Mechanized/Motorized Infantry questions

[Black_Knyght]

I'm trying to do more with the various infantry aspects of CBT (specifically during the 3075 time period) than just the typical Battle Armor units.

I've looked through several of the books, and even Sarna.net, for some answers here but it seems that most of the infantry type descriptions are for a much later time period and things are kind of vague for earlier eras.

So, I have a couple of quick questions concerning Mechanized & Motorized Infantry I'm hoping the experts here can help me with.

Firstly, the description of Mechanized Infantry is as follows:

"Mechanized infantry are carried into battle in smaller fighting vehicles (typically weighing less than five tons[citation needed], compared to the full-sized machines classified under Combat Vehicles) ranging from halftracks to hoverpods and three-man submarines. Offering more protection compared to motorized infantry, these vehicles are also larger and heavier, capable of providing fire support themselves if sufficiently armed. Because of their means of transportation, mechanized infantry using wheeled or tracked vehicles are allowed to tow heavier support weapons such as Field Artillery. In addition to the normal number of infantry, mechanized squads and platoons include enough personnel to man their vehicles."

My question here is - Are there canon "smaller fighting vehicles (typically weighing less than five tons)" with actual CBT usable stats out there somewhere, or are these just an abstract assumed-to-exist kind of thing? The information I've found about this seems maddeningly vague to me, but I could simply be missing something too.



Secondly, the description of Motorized Infantry is as follows:

"Motorized infantry ride into battle on light vehicles such as motorcycles and jeeps, making them faster than foot infantry although more restricted in the types of terrain they can traverse. In addition to the jobs normally given to foot infantry, motorized infantry also act as scouts and forward observers for their parent force. While some will dismount prior to battle, other motorized forces fight from their vehicles, the high speeds and tight formations they typically fight at giving them a reputation for recklessness. Because of their means of transportation, motorized squads are allowed to tow heavier squad support weapons such as Field Guns. They may also be transported to the battlefield in modified heavy APCs."

My question here is - Are there canon "light vehicles such as motorcycles and jeeps" that there are actual CBT usable stats for somewhere, or are these just another abstract assumed-to-exist thing? Again, the information seems maddeningly vague to me, but I could be missing something here too. And what kind of field guns (with actual CBT usable stats) are there for them? And since most information I'm seeing relates only to Alpha Strike, how are they utilized in a non-Alpha Strike type of CBT game?

I really want to utilize these in our ongoing games, but I'm just not a fan of Alpha Strike and it seems most things related to what I'm trying to research are only written with regards to that version of the game. So to de-stress and get clear, concise answers I'm turning to other players here who may get where I'm coming from.

And THANX in advance for any and all helpful replies here!

[worktroll]

1) The items used by motorised vehicles are pure abstraction. There are no actual game stats for them as separate from the platoon - which has a better movement rate than foot infantry, but weighs more. The absence of information about them as separate entities means they're just "there".  You also need to ignore issues like "what happens to my kettenkrads when my platoon enters a building?" - just go with the flow ;)

2) TechManual has the infantry platoon construction rules, which will reveal most of what you need.  Short form - all field guns are ballistic weapons - autocannons. No others allowed - no mortars, no missiles, no 'Mech MGs (different rules for infantry support weapons in these categories). A field gun comes with one ton of ammo, and requires a number of troopers equal to the weapon's mass to operate. So an LB-5X, weighing 8 tons, needs 8 crew. A platoon can field as many field guns as it can man - so a 28-trooper platoon can field 3 LB-5Xs. 24 are assumed to be operating the guns, and leftovers can fire rifles. Once you drop below 24 troopers, the third gun can't fire; excess gunners are assumed to pick up their rifles at that point, and so on. Field gun platoons have to be mechanised - the sub-scale trucks pull the guns.

As in real life, infantry is best in defensive positions; a company of field guns can be a significant nuisance. I favour the LB-5X in period, firing cluster for that chance of a headshot at longer range, or the UAC-20 hidden for the classic "Peek-a-boo!"

Short answers on a large topic. And don't forget to explore motorised infantry with hover or wheeled movement. MW:DA made lots of nice models for track, trike, bike & monocycle infantry, but IWM's hover infantry are better than the grossly outsized DA hover infantry.

[Darth_Biagio]

In addition to the increased speed (and any terrain restrictions based on their motive type), another effect of the abstraction is that such units are less vulnerable against infantry fire (to account for the protection granted by the vehicles), but are more vulnerable against heavy weapons (since the soldiers are more groupend together while aboard the vehicles).

[Black_Knyght]

Ugh, that's exactly what I was afraid of...... ABSTRACT!!!!

I always have a tough time with "it's just the way it is" kind of rules or situations, wherein a thing "is" but there aren't actually any stats representing what it "is". I don't even get how you're supposed to write them up! BA, Tanks, Fighters, Mechs, even Dropship and Jumpships have stats, but not so much with the various kinds of infantry.

And the more I learn, the more I realize that no one making up the rules has any clue how infantry in it's various real-life forms actually work. I mean, a field gun requires a number of troopers equal to the weapon's mass to operate?

What...The...Fritz....?

It could be in large part because I spent so many years being a foot soldier and seeing firsthand all the ins and outs of the job, but these rules are just...vague...to me. Given their abstractness, why is there even a division between Mechanized and Motorized? If their vehicles aren't real and there aren't even stats for them, what's the point of the separate explications?

Anyway, I really DO appreciate the answer. It puts me a little closer with regards to field guns, though Motorized/Mechanized infantry still seems bizarre to me.

[nckestrel]

There are some vehicles in TR VA, the House Handbooks and i think 3085 that can be used.  They are primarily for RPG use.  Presumably most players don't want to track 10-30 different vehicles plus infantry squads for each platoon.  And they all blow up quickly.

[Black_Knyght]

Can anyone tell where exactly in the TechManual it details things like the following:

Code: [Select]

DEST Heavy Response Platoon / Heavy Jump Infantry

Platoon Type (Specialty)

    Jump (None)

Platoon Size (Squad/Platoon)     21 (7/3)

Technical specifications

Primary Weapon     18 Blazer Laser Rifles
Secondary Weapon     3 Semi-Portable Particle Cannons

Armor     DEST Infiltration Suit

Tech Base/Rating     Inner Sphere (E/X-E-E)

Transport Weight     4

Ground MP     1
Jump MP     3

Armor Divisor     1

To-Hit Modifier (Range in Hexes)     –1 (0 Hex), 0 (1-2 Hexes), +2 (3-4 Hexes), +4 (5-6 hexes)

BV (1.0)     95


[nckestrel]

The armor is from Tac Ops.

[Black_Knyght]

There are some vehicles in TR VA, the House Handbooks and i think 3085 that can be used.  They are primarily for RPG use.  Presumably most players don't want to track 10-30 different vehicles plus infantry squads for each platoon.  And they all blow up quickly.

That's a bit helpful too, though I'm not familiar with a VA technical readout. Gonna have to check if I have that one.

One thing I live about our games is that we play them in a huge two-car garage that's been converted into a game room, and we all enjoy playing games that last days rather than hours.

When we reach an agreed upon stopping point we just mark everything and leave all the game pieces where they are, and pick it all back up where we left off next time around. Finally connected with enough like-minded people who play the game for fun, and don't watch the clock or spend hours arguing over pointless minutia.

[Black_Knyght]

The armor is from Tac Ops.

Anyone know how it fits in when creating a CBT infantry unit, or is infantry armor just an abstract assumed-to-exist kind of thing too?

[worktroll]

Ugh, that's exactly what I was afraid of...... ABSTRACT!!!!

It's a game which evolved around giant fighting robots. Giving infantry more roles than "smear on road" is a bonus.  And not everyone wants to play squad-level games. 

Given their abstractness, why is there even a division between Mechanized and Motorized? If their vehicles aren't real and there aren't even stats for them, what's the point of the separate explications?

Probably because annoying people demanded differentiation between

and


 O:-)

And for the armour, you need TM and TO - TM for infantry construction basic rules, and TO for any optional rules you want to use. A combination of TO and TM rules will make you happier. For example, the armour type in TO provides additional cost, protection (divides damage received by a number), and usually encumbrance (move or shoot).

And yes, abstraction. If you want the ultimate man-on-man game, look up SPI's "Sniper". For squad-level with vehicles, Flames of War. For giant fighting robots, BattleTech.

(Yes, I didn't include AToW, as a) it's primarily an RPG, and b) Sniper's a cleaner game of personal combat IMHO. Sadly deficient as a RPG.)

[Black_Knyght]

It's a game which evolved around giant fighting robots. Giving infantry more roles than "smear on road" is a bonus.  And not everyone wants to play squad-level games.

I get that. I just wish a little more effort had been applied to them beyond either a "smear on road" or abstract afterthought.

Probably because annoying people demanded differentiation between

and

It seems odd to demand levels of differentiation, then accept limiting it to little more than abstract wording. But then my thoughts on this matter would likely be considered annoying too. And are.

And for the armour, you need TM and TO - TM for infantry construction basic rules, and TO for any optional rules you want to use. A combination of TO and TM rules will make you happier. For example, the armour type in TO provides additional cost, protection (divides damage received by a number), and usually encumbrance (move or shoot).

THAT is helpful for my sanity too, as it gives me actual numbers to work with and not just an ethereal concept.

If you want the ultimate man-on-man game, look up SPI's "Sniper". For squad-level with vehicles, Flames of War.

I don't mean to sound difficult, and I'm NOT actually looking for the ultimate in squad-level rules.

I just wish there was something a bit more substantial than an abstract concept that isn't noticeably different from the other abstract concepts. For example - As presented in the rules a Combat Engineer unit differs from a Dark Caste Bandit unit only in a name, an implied purpose, and the lack of an abstracted support weapon.

I can't help but imagine that there's a bit more difference between the two than that. But, I have an unfortunate leaning more towards what I can see and do than abstract or theoretical concepts. Hence my personal aversion to calculus and advanced astrophysics. ;)

[truetanker]

Do you want to see more?
Check out the variants:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Rock_Rover
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Raptor_RRV
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Freedom_900


There's others too...

Look up Jeep on Sarna, waaay back when MW1 came out.

TT

[worktroll]

TW is a game where combat turns take 10 seconds. The functional difference between combat engineers and Dark Caste bandits at that level of resolution is ... nothing really. While combat engineers have a significant range of non-combat skills, not many of them matter at that resolution.

Personally, I always felt that a lot of the original BT creators were Navy folk - carriers, specifically. The 'Mech scales to the carrier airplane, with its hero pilot & supporting techs. If one were to make the assumption that their preconceptions of how infantry and armour worked carried over ... ;)

Seriously, it's time to use one's noggin and make logical extensions. If you have combat engineers, and you're on the defence in a scenario, allow trenches or dug-in hidden units. Or on the offence, you have to make sure your combat engineers survive to the end of the scenario, so they can demo the dam.
i
My pet peeve? I personally hate the field gun rules as applied to artillery. I'd rather have a gun & crew as a unit, and a tow. SO I do it that way:



No canon rules/stats, but just make it an unarmoured trailer just big enough to carry the weapon and a ton of ammo, and have enough gunners standing around it (2 non-'Mech units per hex, after all). But that's me. Because face it - no artillery, or field gun, in any real world is going to move in 10 seconds, then fire in the next 10 seconds, etc etc.

So don't stress - be creative! It's not like we'll send the Demo Team ninjas around to whip you with copies of the Tactical Handbook until you repent :D

[Daryk]

I usually just build Foot Platoons, deploy them as squads, and give them real combat vehicles for rides.  And that includes field artillery, too...

[truetanker]

I can't think where, but I have always used the trailer rules. My house rule has been weight of the arty / field gun piece and 1 ton of ammo with .5 ton ICE generator and .5 ton wheel chassis. Which means no Hover ability, can be used in all terrain, save where prohibited. Meaning if a Prime Mover can't go there, neither should the trailer, withier Track or Wheel.

So recap, weight of the piece with 1 ton ammo, 1 extra ton for power and chassis. Lose 1 MP due to speed or PSR per terrain change / elevation movement. Same speed on Paved Roads.

But I do agree, there should be some ruling.

TT

[worktroll]

TT, that's like the FH-70:



Admittedly, it's a nice challenge to make one of my MW:DA towed Long Toms in that configuration.

I tend to think that sort of tech, like the ability to eject from underwater, are LosTech ;) SSW lets me stat up a 0MP trailer.

[truetanker]

I know, 0MP trailer, but your caring it as cargo... or more correctly, dragging it. Hence the -1MP to offset the weight.

If you recalculate the movement, that is.

TT

[nckestrel]

Tac Ops also has engineers to build trenchworks, firefighters, paratroopers and other options for infantry. 

[worktroll]

And when you have all 7 Core Rulebooks, they can be stacked to make a Castle Brian for terrain play!

(Weeeell, maybe not, but odds are good there'll be "a rule for it" in that mighty stack)

[nckestrel]

There's a rule for breaking the rules..

[CrazyGrasshopper]

No canon rules/stats, but just make it an unarmoured trailer just big enough to carry the weapon and a ton of ammo, and have enough gunners standing around it (2 non-'Mech units per hex, after all). But that's me. Because face it - no artillery, or field gun, in any real world is going to move in 10 seconds, then fire in the next 10 seconds, etc etc.

I too think that's the right way to do field guns/artillery. A thing that is not that mobile, weighs more than 10 ton and has an appropriate size should not get infantry to-hit modifiers. By the way, do you consider them immobile targets? (Actually, this can be a rules question: are unattached gun trailers immobile?)

So don't stress - be creative! It's not like we'll send the Demo Team ninjas around to whip you with copies of the Tactical Handbook until you repent :D

So, you won't deny the existence of Demo Team ninjas?  :D

[Hammer]

We've recently added the ability to build more infantry types and their abilities in MegaMekLab.  It also has the ability to print infantry RS for TableTop play. We are working on bringing the full construction rules per TM/TO into it.

[worktroll]

Hammer, cool!

CrazyGrasshopper, yup - either immobile, or towed. And going "into battery" happens outside TW scale, and presence of an ammo source (eg. the tow truck has cargo capacity) in the hex allows it to fire that ammo too. (I happen to have a pile of DA artillery, and a pile of J37 ammo transports to which a trailer hitch has been added)

And no-one denies the existance of Demo Team ninjas. Just no-one's been able to gain definitive proof. Just like no-one's ever survived to report being attacked by dolphins.

W :D

[Liam's Ghost]

We've recently added the ability to build more infantry types and their abilities in MegaMekLab.  It also has the ability to print infantry RS for TableTop play. We are working on bringing the full construction rules per TM/TO into it.

I have made so many record sheet pdfs since that got released...

[JenniferinaMAD]

It seems odd to demand levels of differentiation, then accept limiting it to little more than abstract wording. But then my thoughts on this matter would likely be considered annoying too. And are.

There is a notable distinction between motorised and mechanised:
Motorised platoons use vehicles capable of either tight space manoeuvring or being pushed along by dismounted troopers. This allows them to move as foot infantry, but faster.
Mechanised platoons use vehicles too big or heavy for that, and so are limited by the same terrain restrictions as vehicles of the same movement type. In exchange, they tend to be faster, gain terrain advantages of their movement types and are more resilient to anti-personnel weapons (at the cost of being more clustered together against heavy weapons fire).

[Black_Knyght]

@Worktroll - LOL, the Combat Engineers were just an example, since both they and the Dark Caste Bandits are motorized infantry.

@Hammer - I'll second Worktroll's comment!

[Weirdo]

AToW Companion has role-playing and TW stats for many of the vehicles you'd see a motorized or mechanized platoon using. As has been said, TRO: Vehicle Annex has some too, and you can find still more such units scattered across the House Handbooks. Similarly, you can use those vehicles to tow gun trailers(likely much smaller than the ones in 3145) if you want to add more detail to field guns/artillery.

Note: Using these vehicles in conjunction with infantry squads to up the detail on you motor/mechinf platoons will cause the number of units and record sheets you need to keep track of to go up FAST, especially when you remember that most infantry platoons aren't really worth bringing in less than company strength at least. You've been warned.

[Daemion]

There are some vehicles in TR VA, the House Handbooks and i think 3085 that can be used.  They are primarily for RPG use.  Presumably most players don't want to track 10-30 different vehicles plus infantry squads for each platoon.  And they all blow up quickly.

If people can justify tanks, then they can justify tanks with turret mounted infantry swarms as part of their armament.

I really don't understand the mindset of this kind of abstraction, or that kind of excuse in game design.

[Daemion]

Note: Using these vehicles in conjunction with infantry squads to up the detail on you motor/mechinf platoons will cause the number of units and record sheets you need to keep track of to go up FAST, especially when you remember that most infantry platoons aren't really worth bringing in less than company strength at least. You've been warned.

For something like mechanized transports, I don't see why they have to be full sheets and couldn't be printed in such a way as BA units are in Heavy Metal: Light. Even on the same page as the platoon, itself.

Out of curiosity, what's the damage scale for the AToW vehicles compared to standard Total Warfare?

[nckestrel]

If people can justify tanks, then they can justify tanks with turret mounted infantry swarms as part of their armament.

I really don't understand the mindset of this kind of abstraction, or that kind of excuse in game design.

Level of abstraction is an preference, an opinion.  You prefer otherwise, go for it.  But the game wasn't designed for it, so it will likely break.  Game design is to meet the goals of the game.  BattleTech isn't about single motorcyles and individual infantry.  If it breaks because you force it to be so, that was your choice to break the game.  If you don't think it breaks, then fine, no problem. Enjoy.  I was merely pointing out that wasn't how BattleTech was designed, and therefore warning that it may not play well that way. You are still welcome to play however you'd like.