemechs - but what does that matter for a unit that's seen a lot of action and battlefield prizes claimed, anyway? When I was divvying them up 'recently' (circa 2011) I was heavily focused on what had C3 and what didn't, regardless of canocity.

Archer, Atlas, Battlemaster, Banshee, Catapult, Centurion, Crusader, Cyclops, Dragon, Grasshopper, Griffon, Hunchback, Javelin, Jenner, Locust, Longbow, Marauder, Panther, Phoenix Hawk, Rifleman, Sagittaire, Shadowhawk, Thunderbolt, Trebuchet, Victor, Warhammer, Wasp, Whitworth, Wolverine.

For those of you counting at home, that's 29 'Mechs, and I have the contents of an Alpha Strike Battle Lance and Striker Lance sitting on my desk (some of which will be replacing older, inferior plastic sculpts). So I'd need 11 more 'mechs for a full 40 battalion. Obviously going to fill that out with very DCMS oriented 'Mechs (as of right now few of them are iconic Draconis models...) and I might take out a couple of the real oddballs,especially the Sagittaire, to repaint into my merc unit.

If you want to play with OpFor lists, though, the Banshee is converted to be a BNC-8S. Something about a hatchet-wielding, 95-ton, TSM/ECM-equipped C3 Slave just makes me say, "Damn the canon, THIS THING IS AWESOME."

I think that the C3M setup I'm going to use for the planned company is the NG-C3B Naginata (double master variant), ASD-CM, and BLR-M3. Though in actual games that may vary depending on what kind of points allowance I have...

[Kidd]

Wow. WOW. Well, I love playing with TOEs so let me molest your forces just for the heck of it, nice way to pass a Saturday afternoon :D

I'll post again but here's my summary and first impressions: of 29 Mechs, you have 5 Lights, 9 Mediums, 8 Heavies and 7 Assaults. I am not familiar with Alpha Strike roles but in a VERY vague sense, you have 6 Fire support (missile) Mechs, 4 Recon and 19 Battle types (counted Rifleman and Phoenix Hawk here). And no repeats!

That's... rather top heavy, and odd. But what the heck. I'm going to guess that you will deploy this in an AS battalion fight, so let's build (for now) 7 lances designed to operate as a unified force. At a guess, that might be 1 recon lance, 1 cavalry lance, 2 fire support lances, and 3 battle/assault lances... Tallyho!

Edit - ALRIGHT here we go: right now, I'd assemble 2 companies + 1 command lance out of your current troops, with 1 Mech left over unused (Panther). Alpha Coy takes objectives, Beta Coy holds the line, Command Lance shores up any weak spots.

Alpha Company
Recon Lance - Jenner, Javelin, Locust, Wasp
Cavalry Lance - Griffin, Wolverine, Shadow Hawk, Phoenix Hawk
Fire Support Lance - Crusader, Catapult, Trebuchet, Centurion

Beta Company
Battle Lance - Marauder, Rifleman, Warhammer, Thunderbolt
Fire Support Lance - Longbow, Archer, Dragon, Whitworth
Fast Assault Lance - Sagittaire, Victor, Grasshopper, Hunchback

Command Lance
Assault/Command Lance - Atlas, Battlemaster, Banshee, Cyclops

[Nightsong]

One thing to keep in mind, it would depend heavily on the regiment’s loyalty to the old ways. A lot of the elite units were very into the old samurai mindset and weren’t too fond of the technology. Much like the clan zelbrigen mindset really. I actually think the more middle of the road units would be the ones to use them, as the dreg units wouldn’t be given expensive tech, while the Samurai would be getting the high end ‘mechs.

[jshdncn]

The Genyosha and Ryuken are elite units that embraced C3, while the Sword of Light regiments are more traditional. The Ghost regiments have ‘acquired’ some C3, no one is entirely sure how. Most DCMS line regiments will have some C3 unless particularly hide-bound. By 3145 even the backwater militias should have C3 equipment.

[RoundTop]

One of my favorite c3m mechs for dcms is the bishamon.  A medium quad mech that goes 7/11 and carries a master. Nobody expects a fast master in a recon lance.

[iamfanboy]

In going through my Battletech unpainted stuff, I found out I have TWO Dragons and another Panther. Though I may save one of them to replace the older IBS Dragon in there - the shoulder arrays aren't circular, they're more oval - and it's smaller than they are. Still, that's several more 'Mechs... meaning I only need 5 more iconic Dragon 'Mechs to finish off the battalion, six if I swap out the Sagittaire. One is a Naginata, for sure. If I didn't have a Longbow already in there I'd try to get an O-Bakemono (I'm a big fan of artillery). I do like the Daikyu too...

But that's future-thinking, for after I find a new job. At least my original question was answered. :D

One of my favorite c3m mechs for dcms is the bishamon.  A medium quad mech that goes 7/11 and carries a master. Nobody expects a fast master in a recon lance.

Speed isn't armor. Like I said, company-sized C3 formations don't favor the traditional lance structure, but seem to work best when each lance is its own mini-formation with all the proper elements (recon, striker, fire support), with the obvious source of at least one fire support being your master 'Mech. That way, if something bad happens to your central master, at least you're not completely boned on the points you spent for the formation!

[truetanker]

I would use the following:

But this is MY way of thinking...

Double CM in each Company Commander w/ 3 Slaves each. Extra CM is for Batt. Commander and Company Commanders who have their own 3 Slaves. Each Lance Commander has a CM and a single NON Slave per Lance, a Bodyguard of sorts.

SO:

Batt. CO - CM w/ 3 Slaved Lancemates, 2nd CM for his Company Commanders, 1 each ( 3 )

*1st. Company CO - CM w/ 3 Slaved Lancemates, 2nd CM for his Commander and fellow Lance Commanders, 1 each ( 3 )

*2nd. Company CO - CM w/ 3 Slaved Lancemates, 2nd CM for his Commander and fellow Lance Commanders, 1 each ( 3 )

*3rd. Company CO - CM w/ 3 Slaved Lancemates, 2nd CM for his Commander and fellow Lance Commanders, 1 each ( 3 )


or more clearly:

Batt. CM* -1, 2, 3 / 2nd CM# - Company COs
* Co CM - 1, 2, 3, / 2nd CM@ - Lance COs, Slaved to Batt
@ Lance CM - 1, 2 and a Non Slave, Slaved to CO

Battalion is a Command Lance only. You could also slave the Batt. CM to the Regiment, but then you'll lose a Company in the process.

TT

[Kidd]

@iamfanboy - you're okay with so many different models? some other DCMS Mechs to consider which I haven't seen mentioned here:

Hitman, Kintaro, Daimyo, Komodo, Quickdraw, No-Dachi, Maelstrom, Hatamoto-Chi, Katana, Mauler, Gunslinger, Akuma

And the DC-developed Omnis:
Owens, Raptor, Strider, Firestarter-O, Blackjack-O, Black Hawk-KU, Avatar, Sunder

There are some really good models here. Might want to swap out a few of the generics from your current build.

[guardiandashi]

I actually disagree with Iamfanboy regarding the c3 company configuration but sometimes it requires looking outside the box and or "custom" configurations to make it work well.

my preferred company involves 4 single master mechs
so something like:
Recon master as something 50+tons, to be honest my 1st thought would be something like a phoenix hawk 3M (the dual large laser one) but with one of the er larges pulled and a C3M mounted instead plus some other tweeks to make it more survivable.
3 c3 slave mechs in that lance

then have a "fire lance" with a c3m and 3 slaves
and the "command lance" with 2 c3m mechs and 2 slaves 1 which is the command lance master, and 1 the company master as I find "wasting" 5 tons on c3 per mech is a lot easier to deal with than "wasting" 10 tons on 1 unit.

[RoundTop]

My personal groupings (which are a little odd), but workable.

Scout lance:
Bishamon C3M
Raptor D (C3S)
Spider SDR-C (C3S)
Strider E (C3S)

Battle Lance:
Shugenja (C3M)
Daikyu DAI-02 (C3S)
Komodo KIM-2C (C3S)
Grand Dragon DRG-7K (C3S)

Command lance:
Tai-sho (2C3M)
Avatar D (C3S)
Sunder C (C3S)
Atlas AS7-C (C3S)


That is lots to get in close, with the command and battle lances having a ton of PPCs.  The Tai-sho is well defended by a dizzying amount of MRMs.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

While there are a decent number of mechs with 2 C3Ms available to Kurita forces, I'm a fan of dispersing the 4 C3Ms across 4 mechs rather than 3.  Not only is that more tactically survivable, it's more flexible in campaign operations as any C3M unit can coordinate any 3 subnetwork units whereas a unit with 2 C3Ms can only fulfill 1 role in a C3 network.  And if the circumstances of battle happen to preclude viable usage of a C3 network a mech with 2C3Ms has twice as much wasted tonnage as a mech with 1 C3M.  Additionally, if you use a mech with 2C3Ms then your network only has 3 units with free TAGs rather than 4 :)

Another thought:  If this is a thought exercise that's got BV/PV balanced battles as a factor, then you almost assuredly want to be using conventional/auxiliary forces as a significant portion of your C3 network.  You simply don't want to put 12 C3 mechs against an even number of non C3 Mechs... it's simply too dramatically over-priced in BV.  Less so in Alpha Strike's PV, but still the best bang-for-the-PV involves pairing mechs with cheaper units to flesh out the network.  if you factor that into in-universe logistics, then your line mech unit may very well not ever intend to operate C3 without incorporating non-organic conventionals... i.e. designing a pure mech 12 unit force is a waste of brainpower if you never intend to actually field a pure mech C3 network...

[RoundTop]

While there are a decent number of mechs with 2 C3Ms available to Kurita forces, I'm a fan of dispersing the 4 C3Ms across 4 mechs rather than 3.  Not only is that more tactically survivable, it's more flexible in campaign operations as any C3M unit can coordinate any 3 subnetwork units whereas a unit with 2 C3Ms can only fulfill 1 role in a C3 network.  And if the circumstances of battle happen to preclude viable usage of a C3 network a mech with 2C3Ms has twice as much wasted tonnage as a mech with 1 C3M.  Additionally, if you use a mech with 2C3Ms then your network only has 3 units with free TAGs rather than 4 :)

Another thought:  If this is a thought exercise that's got BV/PV balanced battles as a factor, then you almost assuredly want to be using conventional/auxiliary forces as a significant portion of your C3 network.  You simply don't want to put 12 C3 mechs against an even number of non C3 Mechs... it's simply too dramatically over-priced in BV.  Less so in Alpha Strike's PV, but still the best bang-for-the-PV involves pairing mechs with cheaper units to flesh out the network.  if you factor that into in-universe logistics, then your line mech unit may very well not ever intend to operate C3 without incorporating non-organic conventionals... i.e. designing a pure mech 12 unit force is a waste of brainpower if you never intend to actually field a pure mech C3 network...

Any good C3 company has a lance of Arrow IV units (eg: O-Bakemono, Chaparral Tank, Schiltron) All those TAGs to bring the Arrow IV rain.

[truetanker]

RoundTop~

Bishamon is a nice unit, BUT the Skulker is made on Alshain by Joint Equipment Systems. The CM variant is 230bv.

Also for some reason Sarna lists it as a tracked scout, even though the link shows the wheeled.

TT

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I'm a fan of having a lance of Schiltrons and Turhan C3Ms on the campaign roster.  That's all 4 C3Ms needed for a full sized network in one conventional lance... enough to power all the mech-based C3Slaves you want.  (not to mention hiding a key C3M or two behind LOS and lobbing Arrow IVs is about the juiciest way to use a C3M...)  And if you're in a situation where C3 is useless or as-good-as-useless, your mechs aren't largely put out by having 1 ton each worth of equipment made useless... and if you did bring the Schiltrons and Turhans to the battle anyway you still have artillery and perfectly decent Battle Armor Taxis.  Not a huge waste in C3M tonnage being useless.

[truetanker]

I see your force Tai Dai Cultist, and raise you 3x Thumper / Arrow Gun Trailers and a LRM Gun Trailer.

But over all, what would you run as Flankers for this unit of yours?

I have used the Unarmed Pegasus as a Battle Taxi, with it's 12 ton bay.

TT

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I see your force Tai Dai Cultist, and raise you 3x Thumper / Arrow Gun Trailers and a LRM Gun Trailer.

But over all, what would you run as Flankers for this unit of yours?

I have used the Unarmed Pegasus as a Battle Taxi, with it's 12 ton bay.

TT

I'm a big fan of Kurita's excellent hovertanks.  Depending on the Era, I'd go with the most up-to-date incarnation of a C3S Pegasus or switch over to the BC3 MkII S-Tanks in the Dark Age.  There are also some ridiculously good C3S VTOLS like Sprints and Crows depending on era for very minxy spotter units.. but vulnerable to flak.

Anyway my larger point is I wouldn't design a campaign force with pre-ordained C3 configurations.  I'd have a mix of units available, and I wouldn't bother with any effort at all to arrange 4 unit C3 network sets into simultaneously being campaign lances.  A lance of 4 hovers or VTOLs with slaves is perfectly good in my mind.  They don't need an integral C3M in their own lance because they can connect to whatever C3Ms.  They might be in the same lance (and share lance SPAs, if that's in effect) but spot for different C3 sub-networks.

Same thing with the mechs.  Lance membership and C3 (sub)network membership are different things and have absolutely no benefit from overlapping.  If they happen to overlap, dilly dilly.  But who cares.  I see the mech forces being assigned to lances/companies being done "my way" in universe is what I was saying :)  That games are generally BV/PV balanced, and therefore you'll probably end up using conventionals as part of your network to remain under the points cap is the real phenomenon going on.  Deciding that in-universe they just plug-n-play their networks immediately before battle out of whoever's close enough to participate in said battle is just a way to rationalize hodge-podge forces dictated by meta concerns.

[iamfanboy]

I actually disagree with Iamfanboy regarding the c3 company configuration but sometimes it requires looking outside the box and or "custom" configurations to make it work well.

my preferred company involves 4 single master mechs
so something like:
Recon master as something 50+tons, to be honest my 1st thought would be something like a phoenix hawk 3M (the dual large laser one) but with one of the er larges pulled and a C3M mounted instead plus some other tweeks to make it more survivable.
3 c3 slave mechs in that lance

then have a "fire lance" with a c3m and 3 slaves
and the "command lance" with 2 c3m mechs and 2 slaves 1 which is the command lance master, and 1 the company master as I find "wasting" 5 tons on c3 per mech is a lot easier to deal with than "wasting" 10 tons on 1 unit.

Four single masters is preferable in all ways to a double+2 singles except one:

Cost.

In any game balanced by BV or PV you'll be grossly outnumbered by using C3. While having a C3M2 is vulnerable, the usual suspects are either heavily armored and hard to kill quickly, or blindingly fast (the Strider with dual Boosted C3Ms is awesome as a hide-and-forget leader).

Having 4 Masters is far better for redundancy and resilience, which is why it may sound strange that I argue against it (considering my next point), but compromises have to be made in a wargame.


Resilience and redundancy is why I argue for each network being self-contained. A traditional company structure, with a C3M in the position of Recon Lance leader, is vulnerable to disruption: that Recon Lance C3M has to be on point, will rely on speed as armor (and speed ISN'T armor!), and any opponent with a gram of sense will immediately see your vulnerable point and focus on it.

By using a different structure, with the recon elements of each lance ahead, the striker elements between the recon and master, and the master elements in the rear providing fire support, you minimize the risk of your network being disrupted by headhunter units and maximize the strengths of the C3 company formation. There's not many fast headhunter units that can make it past a striker screen and still have the oomph to deal with multiple assault 'Mechs close in!

@iamfanboy - you're okay with so many different models? some other DCMS Mechs to consider which I haven't seen mentioned here:

Hitman, Kintaro, Daimyo, Komodo, Quickdraw, No-Dachi, Maelstrom, Hatamoto-Chi, Katana, Mauler, Gunslinger, Akuma

And the DC-developed Omnis:
Owens, Raptor, Strider, Firestarter-O, Blackjack-O, Black Hawk-KU, Avatar, Sunder

There are some really good models here. Might want to swap out a few of the generics from your current build.

The Sunder, Avatar, Daimyo, Strider, Mauler, and Akuma are all on my short list as well, but I also have Comstar/WoB, mercenary, and Ghost Bear opfors to finish. The C* is only 5 models short of a Level III, the mercs only have 6 lances (not 7), and the Ghost Bears are short 3 'Mechs in their assault Star (A Dire Wolf and a Stone Rhino need some backup, ya know?)

So I've got to balance that out, along with my desire for more Malifaux minis, rounding out my D&D collection, and possibly replacing my Warmachine Cygnar force with some of the lovely art deco Convergence pieces.... and me with no job, yet, and our budget coming to $1500 a month with my wife only earning $1350.

Another thought:  If this is a thought exercise that's got BV/PV balanced battles as a factor, then you almost assuredly want to be using conventional/auxiliary forces as a significant portion of your C3 network.  You simply don't want to put 12 C3 mechs against an even number of non C3 Mechs... it's simply too dramatically over-priced in BV.  Less so in Alpha Strike's PV, but still the best bang-for-the-PV involves pairing mechs with cheaper units to flesh out the network.  if you factor that into in-universe logistics, then your line mech unit may very well not ever intend to operate C3 without incorporating non-organic conventionals... i.e. designing a pure mech 12 unit force is a waste of brainpower if you never intend to actually field a pure mech C3 network...

Well, I pretty much play Alpha Strike exclusively these days - when I CAN play, until last month all of my Battletech stuff had been in storage for over a year - so the points difference is almost nonexistent between vehicles and 'Mechs.

[bluedragon7]

I would use the following:
...

Batt. CM* -1, 2, 3 / 2nd CM# - Company COs
* Co CM - 1, 2, 3, / 2nd CM@ - Lance COs, Slaved to Batt
@ Lance CM - 1, 2 and a Non Slave, Slaved to CO

That would not result in a legal network

[truetanker]

How so?

Batt. CO has dual CM, meaning 1 slave for every Company CO and 1 each to their personal Lancemates.

Each Company has dual CM, meaning 1 slave to their Commander and 1 each their Lance Commanders, the other CM to their Lancemates.

Each Lance has 1 to their Commander and 2 Lancemates with one not connected, usually bodyguard.

Lances cannot connect to other Companies, and Companies cannot use info from other Companies, but the Batt. can coordinate the whole unit.

Batt.- commands Command Lance and Companies via 2nd. CM...
Company- commands Command Lance and two other Lances, communicates via Batt. 2nd. CM to other Companies, cannot use their Lances...
Lance- commands Lance only, communicates via Company CM and no other...

If you've done military, consider it Lance chatter, Company wide chatter and Batt. chatter in that order.

Com CO can call on Batt for info, other Com for info and own Lancemates. Lancemates can only call on Company info , while Batt. can use anyone to where they need it via chain of command.

Scout Lance of Beta calls Beta CO about a target, Beta relays to Batt and asks for A4 support. Batt. commands Charlie CO to commence firing at sector. Beta Scout targets said with TAG....

See now? Not illegal. I just connected three C3 Companies to a Battalion Commander using a second CM via each Company Commander. Each Commander uses a second CM to command their respected companies, with each Lance losing one slave to connection, hence the non-slave bodyguard. The Batt. Commander uses their 2nd. CM to communicate with their three C3 Slaves in the Command Lance.

TT

[Tai Dai Cultist]

...
Well, I pretty much play Alpha Strike exclusively these days - when I CAN play, until last month all of my Battletech stuff had been in storage for over a year - so the points difference is almost nonexistent between vehicles and 'Mechs.

Well, if we're migrating away from a discussion on in-universe doctrine and towards a discussion on meta doctrine, I have some additional thoughts to add:

Tanks vs Mechs:  I gotta disagree with you and insist there is a difference in PVs when you're looking at the stats relevant to why you're picking the unit.  Take for example a niche of a bruiser of a hitter for your network.  If you use a big bad Akuma, you're north of 50 points.  OTOH if you take a MRM Demolisher, you get more firepower that still costs 67% of what the Akuma would.  Granted, any tank is less durable than a mech of its league, but the PV difference for the hitting power is substantially less.  Granted the Akuma has a ton more armor than the Demolisher and that's why you're paying more... but tanks are still inherently cheaper than mechs.  Take a look at the perfectly solid-but-not-stellar Manticore C3S.  C3S Mechs for the exact same 30PV are all smaller and deficient to the Manticore's statline, except being faster and obviously mechs and therefore enjoying those inherent type advantages.  And when it comes to buying TMM 4 for one or more of your network's spotters, it's usually cheaper to do with a CV than a mech.  Granted some mechs with TMM3 and jumping can be priced similarly to TMM4 hovers, but there's very few options for a mech that can hit TMM4 (or 3+J) while still being priced as low as a Crow C3 spotter.  So anyway, putting this in perspective:  I'm not saying mechs are obsolete in C3... just that if you want to wring the most PV value out of your C3 force, you'll want to use some vees.  Of course, if one is playing a BV balanced game, just pay for skill upgrades instead.  Absolutely no reason at all to even bring C3 to a BV balanced game.

More thoughts on maximizing PV investment in C3:  In AS, C3 is priced to be 50% of a skill upgrade.  Even at that discount, it's arguable as to whether a C3 enhancement is a better buy than just getting a skill upgrade for the unit which can't be cancelled by ECM or C3M loss.  I feel that there's a critical mass for C3 in an AS game, and that's the magic number 1/3.  That is, you don't have any business making more than 1/3 of your force C3 networked.  In a lance sized game, you don't use C3.  In a company sized game, you don't go past 1 C3M.  Only if you're doing a full battalion sized game would you ever field a full 12 unit network.  2/3 of your force uses skill upgrades instead of C3, and your force won't be utterly screwed by just 2-3 ECM units showing up.

[iamfanboy]

More thoughts on maximizing PV investment in C3:  In AS, C3 is priced to be 50% of a skill upgrade.  Even at that discount, it's arguable as to whether a C3 enhancement is a better buy than just getting a skill upgrade for the unit which can't be cancelled by ECM or C3M loss.  I feel that there's a critical mass for C3 in an AS game, and that's the magic number 1/3.  That is, you don't have any business making more than 1/3 of your force C3 networked.  In a lance sized game, you don't use C3.  In a company sized game, you don't go past 1 C3M.  Only if you're doing a full battalion sized game would you ever field a full 12 unit network.  2/3 of your force uses skill upgrades instead of C3, and your force won't be utterly screwed by just 2-3 ECM units showing up.

It's priced to be 50% of a one-point upgrade in skill, and even at medium range is worth two - meaning that it's at 25% of its average effect in game. If you can get a unit (preferably with ECM) into Short range and have multiple units at LONG range with high Long damage, you're at a +4 for every single one of those units. Oh, and look at all the shiny C3M units with Long 3 or better... hell, I made a guide for it too.

Yeah, slightly off track for how the thread started about in-universe, but it IS fun to discuss, even if we disagree. :D