Register Register

Author Topic: Time for a Battletech Revamping?  (Read 15874 times)

Talen5000

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 875
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #300 on: 04 January 2021, 13:27:05 »
The problem being that once you put them on wheels, they really aren't a foot platoon, or at least, they shouldn't operate as a foot platoon.  As soon as wheels  are presented, they become something else and should follow the rules of that something else.

Yes...they become a foot platoon with vehicles which allow them to move faster but subject to movement and terrain restrictions. Yes...it is abstracted and simplified but in a BT game there isn't much need for greater detail. Addressing that "we have a rule for that" has made infantry over complex, over complicated and divorced them from the "reality" of the BTU.

The simplest route is to state that a motorised unit loses the ability to hide or perform antiMech attacks in exchange for moving faster.
The next simplest is to add a Mounted status....the unit can take 1 turn to dismount, transforming itself from a motorised unit to a foot unit.
The next simplest would be to allow the vehicles to be marked so the unit can return and remount.

There are various ways you can expand but ultimately, few of them really work well because 1..BT is not designed as an infantry scale game and 2...the BTU is not a universe where infantry actually do well.

There is very little need to differentiate or create overly complex rules and less benefit from doing so.

The light vehicles of a motorised unit will allow for quick movement to the battle but they aren't going to substantially improve firepower or defence. It would be easy to add complexity...this motorised unit has motorcycles do gets +2 MP but that one has HMMVs so carries mounted support weaponry...but there is little real in game benefit.

The Missile Artillery infantry is a Arrow IV Gun Trailer.
Field Gun Infantry is an appropriate Gun Trailer.

There is no need for additional rules

You want vehicles to be counted? The platoon is a Foot Infantry but now it gets an IFV and record sheet attached. The IFV has armour and Mech scale weapons...now the unit can hurt Mechs but its a target itself.

But no additional rules...it uses vehicular movement.

Yes...there are all sorts of rules and special situations and do on you could add to infantry. But most of those, IMO, hurt the game more than they help.

So....base would be Foot Infantry. Motorised would be faster Foot Infantry but movement and terrain restrictions. Mechanised would be Foot Infantry with separate record sheets for APCs or IFVs. And Jump would be specialist, probably lacking support weaponry in exchange for movement but abstracted to just specialist.

Put another way...infantry aren't important enough to justify complicated rulesets.
"So let me get this straight. You want to fly on a magic carpet to see the King of the Potato People and plead with him for your freedom, and you're telling me you're completely sane?" -- Uncle Arnie

Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1087
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #301 on: 04 January 2021, 14:51:53 »
Yes...they become a foot platoon with vehicles which allow them to move faster but subject to movement and terrain restrictions. Yes...it is abstracted and simplified but in a BT game there isn't much need for greater detail. Addressing that "we have a rule for that" has made infantry over complex, over complicated and divorced them from the "reality" of the BTU.

If they are a foot platoon with vehicles, then where are the vehicles?

We're already talking about a game that is only a step or two down from Starfleet Battles in terms of complexity, and you're worried that INFANTRY has gotten TOO complex for the needs of the game?  How interesting.

This is a game where you can be facing a littler lumber mech in the field along with a MASH and trenching equipment.  Concern for complexity is over reaching a little.

The simplest route is to state that a motorised unit loses the ability to hide or perform antiMech attacks in exchange for moving faster.
The next simplest is to add a Mounted status....the unit can take 1 turn to dismount, transforming itself from a motorised unit to a foot unit.
The next simplest would be to allow the vehicles to be marked so the unit can return and remount.

But then should not an enemy barrage the area so their vehicles are useless?  And if we're already leaving marks for their vehicles, why not just have the vehicles be separate and mark them appropriately?

That is part of why I've been saying Mechanized Infantry should still be Foot Infantry trained for embarking and disembarking from transport vehicles.  What has been used for Mechanized Infantry can then be built, designed, and properly represented as the vehicles they actually are.

Now, Motorized Infantry is in a tight bind.  Unless we're going to set up a design scheme so that they are the PA(L) of Light Vehicles, they might be the odd one out.  Still, it might work out if one was willing to do the work to set it up, but they'd lose their "Infantry" monikor.

But overall in that scheme Infantry would technically just come in the varieties of Foot and Jump, with just further specialties in things like amphibious/scuba or orbital drop to add on as the scenario demands.

Put another way...infantry aren't important enough to justify complicated rulesets.

That's more a problem of scenario design than the rules that apply to them.  Most Battlemech games are little more than a Circle of Equals or an interception of assets where Infantry doesn't come in to play, unless it's Battle Armor.  There is little need for Infantry to secure sites where objectives can be reached or employ environmental assets (turrets, artillery fire, etc) in their favor that just wouldn't be practical for a Combat Vehicle or a Mech to accomplish.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

garhkal

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5527
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #302 on: 04 January 2021, 15:03:19 »

Are there things I’d like to see changed? Absolutely. There must be away to speed up the resolution of cluster weapons. The system we have now cannot possibly be the apex of simulating a mech-sized shotgun.

IMO the easiest change, would be roll one location. Each location around that, gets 10% of the damage, the rest goes to the location rolled.. 

Agreed.  Kibitzing and analysis paralysis are the parts that take the longest. When playing with friends, I try to encourage everyone to move right along; when running events and demo games and I see that starting to happen, I gently suggest two optimal (or at least near optimal) movements to go with depending on whether they want to be more aggressive or more defensive to keep the game moving.

That's why many games i've played/ran, the person organizing it had a stop watch, egg timer or the like, to Keep folks moving quickly.

simple solution to speed up games: set a clock for each turn :)
if you want to increase tension: reduce time per turn with each round

Now that could work..

i mean the need for those sheets are from how the units interact with each other on the table so i see them as more of a symptom than anything

but this isn't a computer game so digital automation shouldn't be required to that degree.

My thought's exactly.  If i wanted everything digitalized,i'd just play mechwarrior online or the like.

There is also a very real consideration of how far can you with digital assistance go before you might as well be using Megamek instead?
It is a good question though for me the biggest advantage to playing in person rather than mega mek involves personal interactions and having a tangible table objects to interact with.  So even if I was using digital tools for bunch of the game (not my ideal in some cases) I would still rather be at a table with physical miniatures and the like.

Hence why to me, if i want to game, i game IN person..  That's why i d on't do gaming online like via Roll 20 or the like.

This depends on how well players have memorized the tables.  If they have it can still be a bit tedious but not overwhelming.  If not, well it goes way past tedious.

Es[ecially if you have multiple LB's to roll!!

1000% This!

Resolving a LBX20 shotgun with a cluster roll of 12 can take less time that it does some some people to decide their facing.

And no amount of changing the rules, will get rid of that.

To be continued later..
It's not who you kill, but how they die!
You can't shoot what you can't see.
You can not dodge it if you don't know it's coming.

Talen5000

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 875
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #303 on: 04 January 2021, 15:41:40 »
If they are a foot platoon with vehicles, then where are the vehicles?

Represented by movement type and abstracted into the unit. A Motorised unit is therefore identical to a Foot unit...except it moves faster and has a movement mode

Quote
We're already talking about a game that is only a step or two down from Starfleet Battles in terms of complexity, and you're worried that INFANTRY has gotten TOO complex for the needs of the game?  How interesting.

And I disagree with much of that complexity as, quite frankly, I find it unnecessary. C3 for example - I've long felt that should be the IS answer to the TC but the rules surrounding it are overly complex and unnecessarily time consuming. I would prefer a simpler representation such as "A side which has multiple active C3 units receives a -1 TN to all long range attacks and a +1 Initiative bonus" or something similar. A lot of the extra equipment and rules I dislike simply because they add complexity, but little if any value or flavour.

The infantry rules are an extension of this. It would, IMO and I'm sure there are plenty who disagree, be better to depower infantry, to remove the unneeded complexity, and that in turns means that designations such as Motorised and Mechanized would need to be looked at. Infantry don't need damage divisors, or damage multipliers and they don't need abstract abilities such as "Field Guns" or "Field Artillery", especially when such units already exist.  An Infantry unit with a Field Gun is nothing more than a Gun Trailer and crew. A second set of rules is not needed. Plop down a Gun Trailer model on the board, and voila - you have your infantry/field gun combo.

That is just one example

As I said - from my point of view, and again just my opinion, infantry aren't worth the effort to be anything more than abstract units. Not in the tabletop game.

So - motorised would be foot with embedded vehicles. Your motorbikes and humvees or medium truck simply make the unit faster. If you want to add actual defence modifiers or offensive weapons of some sort, then you need Mechanized Infantry which would be Foot Infantry with dedicated transports, each with their own record sheet.


Quote
But then should not an enemy barrage the area so their vehicles are useless?  And if we're already leaving marks for their vehicles, why not just have the vehicles be separate and mark them appropriately?

You mean have a foot infantry unit and dedicated APCs? Like mechanized infantry?

Quote
Now, Motorized Infantry is in a tight bind.  Unless we're going to set up a design scheme so that they are the PA(L) of Light Vehicles, they might be the odd one out.  Still, it might work out if one was willing to do the work to set it up, but they'd lose their "Infantry" monikor.

In real life, and being really simplistic, and without going into details or exceptions, "Motorised" Infantry aren't really a thing. Motorised Infantry use motor transports to get to and from the battlezone quickly. Mechanized Infantry are the units which bring IFVs with them. Soft skin vs armoured. Yes, it's a generalisation but it is a generalisation that can be adapted to the board game.

One issue with infantry in BT is that there is no real effort at distinguishing what makes a Mechanised or what is motorised. Which leads to the motorcyle example given above.

Quote
But overall in that scheme Infantry would technically just come in the varieties of Foot and Jump, with just further specialties in things like amphibious/scuba or orbital drop to add on as the scenario demands.

There only needs to be Foot Infantry. No other type other than BattleArmour.
The in game difference between Foot and Motorised is movement speed and "mounted" status.
The ingame difference between Foot and Mechanised is that Mechanised fight alongside armoured units....and because they offer protection and weapons, they get their own record sheet.

A foot soldier is foot infantry.
A foot soldier on bike is motorised - he can move faster but has terrain restrictions. He can't enter buildings with his vehicle, must adhere to the movement mode.
A foot soldier in an armoured transport is mechanised. It is a foot platoon, but it is paired with a dedicated vehicle with its own record sheet. Abn infantry unit with a Goblin, IFV or APC would be Mechanised.

Most specialties would be ignored in game. The time frame isn't going to suit them.
Field Guns and Field artillery would be gun trailers, not varieties of infantry unit.
Same with Static defences...you don't need to model the infantry or crew, unless the option to abandon the structure is available. At which point, we again should just get foot infantry

And so on. Most of the new rules for infantry add complexity and detail...but very little value. And the point I am trying to make...probably badly....is that at the BT level of scale, the only infantry unit we need worry about is foot infantry, and stop worrying about special case rules.

Quote
That's more a problem of scenario design than the rules that apply to them.  Most Battlemech games are little more than a Circle of Equals or an interception of assets where Infantry doesn't come in to play, unless it's Battle Armor.  There is little need for Infantry to secure sites where objectives can be reached or employ environmental assets (turrets, artillery fire, etc) in their favor that just wouldn't be practical for a Combat Vehicle or a Mech to accomplish.

And that is because in game, Mechs are more fun,  Mechs are the units most people want to play and because there isn't really an easy way to employ infantry beyond "wait in this hex for three turns" to secure the objective. The game is scaled for mech and vehicular combat. There isn't really an easy way to design a scenario where the mechs act as a decoy while an elite infantry team scales a mountain, infiltrates a fortress, and destroys its command ability to the point that the side surrenders. Because, in game, it's going to be roll a dice on each of 6 turns to see if you make it up the mountain undetected and safely, and then have the survivors roll a dice to see how they do against the defenders. You're essentially talking about something akin to a boarding action but it doesn't really change that the unit, for all contents and purposes, is just sitting there doing nothing. I'm sure there are scenarios which can be designed with infantry in mind, but end of the day, this is still a Mech focussed universe and infantry don't really need a lot of complex rules

« Last Edit: 04 January 2021, 18:26:30 by Talen5000 »
"So let me get this straight. You want to fly on a magic carpet to see the King of the Potato People and plead with him for your freedom, and you're telling me you're completely sane?" -- Uncle Arnie

garhkal

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5527
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #304 on: 04 January 2021, 16:57:07 »
If I did a Battletech revamping, my thoughts would be as follows for Mech construction:

  • Engine: Battery vs Fuel Cell vs Diesel vs Fission vs Fusion (each would have their advantages/disadvantages)

Why a need for all 5 types of engines?  I could see the first 3 for vehicles, the 2nd two for mechs..  BUT not all 5 for both.

Also for construction, something MORE to make quads more appealing..  like say giving their +2 PSR bonus for the 4 leg stability, as a BONUS for computations of 'psr difference' for physical attacks (especially charging and kicking!)

Only problem I see with all of this is that every one of the mechs would need to be redone. That's over 2000.

Not just that, but all the mech construction programs (skunk works, HMP) would also need a major revamping.

Quote
Another matter could be the many rolls needed for the water movement. To just make a few hexes of movement along a river could result in a long series of dice rolls, and so the relatively easy passing of a river or a little pond can become the Realm of Randmoness (yes even for a game that has yet an elevated use of dice).
I know that my group has decided to ignore pavement and skidding rules. The justification is that Mechs are advanced machines and should be able to handle pavement without pilot input pretty handily.  Rules like these would be for primitive Mechs and/or Industrials. 

The same case can be made for water. You're already paying a hefty movement price.  (Now that we're in the fan rules thread...) Or, another option is to use the piloting roles to allow a Mech to move through water at reduced cost.

How's about player's choice..  either no move cost mod for water, but you get the PSR, per say 2 hexes of movement in water, or have the move cost mods, but no PSR.

Rolling per launcher can still be semi-automated, either using more dice (in color pairs), or using a computer.  By making larger Missile Launchers have that tonnage advantage it makes the designer choose carefully, rather than leaving the player having to make multiple rolls for LRM-5s, instead of 1-2 rolls for LRM-20s.  For example, the Archer could have 4 LRM-5 and a pair of heat sinks in each torso instead of a single LRM-20 (same tonnage, 6 crits vs 5 but 2 crits are heat sink padding, same heat, same potential damage, and an internal crit means the rest of the launchers can still keep firing). 

Now if the LRM-5 was 3 tons instead of 2, you would prefer to mount one LRM-20 over 4 LRM-5.  (Or one LRM-10 over a pair of LRM-5).

Or as i saw someone try to do for his home games, change the cluster/missle hit chart, to favor the larger missile systems, over the smaller ones.. So rolling say a 7, for a quartet of LRM-5's (Currently 3 missiles each), would NOT be the same as rolling a 7 for a single LRM-20 (12 missiles hit)...  Make it say 14 missiles..  That way the larger launcher has a bit more favoribility, than stacking multiple smaller ones.

It's not who you kill, but how they die!
You can't shoot what you can't see.
You can not dodge it if you don't know it's coming.

Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1087
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #305 on: 04 January 2021, 22:12:57 »
Represented by movement type and abstracted into the unit. A Motorised unit is therefore identical to a Foot unit...except it moves faster and has a movement mode

But if they can dismount, then their vehicles should be represented.

And I disagree with much of that complexity as, quite frankly, I find it unnecessary. C3 for example - I've long felt that should be the IS answer to the TC but the rules surrounding it are overly complex and unnecessarily time consuming. I would prefer a simpler representation such as "A side which has multiple active C3 units receives a -1 TN to all long range attacks and a +1 Initiative bonus" or something similar. A lot of the extra equipment and rules I dislike simply because they add complexity, but little if any value or flavour.

Honestly, I disagree.  Sometimes complexity is just a burden, but other times it does add a value of flavor.  If I really want to simplify this game, I'd build a system closer to Warmachine's and Warhammer's and just progress from there.

There is a place for that, I think, but I thought this was a Battletech revamping, not an Alpha Strike revamping.

The infantry rules are an extension of this. It would, IMO and I'm sure there are plenty who disagree, be better to depower infantry, to remove the unneeded complexity, and that in turns means that designations such as Motorised and Mechanized would need to be looked at. Infantry don't need damage divisors, or damage multipliers and they don't need abstract abilities such as "Field Guns" or "Field Artillery", especially when such units already exist.  An Infantry unit with a Field Gun is nothing more than a Gun Trailer and crew. A second set of rules is not needed. Plop down a Gun Trailer model on the board, and voila - you have your infantry/field gun combo.

In part of this, I can agree.  One of the things I've been stating is having the Infantry be Infantry, however, I think you're going too far.

As for unneeded complexity, again, I think it the complexity is needed due to the general level of complexity the game already has.  If I want to less complexity, I'd either play Alpha Strike or build a system in between Alpha Strike and Battletech.

As I said - from my point of view, and again just my opinion, infantry aren't worth the effort to be anything more than abstract units. Not in the tabletop game.

As I said to RifleMech, certain levels of abstraction is needed, but that is no reason to drop something that has been a vital aspect of warfare since it was created just because it has to be abstracted, especially when the game is including the ability to include things like a MASH truck.

So - motorised would be foot with embedded vehicles. Your motorbikes and humvees or medium truck simply make the unit faster. If you want to add actual defence modifiers or offensive weapons of some sort, then you need Mechanized Infantry which would be Foot Infantry with dedicated transports, each with their own record sheet.

Then they wouldn't be FOOT Infantry, and you're already adding aspects that is being abstracted as they already exist.  And then we're back to why not just have the vehicles represented as vehicles since you're already going to be making rules for them to preclude them from the act?

You mean have a foot infantry unit and dedicated APCs? Like mechanized infantry?

That's what I've been saying Mechanized Infantry should be represented as instead of the hybrid system they are abstracted as being at present.  This way the vehicles can be Vehicles and be counted as such while the infantry can be Infantry and operate as such.  It would actually remove this point of needless abstraction.

The only real distinction that Mechanized Infantry should have from other infantry would be effective training in mounting and dismounting.  It might be necessary to nerf regular Foot Infantry to taking a turn to mount and dismount so that Mechanized would only lose a MP for the maneuver, but that's about it.

In real life, and being really simplistic, and without going into details or exceptions, "Motorised" Infantry aren't really a thing. Motorised Infantry use motor transports to get to and from the battlezone quickly. Mechanized Infantry are the units which bring IFVs with them. Soft skin vs armoured. Yes, it's a generalisation but it is a generalisation that can be adapted to the board game.

Yeah, they're both treated as dragoons at present more than they really should be.

One issue with infantry in BT is that there is no real effort at distinguishing what makes a Mechanised or what is motorised. Which leads to the motorcyle example given above.

In terms of what they're actually using, yeah, but in terms of how they are treated by incoming fire, the difference is noticeable.  I just use the motorcycles vs jeeps/HMMVs because it provides a noticeable difference in scale and capability which is (largely) represented at the current level of abstraction.

In truth, as I've said before, Mechanized Infantry should only operate as infantry specialized in using APCs and IFVs.  The APCs and IFVs should be represented as their own thing on the board.

Motorized Infantry should be listed as either dragoons or cavalry, depending on how they are set up to operate.  While dragoon is the current operating system, it's not well suited for the level of abstraction currently at play without considering the fact that real-life dragoons can literally leave their mounts behind to be blasted by artillery.

There only needs to be Foot Infantry. No other type other than BattleArmour.

Why quibble with applying the "Foot" when you're already going to be modifying it later?  The reason for taking the "Foot" out of the rest of the Infantry is because of their specializations.

Jump is a VERY important distinction in this game and has very important rules implications, which is why I'm not going to let it be dismissed so easily.

Most specialties would be ignored in game. The time frame isn't going to suit them.
Field Guns and Field artillery would be gun trailers, not varieties of infantry unit.
Same with Static defences...you don't need to model the infantry or crew, unless the option to abandon the structure is available. At which point, we again should just get foot infantry

And so on. Most of the new rules for infantry add complexity and detail...but very little value. And the point I am trying to make...probably badly....is that at the BT level of scale, the only infantry unit we need worry about is foot infantry, and stop worrying about special case rules.

I disagree.  If you're going to all the trouble to include Conventional Infantry in to the game, then those distinctions are just as important as noting the difference between Wheeled, Tracked, and Hover motive systems on Combat Vehicles.

And if anything the time frame demonstrates more how much those distinctions are needed.  As a military system gets more advanced, the more it's going to open itself to having more specialized units to handle specialized scenarios.  Mercenary units could even make a name for themselves when those specialized scenarios are often called upon.

And that is because in game, Mechs are more fun,  Mechs are the units most people want to play and because there isn't really an easy way to employ infantry beyond "wait in this hex for three turns" to secure the objective. The game is scaled for mech and vehicular combat. There isn't really an easy way to design a scenario where the mechs act as a decoy while an elite infantry team scales a mountain, infiltrates a fortress, and destroys its command ability to the point that the side surrenders. Because, in game, it's going to be roll a dice on each of 6 turns to see if you make it up the mountain undetected and safely, and then have the survivors roll a dice to see how they do against the defenders. You're essentially talking about something akin to a boarding action but it doesn't really change that the unit, for all contents and purposes, is just sitting there doing nothing. I'm sure there are scenarios which can be designed with infantry in mind, but end of the day, this is still a Mech focussed universe and infantry don't really need a lot of complex rules

And yet, there are people who want those scenarios for Battletech because of the stories they bring about.  And those scenarios will bring in a desire for Infantry suited to those scenarios (or even not when dealing with RPG groups).

In a way, they are like the people who prefer to play Kill Team or Apocalypse.  It may not be the most run type of scenario, but there are people who want to have them, even though they add more to the time it takes to play the game.

Infantry have always had a place in warfare.  In times past they were the bulk of the army.  In modern times and in BT, they are more used for securing locations and resources that armor cannot.  For our day, we're looking at Tanks, but in BT, that armor is mainly represented by Mechs.  Mechs are the hammer and anvil of the forces, but unless you have PBI to secure the locales, one's victories will be paltry.  So Infantry is needed, and being needed (even if only in more temporary situations from our game time perspective) it needs to be represented as properly as possible within the level of abstraction the game operates in.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Talen5000

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 875
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #306 on: 05 January 2021, 00:02:44 »
But if they can dismount, then their vehicles should be represented.

Drop a token so they can pick them up later. Truth is, remounting is unnecessary in a simple ruleset.

Quote
Honestly, I disagree.  Sometimes complexity is just a burden, but other times it does add a value of flavor.

As I said - IMO, much of the ruleset adds complexity without flavour. The C3 example I used, for example, simply encouraged players to start counting from each Mech trying to see which one was closest. That can take quite a bit of time in itself. Did it add any benefit? No. Did it add any value? No. Could the flavour of C3 have been retained without that "closest unit" rule? I think so. Were there other solutions? Sure - but that still doesn't change the problem that the C3 ruleset is overly complex. It shouldn't need a solution.

Quote
As for unneeded complexity, again, I think it the complexity is needed due to the general level of complexity the game already has.

I don't actually consider the core BT a complex game. It is math and modifier heavy, but it isn't complex. It's all the little optional rules and exceptions that add complexity.

Quote
Then they wouldn't be FOOT Infantry

True....if you want me to be clearer, there would be no Foot Infantry, Jump Infantry Mechanised, Infantry or Motorised infantry. There would simply be "Infantry" and it would have different speeds and terrain restrictions based on its selected type. Motorised Infantry would simply be an Infantry unit with softskin vehicles and they would have enhanced speed, but be unable to enter restricted terrain. Including buildings. In all other aspects, they'd be treated as Infantry

Quote
and you're already adding aspects that is being abstracted as they already exist.  And then we're back to why not just have the vehicles represented as vehicles since you're already going to be making rules for them to preclude them from the act?

Largely for the reason infantry abstraction exists in the first place. To create unit variety without creating additional paperwork. Softskin vehicles aren't going to have any impact on the game beyond that they allow infantry to deploy faster. Adding paperwork for units which will essentially cease to exist if fired upon is a waste of time and energy. If you want to keep track of such vehicles, you can treat them as mechanised troops or you can indeed discard the concept of Motorised infantry and state...you dismounted outside the battlezone and are on foot. Sometimes the needless complexity lies in the rules....sometimes it is the paperwork.

Quote
In terms of what they're actually using, yeah, but in terms of how they are treated by incoming fire, the difference is noticeable

And nonsensical. The difference exists solely to make infantry something players want to use. A hypersonic gauss round slamming into the ground 20m away from you is going to throw up a large amount of debris and shrapnel and most troops won't be using ear protectors or be equipped protection from the blast and shock wave. Infantry are buffed to allow them to survive in the game environment. What this means is that I, for one, wouldn't be averse to simplifying the damage to the old system where a GR, for example, does 15 points to the unit. But that's just me. I understand why the current system is used.  CGL/FP/FASA wanted to encourage a more combined arms style of approach without making everyone use BA. Not a bad goal but the problem is that, IMO, the infantry rules became overly complex for the benefit and flavour provided.

Again, not to belittle the point, but when you end up with two different systems for the same unit - Field guns - I have to make the argument something has gone wrong and the rules need to be streamlined. That could mean doing away with "Motorised" infantry and simply using "Foot" infantry with dedicated record sheets for the APCs and IFvs they used. That would work but then again, it's a lot of paperwork and record sheets for units that will go "poof" the instance a large laser comes near it. Better to simply suggest the Infantry unit move faster but cannot enter buildings.






Quote
Jump is a VERY important distinction in this game and has very important rules implications, which is why I'm not going to let it be dismissed so easily.

Not going to pretend otherwise.

Quote
I disagree.  If you're going to all the trouble to include Conventional Infantry in to the game, then those distinctions are just as important as noting the difference between Wheeled, Tracked, and Hover motive systems on Combat Vehicles.

Quote
And yet, there are people who want those scenarios for Battletech because of the stories they bring about.  And those scenarios will bring in a desire for Infantry suited to those scenarios (or even not when dealing with RPG groups).

Which still leaves infantry units essentially sitting in a hex doing nothing for a few turns. Without giving them BA, how do you make infantry relevant of the board game?

Quote
Mechs are the hammer and anvil of the forces, but unless you have PBI to secure the locales, one's victories will be paltry.

Yes - but you don't win the hearts and minds battle on the tabletop. By the time infantry move in, the big guns have largely done the fighting. Infantry do have a very important role in the BTU....but what is their role in the boardgame? Spotters....manning static defences....what else? What makes them interesting to use?

"So let me get this straight. You want to fly on a magic carpet to see the King of the Potato People and plead with him for your freedom, and you're telling me you're completely sane?" -- Uncle Arnie

Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1087
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #307 on: 05 January 2021, 11:54:02 »
Drop a token so they can pick them up later. Truth is, remounting is unnecessary in a simple ruleset.

I disagree.  If remounting is unnecessary, then dismounting is unnecessary.  If the mounting of Infantry means nothing, then just remove them all together and putting in their APCs and IFVs makes more sense in the long run.

But again, Battletech is not the "simple ruleset".  That's for Alpha Strike.

As I said - IMO, much of the ruleset adds complexity without flavour. The C3 example I used, for example, simply encouraged players to start counting from each Mech trying to see which one was closest. That can take quite a bit of time in itself. Did it add any benefit? No. Did it add any value? No. Could the flavour of C3 have been retained without that "closest unit" rule? I think so. Were there other solutions? Sure - but that still doesn't change the problem that the C3 ruleset is overly complex. It shouldn't need a solution.

I disagree as to the lack of benefit or value.  Being able to change a unit's range without moving the unit is a HUGE advantage.  It is a complex one, granted, but it is intended to be to demonstrate the technology and fighting style differences between Clan and House.  Could it have been made to be more like Tau's Markerlights?  Sure, but we're playing Battletech here, not Warhammer.

I don't actually consider the core BT a complex game. It is math and modifier heavy, but it isn't complex. It's all the little optional rules and exceptions that add complexity.

Look at how one damages a Battlemech or Combat Vehicle in Battletech, to Alpha Strike, Warmachine's Warjacks, and Warhammer 40K's Vehicles and Monsters.  Trust me, it is a complex game at its core.  It's not Starfleet Battles, but it's not checkers, either.

True....if you want me to be clearer, there would be no Foot Infantry, Jump Infantry Mechanised, Infantry or Motorised infantry. There would simply be "Infantry" and it would have different speeds and terrain restrictions based on its selected type. Motorised Infantry would simply be an Infantry unit with softskin vehicles and they would have enhanced speed, but be unable to enter restricted terrain. Including buildings. In all other aspects, they'd be treated as Infantry

So why not just separate the Infantry from the Vehicles (where they apply) and proceed from there?  It's not more complex to have vehicles on the board AND infantry, after all.  40K seems to manage this distinction just fine, and it is a much simpler game.

Largely for the reason infantry abstraction exists in the first place. To create unit variety without creating additional paperwork. Softskin vehicles aren't going to have any impact on the game beyond that they allow infantry to deploy faster. Adding paperwork for units which will essentially cease to exist if fired upon is a waste of time and energy. If you want to keep track of such vehicles, you can treat them as mechanised troops or you can indeed discard the concept of Motorised infantry and state...you dismounted outside the battlezone and are on foot. Sometimes the needless complexity lies in the rules....sometimes it is the paperwork.

But we have the paperwork for vehicles already, so why not just treat vehicles as vehicles and infantry as infantry?  The problem is the very abstract way of combining the two in to one.

And nonsensical. The difference exists solely to make infantry something players want to use. A hypersonic gauss round slamming into the ground 20m away from you is going to throw up a large amount of debris and shrapnel and most troops won't be using ear protectors or be equipped protection from the blast and shock wave. Infantry are buffed to allow them to survive in the game environment. What this means is that I, for one, wouldn't be averse to simplifying the damage to the old system where a GR, for example, does 15 points to the unit. But that's just me. I understand why the current system is used.  CGL/FP/FASA wanted to encourage a more combined arms style of approach without making everyone use BA. Not a bad goal but the problem is that, IMO, the infantry rules became overly complex for the benefit and flavour provided.

Why should a gauss rifle which uses a 1m ball traveling a supersonic speeds be able to consistently rip through 15 people and cause casualties in a war environment where everyone standing in a line is considered really really stupid?  Supersonic rounds go past troops all the time and have for decades.  There is a reason we go for lobbing explosive rounds than trying to straight shoot massive balls through a formation.

You're talking about 28 people scattered about 780 sq meters.  A tank's AT gun isn't going to be plowing through a third of those people because they aren't going to be in parade formation like some Napoleonic-era idiots.  They'll be scattered about in skirmish formations.  Oh sure, you might get a fire team or a little more, but proportionally speaking, a lot more of them will survive the assault.  This is why weapons that are designed to put out a lot little firepower (Flamers, Machine Guns, Pulse Lasers) in an area will do better, just like that pintle-mounted M2 on an Abrams will generally do better.

Again, not to belittle the point, but when you end up with two different systems for the same unit - Field guns - I have to make the argument something has gone wrong and the rules need to be streamlined. That could mean doing away with "Motorised" infantry and simply using "Foot" infantry with dedicated record sheets for the APCs and IFvs they used. That would work but then again, it's a lot of paperwork and record sheets for units that will go "poof" the instance a large laser comes near it. Better to simply suggest the Infantry unit move faster but cannot enter buildings.

That sounds more like a problem with Field Gun rules than Infantry's rules.

But hey, a lot of that stuff will go "poof" anyway as those HMMVs take twice the damage from a Large Laser than the blokes on the motorcyles will, because they are easier to hit with heavy weapons they can't block.

Not going to pretend otherwise.

But dismissed it so readily when seeking to drop all the Infantry monikers.

Which still leaves infantry units essentially sitting in a hex doing nothing for a few turns. Without giving them BA, how do you make infantry relevant of the board game?

Doing nothing?  By nothing, you mean not doing damage or maneuvering, even though they might be doing something else like securing your objective?  It actually happens a lot in other tabletop games like Warmachine and 40K.

Yes - but you don't win the hearts and minds battle on the tabletop. By the time infantry move in, the big guns have largely done the fighting. Infantry do have a very important role in the BTU....but what is their role in the boardgame? Spotters....manning static defences....what else? What makes them interesting to use?

Securing objectives which require a finer hand than a 1 ton battlefist, perhaps? 

Sometimes the infantry could BE the objective, scattering them before their more armored and dangerous compatriots come to reinforce them?

The limitation seems to be in your imagination more than in the rules.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2219
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #308 on: 06 January 2021, 10:23:56 »
Example of a Motorcyle CV please.

Then consider which is easier to hit, a truck with two people or two people on two different motorcycles.  This is where the volume concept being put in to play in abstract.

Take any motorcycle from TRO:VA and add a weapon.

They'd have the same modifiers since you can have 2 vehicles in a hex. The only unit I can think of that gets a bonus for size is the Protomech. Now have 60 motorcycles, in 2 groups of 30, moving in concert in a 30 meter hex. A round should take out several of them with more crashing into each other. But that doesn't happen.


Quote
That's even assuming that they are actually armored at all, but Mechanized does currently provide protection from small arms (i.e. ConvInf shooting).  It just doesn't provide as much from heavy arms (i.e. Mech-scale).

Yet they should provide some protection. A trooper can put on armor and survive the lightest vehicle scale weapons hit. Surely a vehicle should provide some protection. Instead it amplifies the damage.


Quote
At some point, you can't do an exact 1:1 breakdown, especially when the differences are too small to note.  Someone moving 27m a turn and someone moving 31m a turn is just going to have that difference lost when the base unit of movement is 30m.

Now including things like hover-bikes for motorized, I'll grant ya as providing a good and effective difference as there are notable differences.

At that point you abstract so they move at 30 meters. The difference isn't that much. The difference between the vehicles in AToW and the Companion and their use in TW are huge. The Boreas Hovercraft used by Hell's Horses has 4 points of armor, plus internal structure, moves at 5/8, and is an OMNI who's Prime configurate has 2 Mauser IICs for weapons. The B Configuration is a Bearhunter AC. Now compare that to the Infantry.

The Infantry version is slower and suffers twice the damage from Vehicle weapons. So multiple hoverbikes are going to be destroyed with their riders. The prime config does up to 27.4 damage compared to 40 damage of the vehicle. The Infantry B config requires 2 troopers, on different bikes, to operate, doing up to 18.64 damage compared to 40 damage of the vehicle version. The Infantry also lose -1MP for carrying 2 Support Weapons per squad even though they're mounted to the motorized vehicle. 

Tell me that isn't  broken.



Quote
Because they are needed for Battlemechs.  One of the emphasized differences.

And yet there's stories were people operate BattleMechs without them.


Quote
Why?  Because you could go straight in to the torso?  Possibly.  But remember that at some point, some level of abstraction is going to come in to play, and a jeep isn't really designed to take a tank's hit like another tank is.

Because damage travels inward and spreading the armor to multiple locations makes the entire unit easier to destroy. You don't have to eliminate all the armor, just enough to get through the torso.

And so? No one said a Jeep was going to be armored enough to take a hit from a tank cannon. But it could be armored enough to survive a hit or two from the tank's machine gun.

Quote
One exception, but otherwise, that is not how it is presented.

True but it's canon. The Taurian Field Gun Infantry use a 2 man tracked vehicle to pull LAC/5s. That's 5 troopers per LAC/5 so there's 3 vehicles with an empty seat per squad.


Quote
Page for rules reference please.

The rules for support vehicles starts on page 116. This sentence under Small Vehicles on page 118 even mentions jeeps.
Quote
Paramilitary versions typically include jeeps, ultra-light transports and other vehicles favored by motorized and mechanized infantry.


Basically, build a vehicle and stick a gun on it.



Quote
Part of it is terminology, part of it is how we want to handle it.  Mechanized Infantry at present are in a blurred landscape of being slow light vehicles at times and foot infantry at others.  While abstraction is needed at times, this is not a necessary one.  As it is, I see the 28 Mechanized Infantry more as 14 small 2-crew technicals, which isn't needed to be abstracted if there are actual vehicles involved. 

With BA, they aren't getting out of their armor to take up stations in a building like Mechanized Infantry would.  They wouldn't need to get out of a truck to do an anti-Mech or Swarm attack.  So, NO, it isn't the same concept at all.

Yes Mechanized and Motorized Infantry are blurred and its a problem. They're really not infantry. They're vehicle crew as the vehicle is doing all the work.  And please note that not all BA are capable of Anti-Mech or Swarm attacks.

It is the same concept. BA just have different abilities. Same with other motive types. Hover can cross water, Tracked can go into light woods, etc.



Quote
There is quite a lot of Battle Armor theses days which don't use HarJel and drugs, but are just as durable.  Still, I'd rather have these Light Vehicles set up without quadranted damage because, as I said, a technical couldn't take a hit from heavy arms as it is.  Would a jeep take a hit from a Panzer IV's main gun any more easily than a Tiger II?  It would take a hit from a Mauser a lot easier, though.

Which is where abstraction comes in for BA. As for Technicals no it's not going to take a hit from a 75mm gun. That gun would do 3 points of damage. That's going to exceed the armor and internal structure of you average Jeep (4 armor points + 2 per ton). A Mauser IIC is going to do 1 point of damage to the Jeep. That's as a vehicle. As Infantry the Jeep is dead either way.


Quote
Which means having the Vehicles represented, the point I've been making all along.

Thank you.


Quote
Battle Armor are not Mechs.  You're not going to convince me of this.

Battle Armor is based off of either animal or human movement, capable of operations that Vehicles are not.

Vehicles are vehicles, not Infantry.  Their ability to maneuver is quite different than than to Infantry.  Motorized Infantry generally indicates at least something small enough to maneuver in a building, but Mechanized calls in mind something much bigger which is why they take more damage from heavy arms while still being capable of deflecting small arms.

Many are tiny mechs with cockpits.

So are Mechs.

So? Battle Armor move different from Infantry. Even other Infantry types move differently from each other. Vehicle infantry are stacked like foot infantry, with the most being 30 per platoon. They should have better fire power, armor and speed, like Battle Armor. Instead weapons slow them down and size amplifies damage when it should provide more protection.

Quote

That's kind of the point of separating the vehicular aspect of Mechanized Infantry and dedicating it as a new class of unit so that its not doing Infantry things, though it stacks and takes damage like Infantry.  A group of jeeps should not be going up stairs to get to the top of a roof.  A group of HMMV should not be swarming a Mech's leg (their crew do that).  And along with that, the rules could be organized so that they are actually capable of greater and more varied speeds instead of just slightly faster ground-pounders.

I agree in part. A Jeep might not get up the stairs in most buildings but a Motorcycle could.  The size of vehicle really depends on the stairs CF. There's a commercial of a vehicle going up stairs on the great wall of China. That's why I was separating the classes by weight. But if you want to say, Vehicle infantry that use less than 1 vehicle per trooper can not go up staircases, I'm okay with that. They should also take damage like vehicles, not infantry. It's also the passengers who get out to attack the mech not the crews.


Quote
And what would those differences provide in the game?  If they provide no actual difference, then abstraction doesn't matter, and only used for the story version of your battle reports.

What I've been saying is to provide rules for Light Vehicles to be constructed so there are telling differences between the Boreas and Assuan when you go to the table, and that would be a good thing.

The "Vehicle" Infantry would have increased, speed, firepower, and protection depending on the vehicle used. Just like Battle Armor do over Foot and Jump Infantry. "Vehicle" Infantry wouldn't be as effective as BA do to how they're constructed but they should be way better than standard infantry. See above for examples.

We already have rules for that. They're in TechManual. We just need to use them.

Quote
To note and emphasize the difference between a technical, a HMMV, a Boreas, and an Asuan.  Unless you don't think there should be any difference between them, then what is the point of pursuing this line of thought?

We already have those rules. They're in TechManual. Lets build a Technical. Since I'm tired I'm going to use the Pitbull from TRO:VA. It's a truck. 4 point of BAR2 armor and moves 4/6 and 1,617 kg of cargo space. I'm going to take 150 kg of cargo to add 6 points of armor 2 in front and each side. I'm also going to mount a Support Machine Gun in the front with  400 rounds of ammo (64 kg) and lets get wild,  a quad mount 30mm Fighter Cannons in a turret with 80 rounds of ammo weighing 1.18 tons. The passenger seats are now gunner's positions and I still have space left over for cargo. There's a technical.
 .

Quote
And a Light Vehicle construction system should be able to provide such a conversion, meanwhile we have nothing but lumping everything in a couple of categories.

Again, we have it but aren't using it.

Quote
And neither of them were little more than one shot units.  The Welman never saw serious service, being cancelled during the middle of production, and the Biber never saw much use when compared to its larger compatriots and their counterparts due to their inefficiencies and Allied aircover.

One shots? There were 324 Bibers and more than 100 Welman. That they weren't used much or well doesn't mean they weren't built or could be built using BT Rules. At least in part. The Torpeado launching would need House Rules. 

Quote
It doesn't really change the fact that I can't recreate a Gato, much less a Seawolf with BT CV design systems without going Super-Heavy.  At most one can get underwater equivalent to tanks or aerofighters.


Of course not. A Seawolf weighs 12,139 tons. You'd use the construction rules in TacOps. The torpedo tubes would still need house ruling though. I think they're a bit bigger than a pair of SRT-4s.


Quote
Its also hard to gauge what changes they need when considering that most maps are not set up for any actual naval use at all.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2219
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #309 on: 06 January 2021, 11:22:38 »
(sigh)

We have just Infantry. What types of infantry are in the details. Or they should be. We've got a lot of abstraction instead. There's also a lot of weird things like Motorcycles pulling 13 tons of Missile Artillery but Battle Amor can't push it around. We've also very large animals like an Elephant carrying 2 support weapons with no loss in MP but a halftrack suffers -1MP.

I'd really like to remove the abstraction and at least some of the silliness that Infantry are afflicted with. Part of that is giving Motorize and Mechanized Infantry stats that match the vehicles being used. Like how Battle Armor have different stats. Otherwise why do we have XX amount of BA other than it's cool? Well, maybe if "Vehicle" Infantry were a thing they'd be more cool too.

Right now I'm thinking;
1) Vehicle Infantry replaces the terms Motorized and Mechanized Infantry. They use stated out vehicles but still use Infantry stacking limits.
2 )Motorized Infantry now use Bicycles, Mopeds and things which allow them to move faster than foot infantry but not necessarily as fast a motor vehicle. Essentially no change in the rules. Support weapons slow them down.
3) Mounted Infantry ride in APC as passengers but fight on their own as Infantry. No change in rules here.
4) Mechanized Infantry fight alongside the APC/IFV. They're considered one unit for stacking purposes. This means the vehicles speed is limited while the infantry are deployed. As the vehicle is  providing cover though it shouldn't get away from infantry. The Infantry also protect the vehicle from swarm attacks. Have to get through them first.
5) Jump Infantry, Beast Mounted, and Battle Armor no big changes except below.
6) Field Artillery and Field Guns I'd allow any ground infantry to use, including BA depending on what they use for hands. It's move or shoot. Other than facing changes, Foot, Motorized, and Jump Infantry can only move the Field Guns 1 hex every other turn. All other infantry types consider the Field Artillery/Guns as trailers pulled by the vehicles/animals and adjust speed accordingly.


At least that's what I'm thinking right now. I might refine that later after some sleep.




Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1087
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #310 on: 06 January 2021, 13:36:26 »
Take any motorcycle from TRO:VA and add a weapon.

So none?

They'd have the same modifiers since you can have 2 vehicles in a hex. The only unit I can think of that gets a bonus for size is the Protomech. Now have 60 motorcycles, in 2 groups of 30, moving in concert in a 30 meter hex. A round should take out several of them with more crashing into each other. But that doesn't happen.

Sorry that I didn't explain it sufficiently.  Consider how easy it is in real life to hit the two different targets.

Yet they should provide some protection. A trooper can put on armor and survive the lightest vehicle scale weapons hit. Surely a vehicle should provide some protection. Instead it amplifies the damage.

Not at Battletech's level of play without augmenting themselves to carry mech-scale armor.

And as I have been saying, it's not amplifying the damage, more that Mechanized Infantry clumps the infantry together more than any other type due to the nature of crewed vehicles, which means that hitting one of the points of Mechanization with a heavy weapon (i.e. Mech-scale) will take out the entire crew while all over infantry would be operating in a more open skirmish formation making hitting multiple a lot harder.

At that point you abstract so they move at 30 meters. The difference isn't that much. The difference between the vehicles in AToW and the Companion and their use in TW are huge. The Boreas Hovercraft used by Hell's Horses has 4 points of armor, plus internal structure, moves at 5/8, and is an OMNI who's Prime configurate has 2 Mauser IICs for weapons. The B Configuration is a Bearhunter AC. Now compare that to the Infantry.

The Infantry version is slower and suffers twice the damage from Vehicle weapons. So multiple hoverbikes are going to be destroyed with their riders. The prime config does up to 27.4 damage compared to 40 damage of the vehicle. The Infantry B config requires 2 troopers, on different bikes, to operate, doing up to 18.64 damage compared to 40 damage of the vehicle version. The Infantry also lose -1MP for carrying 2 Support Weapons per squad even though they're mounted to the motorized vehicle. 

Tell me that isn't  broken.

Isn't the Boreas a QuadVee?  I don't have much of the RPG stuff at hand, and never really delved in to it (not enough friends).

Different systems with different scales of consideration.  One might as well use their Alpha Strike version in the consideration, or how they would be represented in Battlespace.

On the other hand, this brings back my point of providing the rules for their construction and consideration as their own vehicles, which you seem to be afraid of doing, for some reason.

And yet there's stories were people operate BattleMechs without them.

Sure, to move them around for repair, but not for battle without a distinct disadvantage.

Because damage travels inward and spreading the armor to multiple locations makes the entire unit easier to destroy. You don't have to eliminate all the armor, just enough to get through the torso.

So going with one location like Battle Armor would actually be better than going with multiple locations, which is what I was going for with the Light Vehicle setup in the first place.

And so? No one said a Jeep was going to be armored enough to take a hit from a tank cannon. But it could be armored enough to survive a hit or two from the tank's machine gun.

Yet that is the comparison you were using.  The Medium Laser is a heavy arm, not a small arm.

And probably not a hit from the tank's machine gun that can also shred up to 6 poor blokes on the battlefield.  An M2 round can easily pass through both doors and the flesh between them, to say nothing about what happens to the engine, and that's primitive tech compared to what BT is using.

The rules for support vehicles starts on page 116. This sentence under Small Vehicles on page 118 even mentions jeeps.

Basically, build a vehicle and stick a gun on it.

Good to know some changes have come through.  I will admit I haven't gone through the TM much except as reference.  Still, they could use some refinement for this specific type of situation as a Support Vehicle should be something that will have its damage portioned out while a Light Vehicle just doesn't have the same support structure.  Think about the difference between Battle Armor and ProtoMechs.

Yes Mechanized and Motorized Infantry are blurred and its a problem. They're really not infantry. They're vehicle crew as the vehicle is doing all the work.  And please note that not all BA are capable of Anti-Mech or Swarm attacks.

It is the same concept. BA just have different abilities. Same with other motive types. Hover can cross water, Tracked can go into light woods, etc.

And BA won't be getting out of their armor to do swarm attacks, but Mechanized would?  Motorized would at least have the consideration of being "open-topped" so that mounting and dismounting is a relatively easy task.  Dismounting and mounting BA, though...

Many are tiny mechs with cockpits.

No.  Battle Armor are not.  They share many of the same principles, but design schemes, construction, and operation in battle are completely different.

So? Battle Armor move different from Infantry. Even other Infantry types move differently from each other. Vehicle infantry are stacked like foot infantry, with the most being 30 per platoon. They should have better fire power, armor and speed, like Battle Armor. Instead weapons slow them down and size amplifies damage when it should provide more protection.

All the more reason to get "vehicle" out of the Infantry, don't you think?

And as I have said repeatedly, just because you're in a jeep, you shouldn't get more protection from heavy weapons.  It's just going to make you an easier target for those heavy weapons and hit more people when you do get hit as it condenses the squads.  This is part of the problem of treating Infantry as vehicles, or vice versa.

I agree in part. A Jeep might not get up the stairs in most buildings but a Motorcycle could.  The size of vehicle really depends on the stairs CF. There's a commercial of a vehicle going up stairs on the great wall of China. That's why I was separating the classes by weight. But if you want to say, Vehicle infantry that use less than 1 vehicle per trooper can not go up staircases, I'm okay with that. They should also take damage like vehicles, not infantry. It's also the passengers who get out to attack the mech not the crews.

Which again demonstrates my point that "vehicle infantry" should not be a thing, period.  Let the infantry be Infantry and vehicles be Vehicles.

Motorized Infantry are a sticky point due to their dragoon/cavalry concept they are using, but there could be ways to address them.

The "Vehicle" Infantry would have increased, speed, firepower, and protection depending on the vehicle used. Just like Battle Armor do over Foot and Jump Infantry. "Vehicle" Infantry wouldn't be as effective as BA do to how they're constructed but they should be way better than standard infantry. See above for examples.

Or just not exist at all, but instead have the vehicles represented as a type of Vehicle and the infantry be represented as Infantry.  Organizationally the transports could be setup in squads/points/platoons in groups like BA, but otherwise, keep the infantry as Infantry.

Again, we have it but aren't using it.

It could be better refined to reflect the tighter tolerances than such light vehicles would have, much like BA's tolerances are when compared to a ProtoMech or Combat Vehicle.

One shots? There were 324 Bibers and more than 100 Welman. That they weren't used much or well doesn't mean they weren't built or could be built using BT Rules. At least in part. The Torpeado launching would need House Rules. 

One shots as in they were basically equipped with two one-shot Thunderbolt-10/20 LRTs and were otherwise useless after they shot their load.  They were also incredibly unstable and almost useless in even the area between Britain and Germany.  There was a reason the British scrapped the idea before they even put them in to use.  The Germans never got any real use out of them, either, with their deployments often costing them more than if they had used the same resources to construct a few more U-Boats.

Of course not. A Seawolf weighs 12,139 tons. You'd use the construction rules in TacOps. The torpedo tubes would still need house ruling though. I think they're a bit bigger than a pair of SRT-4s.

Which is kind of my point.  Battletech doesn't really support actual naval capabilities on any significant level.  Equipment is either too weak or too strong, to say nothing about basically creating a dropship that only goes on or in to water.  It's only suitable for creating undersea fighters like Subwar 2050 than boomers or attack subs we would see in Silent Hunter or Seawolf.

That's fine considering that we're also not likely to see container ships with dropships doing the same thing faster and cheaper, unless it is for undersea colonies and labs, but it still bugs.

The torpedoes are a little bit bigger, yeah.  Kind of a mix between Thunderbolt torpedoes and maybe the guiding capabilities of the -O capital missiles, depending on the generation.  But much like the reason for going to the multi-missile launchers in favor of the bigger missiles, I think they were removed due to interception capabilties that came about over the centuries, and then they just were locked by habit.

Another factor may have come in to play when the ability to penetrate armor became almost impossible by BT's magic armor and needed to ablated, big massive rounds become somewhat less effective, and little impacts that could worm their way through the gaps in that magic armor became more effective.  A very nasty concern where little gaps can become great big gaps due to "atmospheric" concerns one would have the deeper one gets in to a world's sea.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2219
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #311 on: 08 January 2021, 01:07:01 »
So none?

If you want a motorcycle designed using Combat Vehicle Rules I haven't seen one. However there are several designed using Support Vehicles, some of which are intended for combat.


Quote
Sorry that I didn't explain it sufficiently.  Consider how easy it is in real life to hit the two different targets.

No prob. I'm probably doing a lot of that myself. As for hitting multiple targets, it depends on how big they are and how close they are. The smaller the more difficult. It's why I can understand the changes to Infantry taking damage from vehicle weapons. I think it goes a bit too far but I can understand the reasoning. Problem is, except Protos, I can't think of anything that gets a bonus modifier for being small.


Quote
Not at Battletech's level of play without augmenting themselves to carry mech-scale armor.

And as I have been saying, it's not amplifying the damage, more that Mechanized Infantry clumps the infantry together more than any other type due to the nature of crewed vehicles, which means that hitting one of the points of Mechanization with a heavy weapon (i.e. Mech-scale) will take out the entire crew while all over infantry would be operating in a more open skirmish formation making hitting multiple a lot harder.

The best armor infantry can use give them a divisor of 2. That allows them to survive weapons that do 1-2 points of damage.

Mechanized Infantry take double damage from mech scale weapons. So the damage is amplified. They're inside a vehicle that should provide some protection. Instead it makes the damage worse. That doesn't happen with APCs, IFVs, or any other vehicle. The crew and infantry are protected by the vehicle. They're only killed when a critical hit is rolled or the armor and internal are exceeded. I think that's a problem. I'd be better off using Beast Mounted Infantry. They can be as fast, aren't slowed by support weapons, and the larger ones even have a damage divisor.

Quote
Isn't the Boreas a QuadVee?  I don't have much of the RPG stuff at hand, and never really delved in to it (not enough friends).

There is a QuadVee with that name but I was referring to the hoverbike used by Hell's Horses Infantry. I haven't really played the RPG either. I could never figure out the character generation. I mostly pay attention for the fluff and to add things to the board game. Unfortunately that isn't always possible.


Quote
Different systems with different scales of consideration.  One might as well use their Alpha Strike version in the consideration, or how they would be represented in Battlespace.

Never got into Alpha Strike or Battlespace. And the scale isn't so far apart between AToW and TW that conversion should be a problem. But it is.

Quote
On the other hand, this brings back my point of providing the rules for their construction and consideration as their own vehicles, which you seem to be afraid of doing, for some reason.

I'm not afraid of it. I think it's unnecessary.  We already have rules to create vehicles such as motorcycles and jeeps. We just need to apply them.

Quote
Sure, to move them around for repair, but not for battle without a distinct disadvantage.

Yet they did just that. Even the rules don't show that.


Quote
So going with one location like Battle Armor would actually be better than going with multiple locations, which is what I was going for with the Light Vehicle setup in the first place.

Sure it'd make them more survivable but it'd add another layer of construction that isn't needed.


Quote
Yet that is the comparison you were using.  The Medium Laser is a heavy arm, not a small arm.

No I'm not. And how much armor a vehicle can mount depends on it's tonnage. And the most armor a small support vehicle can have is 8 points of armor. Unless you put 5 of those points of armor in on place the vehicle isn't going to survive. So a Medium Laser will probably kill the vast majority of small vehicles 4.999 tons or less. The same vehicle might be able to survive a hit or two from an AC/2 though.

Quote
And probably not a hit from the tank's machine gun that can also shred up to 6 poor blokes on the battlefield.  An M2 round can easily pass through both doors and the flesh between them, to say nothing about what happens to the engine, and that's primitive tech compared to what BT is using.

We're not talking real life though. In real life a strong enough bow will go through a car door to hit the person on the other side. There's no way that'll happen in TW.


Quote
Good to know some changes have come through.  I will admit I haven't gone through the TM much except as reference.  Still, they could use some refinement for this specific type of situation as a Support Vehicle should be something that will have its damage portioned out while a Light Vehicle just doesn't have the same support structure.  Think about the difference between Battle Armor and ProtoMechs.

I'm trying to get some refinement. I agree there's a difference between BA, Protos, and even Mechs. Should there be is another question. There really isn't any difference between vehicles though. They just get bigger and heavier. I don't see that as a problem.



Quote
And BA won't be getting out of their armor to do swarm attacks, but Mechanized would?  Motorized would at least have the consideration of being "open-topped" so that mounting and dismounting is a relatively easy task.  Dismounting and mounting BA, though...

I don't think any Vehicle infantry would be getting out of their vehicles to fight. It takes 1 MP for an APC/IFV to unload their infantry. That infantry can't do anything else that turn. Vehicle Infantry aren't going to be able to get out/off their vehicles, attack, and get back in/on in the same turn. And really, why would they want to? They'd lose their mobility, fire power, and protection.

Quote
No.  Battle Armor are not.  They share many of the same principles, but design schemes, construction, and operation in battle are completely different.

For a suit like the Elemental? Maybe. For suits like the Sloth and Infiltrator? Not really. The only difference really is scale.


Quote
All the more reason to get "vehicle" out of the Infantry, don't you think?

And as I have said repeatedly, just because you're in a jeep, you shouldn't get more protection from heavy weapons.  It's just going to make you an easier target for those heavy weapons and hit more people when you do get hit as it condenses the squads.  This is part of the problem of treating Infantry as vehicles, or vice versa.

Can't see how you can completely remove vehicles from Infantry. What I can see is not abstracting them. Other wise we get things like only having 2 motorcycles per hex but we can have 60 two ton BA. Wait. We do have that now.  :bang:

As for the Jeep, again, it depends on the vehicle's armor and the weapon hitting it. Armor should provide some protection. Even if the vehicle isn't armored the vehicle itself should provide some protection. Crew Killed isn't automatic when a vehicle is hit. If it were, no one would use vehicles for combat. Also not every vehicle scale weapon does 5 or more points of damage. Some only do 1 point of damage. So an armored Jeep might survive a hit or two.

Quote
Which again demonstrates my point that "vehicle infantry" should not be a thing, period.  Let the infantry be Infantry and vehicles be Vehicles.

Motorized Infantry are a sticky point due to their dragoon/cavalry concept they are using, but there could be ways to address them.

The problem is that numerous small vehicles should be able to move and fight together in close proximity. We have that now. The problem is they take damage as infantry. But they're not. They're vehicles.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Both Cavalry and Dragoons ride animals. However, Cavalry fight from their animals. Dragoons fight on foot. A modern version would be Cavalry fight from their vehicles. Dragoons get out of their APC to fight on foot.


Quote
Or just not exist at all, but instead have the vehicles represented as a type of Vehicle and the infantry be represented as Infantry.  Organizationally the transports could be setup in squads/points/platoons in groups like BA, but otherwise, keep the infantry as Infantry.

That's what I've been saying. They're put with infantry do to their size and how they move together. Like how Beast Mounted Infantry aren't really Infantry. They're Cavalry. Would Mechanized Cavalry be a better term than Vehicle Infantry?

Quote
It could be better refined to reflect the tighter tolerances than such light vehicles would have, much like BA's tolerances are when compared to a ProtoMech or Combat Vehicle.

Presuming you mean refining the construction rules, I don't know how more refined you can get. "Tolerance" depends completely on how much the vehicle weighs and how much armor it can hold. Same as BA.


Quote
One shots as in they were basically equipped with two one-shot Thunderbolt-10/20 LRTs and were otherwise useless after they shot their load.  They were also incredibly unstable and almost useless in even the area between Britain and Germany.  There was a reason the British scrapped the idea before they even put them in to use.  The Germans never got any real use out of them, either, with their deployments often costing them more than if they had used the same resources to construct a few more U-Boats.

Ah! In that case, that kind of defines small support vehicles and infantry. One or two shots and they're dead.


Quote
Which is kind of my point.  Battletech doesn't really support actual naval capabilities on any significant level.  Equipment is either too weak or too strong, to say nothing about basically creating a dropship that only goes on or in to water.  It's only suitable for creating undersea fighters like Subwar 2050 than boomers or attack subs we would see in Silent Hunter or Seawolf.

I agree we could use more weapons designed for naval use. Beyond that though, I think Battletech works with naval combat. We can make the big subs, which are the size of small dropships. What BT does is make using smaller units preferable. Along with more reliable than RL.

Atarlost

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 401
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #312 on: 10 January 2021, 04:50:47 »
Armor that doesn't stop attacks is worse than useless. 

Consider a vehicle with less than 8 armor or armor with a BAR of less than 8. 

If a large laser strikes the vehicle's troop compartment will be filled with vaporized metal, which will condense on the soldiers within, at a minimum causing debilitating third degree burns and possibly heating it to the ignition point of clothing or flesh and reducing everyone inside to charcoal. 

If the same laser strikes an infantryman in the field he will be turned into steam and nasty bits, but mostly steam.  Being in the open the steam will spread out and very quickly.  It will not stay in the path of the beam to be heated much above its heat of vaporization.  Low pressure steam causes first or second degree burns depending on what the other soldiers standing near the victim are wearing.  These are painful, but not debilitating and they would still be able to fight.  If they're wearing insulating cold weather gear it may not burn them at all. 

This applies to all mech scale weapons except that don't already have special anti-infantry damage.  An SRM has an anti-armor warhead with no anti-personnel fragmentation jacket (unless it's a fragmentation SRM, which already has anti-infantry rules).  It will very definitely kill the soldier it hits.  If if hits a machinegun team the gunner and loader might both be in the blast radius, but the lethal radius of non-fragmenting warheads is quite small.  Autocannon rounds are either kinetic or also non-fragmenting armor anti-armor weapons and upon hitting a person will either not trigger the fuse, explode with a comparatively tiny lethal radius, or keep going.  In any of these cases they aren't much threat to any other soldiers who aren't directly behind the victim.  But put those same soldiers in a metal box and it becomes the shrapnel anti-armor warheads lack, contains the heat and pressure, and may trigger the contact fuses of contact fused anti-armor munitions that would otherwise pass through a soldier without exploding. 

The incresed damage for mech weapons to infantry in abstract vehicles is not a mistake, it's based on real armor dynamics.  Getting rid of it might be justified as simplicity over realism, but reversing it is neither simple nor realistic. 

Nicoli

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 248
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #313 on: 10 January 2021, 08:30:34 »
Huh. 

Nicoli, you mention resolving LB-X resolution, and I keep coming back to the idea of a scatter template.  Think 40k AoE templates, but applied to the armor diagram.

Maybe some sort of MoS application among different sizes? That way, you could get tight focus or wide spread.  Roll a central location, put the template down on a specific point on that location, and whatever it overlaps gets hit.   Damage would be divided evenly as possible with any remainder applying to the central location.  Or, we could have the template divided into zones, and the damage is divided evenly among the zones.  Any that stray off the damage chart are 'lost'.

Just a thought.  Sometimes, some mechanics can be fixed by a visual application than raw number-crunching.
Never liked the idea of using a template of record sheets, causes too much issue if the diagram gets shrunk because your trying to fit more stuff on the sheets. Also I'm not a fan on how the Hit point diagrams are laid out, there is minimal regularity in the circle layout to make easy counting/marking of damage. Example, marking off 12 points of damage may have you marking a 2 3 point clusters of circles, a 4 point cluster, then half of another 4 point. Instead of 2 rows of fives and then 2 extra. Humans like and use consistent systems much faster then irregular ones. Also makes being able to visually count stuff much faster.

The easiest solution is to piggy back on the already existing damage transfer system and just have weapons that use the cluster hits table to represent multiple smaller projectiles just spread damage over to adjacent locations. You can manipulate the spread damage value to represent either a shot gun pattern with most of the hits towards the center or a more diffuse pattern from missiles guiding in. Weapons that use the cluster hit table to represent multiple large rounds, UA/RAC, is where you could tie it into MoS. The hopefully continued limited number of projectiles they fire means its far less of a time sink. This can also be used to fix the issue with LRM weights without mucking about with already existing designs.

Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1087
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #314 on: 10 January 2021, 13:04:26 »
If you want a motorcycle designed using Combat Vehicle Rules I haven't seen one. However there are several designed using Support Vehicles, some of which are intended for combat.

But without an example, there is no canon reference.

No prob. I'm probably doing a lot of that myself. As for hitting multiple targets, it depends on how big they are and how close they are. The smaller the more difficult. It's why I can understand the changes to Infantry taking damage from vehicle weapons. I think it goes a bit too far but I can understand the reasoning. Problem is, except Protos, I can't think of anything that gets a bonus modifier for being small.

In this case the bonus modifier is baked in to how ConvInf takes damage as opposed to the difficulty in creating a successful hit.

Mechanized Infantry take double damage from mech scale weapons. So the damage is amplified. They're inside a vehicle that should provide some protection. Instead it makes the damage worse. That doesn't happen with APCs, IFVs, or any other vehicle. The crew and infantry are protected by the vehicle. They're only killed when a critical hit is rolled or the armor and internal are exceeded. I think that's a problem. I'd be better off using Beast Mounted Infantry. They can be as fast, aren't slowed by support weapons, and the larger ones even have a damage divisor.

It's only amplified in terms of what happens to ConvInf being hit by heavy arms (i.e. mech-scale weapons), not in terms of what they would be taking as Vehicles.  The only explanation for that is the one I've given: The people are more concentrated as Mechanized Infantry than they are for any other formation due to their nature of actually being in vehicles (the "Mechanized" portion of their title).

Never got into Alpha Strike or Battlespace. And the scale isn't so far apart between AToW and TW that conversion should be a problem. But it is.

What is the time frame of a turn in ATOW?  How far can one person move?  What is the deliniation of movement standard (i.e what is the distance a movement point normally carries)?  When accounting for the differences how much gets lost in rounding?

BattleSpace's time frame is every minute, while Battletech is 10.8 seconds.  Notice the discrepancy that would occur if you tried to make it 1:1?  Some differences need to be made to make them work, as they are incompatible from the word go.

I'm not afraid of it. I think it's unnecessary.  We already have rules to create vehicles such as motorcycles and jeeps. We just need to apply them.

But they don't work for representing the vehicles used by Mechanized Infantry.

Sure it'd make them more survivable but it'd add another layer of construction that isn't needed.

Says the person who thinks they need to be more survivable, or at least have their armor reflected in the rules.  This is an example of a suggestion which brings what you're saying in to reality, but then you balk at it.

No I'm not. And how much armor a vehicle can mount depends on it's tonnage. And the most armor a small support vehicle can have is 8 points of armor. Unless you put 5 of those points of armor in on place the vehicle isn't going to survive. So a Medium Laser will probably kill the vast majority of small vehicles 4.999 tons or less. The same vehicle might be able to survive a hit or two from an AC/2 though.

Using a Medium Laser is the exact example you gave and what I have been using in my assessment of the situation.  Unifying the armor, such as in Battle Armor's case, would allow all that 8 points of armor to take a Medium Laser.

Another example of being given a solution that fits your request, but balking at it.

We're not talking real life though. In real life a strong enough bow will go through a car door to hit the person on the other side. There's no way that'll happen in TW.

Yeah, because ConvInf damage against MechInf is reduced by half.  A bow isn't a heavy arm. 

As it is, a bow shot that reached through an open window (or no cover at all like many jeeps operated) wouldn't be that far out.

I'm trying to get some refinement. I agree there's a difference between BA, Protos, and even Mechs. Should there be is another question. There really isn't any difference between vehicles though. They just get bigger and heavier. I don't see that as a problem.


It's about how effective the unit is in dispersing the damage.  At Battletech's scale Battle Armor cannot disperse the damage as easily as a ProtoMech or Combat Vehicle.  It also allows the Battle Armor to take hits that wouldn't allow if it was dispersed.

An Elemental comes with 10 points of armor.  If you dispersed it out to limbs, torso, and head, it wouldn't have the ability to tank an Inner Sphere's Large Laser.  Even if it hit an armor or a leg, then the damage bleed off would go straight in to the torso, killing the Elemental.  Even hitting one in the torso with a Medium Laser would likely see a kill on that specific Elemental.

So by applying this same standard to Light Vehicles, they would gain the survivability to take a Medium Laser that current Vehicle Construction does not allow.

I don't think any Vehicle infantry would be getting out of their vehicles to fight. It takes 1 MP for an APC/IFV to unload their infantry. That infantry can't do anything else that turn. Vehicle Infantry aren't going to be able to get out/off their vehicles, attack, and get back in/on in the same turn. And really, why would they want to? They'd lose their mobility, fire power, and protection.

If they stay in their vehicles, then they aren't Infantry.  If they aren't Infantry, they can't Swarm, do anti-Mech attacks, and can't occupy floors in the average building.  So they have to get out of their vehicles to do Infantry things.  Right now, that is VERY abstracted.

And since this is a thread about revamping Battletech, and altering or reducing the abstraction of Infantry was a request, then separating the Infantry from the vehicle becomes an honest step in the process, and rules that disimprove the abstraction while at the same time still allowing proper representation is in the cards.

For a suit like the Elemental? Maybe. For suits like the Sloth and Infiltrator? Not really. The only difference really is scale.


And neuro-helmets.  And construction fidelity with tighter tolerances.

Can't see how you can completely remove vehicles from Infantry. What I can see is not abstracting them. Other wise we get things like only having 2 motorcycles per hex but we can have 60 two ton BA. Wait. We do have that now.  :bang:

In order to not abstract Mechanized Infantry, it is necessary to remove the vehicles from the Infantry.  I've already gone over that above, so I won't do it again.

Furthermore, that is the reason for the new unit type of Light Vehicle which allows multiple motorcycles, jeeps, light apcs, HMMVs, etc, to be organized as a platoon to have the same representation as a single Vehicle.  That seems to be something you have forgotten in my presentation regarding the Light Vehicle concept.

As for the Jeep, again, it depends on the vehicle's armor and the weapon hitting it. Armor should provide some protection. Even if the vehicle isn't armored the vehicle itself should provide some protection. Crew Killed isn't automatic when a vehicle is hit. If it were, no one would use vehicles for combat. Also not every vehicle scale weapon does 5 or more points of damage. Some only do 1 point of damage. So an armored Jeep might survive a hit or two.

Which goes back to the example of a jeep getting hit by a Panzer round.  Even if a Jeep provided 1 point of armor with 2 crew, a Medium Laser will still bake it in abstract as it would with greater fidelity (even assuming the Jeep would be classified as being built with armor, I don't have TRO 1945).

The problem is that numerous small vehicles should be able to move and fight together in close proximity. We have that now. The problem is they take damage as infantry. But they're not. They're vehicles.

And that's an abstraction I'm trying to get rid of with the Light Vehicle concept.  It seems you've forgotten that.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Both Cavalry and Dragoons ride animals. However, Cavalry fight from their animals. Dragoons fight on foot. A modern version would be Cavalry fight from their vehicles. Dragoons get out of their APC to fight on foot.

If you want to get technical, modern cavalry units ride VTOLs, and dragoons ride APCs and IFVs.

But more importantly is how we want these units to be represented and how their actions will be processed.

Realistically, there should only 2 Conventional Infantry types with specialized skills added on: Foot and Jump.  One of those skills would be Mechanized, who are trained in quickly mounting and dismounting vehicles (dragoons, if you would).

In the same "Conventional Infantry" sphere there would be Cavalry, which is what Motorized Infantry is currently sitting, and would just add hover and beast types as a movement options.

Battle Armor would stay the same, but they are hardly "Conventional" as the game sees it.

Light Vehicles would take the Mechanized Infantry spot, have the design tolerances of Battle Armor, and be organized in to united squads that would be classified as 1 Vehicle for stacking purposes.

Presuming you mean refining the construction rules, I don't know how more refined you can get. "Tolerance" depends completely on how much the vehicle weighs and how much armor it can hold. Same as BA.

Tolerance refers to scale of measurement in this case.  Battle Armor does not follow the same weight scales that Mechs or Combat Vehicles use.  Light Vehicles would also be built using the kg measurement instead of the 1/2 ton measurements used by Support and Combat Vehicles.

Ah! In that case, that kind of defines small support vehicles and infantry. One or two shots and they're dead.

In this case, the German mini-subs were taken out by high seas and the British mini-subs were taken out by bureaucracy.  The Japanese tried using mini-subs at Pearl Harbor, too, but ran in to similar problems with the seas, anti-sub nets, and a lucky destroyer.

I agree we could use more weapons designed for naval use. Beyond that though, I think Battletech works with naval combat. We can make the big subs, which are the size of small dropships. What BT does is make using smaller units preferable. Along with more reliable than RL.

It's not just the weapons, but also Naval Construction doesn't really support massive construction like that.  But yeah, there is no effective weapons for undersea warfare on that scale, either.

Honestly, I think it has to do with a dearth of naval travel and only undersea colonies/research stations that even need them, and all the maps being considered above sea level.  Theoretically, one could treat the maps as being X levels under the sea with forests being like kelp, coral, and other undersea plants.  Water levels would just be lower points and not incur any further penalties beyond the levels above (unless one set them up as "water is lava", hehe).
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2219
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #315 on: 11 January 2021, 23:45:14 »
But without an example, there is no canon reference.

Having a canon reference is nice but not necessary. We have canon rules to make one. Besides I have been giving canon examples of bikes (wheeled and hover), supposedly built using TM rules that appear in AToW and AToW Companion.


Quote
In this case the bonus modifier is baked in to how ConvInf takes damage as opposed to the difficulty in creating a successful hit.

What?


Quote
It's only amplified in terms of what happens to ConvInf being hit by heavy arms (i.e. mech-scale weapons), not in terms of what they would be taking as Vehicles.  The only explanation for that is the one I've given: The people are more concentrated as Mechanized Infantry than they are for any other formation due to their nature of actually being in vehicles (the "Mechanized" portion of their title).

Which makes no sense. The vehicle, even without armor, should provide some protection. Even Elephant's give a damage divisor.


Quote
What is the time frame of a turn in ATOW?  How far can one person move?  What is the deliniation of movement standard (i.e what is the distance a movement point normally carries)?  When accounting for the differences how much gets lost in rounding?

The Turns are 5 seconds. Distance is in meters. Converting range to TW divide by 30 and round .5 up.

Quote
BattleSpace's time frame is every minute, while Battletech is 10.8 seconds.  Notice the discrepancy that would occur if you tried to make it 1:1?  Some differences need to be made to make them work, as they are incompatible from the word go.

Same as Aerospace's 1 minute turn. I believe BT's turn is 10 seconds. Speed is divided or multiplied by 10.8. to get MP or KPH.
I can also understand small differences do to rounding and such. Huge differences though should not happen.


Quote
But they don't work for representing the vehicles used by Mechanized Infantry.

But they do. Do you have Handbook House Davion? These two vehicles are assigned to Mechanized and Motorized Infantry according to their fluff.
“Apocalypse” World Rover=2 tons, crew/passengers 8, Armor 8
"Pintel" Heavy Combat ATV=500kg, crew/passengers 3, Armor 4
Both have Pintle Mounts for a Support Weapons and both move at 4/6.

Used as "Infantry" I'd say that the Apocalypse has a platoon of 3 vehicles and the Pintel has a platoon of up to 10.

I've given other examples with motorcycles and hovercycles with platoons of 30 "vehicles/infantry". It works.


Quote
Says the person who thinks they need to be more survivable, or at least have their armor reflected in the rules.  This is an example of a suggestion which brings what you're saying in to reality, but then you balk at it.

What are you talking about?  ???   We can use the existing rules to give "Motorized/Mechanized" infantry the protection their vehicle actually gives them right now. Abstracting all the armor into one location for these "Infantry Vehicles" not only isn't necessary but it would also completely nerf existing vehicles and the small vehicle construction rules. Not only that but it's swapping one abstraction for another. I'm trying to get rid of as much abstraction as possible.


Quote
Using a Medium Laser is the exact example you gave and what I have been using in my assessment of the situation.  Unifying the armor, such as in Battle Armor's case, would allow all that 8 points of armor to take a Medium Laser.

Another example of being given a solution that fits your request, but balking at it.

Because, again it isn't necessary, doesn't remove the abstraction, and completely nerfs existing rules and vehicles. In fact it takes an existing problem of ATOW infantry vehicles being more powerful than TW versions and flips it. Infantry would be more powerful than vehicles.

Look at the vehicles I named above. Under existing rules the “Apocalypse” World Rover could not survive a hit from a Medium Laser. Front armor 3 plus IS of 1 only adds up to 4 point. Now its not only surviving the Medium Laser hit but a Small Laser hit as well. Who'd use small vehicles under those rules?

I'm trying to remove the abstraction the same way BA does. You put 25 Infantry in Elemental BA and you use the stats for the Elemental BA. Put 25 infantry in Gnome BA and you use the stats for Gnome BA. You put 24 Infantry in Pintle ATVs you should use the stats for the Pintle ATV. Not an abstraction.


Quote
Yeah, because ConvInf damage against MechInf is reduced by half.  A bow isn't a heavy arm. 

As it is, a bow shot that reached through an open window (or no cover at all like many jeeps operated) wouldn't be that far out.

But it would still hit the motorized infantry.
It also would do no damage to a vehicle do to how damage works in TW.

I could believe that and I think there should be a rule that takes open toped vehicles into account.



Quote
It's about how effective the unit is in dispersing the damage.  At Battletech's scale Battle Armor cannot disperse the damage as easily as a ProtoMech or Combat Vehicle.  It also allows the Battle Armor to take hits that wouldn't allow if it was dispersed.

An Elemental comes with 10 points of armor.  If you dispersed it out to limbs, torso, and head, it wouldn't have the ability to tank an Inner Sphere's Large Laser.  Even if it hit an armor or a leg, then the damage bleed off would go straight in to the torso, killing the Elemental.  Even hitting one in the torso with a Medium Laser would likely see a kill on that specific Elemental.

So by applying this same standard to Light Vehicles, they would gain the survivability to take a Medium Laser that current Vehicle Construction does not allow.

It's an abstraction to make Elementals as effective in the game are they are in the fluff. If BA were to carry as much armor per location to survive the hits they take in the fluff they'd be as armored as some light mechs.

Now sure we could do the same to Vehicle Infantry but it would cause problems with existing vehicles and rules.


Quote
If they stay in their vehicles, then they aren't Infantry.  If they aren't Infantry, they can't Swarm, do anti-Mech attacks, and can't occupy floors in the average building.  So they have to get out of their vehicles to do Infantry things.  Right now, that is VERY abstracted.

Not all BA can do those things. Why should Vehicle Infantry be different? And there is an advanced rule for abandoning vehicles. Want Vehicle Infantry to fight on foot? Use those rules, and have them abandon their vehicles to be Foot Infantry.


Quote
And since this is a thread about revamping Battletech, and altering or reducing the abstraction of Infantry was a request, then separating the Infantry from the vehicle becomes an honest step in the process, and rules that disimprove the abstraction while at the same time still allowing proper representation is in the cards.

Then why do you keep advocating for abstraction?  ???
Want infantry separate from vehicles? Then don't allow Mechanized or Motorized Infantry at all. They use APCs and IFVs only.
Want Mechanized and Motorized Infantry to use the vehicles they're fluffed as using? Then use the stats for those vehicles. And don't abstract them further.
Want "Vehicle" Infantry to fight on foot? Use the abandoning vehicles rule.


Quote
And neuro-helmets.  And construction fidelity with tighter tolerances.

BA don't use neuro-helmets.


Quote
In order to not abstract Mechanized Infantry, it is necessary to remove the vehicles from the Infantry.  I've already gone over that above, so I won't do it again.

In which case there's Foot Infantry and Jump Infantry riding in APCs and IFVs.

You're also invalidating canon fluff.



Quote
Furthermore, that is the reason for the new unit type of Light Vehicle which allows multiple motorcycles, jeeps, light apcs, HMMVs, etc, to be organized as a platoon to have the same representation as a single Vehicle.  That seems to be something you have forgotten in my presentation regarding the Light Vehicle concept.

On the contrary. I've already said, multiple times, that the stacking rule needs to be changed.

Creating another construction rule for vehicles we already have doesn't solve the problem. You'd still have 60 light vehicles in 1 hex to 2 small vehicles. The exact same problem we have now. Without added construction rules.


Quote
Which goes back to the example of a jeep getting hit by a Panzer round.  Even if a Jeep provided 1 point of armor with 2 crew, a Medium Laser will still bake it in abstract as it would with greater fidelity (even assuming the Jeep would be classified as being built with armor, I don't have TRO 1945).

How does that go back to a Panzer round? Either theirs armor to survive a hit or there isn't. Odds are a Jeep won't have that kind of armor. As for the Medium Laser baking the Jeep, the only abstraction is that in a standard game the crew is dead. Under advanced rules that abstraction isn't there as crew could survive.

Quote
And that's an abstraction I'm trying to get rid of with the Light Vehicle concept.  It seems you've forgotten that.

No you're just swapping one abstraction for another. I'm saying if 60 motorcycles are going to be allowed in a hex, change the stacking rules.


Quote
If you want to get technical, modern cavalry units ride VTOLs, and dragoons ride APCs and IFVs.

If you want to be technical, modern cavalry are cavalry in name only since the only difference between them and dragoons is the vehicle type.


Quote
But more importantly is how we want these units to be represented and how their actions will be processed.

Realistically, there should only 2 Conventional Infantry types with specialized skills added on: Foot and Jump.  One of those skills would be Mechanized, who are trained in quickly mounting and dismounting vehicles (dragoons, if you would).

In the same "Conventional Infantry" sphere there would be Cavalry, which is what Motorized Infantry is currently sitting, and would just add hover and beast types as a movement options.

You just contradicted yourself. If there's only Foot and Jump you can't have Motorized.



Quote
Battle Armor would stay the same, but they are hardly "Conventional" as the game sees it.

Light Vehicles would take the Mechanized Infantry spot, have the design tolerances of Battle Armor, and be organized in to united squads that would be classified as 1 Vehicle for stacking purposes.

And you're trading one abstraction for another. I'll pass.


Quote
Tolerance refers to scale of measurement in this case.  Battle Armor does not follow the same weight scales that Mechs or Combat Vehicles use.  Light Vehicles would also be built using the kg measurement instead of the 1/2 ton measurements used by Support and Combat Vehicles.

Small support vehicles (4.999 tons or less) are built using kilograms. Combat vehicles round up to .5 tons unless the fractional accounting rule is used.


Quote
In this case, the German mini-subs were taken out by high seas and the British mini-subs were taken out by bureaucracy.  The Japanese tried using mini-subs at Pearl Harbor, too, but ran in to similar problems with the seas, anti-sub nets, and a lucky destroyer.

And yet the Japanese still got their subs into the harbor to fire their torpedo's. I'd probably give them the difficult to pilot quirk. They'd also have targeting penalties for lack of fire control but they're still mostly possible to build. We really need Thunderbolt sized Torpedos.

Quote
It's not just the weapons, but also Naval Construction doesn't really support massive construction like that.  But yeah, there is no effective weapons for undersea warfare on that scale, either.

But we can make big ships. We even have stats for big ships.


Quote
Honestly, I think it has to do with a dearth of naval travel and only undersea colonies/research stations that even need them, and all the maps being considered above sea level.  Theoretically, one could treat the maps as being X levels under the sea with forests being like kelp, coral, and other undersea plants.  Water levels would just be lower points and not incur any further penalties beyond the levels above (unless one set them up as "water is lava", hehe).

I think it's more a lack of thought. Most combat takes place on dry land and so we get units for use on dry land. Water combat is more an after though or specific scenario. Because of that we don't see a lot of units for use in water. We've gotten just enough for river and harbor combat but not bigger battles. Not like what we'd have with a scenario like you said. Where the land is X Depths below water. It's thoughts like that that make me think naval units should be able to fire torpedo bombs. Surface ships become fighters and subs VTOLs. 

Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1087
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #316 on: 12 January 2021, 12:59:31 »
Having a canon reference is nice but not necessary. We have canon rules to make one. Besides I have been giving canon examples of bikes (wheeled and hover), supposedly built using TM rules that appear in AToW and AToW Companion.

Again referencing another system which doesn't translate over.

What?

Conventional Infantry do not change the ability to be Hit like a ProtoMech does because how they take damage.  A Medium Laser hitting a Foot Inf unit will only be taking out one trooper instead of spending all of its fury across 5 troopers.

Also consider that ProtoMechs are still relatively new and rare units with the targeting systems will be expecting to hit them like regular Mechs, which tend to move a little differently due to size and piloting interface.  Battlemechs have been hitting ConvInf for centuries before Amaris was born.

Which makes no sense. The vehicle, even without armor, should provide some protection. Even Elephant's give a damage divisor.

Again, WHY?

They already get reduced damage in the first place by virtue of being ConvInf.  The vehicle, as it is currently established, cannot take a hit without taking out the crew, which is why the ConvInf damage is doubled.

But when I suggest making the armor available and less abstract, you counter it saying it wouldn't work or it is too abstract.

The Turns are 5 seconds. Distance is in meters. Converting range to TW divide by 30 and round .5 up.

Same as Aerospace's 1 minute turn. I believe BT's turn is 10 seconds. Speed is divided or multiplied by 10.8. to get MP or KPH.
I can also understand small differences do to rounding and such. Huge differences though should not happen.

By "Distance is in meters", should I assume that you mean "distance is measured in individual meters"?

I worked out the calculations a while back.  The only way that speed is handled at 10.8 kph per hex moved is if the BT turn is also 10.8 seconds.

But they do. Do you have Handbook House Davion? These two vehicles are assigned to Mechanized and Motorized Infantry according to their fluff.
“Apocalypse” World Rover=2 tons, crew/passengers 8, Armor 8
"Pintel" Heavy Combat ATV=500kg, crew/passengers 3, Armor 4
Both have Pintle Mounts for a Support Weapons and both move at 4/6.

Used as "Infantry" I'd say that the Apocalypse has a platoon of 3 vehicles and the Pintel has a platoon of up to 10.

I've given other examples with motorcycles and hovercycles with platoons of 30 "vehicles/infantry". It works.

No it doesn't work, by your very own statements and words, they do not.  Their armor and structure is not represented at all on the table with Mechanized or Motorized Infantry.  This has been one of your key complaints.

Nor does it even consider if it is hitting one vehicle of the platoon or 10.  The system just takes the damage of the average heavy arm, divides by 10, rounds up, then doubles it.

What are you talking about?  ???   We can use the existing rules to give "Motorized/Mechanized" infantry the protection their vehicle actually gives them right now. Abstracting all the armor into one location for these "Infantry Vehicles" not only isn't necessary but it would also completely nerf existing vehicles and the small vehicle construction rules. Not only that but it's swapping one abstraction for another. I'm trying to get rid of as much abstraction as possible.

Actually, it wouldn't nerf them any more than Battle Armor nerf Protomechs.

As it is, it is less of an abstraction than only considering each individual trooper on the field rather than considering the vehicle itself.

Because, again it isn't necessary, doesn't remove the abstraction, and completely nerfs existing rules and vehicles. In fact it takes an existing problem of ATOW infantry vehicles being more powerful than TW versions and flips it. Infantry would be more powerful than vehicles.

Not really, because what you call "Vehicle Infantry" wouldn't be considered Infantry any more, but actual vehicles.  That removes an abstraction.  It may add another one, but the alternative is to really nerf what those small vehicles are representing.  The vehicles need to be vehicles, especially if they are supposed to be providing the protection you keep whining about.  The only things lost is that by completely transferring them to Vehicles, they lose stacking, so an alteration for these cases is needed.

Look at the vehicles I named above. Under existing rules the “Apocalypse” World Rover could not survive a hit from a Medium Laser. Front armor 3 plus IS of 1 only adds up to 4 point. Now its not only surviving the Medium Laser hit but a Small Laser hit as well. Who'd use small vehicles under those rules?

So they get bundelled in to those rules, too.  What's wrong with that?

I'm trying to remove the abstraction the same way BA does. You put 25 Infantry in Elemental BA and you use the stats for the Elemental BA. Put 25 infantry in Gnome BA and you use the stats for Gnome BA. You put 24 Infantry in Pintle ATVs you should use the stats for the Pintle ATV. Not an abstraction.

Oh, no.  You don't get to say BA removes abstraction, while it itself carries the same abstraction you're complaining about.  That's disingenuous.

And I agree, if a unit is using Pintle ATVs, they should be represented as Pintle ATVs on the table.  This is only possible if they are listed as Vehicles, and if the cases of this size of Vehicle is capable of being purchased as a platoon, but only considers the platoon for stacking purposes, just like we consider the BA squad as a whole for stacking, and not each and every individual trooper.
 
It's an abstraction to make Elementals as effective in the game are they are in the fluff. If BA were to carry as much armor per location to survive the hits they take in the fluff they'd be as armored as some light mechs.

Now sure we could do the same to Vehicle Infantry but it would cause problems with existing vehicles and rules.

Which we're already talking about changing, so we change them to be integrated in a similar manner.  It's not that hard to consider using these Small/Light Vehicles in the same relation to Combat Vehicles as Battle Armor is to ProtoMechs and Battlemechs.  You keep insisting that Battle Armor is mini-mechs.  So unless you want to quadrant Battle Armor damage, too, complaining about having Small/Light Vehicles not be quadranted comes across as disingenuous.

Not all BA can do those things. Why should Vehicle Infantry be different? And there is an advanced rule for abandoning vehicles. Want Vehicle Infantry to fight on foot? Use those rules, and have them abandon their vehicles to be Foot Infantry.

Which is easier to represent the infantry leaving their vehicles by having the vehicles be Vehicles and Infantry as Infantry, and removes a layer of abstraction as well (one of your key points).

Then why do you keep advocating for abstraction?  ???
Want infantry separate from vehicles? Then don't allow Mechanized or Motorized Infantry at all. They use APCs and IFVs only.
Want Mechanized and Motorized Infantry to use the vehicles they're fluffed as using? Then use the stats for those vehicles. And don't abstract them further.
Want "Vehicle" Infantry to fight on foot? Use the abandoning vehicles rule.

At a certain point, abstraction must come in to play.  Keeping it consistent at the same level of play is a good thing, in my opinion, but Mechanized Infantry is not consistent.  Having these Small/Light Vehicles operate at the same level of abstraction as Battle Armor is consistent.

For scenarios where less abstraction is desired, one is going to be using ATOW's system, which I assume tracks where a person in Battle Armor is hit (which TW does not).

BA don't use neuro-helmets.

You're right.  BA don't use neuro-helmets.  Because they aren't 'Mechs.

In which case there's Foot Infantry and Jump Infantry riding in APCs and IFVs.

You're also invalidating canon fluff.

Elucidate, please.

Either they were riding the APCs and IFVs (which is what I'm trying to get properly represented as their own units on the table), or they were not.  If they were not, then they weren't Mechanized Infantry, just Mounted Infantry.

On the contrary. I've already said, multiple times, that the stacking rule needs to be changed.

Creating another construction rule for vehicles we already have doesn't solve the problem. You'd still have 60 light vehicles in 1 hex to 2 small vehicles. The exact same problem we have now. Without added construction rules.

There are different aspects to construction.  In one case, it is the literal chassis on which it is based.  In another case, it is the unit, such as a platoon, which is being created.  I have already admitted to ignorance regarding the small support vehicle construction.

And every time I talk about changing the stacking dynamic, you have thrown a fit about it, or at least countered it as being "that's the way it is."

How does that go back to a Panzer round? Either theirs armor to survive a hit or there isn't. Odds are a Jeep won't have that kind of armor. As for the Medium Laser baking the Jeep, the only abstraction is that in a standard game the crew is dead. Under advanced rules that abstraction isn't there as crew could survive.

A Panzer's round is a heavy arm.  If it hits a jeep with a driver and gunner, two people are more likely to be hit by the shrapnel and explosion than two people skirmishing in the field.

No you're just swapping one abstraction for another. I'm saying if 60 motorcycles are going to be allowed in a hex, change the stacking rules.

Still a point of abstraction.  An absolute limit of numbers in a hex based on unit type is an abstraction.  As it is, Mechanized Infantry is abstracting vehicles as Infantry.  Talk about being so abstract that even Picasso would be saying, "wtf?"

If you want to be technical, modern cavalry are cavalry in name only since the only difference between them and dragoons is the vehicle type.

I don't know a lot of Apache or Cobra pilots willing to jump out of their helicopters to take a position.

You just contradicted yourself. If there's only Foot and Jump you can't have Motorized.

I also used quotation marks and referenced sphere, meaning that just like Battle Armor, they would be included in the same sphere of rules and influences.

And you're trading one abstraction for another. I'll pass.

I'm trading the abstraction of Vehicles acting and being treated as Infantry for Vehicles that have the same level of abstraction as Battle Armor, but still be treated as Vehicles.  At a certain point abstractions are necessary, might as well be consistent.

On the other hand, you're not really offering any removal of abstraction at all, but trying to keep it as is.
 
Small support vehicles (4.999 tons or less) are built using kilograms. Combat vehicles round up to .5 tons unless the fractional accounting rule is used.

Fair enough.  I have already stated my ignorance as to those construction rules.

Now, can these Small Support Vehicles be equipped with weapons to represent a Rifle Platoon or allow a Foot Rifle Platoon to shoot out from them?

And yet the Japanese still got their subs into the harbor to fire their torpedo's. I'd probably give them the difficult to pilot quirk. They'd also have targeting penalties for lack of fire control but they're still mostly possible to build. We really need Thunderbolt sized Torpedos.

Ummm, no they didn't.  One sub made it in to the harbor, but wasn't able to hit anything.  Another crashed in to the shore with one survivor.  A third was sunk by a destroyer as it tried to enter the harbor, and the other two went missing and weren't found for a decade or more.  The first of which suffered an internal explosion, causing to break up in to 3 parts.

Unless you're thinking of attacks on Sydney or Madagascar, I'm not too familiar with those events.  Still, all in all, those Japanese minis were the most successful, and they sucked.

Now, mini-subs with Battletech should be very viable, as their construction materials are much stronger and more durable.

But we can make big ships. We even have stats for big ships.

Where are these big ships?  I have admitted to only limited perusal of the Technical Manual, and base Combat Vehicle construction is just too limited.

I think it's more a lack of thought. Most combat takes place on dry land and so we get units for use on dry land. Water combat is more an after though or specific scenario. Because of that we don't see a lot of units for use in water. We've gotten just enough for river and harbor combat but not bigger battles. Not like what we'd have with a scenario like you said. Where the land is X Depths below water. It's thoughts like that that make me think naval units should be able to fire torpedo bombs. Surface ships become fighters and subs VTOLs.

Yeah, Mechs would just love to face off against 100 ton VTOLs!

Part of it may be a lack of thought, but also most of a relative dearth of storylines about wet naval actions with the occasional exception of underwater colonies and research stations.

Dropship travel is too strong and efficient to bother with container ships outside of those undersea facilities, and unless you have multiple factions on the same planet consistently battling over control of those seaways, strong wet naval development just isn't a thing.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Nicoli

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 248
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #317 on: 15 January 2021, 19:04:18 »
To chime in on your infantry debate, the different types of infantry are quite valid to have them differentiate.

Leg/jump infantry: these are fairly obvious.

Motorized Infantry: these are the equivalent to HMMWV patrols in modern day and Combat car recon units of WWII. The weapons are mounted on the vehicles and they don't really have the manpower to provide security for their vehicles and do any real dismounted work.

Mechanized infantry:These are units with vehicles that have dedicated drivers, but the weapons are all operated by the infantry and are also dismountable. A prime example of this would be US mechanized forces in WWII using the M3 halftrack. When the infantry discounts they basically leave a vehicle with a driver and no weapons who finds a place out of danger till needed again.

Infantry with a separate vehicle transport: In these cases you have a fully crewed combat vehicle with it's own dedicated weapons and crew that also has troop carrying capacity. The various US amphibious landing tanks, Bradleys, and older models of Merkavas would be an example of these. All of those are capable of operating completely independent of their infantry but have dedicated space to move infantry around as needed.

These are pretty standard breakdowns for most military wargames and real life.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2219
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #318 on: 16 January 2021, 01:56:17 »
Again referencing another system which doesn't translate over.

I've also given examples from TRO:VA and Handbook House Davion.

Quote
Conventional Infantry do not change the ability to be Hit like a ProtoMech does because how they take damage.  A Medium Laser hitting a Foot Inf unit will only be taking out one trooper instead of spending all of its fury across 5 troopers.

That really depends on how close the infantry are. If they're close together, as in operating a support weapon, then a single Medium Laser could hit one or more.



Quote
Also consider that ProtoMechs are still relatively new and rare units with the targeting systems will be expecting to hit them like regular Mechs, which tend to move a little differently due to size and piloting interface.  Battlemechs have been hitting ConvInf for centuries before Amaris was born.

If a Battlemech doesn't have any problem hitting infantry or small vehicles, or even a LAM in AirMech Mode, why should it have a problem hitting a Protomech?



Quote
Again, WHY?

They already get reduced damage in the first place by virtue of being ConvInf.  The vehicle, as it is currently established, cannot take a hit without taking out the crew, which is why the ConvInf damage is doubled.

But when I suggest making the armor available and less abstract, you counter it saying it wouldn't work or it is too abstract.

Again, Mechanized Infantry suffer double damage. And why a vehicle is out of play in regular games, there are advanced rules which allow crew to survive. And why is it an Elephant provides more protection than a 5 ton vehicle?

Because we already have rules for small vehicles and lumping all the armor into a location is abstracting the rules.




Quote
By "Distance is in meters", should I assume that you mean "distance is measured in individual meters"?

I worked out the calculations a while back.  The only way that speed is handled at 10.8 kph per hex moved is if the BT turn is also 10.8 seconds.

As far as I can tell

Total Warfare says turns are 10 seconds.


Quote
No it doesn't work, by your very own statements and words, they do not.  Their armor and structure is not represented at all on the table with Mechanized or Motorized Infantry.  This has been one of your key complaints.

Nor does it even consider if it is hitting one vehicle of the platoon or 10.  The system just takes the damage of the average heavy arm, divides by 10, rounds up, then doubles it.

 :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

Forget the Mechanized and Motorized Infantry from the Rule books. This is a whole new infantry. And it does work.

Damage is determined the exact same way it is for Battle Armor and Protomechs. Roll to see which "Vehicle" gets hit and apply damage normally.

It's actually more accurate than it is now because not does not differentiate between which vehicle gets hit now.  It's as if the entire platoon is in one vehicle.


Quote
Actually, it wouldn't nerf them any more than Battle Armor nerf Protomechs.

As it is, it is less of an abstraction than only considering each individual trooper on the field rather than considering the vehicle itself.

Actually it would. Compare the two and tell me your abstraction doesn't nerf small vehicles.
Vehicle A built according to the rules as 8 points of armor, 3F,2S,1R and 1 point of IS for each location.
Vehicle B built with your abstraction is a single 8 point armor location. Are we including IS too and if so are we abstracting it too? So another 1-5 points of IS?
Small vehicles built by the rules sure look nerfed to me.

And Protomechs totally nerf Extra Light Mechs.


Quote
Not really, because what you call "Vehicle Infantry" wouldn't be considered Infantry any more, but actual vehicles.  That removes an abstraction.  It may add another one, but the alternative is to really nerf what those small vehicles are representing.  The vehicles need to be vehicles, especially if they are supposed to be providing the protection you keep whining about.  The only things lost is that by completely transferring them to Vehicles, they lose stacking, so an alteration for these cases is needed.

Why not? Battle Armor are Infantry and they're in vehicles. The only differences are motive systems and that vehicles can be "squad" sized. There's no nerfing. No abstraction. Just a change in Record Sheets and the Stacking Rules.


Quote
So they get bundelled in to those rules, too.  What's wrong with that?

Besides invalidating the construction rules for small vehicles along with the stats for every small vehicle? And that it just swaps one abstraction for another?

It's like you're trying to insist that small vehicles survive a hit from a medium laser. That's like saying PAL/Exoskeletons should survive a hit from a medium laser as well even though they only get 2 point of armor.



Quote
Oh, no.  You don't get to say BA removes abstraction, while it itself carries the same abstraction you're complaining about.  That's disingenuous.

The Abstraction with BA is how BA's armor is lumped into 1 location. But you still have to roll to see which trooper from which squad/point is hit and then apply the damage. Conventional Infantry RS have no allowances for different vehicles or the fact that Mechanized Infantry move in squads. And then there's the fact that support weapons slow the vehicle down but they don't slow down animals. The same animal divides damage while vehicles amplify it. It's those abstractions I'd like gone.


Quote
And I agree, if a unit is using Pintle ATVs, they should be represented as Pintle ATVs on the table.  This is only possible if they are listed as Vehicles, and if the cases of this size of Vehicle is capable of being purchased as a platoon, but only considers the platoon for stacking purposes, just like we consider the BA squad as a whole for stacking, and not each and every individual trooper.

Its no different than taking the completely abstracted Elemental Battle Armor and reducing the abstraction by giving it stats and increasing the number of different types of BA. Only in this case we're removing the completely abstracted "infantry" vehicles and actually using stats for specific vehicles.

Take the ProtoMech RS replace the Protomech with a vehicle. Change a few terms Walk/Run to Cruise/Flank and there's a Vehicle Squad Record Sheet.


Quote
Which we're already talking about changing, so we change them to be integrated in a similar manner.  It's not that hard to consider using these Small/Light Vehicles in the same relation to Combat Vehicles as Battle Armor is to ProtoMechs and Battlemechs.  You keep insisting that Battle Armor is mini-mechs.  So unless you want to quadrant Battle Armor damage, too, complaining about having Small/Light Vehicles not be quadranted comes across as disingenuous.

Why reinvent the wheel? We already have rules for small vehicles. Why redo them? Yes, BA has their armor abstracted but changing that would require completely rewriting the rules and invalidate all the current BA stats. I'm not even sure it's possible to make BA quadranted without completely nerfing Protomechs and even some light mechs.

Quote
Which is easier to represent the infantry leaving their vehicles by having the vehicles be Vehicles and Infantry as Infantry, and removes a layer of abstraction as well (one of your key points).

Except the whole point of these "vehicle infantry" is that the move and fight from their vehicles. Not on foot.



Quote
At a certain point, abstraction must come in to play.  Keeping it consistent at the same level of play is a good thing, in my opinion, but Mechanized Infantry is not consistent.  Having these Small/Light Vehicles operate at the same level of abstraction as Battle Armor is consistent.

For scenarios where less abstraction is desired, one is going to be using ATOW's system, which I assume tracks where a person in Battle Armor is hit (which TW does not).

Sure it's consistent. All it does is change one abstraction for another. Worse is invalidates what we already have. So I don't see how that helps any.

Actually, Vehicles are vehicles with less abstraction. They're what we should have now. Battle Armor though is still, as far as I can tell, 1 location with BAR that increases as the amount of armor increases. Only damage that gets through affects the trooper.

Quote
You're right.  BA don't use neuro-helmets.  Because they aren't 'Mechs.

Not all Mechs use neuro-helmets.

Quote
Elucidate, please.

Either they were riding the APCs and IFVs (which is what I'm trying to get properly represented as their own units on the table), or they were not.  If they were not, then they weren't Mechanized Infantry, just Mounted Infantry.

Mounted infantry have to get out of the vehicles to fight. Mechanized/Motorized Infantry fight from their vehicles.  They are the vehicles the way Infantry are their Battle Armor.

Quote
There are different aspects to construction.  In one case, it is the literal chassis on which it is based.  In another case, it is the unit, such as a platoon, which is being created.  I have already admitted to ignorance regarding the small support vehicle construction.

With Infantry Construction, Mechanized and Motorized have their "vehicle" included as part of their construction. It's completely abstracted. Other than speed and motive type there is nothing that says these are actual vehicles.

The minimum number of troopers per Mechanized squad is 5. The max number of squads per Mechanized Platoon is 4. That's 5-7 troopers per squad and 4 vehicles per platoon. Where on the record sheet can you tell which vehicle is being shot at? A Heavy Machine Gun can kill 3D6 Infantry. That's a max of 9 Mechanized Troopers. But the max squad/vehicle size is 7. So two completely different vehicles are being hit.

And then there's the damage the Mechanized.Motorized Infantry do. Does that include the driver shooting too? How are they driving motorcycles and firing bolt action rifles at the same time? Which troopers are using support weapons? Heck, as it is the Infantry RS need a complete redoing as there's no squad separation or anything to indicate which troopers have support weapons.


Quote
And every time I talk about changing the stacking dynamic, you have thrown a fit about it, or at least countered it as being "that's the way it is."

What are you talking about? My complaining that the stacking rule makes zero sense? I can put 60 Infantry on motorcycles per hex but only 2 motorcycle vehicles? OR five 15 ton protomechs but only 2 500kg motorcycles? When have you advocated changing it until very recently? I've been saying from the beginning it's screwed up and needs fixing.


Quote
A Panzer's round is a heavy arm.  If it hits a jeep with a driver and gunner, two people are more likely to be hit by the shrapnel and explosion than two people skirmishing in the field.

So?
If we were playing a WWII game using XTRO:1945 rules a 75mm tank canon would do 7 points of damage. So yes that would kill a small vehicle. However, against "modern" units a 75mm tank canon is equal to a light rifle cannon which does 3 points of damage. So a vehicle with at least 3 points of armor on the location hit would survive the round. It'd be naked after on that side after and there's still a chance the crew could be hit but otherwise it's functional.

Quote
Still a point of abstraction.  An absolute limit of numbers in a hex based on unit type is an abstraction.  As it is, Mechanized Infantry is abstracting vehicles as Infantry.  Talk about being so abstract that even Picasso would be saying, "wtf?"

There is a difference between rush hour bumper to bumper traffic per hex - Which we don't have rules for. - and having a max number of units per hex while allowing enough space to allow combat maneuvers.


Quote
I don't know a lot of Apache or Cobra pilots willing to jump out of their helicopters to take a position.

They wouldn't be VTOL Infantry anyway. They wouldn't even be MicroCopter Infantry. So the point is moot. And again, Motorized/Mechanized Infantry are supposed to fight from their vehicles. Not get out of them to fight.

Quote
I also used quotation marks and referenced sphere, meaning that just like Battle Armor, they would be included in the same sphere of rules and influences.

What?


Quote
I'm trading the abstraction of Vehicles acting and being treated as Infantry for Vehicles that have the same level of abstraction as Battle Armor, but still be treated as Vehicles.  At a certain point abstractions are necessary, might as well be consistent.

Which completely invalidates existing small vehicle rules and stats.


Quote
On the other hand, you're not really offering any removal of abstraction at all, but trying to keep it as is.

Have you not understood anything I've said? Seriously. If I were advocating keeping things as they were, would I be saying Mechanized/Motorized Infantry should use the stats for the vehicles they move and fight from? The same way they do in AToW?


Quote
Fair enough.  I have already stated my ignorance as to those construction rules.

Now, can these Small Support Vehicles be equipped with weapons to represent a Rifle Platoon or allow a Foot Rifle Platoon to shoot out from them?

These small vehicles can mount and use 5 items. That includes Rifles. No but they can't do that from APCs or IFVs either. The only rules I know of that allow infantry platoons to fire out of a vehicle are for flatcar rail cars and their being on the decks of large ocean vessels/mobile structures. 



Quote
Ummm, no they didn't.  One sub made it in to the harbor, but wasn't able to hit anything.  Another crashed in to the shore with one survivor.  A third was sunk by a destroyer as it tried to enter the harbor, and the other two went missing and weren't found for a decade or more.  The first of which suffered an internal explosion, causing to break up in to 3 parts.

I said fired their weapons not that they hit. Also all five are accounted for. One was beached and captured. One was damaged by a depth charge and abandoned. One was sunk by the Ward. One that fired it's torpedo's and missed is burred in a landfill. The last was found in three parts outside the harbor among dumped US equipment from the West Loch Disaster in 1944. It's missing it's torpedo's and it's believe they were fired in Pearl Harbor and the sub scuttled in the West Loch.


Quote

Unless you're thinking of attacks on Sydney or Madagascar, I'm not too familiar with those events.  Still, all in all, those Japanese minis were the most successful, and they sucked.

I'm not familiar with them either.

Quote
Now, mini-subs with Battletech should be very viable, as their construction materials are much stronger and more durable.

Well, viability really depends on the tech level and any quirks applied. WWII versions would all be Tech B and I'd probably give them a bunch of negative quirks. More modern ones would definitely be more effective. Of course we'd still need torpedo's for them.

Quote
Where are these big ships?  I have admitted to only limited perusal of the Technical Manual, and base Combat Vehicle construction is just too limited.

Construction rules are in TacOps. Stats can be found in TRO:VA and in several of the House Handbooks. The biggest TM covers for naval units is up to 300 tons.

Quote
Yeah, Mechs would just love to face off against 100 ton VTOLs!

Part of it may be a lack of thought, but also most of a relative dearth of storylines about wet naval actions with the occasional exception of underwater colonies and research stations.

Dropship travel is too strong and efficient to bother with container ships outside of those undersea facilities, and unless you have multiple factions on the same planet consistently battling over control of those seaways, strong wet naval development just isn't a thing.

In the water Naval units would be like VTOLs. And they can be up to 300 tons.  >:D

Totally. The focus is on Mechs and combat on dry land. I don't mind too much but it'd be nice if water combat weren't forgotten. I don't think a Mech would like being hit by a vintage torpedo from on of those WWII minisubs. It'd like being hit by a modern one even less. Presuming there's even a difference.

There's not that many dropships to do that really. They're also expensive to build own and maintain. A wet navy ship is cheap in comparison. Plus Dropships risk damage landing in water and do take damage taking off. So using a dropship might not be the best choice to send to drop off or pick up cargo or troops. Large ships also can launch and land all kinds of units depending on the equipment they carry. Dropships are more limited. Plus there's always smugglers and other criminals operating in and around water ways where smaller naval units are useful.

Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1087
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #319 on: 21 January 2021, 13:30:25 »
That really depends on how close the infantry are. If they're close together, as in operating a support weapon, then a single Medium Laser could hit one or more.

Potentially, if the laser sweeps.

If a Battlemech doesn't have any problem hitting infantry or small vehicles, or even a LAM in AirMech Mode, why should it have a problem hitting a Protomech?

Because it scans as a mech so tries to hit it as a mech.  It would be like trying to hit a motorcyle like you would hit a truck.  Lack of commonality just reduces the need for updates.  An Airmech just a funny shaped mech or aircraft not one of an usually small size.

Again, Mechanized Infantry suffer double damage. And why a vehicle is out of play in regular games, there are advanced rules which allow crew to survive. And why is it an Elephant provides more protection than a 5 ton vehicle?

Well, if I have two riding in a truck and one riding the elephant the answer should be obvious.

And your response is rather disingenuous.  They only suffer double damage from heavy arms when compared to other ConvInf.  Compared to Battle Armor, they suffer 1/5th the damage (roughly).

Because we already have rules for small vehicles and lumping all the armor into a location is abstracting the rules.

No more than it does for Battle Armor.  Since this is a revamp, we're already talking about changing the rules, so the "we already have rules" complaint goes out the window.

If you're willing to have Battle Armor like Elementals section their armor out like the Mechs you claim they are (which I have not seen you support) then there should be no difficulty or qualms with having the smaller vehicles operate on the same level.

As far as I can tell

Total Warfare says turns are 10 seconds.

Doesn't change the math, sorry.

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

Forget the Mechanized and Motorized Infantry from the Rule books. This is a whole new infantry. And it does work.

Damage is determined the exact same way it is for Battle Armor and Protomechs. Roll to see which "Vehicle" gets hit and apply damage normally.

It's actually more accurate than it is now because not does not differentiate between which vehicle gets hit now.  It's as if the entire platoon is in one vehicle.

Right, I get that, and is SOMETHING I HAVE BEEN SAYING in regards to these Small/Light Vehicles.  When I said that, you countered it with the current ruleset.  So don't act like I'm causing you to one bang your head against the wall.

Because in order for one to properly differentiate the Infantry being hit or the Vehicle, one needs to have both represented instead of both being VERY abstractedly represented as doubled up members with small arms resistance.

Actually it would. Compare the two and tell me your abstraction doesn't nerf small vehicles.
Vehicle A built according to the rules as 8 points of armor, 3F,2S,1R and 1 point of IS for each location.
Vehicle B built with your abstraction is a single 8 point armor location. Are we including IS too and if so are we abstracting it too? So another 1-5 points of IS?
Small vehicles built by the rules sure look nerfed to me.

Or maybe consider that combining my suggestion in to the small vehicle concept for better utility is the proper concept to work with?  In other words, under a certain weight, these vehicles will be built using current small vehicle rules, but organize, stack, and take damage more like Battle Armor than Conventional Infantry.  How much for how many will largely depend on vehicle size more than anything.

It would require some adjustments to currently existing designs, obviously, but I think it is desired if want to eliminate the real abstraction of "mechanized" infantry.

And Protomechs totally nerf Extra Light Mechs.

But not the comparison I used for a very specific reason, build tolerances.

Why not? Battle Armor are Infantry and they're in vehicles. The only differences are motive systems and that vehicles can be "squad" sized. There's no nerfing. No abstraction. Just a change in Record Sheets and the Stacking Rules.

According to you, BA are mechs, but they don't have sectioned damage like a Mech.  And unlike BA, these vehicles cannot act like Infantry in any form.  Giving small vehicles the same level of abstraction is only a problem in updating the currently existing designs to match.

There is always going to be some abstraction.  The only question is how much you're willing to live with.

Besides invalidating the construction rules for small vehicles along with the stats for every small vehicle? And that it just swaps one abstraction for another?

It's like you're trying to insist that small vehicles survive a hit from a medium laser. That's like saying PAL/Exoskeletons should survive a hit from a medium laser as well even though they only get 2 point of armor.

Taking a hit from a Medium Laser was something YOU requested and insist be properly represented, not me.  I kept using it because it was YOUR standard.  Don't go putting this back on me.

Yeah, the old rules for small vehicles would actually get simpler, not more complex, so would be altered.  Yes, the current small vehicle profiles would need to be updated.  It's not like this is the first time this happened with a revamp.

And again, some level of abstraction will always be needed, especially at the level that Battletech operates out.  However, I am suggesting we use an established level of abstraction to represent these changes, just like using the BA concept for making them in to vehicle squads or platoons for purposes of stacking and being targeted.

The Abstraction with BA is how BA's armor is lumped into 1 location. But you still have to roll to see which trooper from which squad/point is hit and then apply the damage. Conventional Infantry RS have no allowances for different vehicles or the fact that Mechanized Infantry move in squads. And then there's the fact that support weapons slow the vehicle down but they don't slow down animals. The same animal divides damage while vehicles amplify it. It's those abstractions I'd like gone.

Yeah, but Battle Armor doesn't have sectioned armor like the Mechs you claim them to be.  Don't complain about doing the same for small vehicles, unless you're fine with having Battle Armor section off their armor, too.

And in order to address some of those other abstractions, we go back to letting infantry be Infantry and vehicles be Vehicles, not a very gross hybrid of both.
 
Its no different than taking the completely abstracted Elemental Battle Armor and reducing the abstraction by giving it stats and increasing the number of different types of BA. Only in this case we're removing the completely abstracted "infantry" vehicles and actually using stats for specific vehicles.

Take the ProtoMech RS replace the Protomech with a vehicle. Change a few terms Walk/Run to Cruise/Flank and there's a Vehicle Squad Record Sheet.

Or alternatively, we do the same with Battle Armor Sheets.

Why reinvent the wheel? We already have rules for small vehicles. Why redo them? Yes, BA has their armor abstracted but changing that would require completely rewriting the rules and invalidate all the current BA stats. I'm not even sure it's possible to make BA quadranted without completely nerfing Protomechs and even some light mechs.

Why be fine with BA's level of armor abstraction and not be fine with small vehicle's?  We're already in the middle of a revamp discussion and you want to talk about reinvention?  That's part of the point of a revamp.  Mild rule adjustments can be handled with an FAQ or even a new edition, but a real revamp is going to turn some things on their heads, otherwise it fails to actually revamp the system.

With that, we either put small vehicles at the same level of abstraction as Battle Armor or we put Battle Armor at the same level of abstraction as small vehicles when it comes to damage.  Either way something should be reworked at that point.  I just thought it would provide better survivability for these small vehicles and better record space to use the Battle Armor system as opposed to having Battle Armor switch to using a ProtoMech system, especially when people use Battle Armor far more often then they do these small vehicles.

Except the whole point of these "vehicle infantry" is that the move and fight from their vehicles. Not on foot.

Then they are vehicle crew, not Infantry.  They should still be represented as Vehicles when they are operating as the crew of a Vehicle.  Getting rid of this abstraction is part of what you're talking about.  An Infantry unit that can shoot out of a moving Vehicle (much like US Marines used to be required to) would be specialized training, an option, not a unique unit identifier like Foot or Jump.  A vehicle that would allow the Infantry to shoot out of it should also have rules to represent this, say an open transport bay versus a closed on.  After all, why shouldn't BA not be able to fire from the back of a truck as easily as any other PBI?

Not all Mechs use neuro-helmets.

Battlemechs do, or a higher-level equivalent of it.

Mounted infantry have to get out of the vehicles to fight. Mechanized/Motorized Infantry fight from their vehicles.  They are the vehicles the way Infantry are their Battle Armor.

Battle Armor is noted for only being to have actions built in to the Armor.  Mechanized Infantry does not.  They are a gross, abstracted hybrid that should not exist as they are.  Any action they take as Infantry has to ignore the fact that they have Vehicles, and vice versa.  You want to get rid of abstraction, we have to get rid of this hybrid concept, and let the vehicles be Vehicles, and infantry be Infantry.

With Infantry Construction, Mechanized and Motorized have their "vehicle" included as part of their construction. It's completely abstracted. Other than speed and motive type there is nothing that says these are actual vehicles.

The minimum number of troopers per Mechanized squad is 5. The max number of squads per Mechanized Platoon is 4. That's 5-7 troopers per squad and 4 vehicles per platoon. Where on the record sheet can you tell which vehicle is being shot at? A Heavy Machine Gun can kill 3D6 Infantry. That's a max of 9 Mechanized Troopers. But the max squad/vehicle size is 7. So two completely different vehicles are being hit.

And then there's the damage the Mechanized.Motorized Infantry do. Does that include the driver shooting too? How are they driving motorcycles and firing bolt action rifles at the same time? Which troopers are using support weapons? Heck, as it is the Infantry RS need a complete redoing as there's no squad separation or anything to indicate which troopers have support weapons.

And you missed the point of what I was saying.  I missed the construction rules for small vehicles.  But we're also taking about unit construction as well, which is where a point of Battle Armor or ProtoMechs is constructed as well.

What are you talking about? My complaining that the stacking rule makes zero sense? I can put 60 Infantry on motorcycles per hex but only 2 motorcycle vehicles? OR five 15 ton protomechs but only 2 500kg motorcycles? When have you advocated changing it until very recently? I've been saying from the beginning it's screwed up and needs fixing.

Your first response to the Light Vehicle concept I presented.

So?
If we were playing a WWII game using XTRO:1945 rules a 75mm tank canon would do 7 points of damage. So yes that would kill a small vehicle. However, against "modern" units a 75mm tank canon is equal to a light rifle cannon which does 3 points of damage. So a vehicle with at least 3 points of armor on the location hit would survive the round. It'd be naked after on that side after and there's still a chance the crew could be hit but otherwise it's functional.

I was talking about how the rules treat that jeep as mechanized infantry NOW.

There is a difference between rush hour bumper to bumper traffic per hex - Which we don't have rules for. - and having a max number of units per hex while allowing enough space to allow combat maneuvers.

It's still a level of abstraction.  You can have one 2t Protomech taking up the same room as 5 2 ton pieces of Battle armor.  Or how the footprint of those jeeps is going to be matching up against a Demolishor II.

But this goes back to the importance of letting vehicles be Vehicles.  Small Vehicles would just have a platoon rule based on their weight.  Think of it as something like if BA were limited to max 4 man for Assaults, but could go up to 8-10 for PA(L).

But either way, some abstraction is still going to be necessary simply because we're using a small hex to represent a 30m (edge to edge) long territory.

They wouldn't be VTOL Infantry anyway. They wouldn't even be MicroCopter Infantry. So the point is moot. And again, Motorized/Mechanized Infantry are supposed to fight from their vehicles. Not get out of them to fight.

That was kind of my point, really.  Cavalry today aren't really infantry.  Heck, Cavalry have never been considered Infantry, and even suggesting such a thing at certain points in time could get you killed.

More to the point do we need to have an actual Dragoon type unit in the game that the Motorized Infantry are supposed to represent, or should they just be used as Cavalry in the more classic sense?

The only rules I know of that allow infantry platoons to fire out of a vehicle are for flatcar rail cars and their being on the decks of large ocean vessels/mobile structures. 

Sounds like an opportunity for an open cargo bay or Covered Infantry Bay option that would allow Infantry to shoot out of.

I said fired their weapons not that they hit. Also all five are accounted for. One was beached and captured. One was damaged by a depth charge and abandoned. One was sunk by the Ward. One that fired it's torpedo's and missed is burred in a landfill. The last was found in three parts outside the harbor among dumped US equipment from the West Loch Disaster in 1944. It's missing it's torpedo's and it's believe they were fired in Pearl Harbor and the sub scuttled in the West Loch.

Still rather demonstrates their lack of practicality with the tech level being used.

Totally. The focus is on Mechs and combat on dry land. I don't mind too much but it'd be nice if water combat weren't forgotten. I don't think a Mech would like being hit by a vintage torpedo from on of those WWII minisubs. It'd like being hit by a modern one even less. Presuming there's even a difference.

They may not like it, but I sincerely doubt it would be as painful as some would immediately think.  Even if they hit a hull like a Thunderbolt LRT-10, we'd still be seeing a significant damage reduction due to the BAR difference.  That's even assuming they went off.  American and Japanese torpedoes were notorious for having a high failure rate early on in the war.  Americans' were worse by far, but the Japanese still had trouble setting theirs up to the speed of the German's.

Yeah, getting hit by a U-Boat's torpedo would get a Mechwarrior's attention, while an early Pacific torpedo would probably only wake them up.

There's not that many dropships to do that really. They're also expensive to build own and maintain. A wet navy ship is cheap in comparison. Plus Dropships risk damage landing in water and do take damage taking off. So using a dropship might not be the best choice to send to drop off or pick up cargo or troops. Large ships also can launch and land all kinds of units depending on the equipment they carry. Dropships are more limited. Plus there's always smugglers and other criminals operating in and around water ways where smaller naval units are useful.

Honestly, from all the fluff I've seen, few worlds have a population spread out sufficiently that such wet naval work is even needed.  And even it if it is, most conflicts are not big enough that something that weighs in like a Seawolf is needed, much less a Bismark.  That and smaller "fighter" craft are perfectly viable in BT that they simply aren't right now, and those can be transported by dropship quite easily.

And dropships are quite available.  Just need one that is being short-legged or only has enough fuel for an orbital trip due to financial reasons wouldn't be far out.  It largely depends on the time frame you're talking about.  If you have a sufficiently large and dispersed population, dropships will usually be visiting your planet in sufficient numbers to handle such things that we use container ships for now.  Heck, most of the supplies we would see being put on those container ships would either be delivered by or are being delivered to a dropship anyway.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2219
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #320 on: 20 March 2021, 23:55:42 »
Potentially, if the laser sweeps.

The rules don't take how close infantry are unfortunately. If full weapon damage is too much and 1 or 2 is too little, I think it should be rolled on the cluster chart. That way the number of infantry killed varies which would represent how close the infantry are gathered.


Quote
Because it scans as a mech so tries to hit it as a mech.  It would be like trying to hit a motorcyle like you would hit a truck.  Lack of commonality just reduces the need for updates.  An Airmech just a funny shaped mech or aircraft not one of an usually small size.

Those are the points. An AirMech is smaller than a regular mech and there's no difference in targeting a motorcycle an a truck. But Protos get a weird bonus do to their size.


Quote
Well, if I have two riding in a truck and one riding the elephant the answer should be obvious.

And yet it isn't obvious. A Motorized Truck only looses 1 trooper. A Mechanized Truck looses both troopers. The Troopers on the elephant gets a damage divisor so 1 trooper killed. And a Vehicle Truck takes damage equal to the weapon that hits it. 


Quote
And your response is rather disingenuous.  They only suffer double damage from heavy arms when compared to other ConvInf.  Compared to Battle Armor, they suffer 1/5th the damage (roughly).

And yet they shouldn't suffer double damage because they're in a vehicle. The vehicle should take the damage.


Quote
No more than it does for Battle Armor.  Since this is a revamp, we're already talking about changing the rules, so the "we already have rules" complaint goes out the window.

Why continue to have multiple construction rules for the same size vehicle?


Quote
If you're willing to have Battle Armor like Elementals section their armor out like the Mechs you claim they are (which I have not seen you support) then there should be no difficulty or qualms with having the smaller vehicles operate on the same level.

I believe I did mention that. Doing so, and keeping with the fluff would require completely rewriting Battle Armor. You'd probably also have to rewrite ProtoMechs to get the armor levels the assault BA can carry.

With vehicles though, we already have construction rules that work. I think the should be allowed to use BA weapons and equipment but that's a side issue. The problem is how small support vehicles are handled. Right now, the same vehicle can have 4 different stats depending on how it's used and the game its used in. I think that's a big problem.

Quote
Doesn't change the math, sorry.

True but the Rules win. The turns are 10 seconds.



Quote
Right, I get that, and is SOMETHING I HAVE BEEN SAYING in regards to these Small/Light Vehicles.  When I said that, you countered it with the current ruleset.  So don't act like I'm causing you to one bang your head against the wall.

Because in order for one to properly differentiate the Infantry being hit or the Vehicle, one needs to have both represented instead of both being VERY abstractedly represented as doubled up members with small arms resistance.

You tell me not to bang my head on the wall and then go right back to infantry. They're vehicles. Everything they do is as vehicles. Some would get extra abilities do to their small size. Like driving up stairs. Their stacking limits would also change. But they are vehicles. There is no infantry being hit unless they're in the cargo bay and that takes a critical hit. Exactly the same as a larger vehicle. 


Quote
Or maybe consider that combining my suggestion in to the small vehicle concept for better utility is the proper concept to work with?  In other words, under a certain weight, these vehicles will be built using current small vehicle rules, but organize, stack, and take damage more like Battle Armor than Conventional Infantry.  How much for how many will largely depend on vehicle size more than anything.

 :blank: :blank: :blank: :o :o :o
That's what I've been saying.

Quote
It would require some adjustments to currently existing designs, obviously, but I think it is desired if want to eliminate the real abstraction of "mechanized" infantry.

Do you mean changes to existing canon infantry? Then I agree. If you mean allowing small support vehicles to use BA items, I'll also agree. Otherwise, there's nothing to change, except as above. 


Quote
But not the comparison I used for a very specific reason, build tolerances.

At this point. i don't care. I'm not going to go back and look that up.


Quote
According to you, BA are mechs, but they don't have sectioned damage like a Mech.  And unlike BA, these vehicles cannot act like Infantry in any form.  Giving small vehicles the same level of abstraction is only a problem in updating the currently existing designs to match.

There is always going to be some abstraction.  The only question is how much you're willing to live with.

And I can live with how BA's armor is abstracted. Mechanized/Motorized Infantry not so much.



Quote
Taking a hit from a Medium Laser was something YOU requested and insist be properly represented, not me.  I kept using it because it was YOUR standard.  Don't go putting this back on me.

Yeah, the old rules for small vehicles would actually get simpler, not more complex, so would be altered.  Yes, the current small vehicle profiles would need to be updated.  It's not like this is the first time this happened with a revamp.

And again, some level of abstraction will always be needed, especially at the level that Battletech operates out.  However, I am suggesting we use an established level of abstraction to represent these changes, just like using the BA concept for making them in to vehicle squads or platoons for purposes of stacking and being targeted.

I never said we should abstract small vehicle armor so that they can survive a medium laser hit. I want the abstraction for small vehicles gone. I'd prefer as little abstraction as possible. I let BA's slide because otherwise it'd either have armor like that of warships. or their weights would increase invalidating the need for protomechs.


Quote
Yeah, but Battle Armor doesn't have sectioned armor like the Mechs you claim them to be.  Don't complain about doing the same for small vehicles, unless you're fine with having Battle Armor section off their armor, too.

And in order to address some of those other abstractions, we go back to letting infantry be Infantry and vehicles be Vehicles, not a very gross hybrid of both.

We give BA some abstractions do to their small size. We also give Protos advantages do to their size, even though they're much larger and heavier. As for small vehicles, as I've said constantly, and even you said here,

Quote
Or maybe consider that combining my suggestion in to the small vehicle concept for better utility is the proper concept to work with?  In other words, under a certain weight, these vehicles will be built using current small vehicle rules, but organize, stack, and take damage more like Battle Armor than Conventional Infantry.  How much for how many will largely depend on vehicle size more than anything.

 
Quote
Or alternatively, we do the same with Battle Armor Sheets.

Sure if you want to invalidate the fluff or rewrite BA construction.


Quote
Why be fine with BA's level of armor abstraction and not be fine with small vehicle's?  We're already in the middle of a revamp discussion and you want to talk about reinvention?  That's part of the point of a revamp.  Mild rule adjustments can be handled with an FAQ or even a new edition, but a real revamp is going to turn some things on their heads, otherwise it fails to actually revamp the system.

With that, we either put small vehicles at the same level of abstraction as Battle Armor or we put Battle Armor at the same level of abstraction as small vehicles when it comes to damage.  Either way something should be reworked at that point.  I just thought it would provide better survivability for these small vehicles and better record space to use the Battle Armor system as opposed to having Battle Armor switch to using a ProtoMech system, especially when people use Battle Armor far more often then they do these small vehicles.

If you're going to go with a ground up rewrite, then you need to eliminate Protomechs as Battle Armor will be increasing in weight. The assault class BA already overlap with Protos now but it'll be worse as assault BA need to be able to withstand a Clan PPC. Unless you want to rewrite everything.

As for small support vehicles, abstracting them isn't the solution. They're already too abstracted when it comes to "motorized and mechanized" now. That's what I want to eliminate.



Quote
Then they are vehicle crew, not Infantry.  They should still be represented as Vehicles when they are operating as the crew of a Vehicle.  Getting rid of this abstraction is part of what you're talking about.  An Infantry unit that can shoot out of a moving Vehicle (much like US Marines used to be required to) would be specialized training, an option, not a unique unit identifier like Foot or Jump.  A vehicle that would allow the Infantry to shoot out of it should also have rules to represent this, say an open transport bay versus a closed on.  After all, why shouldn't BA not be able to fire from the back of a truck as easily as any other PBI?

That's what I've been saying. They're always operating as crew. The only ones that aren't are those in an infantry compartment. There are rules for infantry fighting from flatbed rail cars. I think they apply to BA as well, and I don't see why that rule couldn't be used for open cargo bays on other vehicles. Or even Mechs.

Quote
Battlemechs do, or a higher-level equivalent of it.

In this case neurohelments are a fluff remnant that no longer fits the story. If they did, every Mech, would require one. BA also. Aircraft of all type would also require neurohelmets and ground vehicles that use them would get a bonus.



Quote
Battle Armor is noted for only being to have actions built in to the Armor.  Mechanized Infantry does not.  They are a gross, abstracted hybrid that should not exist as they are.  Any action they take as Infantry has to ignore the fact that they have Vehicles, and vice versa.  You want to get rid of abstraction, we have to get rid of this hybrid concept, and let the vehicles be Vehicles, and infantry be Infantry.

The only way these small vehicle platoons are like infantry in how they're arranged like Battle Armor. Their small size allows them to have increased stacking limits and they're trained to move and fight together. Like Battle Armor. When taking damage. The group is aimed at and then an individual unit is hit. Like Battle Armor.

Quote
And you missed the point of what I was saying.  I missed the construction rules for small vehicles.  But we're also taking about unit construction as well, which is where a point of Battle Armor or ProtoMechs is constructed as well.

Yes, and a group of small vehicles should be arranged similar to that of BA, with differences based on the size of the vehicle and crew. A motorcycle Platoon could have 25 motorcycles. A HMMV platoon could have 5 HMMVs.




Quote
Your first response to the Light Vehicle concept I presented.

I was talking about how the rules treat that jeep as mechanized infantry NOW.

And right now, a 75mm gun hitting a motorized jeep would result in 1 trooper being killed. A 75mm gun hitting a mechanized jeep would result in the entire squad of 5 being killed. And a 75mm gun hitting a small vehicle jeep would do 3 points of damage, which may or may not be survivable depending on the armor. 



Quote
It's still a level of abstraction.  You can have one 2t Protomech taking up the same room as 5 2 ton pieces of Battle armor.  Or how the footprint of those jeeps is going to be matching up against a Demolishor II.

But this goes back to the importance of letting vehicles be Vehicles.  Small Vehicles would just have a platoon rule based on their weight.  Think of it as something like if BA were limited to max 4 man for Assaults, but could go up to 8-10 for PA(L).

But either way, some abstraction is still going to be necessary simply because we're using a small hex to represent a 30m (edge to edge) long territory.

That's not abstraction really. It's changing the stacking rules and how small units are organized.





Quote
That was kind of my point, really.  Cavalry today aren't really infantry.  Heck, Cavalry have never been considered Infantry, and even suggesting such a thing at certain points in time could get you killed.

More to the point do we need to have an actual Dragoon type unit in the game that the Motorized Infantry are supposed to represent, or should they just be used as Cavalry in the more classic sense?

I'd say more in the classical sense.


Quote
Sounds like an opportunity for an open cargo bay or Covered Infantry Bay option that would allow Infantry to shoot out of.

I'm okay with that.



Quote
Still rather demonstrates their lack of practicality with the tech level being used.

They may not have been practical, but they could work.

Quote
They may not like it, but I sincerely doubt it would be as painful as some would immediately think.  Even if they hit a hull like a Thunderbolt LRT-10, we'd still be seeing a significant damage reduction due to the BAR difference.  That's even assuming they went off.  American and Japanese torpedoes were notorious for having a high failure rate early on in the war.  Americans' were worse by far, but the Japanese still had trouble setting theirs up to the speed of the German's.

Yeah, getting hit by a U-Boat's torpedo would get a Mechwarrior's attention, while an early Pacific torpedo would probably only wake them up.

Well, since Torpedo Bombs are listed as pre-spaceflight, I think a mech would be hurting if hit by one. I think the closest to duds we have is salvaged ammo but I'd be open to rolling it.



Quote
Honestly, from all the fluff I've seen, few worlds have a population spread out sufficiently that such wet naval work is even needed.  And even it if it is, most conflicts are not big enough that something that weighs in like a Seawolf is needed, much less a Bismark.  That and smaller "fighter" craft are perfectly viable in BT that they simply aren't right now, and those can be transported by dropship quite easily.

True, I don't think most worlds are going to need or be able to use ships the size of a battleship or carrier. Even destroyers are iffy. At most they're use regular sized naval units.



Quote
And dropships are quite available.  Just need one that is being short-legged or only has enough fuel for an orbital trip due to financial reasons wouldn't be far out.  It largely depends on the time frame you're talking about.  If you have a sufficiently large and dispersed population, dropships will usually be visiting your planet in sufficient numbers to handle such things that we use container ships for now.  Heck, most of the supplies we would see being put on those container ships would either be delivered by or are being delivered to a dropship anyway.


Not that available. Not every planet can build or maintain them. If they could there wouldn't be trains, ocean ships, airliners or zeppelins to transfer people and cargo from place to place.

Atarlost

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 401
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #321 on: 22 March 2021, 14:06:55 »
I'd like to interject something about small vehicles acting as BA. 

Think in points. (the IS has a similar concept, but no single term so I'm using Clan terminology for this)

A point of mechs is one mech.  A point of full size vehicles is two vehicles.  A point of BA or protomechs is 5 BA or protomechs or 25 foot or motorized infantry. 

There's slightly more abstraction on vehicles than mechs as vehicles don't track heat and don't have unit specific crit tables on a per hit location basis. 

BA and infantry are even simpler. 

But if you motorized BA in five vehicles your star of infantry now has more complexity than a binary of vehicles.  If your full TW rules game size was Star on Star you're now in the force size where you'd want to use simplified rules like Alpha Strike.  These vehicles thus need to operate at an abstraction level closer to vehicles in Alpha Strike, not to vehicles in TW.  Whatever your game complexity limit for mechs, if a motorized point is in more than two vehicles you run into complexity issues if they're not more abstract than larger vehicles. 

Unit types with different typical force sizes in canonical military organization or that tend to have radically different BV or otherwise would appear in very different numbers in a game whether it's a BV balanced skirmish or a campaign scenario with force sizes described using in-universe terms require different levels of abstraction. 

A BA-like abstraction for sub-platoon vehicles is needed not because they're not vehicles, but because they're sub-platoon. 

The same logic applies to protomechs.  I would treat them as larger BA or retcon them out of existence as redundant with BA. 

Talen5000

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 875
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #322 on: 22 March 2021, 22:21:42 »
The same logic applies to protomechs.  I would treat them as larger BA or retcon them out of existence as redundant with BA.

If you are going to "retcon", do it right.

Make conventional infantry useless. They need Mech scale weapons such as field guns or support units such as IFVs to be a threat to anything other than support units or other infantry.

Next up be the anti Mech infantry. Equipped with heavy armour and carrying around a few anti Mech infantry grade SRMs. Rare and expensive, but they can at least damage armoured units a bit.

Next would be the BattleArmour. A bit faster and more mobile, they carry Mech grade weapons and armour. These units are the foot infantry of the BTU. The retcon? Can't carry anything heavier than a small laser. Maybe a medium but with restrictions.

Then, by making other units weaker and more akin to their universe counterparts, you actually create room for ProtoMechs to have a use. Still not much of one but they wouldn't be squeezed by BA at the lower masses and ULMs st the higher end
"So let me get this straight. You want to fly on a magic carpet to see the King of the Potato People and plead with him for your freedom, and you're telling me you're completely sane?" -- Uncle Arnie

DevianID

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 254
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #323 on: 23 March 2021, 00:05:40 »
So in Battledroids infantry and light vehicles were 'done right' IMHO.

You had a small infantry squad, +2 to hit, carried either a machine gun or SRM-2 representing 'light' or 'heavy' weapon infantry.  1 damage killed the squad (or killed the anti-mech weapons, whatever).  Hard to hit due to dispersed nature, but 1 good hit took them out of a fight, and you could stack squads into the same hex.

Then you had a Jeep.  +1 to hit instead of +2 cause it was bigger than an infantry squad, but it had 5 armor points total and no location.  Also mounted either a machine gun or SRM-2, and had 5 mp.  A little harder to hit than a mech, but more armored than infantry.

After the jeep, you had the 25 ton vehicles like the scorpion or hunter with 4/5 locations.  These also had normal movement rules.

In 'current' battletech, you can remake the Jeep using a 5 mp quad battlearmor, with 4 armor +1 structure.  It would be easy to represent 'motorized' infantry with light vehicle squads using battle armor hit location rules, and they would be bad/heavy battlearmor until better/lighter battlearmor comes out--which logically is what Battle armor would be doing by replacing light infantry vehicles with smaller, better armored but more advanced battle armor.
« Last Edit: 23 March 2021, 00:07:44 by DevianID »

Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1087
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #324 on: 25 March 2021, 12:49:30 »
The rules don't take how close infantry are unfortunately. If full weapon damage is too much and 1 or 2 is too little, I think it should be rolled on the cluster chart. That way the number of infantry killed varies which would represent how close the infantry are gathered.

Which is what Anti-Infantry weapons do to demonstrate their greater capability over heavy arms.  So either that cluster would have to be really small already, or the anti-Infantry weapons have an even greater sweep already.

Those are the points. An AirMech is smaller than a regular mech and there's no difference in targeting a motorcycle an a truck. But Protos get a weird bonus do to their size.

What?  An AirMech is not smaller than a regular Mech.  If anything, some of them are bigger than the standard models they are built on (see the Phoenix Hawk LAM).  Their frame is more squat, but there are a lot of squat mechs of the same size, or smaller, out there.

Nor does that change the fact that the targeting computers are not set up to target protomechs due to their general lack of use combined with their small size.

And yet it isn't obvious. A Motorized Truck only looses 1 trooper. A Mechanized Truck looses both troopers. The Troopers on the elephant gets a damage divisor so 1 trooper killed. And a Vehicle Truck takes damage equal to the weapon that hits it. 

I've explained this many times.  A Motorized unit has 1 trooper per object hit, much like a Motorcyle.  A Mechanized unit has 2 troopers per object hit, like a jeep with a gunner.  At least, that's how I see the abstraction going.  We both agree this is not the abstraction we should see with something that has an engine.


And yet they shouldn't suffer double damage because they're in a vehicle. The vehicle should take the damage.

In current rules, there is no vehicle to be hit, though.  That's part of the problem we both have.

Why continue to have multiple construction rules for the same size vehicle?

We shouldn't any more than we would use the same construction rules for BA. PM, and BM.  At certain points the design tolerances either get finer (like with BA which measures in kg) or broader (like with BM measuring in tons).

I believe I did mention that. Doing so, and keeping with the fluff would require completely rewriting Battle Armor. You'd probably also have to rewrite ProtoMechs to get the armor levels the assault BA can carry.

With vehicles though, we already have construction rules that work. I think the should be allowed to use BA weapons and equipment but that's a side issue. The problem is how small support vehicles are handled. Right now, the same vehicle can have 4 different stats depending on how it's used and the game its used in. I think that's a big problem.

Except the current ones don't work to your satisfaction or mine, which is part of the problem.  And using BA weapons and equipment IS part of the issue when trying to get the Vehicles used in Mechanized and Motorized Infantry properly represented as Vehicles of a type.

You tell me not to bang my head on the wall and then go right back to infantry. They're vehicles. Everything they do is as vehicles. Some would get extra abilities do to their small size. Like driving up stairs. Their stacking limits would also change. But they are vehicles. There is no infantry being hit unless they're in the cargo bay and that takes a critical hit. Exactly the same as a larger vehicle. 

But that would be part of construction that would have to change, and making those changes is part of what I'm suggesting here.


Do you mean changes to existing canon infantry? Then I agree. If you mean allowing small support vehicles to use BA items, I'll also agree. Otherwise, there's nothing to change, except as above.

And organizational, and possibly some of the design tolerances involved.  Except you have told me to shove off every time I made this suggestion.

And I can live with how BA's armor is abstracted. Mechanized/Motorized Infantry not so much.

Except this part isn't about the Infantry, but the Vehicles they ride in.  If it is good enough for these tiny "mechs" (if we go by your determination), then they should be just as good for these tiny Vehicles as well.

I never said we should abstract small vehicle armor so that they can survive a medium laser hit. I want the abstraction for small vehicles gone. I'd prefer as little abstraction as possible. I let BA's slide because otherwise it'd either have armor like that of warships. or their weights would increase invalidating the need for protomechs.

We give BA some abstractions do to their small size. We also give Protos advantages do to their size, even though they're much larger and heavier. As for small vehicles, as I've said constantly, and even you said here,
 
Sure if you want to invalidate the fluff or rewrite BA construction.

You asked why can't the Vehicle to provide protection from a Medium Laser.  In order to do that we either have to provide enough armor for that coverage on a Vehicle's scale (i.e. 4x5) or on a Battle Armor's scale (i.e. 5).  Which do you think is more practical for something that will likely weigh no more than 10 tons, and more probably 5 tons or less?

If you're going to go with a ground up rewrite, then you need to eliminate Protomechs as Battle Armor will be increasing in weight. The assault class BA already overlap with Protos now but it'll be worse as assault BA need to be able to withstand a Clan PPC. Unless you want to rewrite everything.

As for small support vehicles, abstracting them isn't the solution. They're already too abstracted when it comes to "motorized and mechanized" now. That's what I want to eliminate.

If I'm willing to have separate construction rules for Small/Light Combat Vehicles from regular Combat Vehicles, why would I need to eliminate such distinctions?  That's actually counter to the spirit of what I've been saying.

In this case neurohelments are a fluff remnant that no longer fits the story. If they did, every Mech, would require one. BA also. Aircraft of all type would also require neurohelmets and ground vehicles that use them would get a bonus.

How do neurohelmets not fit the story and are a fluff remnant?  The alternative to them is neuro-surgery or a very expensive Battle Armor connection point.  Neurohelmets use the balance sense of the pilot to guide the gyro and provide a 360 sensor overlay for the pilot.  Their movements while piloting do not involve their whole body like G Gundam or Battle Armor does.  The concept of the neurohelments are the reason why they needed ASF Pilot genomes for the initial ProtoMech designs.

And ASF require neurohelmets by the way.

The only way these small vehicle platoons are like infantry in how they're arranged like Battle Armor. Their small size allows them to have increased stacking limits and they're trained to move and fight together. Like Battle Armor. When taking damage. The group is aimed at and then an individual unit is hit. Like Battle Armor.

Yes, and a group of small vehicles should be arranged similar to that of BA, with differences based on the size of the vehicle and crew. A motorcycle Platoon could have 25 motorcycles. A HMMV platoon could have 5 HMMVs.

I'm glad we agree.  I've said this numerous times at this point, almost since the beginning.

That's not abstraction really. It's changing the stacking rules and how small units are organized.

The stacking rules ARE an abstraction considering they take no consideration of the area the units are actually taking up.

I'd say more in the classical sense.

Keep in mind that classical Cavalry would stay mounted to fight, while a Dragoon would dismount to fight.

They may not have been practical, but they could work.

Not without extensive development.  While we could probably make them today and make them work better than the Germans and Japanese did, they still wouldn't match up to the effectiveness of a modern hunter/killer sub, even consider the costs involved.  Their dwell time would still be horrible and almost anything on the seas could take them out with a lot less investment.

Well, since Torpedo Bombs are listed as pre-spaceflight, I think a mech would be hurting if hit by one. I think the closest to duds we have is salvaged ammo but I'd be open to rolling it.

Yeah, a 1/4 chance of actually exploding does not inspire confidence, especially if your ammo supply is incredibly limited.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4396
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #325 on: 02 April 2021, 14:52:46 »
Vehicles still take space so they'd effect stacking occupied or not.

When a vehicle is destroyed, (or a Mech, for that matter) the carcass could still take up a lot of space, and yet is ignored for stacking and terrain purposes. 

Look, if you're going to be hide-bound with existing rules, not exercising any creativity to make case-based alterations, then, I can't answer your questions satisfactorily. 

For example, if a Mech's carcass is still whole, and not cored, you could allow people to attack specific locations to destroy them further, if you wanted.  Or, if artillery is coming down, you could track further destruction of units already mission-killed in the hex where the shot lands. (Like seeing if a pilot that stays with his wreck gets killed, either by concerted fire or random damage.) But, this is beyond the core rules as written, and you probably won't even find it in the advanced rules.

Another example: Vehicle crews abandoning their vehicle, which is crippled, and hopping into a transport vehicle to GTFO.  It would be simple enough to treat them as an infantry squad for the purposes of tonnage and space, as well as body count.

The same applies here, with the notion of Infantry abandoning their vehicle, if temporarily, to go into a building and take or defend an objective, without excess collateral damage.  You record the hex the vehicle is in.  It is effectively shut down and treated as a non-combatant while the infantry are disembarked. The infantry are now foot-type with whatever weapons they are designated to have at the start of the game. If there is pintle weaponry on the vee that can be detached, they may take it as a support weapon.   Enemies my still target their vehicles for damage and destruction if they wish.  It is shut down, thus immobile.  But, when it takes damage, it has no effect on them, other than they may not have a working vehicle to return to.   The squad may also be attacked independently as a dismounted infantry unit.

I don't understand how this is so hard to conceptualize and execute, beyond people being lazy and not wanting to think outside the box for some variable fun.  I find the concept simple enough.  It's now just a matter of having the sheets to use.

It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

 

Register