Register Register

Author Topic: Time for a Battletech Revamping?  (Read 9708 times)

Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #270 on: 23 November 2020, 15:47:29 »
Your average pickup truck isn't going to be as protected as a HMMV though.

Something I mentioned earlier, I believe, in the discussion between Technicals and the HMMV, and why I mentioned having Light Vehicles and Light Armored Vehicles.  The Technicals would be the former, and the HMMVs would be the latter.

Total agreement that Motorized/Mechanized needs to be properly classified and statted. Infantry riding in APC/IFVs though I wouldn't classify as Mechanized but Mounted.

I think you need quit equating Motorized and Mechanized Infantry.  They aren't quite the same thing.

I agree with things falling apart do to a lack of distinction. Thing is Jump Infantry aren't "Mechanized". They can ride in an APC/IFV but they aren't riding in vehicles themselves. We're also not talking about Foot Infantry using rollerblades to gain extra speed. Motorized/Mechanized "Infantry" are using vehicles.

And who was saying that Jump Infantry were "Mechanized"?  You're conflating Mechanized and Motorized again.  And a jump pack could be considered as much a vehicle as a dirt bike, so...

Light vehicle. Small Vehicle. Whatever. They're vehicles.

The purpose is so they don't get confused with the construction rules for the APCs, IFVs, and Tanks.  Semantics suggest that we keep the designations clean, which Mechanized Infantry is not, so that how a person views it would be sensible.

Infantry can be a wide variety of types though. Foot, Jump, SCUBA, Battle Armored, Motorized, Mechanized, Mounted, Beast Mounted, etc. They key distinction is the word in front of Infantry.  Foot Infantry, Jump Infantry, Battle Armor Infantry and so on. Then you get into more details, armored, specially trained, BA type, Vehicle type etc.

But Mechanized isn't really Infantry, but Vehicles, as the rules are currently.

I would think the abandoned vehicle rules would work for passengers/crew getting out of their damaged/destroyed vehicle.

Maybe, but we're not talking about a hardened armored ride like a Combat Vehicle, either.
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: 2043
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #271 on: 26 November 2020, 10:50:32 »
Something I mentioned earlier, I believe, in the discussion between Technicals and the HMMV, and why I mentioned having Light Vehicles and Light Armored Vehicles.  The Technicals would be the former, and the HMMVs would be the latter.

However, in the abstracted rules we have now, there is no difference between them except fluff. The function entirely the same. If they're stated vehicles, the pickup could have a point or two in each location while the HMMV could have twice as much.

Quote
I think you need quit equating Motorized and Mechanized Infantry.  They aren't quite the same thing.

No, not quite but they are more alike than different. They movement is by the vehicle they fight from. The difference is size, speed, and very abstracted armor. Beyond that they are the same.

Quote
And who was saying that Jump Infantry were "Mechanized"?  You're conflating Mechanized and Motorized again.  And a jump pack could be considered as much a vehicle as a dirt bike, so...

You were equating Jump Infantry to being Motorized Infantry with modified movement. That isn't the case.  If they were Motorized infantry would be Foot Infantry wearing roller blades or skates in the way that Jump Infantry wear Jump Packs. The only "Motorized" infantry that would be like that would be these guys. https://www.sarna.net/wiki/VTOL_Infantry  And no I wouldn't consider a Jump Pack a vehicle. It's a motive system.


Quote
The purpose is so they don't get confused with the construction rules for the APCs, IFVs, and Tanks.  Semantics suggest that we keep the designations clean, which Mechanized Infantry is not, so that how a person views it would be sensible.

It isn't construction rules that's the problem. APCs are made to deliver Infantry. IFVs are made to deliver and fight with Infantry. I could make a 2 ton APC/IFV or a 200 ton APC/IFV. So how it's made isn't an issue. It's function and labeling.

If we can group 2 ton MiniMechs as a "Platoon of Infantry"  why can't we do the same with 2 ton vehicles? Or 4.999 ton vehicles when looking at  the tiny mechs weighing 2-15 tons? A Vehicle Platoon is simply a group of vehicles trained to fight in very close formations which allow greater concentration of vehicles than normal. In some cases equaling that of an Infantry Platoon. Motorized and Mechanized would just be a label to indicate the size of the vehicle. Tiny or small.

Quote
But Mechanized isn't really Infantry, but Vehicles, as the rules are currently.

They're labeled Infantry in TW and found in the same section along with Battle Armor. Thus they are Infantry.

Quote
Maybe, but we're not talking about a hardened armored ride like a Combat Vehicle, either.

So? If the vehicle is immobilized and there's crew alive, they can abandon the vehicle and become foot infantry. Of course the odds of surviving are smaller but other than that there's no difference really.

Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #272 on: 26 November 2020, 14:28:13 »
However, in the abstracted rules we have now, there is no difference between them except fluff. The function entirely the same. If they're stated vehicles, the pickup could have a point or two in each location while the HMMV could have twice as much.

I know that, which is why I am saying there should be a difference.  You seem to have trouble distinguishing when I'm talking about what I think should be and the way things are.

No, not quite but they are more alike than different. They movement is by the vehicle they fight from. The difference is size, speed, and very abstracted armor. Beyond that they are the same.

Different enough to be given different names.  Different enough to consider one to provide protection to said Infantry and one not.

You were equating Jump Infantry to being Motorized Infantry with modified movement. That isn't the case.  If they were Motorized infantry would be Foot Infantry wearing roller blades or skates in the way that Jump Infantry wear Jump Packs. The only "Motorized" infantry that would be like that would be these guys. https://www.sarna.net/wiki/VTOL_Infantry  And no I wouldn't consider a Jump Pack a vehicle. It's a motive system.

I was due to the lack of protection that Jump Infantry and Motorized Infantry have.  Even a Jeep would provide some modicum of protection, while a person on a motor bike is completely exposed, just like Jump Infantry and Foot Infantry are.  For the intents of considering how protected a person is, a motorbike is just as much a motive system as a Jump Pack.

It isn't construction rules that's the problem. APCs are made to deliver Infantry. IFVs are made to deliver and fight with Infantry. I could make a 2 ton APC/IFV or a 200 ton APC/IFV. So how it's made isn't an issue. It's function and labeling.

If we can group 2 ton MiniMechs as a "Platoon of Infantry"  why can't we do the same with 2 ton vehicles? Or 4.999 ton vehicles when looking at  the tiny mechs weighing 2-15 tons? A Vehicle Platoon is simply a group of vehicles trained to fight in very close formations which allow greater concentration of vehicles than normal. In some cases equaling that of an Infantry Platoon. Motorized and Mechanized would just be a label to indicate the size of the vehicle. Tiny or small.

I'm not disagreeing here in terms of function, over all, but rather in how we address the terms.  I have said this before.  If they are operating Vehicles, they are not Infantry, but Crew.  If they are Mechanized Infantry, they are not crew members, but Infantry trained to operate out of Vehicles in a proper manner.

Constructionally speaking, Light Vehicles and Light Armored Vehicles would be purchased like Infantry, can take cargo space like Infantry, and stack like Infantry, but are other-wise Vehicles.

They're labeled Infantry in TW and found in the same section along with Battle Armor. Thus they are Infantry.

Which is something we both are wanting to have changed, correct?  You are saying that it is the Vehicles doing the fighting and getting hit, which is why they take less damage from small arms and more damage from heavy arms.  That distinction is what makes them less Infantry.

So? If the vehicle is immobilized and there's crew alive, they can abandon the vehicle and become foot infantry. Of course the odds of surviving are smaller but other than that there's no difference really.

So they would be following the rules of crew abandoning a Vehicle, not as Infantry abandoning their ride.
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: 2043
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #273 on: 27 November 2020, 11:41:10 »
I know that, which is why I am saying there should be a difference.  You seem to have trouble distinguishing when I'm talking about what I think should be and the way things are.

Obviously since when I described them differently you didn't like it.


Quote
Different enough to be given different names.  Different enough to consider one to provide protection to said Infantry and one not.

And yet they both ride and fight from their vehicles while the "protected" Mechanized infantry take more damage from vehicle scale weapons.


Quote
I was due to the lack of protection that Jump Infantry and Motorized Infantry have.  Even a Jeep would provide some modicum of protection, while a person on a motor bike is completely exposed, just like Jump Infantry and Foot Infantry are.  For the intents of considering how protected a person is, a motorbike is just as much a motive system as a Jump Pack.

Except it doesn't work like that. The Mechanized infantry actually take more damage. They should take less. Vehicles should take less period because the rounds can hit the vehicle. Armored or not.
A motorbike can be more protected than a Jump Pack. Rounds can hit anywhere on the bike and not the rider. A round hitting the Jump Pack is hitting the trooper wearing it. Also motorcycles can be armored. Not heavily but more so than a Jump Trooper with body armor. Body Armor the motorcycle trooper can also wear. If further proof is needed, The same vehicles infantry use in the 3085 TROs are stated out in AToW and Companion. They have greater speed, armor, and weaponry than the same TW troopers.

Quote
I'm not disagreeing here in terms of function, over all, but rather in how we address the terms.  I have said this before.  If they are operating Vehicles, they are not Infantry, but Crew.  If they are Mechanized Infantry, they are not crew members, but Infantry trained to operate out of Vehicles in a proper manner.

The same applies to Battle Armor. They're not infantry but pilots of Miniature Mechs. Yet they're operating as infantry with the same stacking limits. Key words are operating as.  "Vehicle" Infantry shouldn't be any different. They're vehicles operating as infantry. 

Quote
Constructionally speaking, Light Vehicles and Light Armored Vehicles would be purchased like Infantry, can take cargo space like Infantry, and stack like Infantry, but are other-wise Vehicles.

I agree. 


Quote
Which is something we both are wanting to have changed, correct?  You are saying that it is the Vehicles doing the fighting and getting hit, which is why they take less damage from small arms and more damage from heavy arms.  That distinction is what makes them less Infantry.

Sort of. I'm saying that's how it should be for motorized as well as mechanized infantry. How much if any crew are killed should depend on if the armor is breached and crew killed is rolled. A "Mechanized" infantry platoon vehicle could be armored to withstand a hit from a Medium Laser. Armor's gone but they're alive. Right now the entire squad of Mechanized infantry are dead while only a single trooper on the motorcycle is dead. Basically, they should have the protection the infantry in the vehicle's compartment/bay have. Only instead of being passenger's they're crew.


Quote
So they would be following the rules of crew abandoning a Vehicle, not as Infantry abandoning their ride.

Yes, although I believe the two rules are very similar. It's just that the Platoon doesn't change much, unless they suffered losses under advanced rules. The Crew though becomes a Rifle Infantry Platoon of whatever the crew was.

Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #274 on: 27 November 2020, 13:50:19 »
Obviously since when I described them differently you didn't like it.

What are you even talking about in regards to this?  I have never said that talking about having Jeeps and HMMVs be represented differently is a bad thing.  I have said comparing a motorbike to a Jeep or HMMV is a bad thing.

And yet they both ride and fight from their vehicles while the "protected" Mechanized infantry take more damage from vehicle scale weapons.

And that is a very significant difference, a difference that both you and I have stated is something that needs to be represented, yet you continue to conflate the two.

Except it doesn't work like that. The Mechanized infantry actually take more damage. They should take less. Vehicles should take less period because the rounds can hit the vehicle. Armored or not.
A motorbike can be more protected than a Jump Pack. Rounds can hit anywhere on the bike and not the rider. A round hitting the Jump Pack is hitting the trooper wearing it. Also motorcycles can be armored. Not heavily but more so than a Jump Trooper with body armor. Body Armor the motorcycle trooper can also wear. If further proof is needed, The same vehicles infantry use in the 3085 TROs are stated out in AToW and Companion. They have greater speed, armor, and weaponry than the same TW troopers.

Mechanized only take more damage from heavy arms.  They take less from small arms.  This is because the vehicles they use are more easily hit by a tank's cannon than the Bike or Foot, but what makes them easier to hit also provides more protection.  While being on a bike can make one easier to hit than on foot, that only applies when looking at a striking point and not considering the nimbleness the bike will provide when compared to either foot or Jeep.

One can hit a jump pack with small arms and not directly injure the infantryman.  However, if they are in mid flight, the odds of being a casualty are much higher.  The same thing could be said when a bike trooper's bike gets hit, if they are going fast enough, to say nothing of the shrapnel the bike itself may throw off when it.

When looking at TRO 3085, I see nothing about Mechanized Infantry.  Are you talking about the Combat Vehicles in it?  Or are you talking about Motorized Infantry and trying to use a different system to justify the similarity between a bike and a jeep?

The same applies to Battle Armor. They're not infantry but pilots of Miniature Mechs. Yet they're operating as infantry with the same stacking limits. Key words are operating as.  "Vehicle" Infantry shouldn't be any different. They're vehicles operating as infantry. 

The only place Battle Armor is described as "mini-mechs" is your statements.  Their construction is vastly different.  Their operation is vastly different (unless, as I said, one is using the Battle Armor as the Mech's cockpit).  In every instance, they are considered heavily armored infantry.

But if Mechanized Infantry are actually Light Vehicles, why just not stat them out and treat them as such?  From what it sounds like, you've advocated that they be modeled as such on the tabletop, so why not just take the next step?

I agree. 

Not based on previous statements.  You seem to be taking a stance of making changes and keeping things the same in the same post.

Sort of. I'm saying that's how it should be for motorized as well as mechanized infantry. How much if any crew are killed should depend on if the armor is breached and crew killed is rolled. A "Mechanized" infantry platoon vehicle could be armored to withstand a hit from a Medium Laser. Armor's gone but they're alive. Right now the entire squad of Mechanized infantry are dead while only a single trooper on the motorcycle is dead. Basically, they should have the protection the infantry in the vehicle's compartment/bay have. Only instead of being passenger's they're crew.

A Medium Laser doesn't kill a whole squad of Mechanized Infantry at present, though, just 2 at most (5/10=1 rounded up, then doubled).  Unless you're equating a squad to the two crew of a single Light Vehicle. 

If they lose the armor of a Light Vehicle, the Light Vehicle is probably toast (unless we provide that Internal Structure, too, as opposed to emulating BA mechanics), so as a Light Vehicle they'd be finished (and therefore stop being MECHANIZED Infantry).  Keep in mind that in most cases we're dealing casualties which MIGHT be kills, but MIGHT just be too wounded to fight, or in the cases of Vehicles, too broken to continue in their function.

Then comes the decision of what do with them next?  Roll to see if the crew survived and continue as Foot Infantry?  Consider them as Crew abandoning their Vehicle and otherwise ignored (barring scenario-observation)?  Keep in mind that the Crew of a Vehicle can still be killed without killing a Combat Vehicle.  What if instead of being hit by a Medium Laser, they were hit with a Medium Pulse Laser, a Clan ER Medium Laser, or (just to go big) a Heavy Gauss Rifle?

If we want to use the same abstraction used for Battle Armor on these Light Vehicles, I'd be all for that.  Say, 3+2 for a Light Vehicle/Technical and a 5+2 for a Light Armored Vehicle/HMMV (armor +crew as a starting point for brainstorming).  Damage exceeding the individual Vehicle is lost, that sort of thing.  Then how big should the platoon be?  If we go by classic nomenclature, we're be looking at about 4 for the Light Armored Vehicle and 6 for the Light Vehicle (to get as close to 28 Platoon strength as we can).  Damage-wise they would each represent the same rough size of whatever weapons they were using going with the 5/7 degredations directly as opposed to graddually.

While this would be a more accurate representation, it does make these "Mechanized Infantry" more vulnerable to heavy arms, unless they still take damage like Conventional Infantry.

Yes, although I believe the two rules are very similar. It's just that the Platoon doesn't change much, unless they suffered losses under advanced rules. The Crew though becomes a Rifle Infantry Platoon of whatever the crew was.
The problem being, how big is the "crew"?  2?  4?
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: 2043
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #275 on: 28 November 2020, 18:44:25 »
What are you even talking about in regards to this?  I have never said that talking about having Jeeps and HMMVs be represented differently is a bad thing.  I have said comparing a motorbike to a Jeep or HMMV is a bad thing.

When the comparison first came up I called on motorized and the other mechanized. You didn't like it.

Quote
And that is a very significant difference, a difference that both you and I have stated is something that needs to be represented, yet you continue to conflate the two.

That's because they're both "Vehicle" Infantry. The difference in protection should be how much armor is on the vehicle not an abstraction do to size.


Quote
Mechanized only take more damage from heavy arms.  They take less from small arms.  This is because the vehicles they use are more easily hit by a tank's cannon than the Bike or Foot, but what makes them easier to hit also provides more protection.  While being on a bike can make one easier to hit than on foot, that only applies when looking at a striking point and not considering the nimbleness the bike will provide when compared to either foot or Jeep.

Being "Mechanized" does not provide more protection except from infantry. Which makes zero sense. If the vehicle provides protection it should provide protection from all weapons. It doesn't matter that they're closer because the vehicle should have absorbed some of that damage. Instead a trooper in body armor has more protection.

Quote
One can hit a jump pack with small arms and not directly injure the infantryman.  However, if they are in mid flight, the odds of being a casualty are much higher.  The same thing could be said when a bike trooper's bike gets hit, if they are going fast enough, to say nothing of the shrapnel the bike itself may throw off when it.

If the trooper gets hit the trooper is counted as dead. And that could be true of the vehicle trooper should the vehicle be destroyed. How dead these troopers are depends on optional rules but for regular games, they're both dead.


Quote
When looking at TRO 3085, I see nothing about Mechanized Infantry.  Are you talking about the Combat Vehicles in it?  Or are you talking about Motorized Infantry and trying to use a different system to justify the similarity between a bike and a jeep?

I said that the vehicles used by the infantry have full stats in AToW.
Here's some examples. 
Kuritan Recon Infantry - hoverpod
Davion Firefighters - Eager ATV
Liao Missile Artillery Infantry - Assuan Armored Bike (These guys are Mechanized.)
WoB Riot Police - Beast Riot Car
Hell's Horses Fast Recon - Boreas Cavalry Hovercraft

Many of these vehicles have armor, and weapons. Some are way faster than Infantry. The Boreas is even an OMNI Vehicle. The Beast Riot Car has a 2 ton infantry compartment. That's up to 20 troopers (not including crew) when a Wheeled Mechanized Squad has a max of 6 troopers.  :o 

Quote
The only place Battle Armor is described as "mini-mechs" is your statements.  Their construction is vastly different.  Their operation is vastly different (unless, as I said, one is using the Battle Armor as the Mech's cockpit).  In every instance, they are considered heavily armored infantry.

TechManual page 158.
Quote
There are quad suits out there, too. You may have seen the
Sloth they rushed out to fight the Clans. Quad suits are driven
differently than the humanoids. Stick and pedal controls make it
more like driving a groundcar or pushing a ’Mech around

While that quote applies to Quads you can't tell me that other BA like the Infiltrator Mk1 with it's robot limbs aren't piloted in a similar manner. So yes. Mini-Mechs may be my term but that they're piloted as such is canon. Also while construction is vastly different so is that between construction and support vehicles.

Quote
But if Mechanized Infantry are actually Light Vehicles, why just not stat them out and treat them as such?  From what it sounds like, you've advocated that they be modeled as such on the tabletop, so why not just take the next step?

That's what I've been saying.

Quote
Not based on previous statements.  You seem to be taking a stance of making changes and keeping things the same in the same post.

It is what I've been saying. That you purchase the vehicles in "infantry" numbers that they stack and are carried as infantry. I would limit the size of vehicle that could carry them. You're not going to cram in 24 motorcycles into the space meant for 7-10 troopers. 

Quote
A Medium Laser doesn't kill a whole squad of Mechanized Infantry at present, though, just 2 at most (5/10=1 rounded up, then doubled).  Unless you're equating a squad to the two crew of a single Light Vehicle.


That's still more than it should. The vehicle's armor should provide some protection. It doesn't.

Quote
If they lose the armor of a Light Vehicle, the Light Vehicle is probably toast (unless we provide that Internal Structure, too, as opposed to emulating BA mechanics), so as a Light Vehicle they'd be finished (and therefore stop being MECHANIZED Infantry).  Keep in mind that in most cases we're dealing casualties which MIGHT be kills, but MIGHT just be too wounded to fight, or in the cases of Vehicles, too broken to continue in their function.

Probably. Although with BA there's still 1 point representing the trooper so 1 point for the Internal shouldn't be a problem. The vehicle is still toast. And BA stop being BA when they get killed too. The rest of the platoon/point doesn't stop being a platoon though. It just means that the platoon has taken casualties. Whether or not they're dead or dead dead goes into optional rules. For a regular game they're just dead.


Quote
Then comes the decision of what do with them next?  Roll to see if the crew survived and continue as Foot Infantry?  Consider them as Crew abandoning their Vehicle and otherwise ignored (barring scenario-observation)?  Keep in mind that the Crew of a Vehicle can still be killed without killing a Combat Vehicle.  What if instead of being hit by a Medium Laser, they were hit with a Medium Pulse Laser, a Clan ER Medium Laser, or (just to go big) a Heavy Gauss Rifle?

That would be beyond the scope of regular rules as I said above. Get past the armor and and your rolling on the chart. Deplete the internal and the vehicle is dead. How dead and the fate of the crew is optional rules.


Quote
If we want to use the same abstraction used for Battle Armor on these Light Vehicles, I'd be all for that.  Say, 3+2 for a Light Vehicle/Technical and a 5+2 for a Light Armored Vehicle/HMMV (armor +crew as a starting point for brainstorming).  Damage exceeding the individual Vehicle is lost, that sort of thing.  Then how big should the platoon be?  If we go by classic nomenclature, we're be looking at about 4 for the Light Armored Vehicle and 6 for the Light Vehicle (to get as close to 28 Platoon strength as we can).  Damage-wise they would each represent the same rough size of whatever weapons they were using going with the 5/7 degredations directly as opposed to graddually.

While this would be a more accurate representation, it does make these "Mechanized Infantry" more vulnerable to heavy arms, unless they still take damage like Conventional Infantry.

That kind of abstraction would have been okay when it was just Elementals and IS Battle Armor. Now we've got over 70 types of BA plus variants plus the ability to make our own. Vehicle Infantry should stop being abstracted.

Quote
The problem being, how big is the "crew"?  2?  4?

Depends on the size of the vehicle. How many survive a vehicle kill depends on the dice.

Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #276 on: 29 November 2020, 02:27:05 »
When the comparison first came up I called on motorized and the other mechanized. You didn't like it.

Please be more specific, you've made a lot of responses here that I don't like.

That's because they're both "Vehicle" Infantry. The difference in protection should be how much armor is on the vehicle not an abstraction do to size.

But in the very vast majority of cases Motorized Infantry are completely exposed on their equipment, while someone in a technical or hmmv is not.

Being "Mechanized" does not provide more protection except from infantry. Which makes zero sense. If the vehicle provides protection it should provide protection from all weapons. It doesn't matter that they're closer because the vehicle should have absorbed some of that damage. Instead a trooper in body armor has more protection.

Actually being Mechanized DOES provide protection if only 2 people are being killed versus 5.

Proximity is not the protection (or lack thereof) I'm talking about, size is.  And this is where your concept of conflating Motorized and Mechanized starts falling flat and you didn't even recognize what I said.  The reason why an HMMV would be easier to hit than a bike is because it is a bigger target, and therefore easier to hit.  It will likely have more crew than a bike, and so more people become casualties when the HMMV gets hit by a medium laser while only one bike, and therefore one infantryman, becomes a casualty.

If the trooper gets hit the trooper is counted as dead. And that could be true of the vehicle trooper should the vehicle be destroyed. How dead these troopers are depends on optional rules but for regular games, they're both dead.

For the sake of Battletech, yeah sure, they're dead to the world.  Beyond that, it doesn't matter except in cases of where there is more story going on, either RPG or campaign.

I said that the vehicles used by the infantry have full stats in AToW.
Here's some examples. 
Kuritan Recon Infantry - hoverpod
Davion Firefighters - Eager ATV
Liao Missile Artillery Infantry - Assuan Armored Bike (These guys are Mechanized.)
WoB Riot Police - Beast Riot Car
Hell's Horses Fast Recon - Boreas Cavalry Hovercraft

So using a different system to justify the similarity of a bike and a jeep.

TechManual page 158.
While that quote applies to Quads you can't tell me that other BA like the Infiltrator Mk1 with it's robot limbs aren't piloted in a similar manner. So yes. Mini-Mechs may be my term but that they're piloted as such is canon. Also while construction is vastly different so is that between construction and support vehicles.

Previous page, second paragraph: "Most people think these tin cans we call battle armor are just baby BattleMechs. As you have all volunteered to become grade-A SPAM, you%u2019ll soon enough know they are dead wrong."

That's what I've been saying.

Not really.  You've been going back and forth on this concept, often in the same post, so I don't know what you're trying to say since you contradict yourself farther down the page.

It is what I've been saying. That you purchase the vehicles in "infantry" numbers that they stack and are carried as infantry. I would limit the size of vehicle that could carry them. You're not going to cram in 24 motorcycles into the space meant for 7-10 troopers. 

You said this to my statement of how you've been contradicting yourself.  This is part of why I don't understand you.

Now, you DON'T cram 24 motorcycles in to the space of 7-10 troopers.  You cram 24 motorcycles in the space you cram in 48 troopers (6 tons of Cargo Space vs 3).  You can fit 8 Foot platoons in the same space as you can fit one wheeled squad of Mechanized platoon.

That's still more than it should. The vehicle's armor should provide some protection. It doesn't.

Because it kills the vehicle which two crew use as opposed to losing half your armor if your an Elemental, or the one poor schmuck who gets turned in to pink mist from said laser.  A truck is far easier to hit than an individual person as there is far more truck than an individual person.

Probably. Although with BA there's still 1 point representing the trooper so 1 point for the Internal shouldn't be a problem. The vehicle is still toast. And BA stop being BA when they get killed too. The rest of the platoon/point doesn't stop being a platoon though. It just means that the platoon has taken casualties. Whether or not they're dead or dead dead goes into optional rules. For a regular game they're just dead.

I used 2 points for internal to indicate 1 driver and 1 gunner.  The crew of said Light Vehicle which was carried over from the basic math used to figure out why 2 troopers die from a Medium Laser while Mechanized versus 1 on Foot or Bike.  Even as such, there is more internal structure to a vehicle than an Elemental's body.

As for eliminated from the game, I'm fine with that.  I'm just trying to get you to think about where to take this instead of being wishy-washy.

That kind of abstraction would have been okay when it was just Elementals and IS Battle Armor. Now we've got over 70 types of BA plus variants plus the ability to make our own. Vehicle Infantry should stop being abstracted.

So what is your suggested alternative?  You must have something in mind.

Are you trying to generate some difference of types now and focusing on different individual units like between an HMMV, an old 6x6, M113 and an FV432?  This would be more of a reduction of generalization more than a reduction of abstraction and follows the specific infantry schools provided for infantry in TRO 3085.

Or do you want Light Vehicle Construction Rules like we have for Battle Armor now?  Keep in mind that Battle Armor didn't have any Construction Rules for a very long time, and we're already talking about turning Mechanized Infantry on its head.
« Last Edit: 29 November 2020, 02:30:26 by Charistoph »
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: 2043
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #277 on: 29 November 2020, 12:31:37 »
Please be more specific, you've made a lot of responses here that I don't like.

In this case you didn't like me calling the pickup motorized and the HMMV mechanized. You were wanting the pickup to provide some protection that mechanized gives the HMMV. 


Quote
But in the very vast majority of cases Motorized Infantry are completely exposed on their equipment, while someone in a technical or hmmv is not.

In those cases the vehicles would have minimal to no armor so the rounds could go straight through to hit the crew.


Quote
Actually being Mechanized DOES provide protection if only 2 people are being killed versus 5.

Actually, it magnifies the damage. 2 troopers are killed. The same medium laser hitting motorized infantry on a motorcycle with side car will only kill 1 trooper.


Quote
Proximity is not the protection (or lack thereof) I'm talking about, size is.  And this is where your concept of conflating Motorized and Mechanized starts falling flat and you didn't even recognize what I said.  The reason why an HMMV would be easier to hit than a bike is because it is a bigger target, and therefore easier to hit.  It will likely have more crew than a bike, and so more people become casualties when the HMMV gets hit by a medium laser while only one bike, and therefore one infantryman, becomes a casualty.

Yes, closer proximity may get more crew killed. However, the vehicle armor should provide some protection. In the case of Mechanized infantry it does nothing. To make things even worse. Motorcycles can be Mechanized infantry so that medium laser is killing two troopers on two separate motorcycles. Meanwhile the same laser hitting motorized infantry on the same motorcycles and only 1 trooper is killed. The same troopers on the same motorcycles but change the "type" of infantry and one dies twice as fast.

Quote
For the sake of Battletech, yeah sure, they're dead to the world.  Beyond that, it doesn't matter except in cases of where there is more story going on, either RPG or campaign.

Exactly.

Quote
So using a different system to justify the similarity of a bike and a jeep.

These are the exact same vehicles. A different game system shouldn't give them superior abilities.


Quote
Previous page, second paragraph: "Most people think these tin cans we call battle armor are just baby BattleMechs. As you have all volunteered to become grade-A SPAM, you%u2019ll soon enough know they are dead wrong."

That statement is in presumption that all BA are worn. They're not. Many are driven. 



Quote
Not really.  You've been going back and forth on this concept, often in the same post, so I don't know what you're trying to say since you contradict yourself farther down the page.

You said this to my statement of how you've been contradicting yourself.  This is part of why I don't understand you.

Now, you DON'T cram 24 motorcycles in to the space of 7-10 troopers.  You cram 24 motorcycles in the space you cram in 48 troopers (6 tons of Cargo Space vs 3).  You can fit 8 Foot platoons in the same space as you can fit one wheeled squad of Mechanized platoon.

You're not going to cram 5 motorcycles into the same space meant for 10 troopers either. And 1 foot platoon weighs 3 tons. Eight would weigh 24 tons.


Quote
Because it kills the vehicle which two crew use as opposed to losing half your armor if your an Elemental, or the one poor schmuck who gets turned in to pink mist from said laser.  A truck is far easier to hit than an individual person as there is far more truck than an individual person.

A 2 ton BA should be just as easy to hit as a 2 ton truck and that's just standing still. Moving it should be able to go as fast if not faster than the BA. So it should be as hard if not harder to hit. The truck should also be able to be armored to withstand a hit from a medium laser without killing the crew. It may not be able to withstand a PPC shot but then BA don't have different locations either. If they'd did they'd be even more vulnerable than the Truck.


Quote
I used 2 points for internal to indicate 1 driver and 1 gunner.  The crew of said Light Vehicle which was carried over from the basic math used to figure out why 2 troopers die from a Medium Laser while Mechanized versus 1 on Foot or Bike.  Even as such, there is more internal structure to a vehicle than an Elemental's body.

Besides IS doesn't work like that except for BA and even if it did it'd have to go through the vehicles armor, if any. 

Quote
As for eliminated from the game, I'm fine with that.  I'm just trying to get you to think about where to take this instead of being wishy-washy.

I'm not and haven't been wishy-washy. I've consistently said that Motorized and Mechanized infantry should be treated as vehicles and in the same manner as BA and Protos in regards to to construction, speed, armor, weapons, stacking, etc.

So if I decide I want a Motorcycle Platoon I design or pick one available and equip the entire platoon with them. They use the vehicles speed, weapons and armor, to move and fight. The platoon takes damage, roll for the trooper hit and apply damage. Vehicle gets put out of action vehicle is counted as dead. Want to go advanced and the vehicle is immobilized and the crew survived, then they become a separate "bunker" platoon or abandon the vehicle to be a rifle platoon.

Quote
So what is your suggested alternative?  You must have something in mind.

I've been saying what I've had in mind for a while now.



Quote
Are you trying to generate some difference of types now and focusing on different individual units like between an HMMV, an old 6x6, M113 and an FV432?  This would be more of a reduction of generalization more than a reduction of abstraction and follows the specific infantry schools provided for infantry in TRO 3085.

Or do you want Light Vehicle Construction Rules like we have for Battle Armor now?  Keep in mind that Battle Armor didn't have any Construction Rules for a very long time, and we're already talking about turning Mechanized Infantry on its head.

Again, I'm saying that we use the rules to construct Small Support Vehicles and use them in place of "Battle Armor" to create "motorized and "mechanized" platoon types. No abstraction. Actual vehicles. Just like we went from abstracted BA to actual battle armor.  The number of vehicles in the platoon would vary depending on how many "crew/troopers" are in them. 24 motorcycles. 12 motocycles with gunners in side cars. 4 HMMVs.

And no I don't think that would screw other small vehicles up. Just consider them individual platoons.

Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #278 on: 29 November 2020, 16:22:11 »
In this case you didn't like me calling the pickup motorized and the HMMV mechanized. You were wanting the pickup to provide some protection that mechanized gives the HMMV. 

That is because the sheer volume of a technical is closer to that of an HMMV than it is a motorbike, provides cover for the crew that the motorbike does not, and provides better weapon support that a motorbike does not.  It's basically the same reason we have different classifications of a truck as a certain type of a vehicle and a motorcyle as another.

In those cases the vehicles would have minimal to no armor so the rounds could go straight through to hit the crew.

Besides possible deflection (depending on weapon used), the vehicle would also provide cover making it harder to hit the crew.  It's kind of like hiding a Mech's legs with a 6 meter hill.

Actually, it magnifies the damage. 2 troopers are killed. The same medium laser hitting motorized infantry on a motorcycle with side car will only kill 1 trooper.

It is a matter of perspective.  But a truck is easier to hit than a motorbike, and a truck will usually have more crew than a motorbike.  In addition, the medium laser is only hitting the one target, a 2-man vehicle versus a 1-man bike or 1-man on foot.  But as a bonus, they don't take the same amount of damage from other infantry.

Yes, closer proximity may get more crew killed. However, the vehicle armor should provide some protection. In the case of Mechanized infantry it does nothing. To make things even worse. Motorcycles can be Mechanized infantry so that medium laser is killing two troopers on two separate motorcycles. Meanwhile the same laser hitting motorized infantry on the same motorcycles and only 1 trooper is killed. The same troopers on the same motorcycles but change the "type" of infantry and one dies twice as fast.

But motorcyles aren't mechanized infantry, and you're the only one conflating the two.

These are the exact same vehicles. A different game system shouldn't give them superior abilities.

A 1-person, 2-wheeled vehicle which has the rider wrap around the vehicle and be fully exposed is the exact same vehicle as a 2-person, 4-wheeled vehicle which wraps around the riders and covering them?

That statement is in presumption that all BA are worn. They're not. Many are driven. 

No, it's going on the facts that they aren't Mechs.  They operate differently on different parameters and missions.  And while "many" are "driven", that isn't what make a 'Mech a 'Mech.  I can drive an aircraft, but that doesn't make it a car.  Furthermore, once all the armor is gone, all that's left is the meat.

You're not going to cram 5 motorcycles into the same space meant for 10 troopers either. And 1 foot platoon weighs 3 tons. Eight would weigh 24 tons.

In this universe you can cram 5 motorcyles in to the space meant for 10 troopers.

And yes, I can do math, no need to point that out.  It's good to see you can do math, too.

A 2 ton BA should be just as easy to hit as a 2 ton truck and that's just standing still. Moving it should be able to go as fast if not faster than the BA. So it should be as hard if not harder to hit. The truck should also be able to be armored to withstand a hit from a medium laser without killing the crew. It may not be able to withstand a PPC shot but then BA don't have different locations either. If they'd did they'd be even more vulnerable than the Truck.

Why?  Mass does not equate volume if constructed from different materials.  BA uses advanced materials, while Light Vehicles do not?

And why should a truck be armored to take a hit from a Medium Laser?  It is designed to be cheap and spammable.  We're coming from an angle that this is conventional arms we're talking about here.  Not even good enough to be considered worth writing real stats before now on.  I'm looking at it from the concept of having Light Vehicles be to Combat Vehicles as Foot/Jump Infantry is to Battle Armor.

Besides IS doesn't work like that except for BA and even if it did it'd have to go through the vehicles armor, if any. 

Way to not extrapolate.  Coming from an Infantry angle, if an Elemental is 10+1, and a Light Armored Vehicle is set up as 5+2, which is the armor?

I'm not and haven't been wishy-washy. I've consistently said that Motorized and Mechanized infantry should be treated as vehicles and in the same manner as BA and Protos in regards to to construction, speed, armor, weapons, stacking, etc.

It hasn't come across that way because every time I try to disambiguate you get offended by it, and then come back on to that very same track.

Of course, that could be because I think mechanized Infantry should be separated from the Vehicles and you're in a knot about that.

So if I decide I want a Motorcycle Platoon I design or pick one available and equip the entire platoon with them. They use the vehicles speed, weapons and armor, to move and fight. The platoon takes damage, roll for the trooper hit and apply damage. Vehicle gets put out of action vehicle is counted as dead. Want to go advanced and the vehicle is immobilized and the crew survived, then they become a separate "bunker" platoon or abandon the vehicle to be a rifle platoon.

I've been saying what I've had in mind for a while now.

Really?  Because it hasn't been much in this thread as far as your responses to me have been.

But you're still having the Vehicles be Infantry.  If you want less abstraction, the very concept of Mechanized Infantry as being both Vehicle and Infantry needs to be eliminated.  Light Vehicles carry the units, and the Mechanized Infantry would be the troopers trained to be carried by them, but are otherwise Foot Infantry.

Again, I'm saying that we use the rules to construct Small Support Vehicles and use them in place of "Battle Armor" to create "motorized and "mechanized" platoon types. No abstraction. Actual vehicles. Just like we went from abstracted BA to actual battle armor.  The number of vehicles in the platoon would vary depending on how many "crew/troopers" are in them. 24 motorcycles. 12 motocycles with gunners in side cars. 4 HMMVs.

Battle Armor hasn't been abstracted in a LONG time (if it ever really was, my first set of rules with them was the Compendium with a Timber Wolf and helmetless Elemental on front, and Elementals haven't really changed since).  It has become less generalized as they introduced new Battle Armor beyond the Elemental and IS Standard, and then introduced BA construction rules.

So again, do you want actual construction rules (the way Battle Armor is now) or just more specific models of purchasing the same (like when Sylph and Undine Battle Armor was introduced)?

Keep in mind, I'm not against construction rules at all, I'm just trying to figure out what your answer is since your answer is coming across fuzzy.

And no I don't think that would screw other small vehicles up. Just consider them individual platoons.

I didn't say anything about screwing other small vehicles up.
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.

Renard

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 204
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #279 on: 29 November 2020, 20:26:47 »
You guys are really passionate about the least interesting unit in the game.

Actually, do submarines next.

Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #280 on: 29 November 2020, 23:00:56 »
You guys are really passionate about the least interesting unit in the game.

I look at it as trying to help them be more interesting than they currently are.

I don't think there is much hope for Foot Infantry, aside from special skills like we see in TRO 3085, though.  The scale of Battletech doesn't really help them.  We'd need to get Warhammer-scale to make Infantry be really interesting.  That would make the average Battlemech be about the size of a Knight Titan.  Not effective, unless we want to do an Infinity-style operation (which would be rather cool).

Actually, do submarines next.

Aside from size (WW2 submarines displaced about 1500 tons when surfaced), what's wrong with submarines?
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: 4257
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #281 on: 09 December 2020, 11:49:15 »
Actually, they date back to BattleDroids. The Vehicles were divided up into Tanks or Jeeps and there were infantry. They each had set MP and movement rules. They also used Mech weapons but that's all there was too. They've changed a lot since. I think for the mostly for better.

Ah, yes. BattleDroids.  It's easy to forget about that, since I never had a copy to read the rules.


I never had much information on BattleTroops or even Clan Troops.  They may have been taken out of circulation before I could buy them.  I am interested in this concept, though.

If resurrected, would you be looking at a Kill Team level of gameplay, Infinity level of gamplay, or be able to run the gambut to a little bit larger like WarmaHordes or Bolt Action?  I'm pretty sure we're not going to be looking at a 40K level of gameplay, but I could be wrong.

Before they went under Spartan Games, who created the Dystopian Wars and Firestorm franchises, had just released a ground game which was at a slightly higher physical scale than Battletech was, and was looking at developing an infantry/spec ops game that had a model count somewhere between Kill Team and Infinity.  The new owner of the Firestorm franchise, WarCradle, has stated interest in developing this, but they need to get the first part, Armada, up and selling first.  They have united the Dystopian Wars franchise with their original Wild West Exodus whose models operate are just a little bigger than Infinity, WarMachine, or Warhammer (but just a few mm different, like a 35 mm scale to 40K's 30mm).

Either way, I'd be interested in looking in to it and seeing Elementals that could literally stand toe to toe with a Space Marine (though probably not for long as 40K is crazy).  How would the BattleTroops system compare to Kill Team, Infinity, or even Bolt Action?

The original BattleTroops was roughly 25mm, if I recall.  Though, what I saw of the rules and the maps, that didn't matter, since the maps were dot-matrixes.  You could make hex-maps out of those rather handily.

Rules-wise, we're looking at each soldier being a single combat unit.  But, I could see turning a revised one into different levels of formation-based activations.

I'll expound on that a little later. A little pressed for time while writing this.


Thing is Jump Infantry aren't "Mechanized". They can ride in an APC/IFV but they aren't riding in vehicles themselves. We're also not talking about Foot Infantry using rollerblades to gain extra speed. Motorized/Mechanized "Infantry" are using vehicles.

There are rules for Mechanized Infantry preventing some things but I agree. Motorized aren't any different than Foot Infantry and it is a problem.

It's interesting that both you and Charistoph bring up the jump pack being a vehicle.

Here's an idea: We lose the jump classification.  We merely have mounted and enhanced.  Enhanced use vehicles like technicals, beasts of burden, jump packs, etc.  Each type simply gives them a second mode option with its own MP value, and follow all restrictions that mode has.

Mounted work from actual IFV vehicles. They are, effectively, crew.  They may disembark from their IFV like an APC.  They have their own stats when dismounted and are treated like foot.  When mounted, they simply act as one or more extra weapons for the vehicle, which has its own card/sheet, with their appropriate stats in the attacks list.  How much more we want to add beyond that is up to taste, at the moment.

Again.  More on this later.

And, I apologize for the absence.  I'd been working on something else for the past few weeks, which you can find in the fanfic boards.


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

Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #282 on: 09 December 2020, 23:19:06 »
I look forward to hearing more about BattleTroops.  Sounds like it was a Kill Team or Infinity-scale operation.  Feel free to consider to add how you would like to modernize it.

It could be possible to expand it beyond that, as we have Bolt Action, Warmachine, and Warhammer to utilize as options to pursue for growth.

It's interesting that both you and Charistoph bring up the jump pack being a vehicle.

For myself, only in the most loose of terms of being a vehicle as it is a mechanical augmentation for movement.  Outside of that, something the rough size of a frame pack is not something I would normally classify as a vehicle on the same level as a motorcycle, much less a HMMV, Abrams, Warhammer, or Shilone.

Here's an idea: We lose the jump classification.  We merely have mounted and enhanced.  Enhanced use vehicles like technicals, beasts of burden, jump packs, etc.  Each type simply gives them a second mode option with its own MP value, and follow all restrictions that mode has.

Mounted work from actual IFV vehicles. They are, effectively, crew.  They may disembark from their IFV like an APC.  They have their own stats when dismounted and are treated like foot.  When mounted, they simply act as one or more extra weapons for the vehicle, which has its own card/sheet, with their appropriate stats in the attacks list.  How much more we want to add beyond that is up to taste, at the moment.

I disagree.  The ability to Jump has its own characteristics, and the mechanism used is of sufficient scale to differentiate it out, and still be separate out.  Unless you want it to be purchased as Foot + Jump instead of just Jump Infantry, that would make the only sense.  However, the problem added on to that is Jump Platoons are also of a smaller size than any other Platoon than the Hover Mechanized at present, to say nothing of the added cargo space required.  Unless we consider changes to that, I don't think it will work.

Furthermore, Mounted vs Enhanced implies that Enhanced Infantry won't be mounted.  I'm not sure we want to go down that road.
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: 2043
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #283 on: 10 December 2020, 23:34:08 »
That is because the sheer volume of a technical is closer to that of an HMMV than it is a motorbike, provides cover for the crew that the motorbike does not, and provides better weapon support that a motorbike does not.  It's basically the same reason we have different classifications of a truck as a certain type of a vehicle and a motorcyle as another.

Volume isn't really a consideration. 

Quote
Besides possible deflection (depending on weapon used), the vehicle would also provide cover making it harder to hit the crew.  It's kind of like hiding a Mech's legs with a 6 meter hill.

That would really depend on the armor of the vehicle, the weapon involved, and what other components the crew are hiding behind. The engine being the best place.

Quote
It is a matter of perspective.  But a truck is easier to hit than a motorbike, and a truck will usually have more crew than a motorbike.  In addition, the medium laser is only hitting the one target, a 2-man vehicle versus a 1-man bike or 1-man on foot.  But as a bonus, they don't take the same amount of damage from other infantry.

You'd think so but I don't remember anything in the rules to say a motorcycle is harder to hit than a truck. When you look at things beyond straight rules though, motorcycles can be motorized or mechanized. The number of troopers killed will change depending on the term used.

Quote
But motorcyles aren't mechanized infantry, and you're the only one conflating the two.

https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Missile_Artillery_Infantry
Artillery Infantry are Mechanized. Field guns are motorized.


Quote
A 1-person, 2-wheeled vehicle which has the rider wrap around the vehicle and be fully exposed is the exact same vehicle as a 2-person, 4-wheeled vehicle which wraps around the riders and covering them?

Compare the vehicles used by the infantry in TROs:3085 and those in AToW and Companion. The RPG versions are far superior. And yes because that wrapping around doesn't provide any protection from weapons.



Quote
No, it's going on the facts that they aren't Mechs.  They operate differently on different parameters and missions.  And while "many" are "driven", that isn't what make a 'Mech a 'Mech.  I can drive an aircraft, but that doesn't make it a car.  Furthermore, once all the armor is gone, all that's left is the meat.

Except the statement for quads say otherwise. Add in how some biped BA operate that statement would have to apply to them as well. As for meat being left, that's how the construction rules work. You'll note that to kill the trooper you have to eliminate all the armor, not just the armor in one location. If they did they wouldn't survive a hit from a Clan ER PPC. Something no small support vehicle can do.



Quote
In this universe you can cram 5 motorcyles in to the space meant for 10 troopers.

And yes, I can do math, no need to point that out.  It's good to see you can do math, too.

Only if those 5 motorcycles weighed .2 tons or less each but not if they're used by Mechanized Infantry.

Quote
Why?  Mass does not equate volume if constructed from different materials.  BA uses advanced materials, while Light Vehicles do not?

Vehicles can be made from advanced materials. Those materials won't provide the same benefits though.


Quote
And why should a truck be armored to take a hit from a Medium Laser?  It is designed to be cheap and spammable.  We're coming from an angle that this is conventional arms we're talking about here.  Not even good enough to be considered worth writing real stats before now on.  I'm looking at it from the concept of having Light Vehicles be to Combat Vehicles as Foot/Jump Infantry is to Battle Armor.

Why should a Battle Armor be armored enough to survive a hit from a Clan ER PPC? The question is irrelevant. Some are some aren't. Just like trucks. Some are armored some aren't.
Light vehicles can be combat vehicles. I'm looking at small vehicles being to BA as standard vehicles are to Mechs. The problem as infantry types though is they're abstracted and their vehicles being comparable only happens in AToW.


Quote
Way to not extrapolate.  Coming from an Infantry angle, if an Elemental is 10+1, and a Light Armored Vehicle is set up as 5+2, which is the armor?

Coming from a vehicle angle, the vehicle only gets 4+ a varying amount. +2 for wheeled and tracked vehicles. Which needs to cover 4-5 locations. Even adding in the 1 point of IS per side, where's the protection? An Elemental would easily kill a vehicle of the same weight. Even if the vehicle was armed with BA weapons.


Quote
It hasn't come across that way because every time I try to disambiguate you get offended by it, and then come back on to that very same track.

Of course, that could be because I think mechanized Infantry should be separated from the Vehicles and you're in a knot about that.

I'm not the one changing things.

No I don't believe Mechanized Infantry or Motorized Infantry should be hopping in and out of their vehicles willy-nilly.



Quote
Really?  Because it hasn't been much in this thread as far as your responses to me have been.

But you're still having the Vehicles be Infantry.  If you want less abstraction, the very concept of Mechanized Infantry as being both Vehicle and Infantry needs to be eliminated.  Light Vehicles carry the units, and the Mechanized Infantry would be the troopers trained to be carried by them, but are otherwise Foot Infantry.

I've been saying that for a long time. I even listed examples. Yes, I call them "infantry" for the same reasons Battle Armor are "Infantry". They're small, you can get 25+ in a "Platoon", and they're vehicle provides the movement, weapons and protection. The abstraction from BA was removed a long time ago. The same should be for "Motorized/Mechanized" Infantry.



Quote
Battle Armor hasn't been abstracted in a LONG time (if it ever really was, my first set of rules with them was the Compendium with a Timber Wolf and helmetless Elemental on front, and Elementals haven't really changed since).  It has become less generalized as they introduced new Battle Armor beyond the Elemental and IS Standard, and then introduced BA construction rules.

BA used to be Clan 11 points to kill a trooper. IS 10 points. These are the weapons the platoon/point can have. Have fun. Now we have construction rules and many different types. The same should be for "Vehicle" infantry.


Quote
So again, do you want actual construction rules (the way Battle Armor is now) or just more specific models of purchasing the same (like when Sylph and Undine Battle Armor was introduced)?

Keep in mind, I'm not against construction rules at all, I'm just trying to figure out what your answer is since your answer is coming across fuzzy.

Which part is fuzzy? Use the existing construction rules and stats for vehicles, and group them in Platoons? I even gave examples.

Quote
I didn't say anything about screwing other small vehicles up.

Are they treated as vehicles or infantry? Treat them as Vehicles for movement and combat. Infantry for stacking.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2043
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #284 on: 10 December 2020, 23:48:22 »
You guys are really passionate about the least interesting unit in the game.

Actually, do submarines next.

Like these guys?
https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Submersible_Mechanized_Infantry ?
I've been including them.


I look at it as trying to help them be more interesting than they currently are.

I don't think there is much hope for Foot Infantry, aside from special skills like we see in TRO 3085, though.  The scale of Battletech doesn't really help them.  We'd need to get Warhammer-scale to make Infantry be really interesting.  That would make the average Battlemech be about the size of a Knight Titan.  Not effective, unless we want to do an Infinity-style operation (which would be rather cool).

Aside from size (WW2 submarines displaced about 1500 tons when surfaced), what's wrong with submarines?

There's skills, weapons, armor without getting into cyborgs.

AToW tries to cover combat at an infantry scale. I think it causes more problems with how it's done though.

I like submarines. WWII Submarines could be pretty small. BT even more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midget_submarine There's just so few times when they can be used though.:(

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2043
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #285 on: 10 December 2020, 23:58:33 »
Ah, yes. BattleDroids.  It's easy to forget about that, since I never had a copy to read the rules.

No prob. I had to go look them up to see how much different they were.



Quote
It's interesting that both you and Charistoph bring up the jump pack being a vehicle.

Here's an idea: We lose the jump classification.  We merely have mounted and enhanced.  Enhanced use vehicles like technicals, beasts of burden, jump packs, etc.  Each type simply gives them a second mode option with its own MP value, and follow all restrictions that mode has.

How's that different from now?  ???  Enhanced makes me think of Foot Infantry wearing the really Light Exoskeletons from TRO:3026. That or infantry riding on bikes or using skates, roller blades, skateboards.


Quote
Mounted work from actual IFV vehicles. They are, effectively, crew.  They may disembark from their IFV like an APC.  They have their own stats when dismounted and are treated like foot.  When mounted, they simply act as one or more extra weapons for the vehicle, which has its own card/sheet, with their appropriate stats in the attacks list.  How much more we want to add beyond that is up to taste, at the moment.

Again.  More on this later.

If mounted infantry are crew, and they leave the vehicle, what happens to the vehicle?

Quote
And, I apologize for the absence.  I'd been working on something else for the past few weeks, which you can find in the fanfic boards.

No worries. I've been taking time out too.




vaderi

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 116
  • Halfbearded Pirate
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #286 on: 11 December 2020, 09:22:25 »
Personally, I'll leave the mulling over a new edition of Battletech to the more experienced Game Developers, it seems to me that the one thing I would most like to see would be a shifting of weapons to fit the new period.

That is to say, I'd like to see weapons and their stats vary by era. I'd like to see the "IS Medium Laser" of the IlClan era be the same grade as the Clan Medium laser of the Clan invasion as everyone in the IS uses the same tech level now. I'd like to see baseline of tech shift so that what is Clan Cheese now is instead the baseline and a restoration of design space for new tech.

For instance, if the Clan Pulse Laser is the default Laser then instead of the -2 to hit that it currently gets, it would give no bonus, but any laser inferior to it (a 3025 IS Laser for instance) would get a to hit penalty. Instead of redesigning the game from the ground up, I would hope that the past would shape the future.

If that makes any sense to other people.
Steiner, where money and mediocrity meet caring.

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4257
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #287 on: 11 December 2020, 13:13:12 »
I disagree.  The ability to Jump has its own characteristics, and the mechanism used is of sufficient scale to differentiate it out, and still be separate out.  Unless you want it to be purchased as Foot + Jump instead of just Jump Infantry, that would make the only sense.  However, the problem added on to that is Jump Platoons are also of a smaller size than any other Platoon than the Hover Mechanized at present, to say nothing of the added cargo space required.  Unless we consider changes to that, I don't think it will work.

Furthermore, Mounted vs Enhanced implies that Enhanced Infantry won't be mounted.  I'm not sure we want to go down that road.

Yes, I was looking at it in a purchase type option for creation.  The only reason Jump Platoons are smaller is by fluff.  The packs are considered rare, and there is some consideration for the fact that one squad less means they weigh the same as a full foot platoon.  Personally, I have no problem with the concept of Jump Equipped platoons having a mass modifier if they take the jump option. 

As for enhanced and mounted.  I also see no problem with having both an enhancement and a mount option. (Mount meaning being attached to a dedicated APC/IFV)  The APC/IFV will limit your enhanced squad's sized based on its carrying capacity.  We would have to come up with a mass and volume value.  Sure, a Horse might not take up a full ton, but it's 3x the size of a kitted infantryman.  Might want to go with one of those Lunar Wolves, since they can curl up.   xp



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

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4257
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #288 on: 11 December 2020, 13:17:33 »
If mounted infantry are crew, and they leave the vehicle, what happens to the vehicle?

Depends on how you design the vehicle.  If it takes the full squad to operate the vehicle, then it becomes terrain while they're separate.  Immobile, but not necessarily in the way. 

If the vehicle has a minimum crew when the squad dismounts, it operates independently, but less whatever attack options the mounted infantry brought with them.

I don't see how this part is complicated.  Just use  some basic, decent sense in applying rules.

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

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4257
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #289 on: 11 December 2020, 15:59:51 »
Okay.  What I remember of BattleTroops 1.  I'm not sure if I had a chance to go through BT2 for the Battle Armor.  I'm drawing a blank, so I think I didn't.

Each trooper got an activation.  Can't recall if it alternated like BT, but I think it did.

The big control feature was that all actions were movement point based.  I think the max value was 8 MP, which would then be spent on crossing terrain, 1 per dot plus any adverse terrain modifiers.  What wasn't spent in movement could then be spent on attacks in the next couple phases.  They even had an overwatch movement action that allowed you to interrupt an opponents move to make an attack against the newly activated unit.

Turn went back and forth until all sides had activated their troops.   The scale seemed to be a roughly 2.5 meter grid with 5 second turns, I think.

Damage was random, but it was to a life bar of 8 hit points, though they had room for bigger guys like elementals going out to 12.  The closer you got to the right, you started seeing effects applied to the trooper.  Armor could be assigned to any point on the lifeline and would reduce damage.  Details escape me at the moment.  This was one aspect of the game I disliked, so I only remember not to repeat it.  For one, it had no correlation to the RPG of the time (MW1 or MW2) or even to the Game of Armored Combat.  This was where we got the rule where each trooper who fired on an armored unit and rolled a nat 12 would do 1 point of damage.

When integrating Mechs and Tanks into the game, they tried to shoehorn in the movement system on the Mechs and Tanks, with a 4 MP bonus to help make attacks.  This, too, I didn't like because it didn't make any sense when thinking about all the automation that goes into allowing Mechs and Tanks to constantly be on the move and still make attacks with only minor penalties.

That's my overview straight from memory.  If you want more details, I will have to hunt down what I have, as it's all scanned into a digital format. 

One of the things I liked is that it provided a Platoon breakdown, showing what weapons each squad carried, and highly suggested that the stock personnel weapon had little to do with damaging armored units.  That was left to the support weapons.  Personnel weapons only could damage Mechs on a nat 12 hit roll, doing one point, as I already pointed out.

I'm also surprised they didn't try putting these rules in one of the advanced rules books, since they had been trying to put everything else that had a ruleset in, somehow.  Would have loved to've seen what spin they would have put on a revision.


If I were to do my own version, I want to link it to AGoAC somehow, but look to an RPG version to get a set of simplified set of stats.  My link to AGoAC would be the pilot stun meter.  Oddly enough, this also works well with MW2, since they use an expanded version of that meter.  Each infantryman would be a little pilot running around, and when he takes damage, light or permanent, it would get applied to that.  Armor would help reduce damage, or turn its effects from permanent to temporary.

I would incorporate the better RPG ranges for personnel weapons.  Should an armored unit actually make an appearance on the smaller scale map, only support weapons can damage it, and even then at the reduced Armored Combat ranges.

Having looked at the TechManual stats, having read how they were derived, I would focus on RPG stats, then tweak them to fit the life-meter.

I would keep actions limited to whatever scale is being used, but I do want to keep the phase aspect of BattleTech intact. That way, people can move from BT Armored Combat to Space or to Troop level without too many hiccups.  As much as I appreciate the MP expenditure system of the old one, it doesn't fit for unit activation.  Some people may want to try to overdo something, and like other aspects of BT, they should be allowed, but then have to pay for it later, usually in the form of modifiers on that and the following turn.

As for scale, it's really up in the air on which size mini you want to play with.  I know that BattleTroops figures can still be found on IWM.  However, I'm more interested in playing with the smaller wargaming scale infantry.  Anything between 1/300 to 1/200 scale will suffice. 

(Aside: Why? Cross-over appeal.  I have Epic 40k orcs that fit.  I have Dirtside Infantry.  I have Dark Age Infantry.  I have Heavy Gear Fleet Scale infantry.  A lot of things work well at that scale, including newer Macross/Robotech minis, as well as Adeptus Titanicus and Aeronautica Imperialis models.)

Scale Breakdown - Feel free to skip
I do like the idea of a scale where Infantry can conduct movement and attacks with the same amount of activity as one finds for Mechs.  So, the larger scale figures would make that possible.  2.5 meter hexes on hex map, with five-second turns allows for a lot of ground clearance.  Then, each soldier can be tracked individually.

Whereas, at 1/250 scale, the standard hexes we find on current maps would be approximately 5, 6 or 7.5 meters.  I like the fudging to 6 meters because then a Mech or Tank can have a fully occupied hex with a clean buffer of occupation out to 2 hexes away.  That would be the dead-zone where infantry can get close without being targeted directly with weapons. (As per Armored Combat.  Armored units cannot fire into their own hex. While have reservations about that, I have no problem keeping the limitation for most Armored units.  BA might be the one exception, and only against other BA or infantry.)

But, then we run into timing issues.  If we are to break down turn lengths in seconds to allow a higher rate of fire and activity for your gropos, the MP would have to be recalculated for the larger units.  If you cut down the size of the hexes by .5 or .25, and you cut down the BT turn-length in seconds accordingly, you don't have to recalculate MP Values for the modes.  Jump would have to have moments of being airborne, but that's all.  Heat output from movement as well as dissipation would be unaffected.  The only ranges to change would be weapons, and they would also have to be given a RoF of once every x turns for simplicity.  But, this is only for integration.  I know how I would specifically do it.

However, let's get back to infantry at this scale.  I want the hexes to be 1/4 or 1/5 that of BattleTech standard.  However, I think I want longer turns to get more active movement out of infantry.  5 or 10 second turns will suffice.  If we went with 2.5 second turns, it feels like we would effectively be impulsing movement.  Maybe move.  Maybe shoot.  Some units could only do one or the other, and it would only be 1 hex.  Granted, you could work through a lot of troops in short order that way.  But, one of the fun things of every other BT aspect game is maneuver.

5 Second-turns at 1/4 scale would at least allow for options of double-time movement, steady march, or hunkering down.  You could get two hexes, one, or zero.  10 seconds at either 1/4 or 1/5 scale would allow for much finer gradients of movement. 
End Scale Breakdown

My choice?  Two levels. 
Personnel Level - where each trooper and bystander and objective individual like spies and whatnot are like Mechs, or rather ProtoMechs.  Battle Armor would be like Mechs.  Control aspects would include activity level and fatigue.  Any hit would force a stun check.  Armor would determine if the hit causes effect damage on a trooper or if it just forces a stun check. 


Platoon Level - Troopers are allocated to squads.  Squads can consist of any number.  Optional rules could have casualties split away from a squad, and allow depleted squads to merge.  Damage tracking and attack assignment would be either more limited in scope or nebulous in nature.  Still want to allow for individual troopers to suffer stat damage that effects the rest, like MP reduction or attack reduction.  Squads would activate as a full unit during each turn phase.  Adjacency wouldn't be too much of an issue as long as all members are adjacent to at least one other hex with a squad member. (Let's not get into the finer points of squads splitting up and still meeting that requirement.  I'm just spitballing, here.)  Spreading out can prove important since some weapons, like grenades, have an AoE that can be applied to the 6 or 7.5 meter hexes. You cluster your guys in one of those hexes, they can all get nailed.

I've actually been piddling around with the latter, trying to figure out how to apply a nebulous armor an penetration stats.  Was hoping to do something with the RPG damage values.  May have to give up on that notion.

But, there you go.




   



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

Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #290 on: 12 December 2020, 00:22:00 »
Volume isn't really a consideration.

It really is when you're making a consideration of hitting a moving target.  Yes this aspect is incredibly abstract, but we're also talking about vehicles that can't take heavy arms fire in any age.

That would really depend on the armor of the vehicle, the weapon involved, and what other components the crew are hiding behind. The engine being the best place.

Very true, and that was part of the consideration.

You'd think so but I don't remember anything in the rules to say a motorcycle is harder to hit than a truck. When you look at things beyond straight rules though, motorcycles can be motorized or mechanized. The number of troopers killed will change depending on the term used.

It is part of why heavy weapons do more damage to the mechanized versus the motorized.  It is very abstract, which I think is part of the problems we're having, correct?

Compare the vehicles used by the infantry in TROs:3085 and those in AToW and Companion. The RPG versions are far superior. And yes because that wrapping around doesn't provide any protection from weapons.

Different systems, different rules, different scale.  Not a valid comparison.

Except the statement for quads say otherwise. Add in how some biped BA operate that statement would have to apply to them as well. As for meat being left, that's how the construction rules work. You'll note that to kill the trooper you have to eliminate all the armor, not just the armor in one location. If they did they wouldn't survive a hit from a Clan ER PPC. Something no small support vehicle can do.

So where does it state that the Sloth or Infilitrator Mk1 pilot wears a neuro-helmet?

BA armor is not segmented in to damage zones like Vehicles, 'Mechs, or even ProtoMechs.

Only if those 5 motorcycles weighed .2 tons or less each but not if they're used by Mechanized Infantry.

You're conflating again.  Motorcycles are used by Motorized Infantry, not Mechanized Infantry.

Vehicles can be made from advanced materials. Those materials won't provide the same benefits though.

Combat Vehicles and Support Vehicles can be.  At present, such things as a technical or jeep are not.

Why should a Battle Armor be armored enough to survive a hit from a Clan ER PPC? The question is irrelevant. Some are some aren't. Just like trucks. Some are armored some aren't.
Light vehicles can be combat vehicles. I'm looking at small vehicles being to BA as standard vehicles are to Mechs. The problem as infantry types though is they're abstracted and their vehicles being comparable only happens in AToW.

And if it is armored enough to take a Medium Laser and keep ticking, it shouldn't be Mechanized Infantry.  I could see it being set up for Light Vehicles, which I think we're somewhat in agreement on, because until we separate the vehicles from the Infantry, they can only be abstracted.

Coming from a vehicle angle, the vehicle only gets 4+ a varying amount. +2 for wheeled and tracked vehicles. Which needs to cover 4-5 locations. Even adding in the 1 point of IS per side, where's the protection? An Elemental would easily kill a vehicle of the same weight. Even if the vehicle was armed with BA weapons.

Again, lack of extrapolation. If Light Vehicles were hit like BA, they wouldn't need to have it cover 4-5 locations, all sides would be integrated.  These things really aren't meant to take hits from heavy arms as it is.

I'm not the one changing things.

If you're adding new types of vehicles to differentiate local differences, you're changing things.  If you want to reduce abstraction or generalization, you're changing things.  If you want to be able to design new Light Vehicles like Battle Armor, you're changing things.

No I don't believe Mechanized Infantry or Motorized Infantry should be hopping in and out of their vehicles willy-nilly.

But if they are tied to something we can construct as a Vehicle, even a Light one, they won't ever really be Infantry.  Which gets back to Mechanized Infantry being Infantry specialized in coordinating with such vehicles and being loaded in by default on purchase, but otherwise still being Foot Infantry.

I've been saying that for a long time. I even listed examples. Yes, I call them "infantry" for the same reasons Battle Armor are "Infantry". They're small, you can get 25+ in a "Platoon", and they're vehicle provides the movement, weapons and protection. The abstraction from BA was removed a long time ago. The same should be for "Motorized/Mechanized" Infantry.

But the point is that to truly reduce, or eliminate, that abstraction, we have to separate the vehicle from the Infantry.  If you keep insisting on calling them Infantry, the abstraction really won't be removed.

BA are Infantry because they ARE Infantry (very HEAVY Infantry), not mini-Mechs.  ProtoMechs are the actual mini-Mechs.

BA used to be Clan 11 points to kill a trooper. IS 10 points. These are the weapons the platoon/point can have. Have fun. Now we have construction rules and many different types. The same should be for "Vehicle" infantry.

So not abstraction, just reduction of generalization and expansion of customization, which is what I've been talking about.  Abstraction would have them be having the BA be the same as 55 Infantry, then converted to 5 units of 11 when the abstraction was reduced.

Which part is fuzzy? Use the existing construction rules and stats for vehicles, and group them in Platoons? I even gave examples.

When I brought up such a concept of using construction rules and treating them like Infantry, you countered it.  This makes it fuzzy.

Are they treated as vehicles or infantry? Treat them as Vehicles for movement and combat. Infantry for stacking.

And have them constructed in a special way just like BA are and follow similar rules, but still have the Light Vehicles be Vehicles (with a stacking exception) just as Battle Armored Infantry are Infantry. 

This would not be screwing the lighter Combat Vehicles at present as the Light Vehicles would be constructed with smaller caps.  In some cases, they MIGHT overlap just like ProtoMechs and Battle Armor have points they overlap, but that's more about tuning construction than anything else.

There's skills, weapons, armor without getting into cyborgs.

Which is something I said.  Why state something as if I didn't include it?

AToW tries to cover combat at an infantry scale. I think it causes more problems with how it's done though.

Which is something that comes with a different rule system and scale.

I like submarines. WWII Submarines could be pretty small. BT even more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midget_submarine There's just so few times when they can be used though.:(

WW1 subs were even smaller, but still hardly as tiny as BT gets them, as they can be built in fighter sizes, but not well to the Gato class, to say nothing about a Seawolf or Typhoon.

Their use is more a map and scenario issue than with the game's rules at present.
« Last Edit: 12 December 2020, 00:34:29 by Charistoph »
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.

Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #291 on: 12 December 2020, 01:48:34 »
Okay.  What I remember of BattleTroops 1.  I'm not sure if I had a chance to go through BT2 for the Battle Armor.  I'm drawing a blank, so I think I didn't.

Fair enough.  Most of it sounds interesting.

If I were to do my own version, I want to link it to AGoAC somehow, but look to an RPG version to get a set of simplified set of stats.  My link to AGoAC would be the pilot stun meter.  Oddly enough, this also works well with MW2, since they use an expanded version of that meter.  Each infantryman would be a little pilot running around, and when he takes damage, light or permanent, it would get applied to that.  Armor would help reduce damage, or turn its effects from permanent to temporary...

Sounds reasonable and fair for the most part.

As for scale, it's really up in the air on which size mini you want to play with.  I know that BattleTroops figures can still be found on IWM.  However, I'm more interested in playing with the smaller wargaming scale infantry.  Anything between 1/300 to 1/200 scale will suffice. 

(Aside: Why? Cross-over appeal.  I have Epic 40k orcs that fit.  I have Dirtside Infantry.  I have Dark Age Infantry.  I have Heavy Gear Fleet Scale infantry.  A lot of things work well at that scale, including newer Macross/Robotech minis, as well as Adeptus Titanicus and Aeronautica Imperialis models.)

Keep in mind that the average Battletech miniature is already at the 1/285th scale.  Infantry are about at the 6mm size at that scale.  So as individual troopers, I don't think Epic Warhammer models would be a good guide any more than using my Dropzone Commander miniatures.  That's fine if you want squads going at each other and very little differentiation in individual trooper placement.

For scale and ease of use, 40K models are a Heroic 28mm, which translates to a 1/60 scale, Infinity are at a 28mm, so roughly the same if one discounts the "heroic" nature of 40K.

If you wanted to do a magnification of 6, you're looking at about a 1/47th scale of miniature, which is bigger than 40K.  But that depends on if you want to keep the scale in specific cases or not.  The models only have to be a consistent size and match up to the action you want to do, as I said before.

The more individual you want to represent a specific soldier's actions in relationship to their squad and less abstract, the larger the model up to a certain point.  40K and Infinity is great, as they allow for detail to be on the model and show off a little.  15mm (Flames of War) would probably be too small for individual trooper, so I'd recommend going with a 20mm at a minimum, and the old Ral Partha models were 25mm.

Keep in mind, I don't think Battletroops would play well with Battletech maps to begin with, really, as their scales would be rather wonky as is.

But a lot really depends on what you want it to focus on and how much detail you want to allow your individual troopers actions to be in movement.  Outside of grand actions and battles, I think Infinity's scale (though not its rule system, generally) is the right way to go, but it would generally preclude a lot of Mech actions aside from stealing it on that map, and one can even "borrow" their terrain.

I do like the idea of taking the RPG's stats and then provide a simplified stat sheet and conversion out of it.  Let's face it, unless you're already in an RPG campaign, a lot of RPG stats wouldn't be needed in a pick me up game, and when they are, the GM would just incorporate them in to the individual actions according to the RPG schema they are using.

I also like the idea of trying to incorporate a movement and time scale based on Battletech, so you can have Battlemechs punching each other on one map while Infantry are securing a building on another map.  At most, though, I think it shouldn't be shrunken more than to 4-5 second actions so that trooper turns could be considered as 1/2 or 1/3 a Battletech turn, and to reduce movement to a possiblly more manageable rate.
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: 4257
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #292 on: 14 December 2020, 10:42:24 »
They may say heroic 28mm for 40k, but I don't buy it. I've seen 28mm figures, and 40k's infantry are much bigger. Hence why I'm inclined to think they're 1/50 scale.  It actually works when converting to their 300mm Epic scale.  Math is much easier that way.  But, it's a mere nitpick. Their scale is not consistent, since a Guardsman from Cadia is as tall as a Spez Mareeen.

When it comes to standard maps, with some creativity, you could make them work.  For Personnel scale (Nominally 1/50-1/60) Heavy Woods become solid tree trunks.  Light Woods become bushes and underbrush. (Weeds!  Burrs!  Thorns! Guh.   xp )  Elevations would probably have to be 1 meter, or half a person.

At the Wargaming scale (nominally 1/285) Heavy Woods can be a whole, solid tree, with Light Woods being thin saplings, underbrush, and tall bushes, etc.  The big thing here would be deciding if we want elevations to fit people more than mechs. (To which I'm so inclined.)

And, thank you on your vote for 5-second turns (more or less).





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

Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #293 on: 14 December 2020, 12:03:42 »
They may say heroic 28mm for 40k, but I don't buy it. I've seen 28mm figures, and 40k's infantry are much bigger. Hence why I'm inclined to think they're 1/50 scale.  It actually works when converting to their 300mm Epic scale.  Math is much easier that way.  But, it's a mere nitpick. Their scale is not consistent, since a Guardsman from Cadia is as tall as a Spez Mareeen.

I kind of agree, but it's not as bad as it has been for the Trolls in WarmaHordes.  My Boomhowlers are somewhat tiny when compared to my brother-in-law's fennblades.  As it is, I think half those standards are just made up so people can sound important.

When it comes to standard maps, with some creativity, you could make them work.  For Personnel scale (Nominally 1/50-1/60) Heavy Woods become solid tree trunks.  Light Woods become bushes and underbrush. (Weeds!  Burrs!  Thorns! Guh.   xp )  Elevations would probably have to be 1 meter, or half a person.

It's not the scale I have a problem with as much as the organization of the terrain on the maps.  They just don't feel natural when miniaturized to 25%-33% of their original size for a direct cross over.  New maps and organization would need to be created and applied, or just drop the hex system entirely go along with other Tabletop systems in using a ruler.

At the Wargaming scale (nominally 1/285) Heavy Woods can be a whole, solid tree, with Light Woods being thin saplings, underbrush, and tall bushes, etc.  The big thing here would be deciding if we want elevations to fit people more than mechs. (To which I'm so inclined.)

At 1/285 scale, there really doesn't need to be much of a change to the maps, as they are already close enough to scale to be used as is.

And, thank you on your vote for 5-second turns (more or less).

It works out.  I always liked the idea of mixing scales and was impressed when Battlespace and Aerotech had the same concepts in mind (though poorly implemented) when they were written.

The biggest problem with the current time scale of Battletech is that it doesn't fold well with increasing it or decreasing it.  If they had just organized it to being 10 seconds, it would be far easier to deal with in terms of going to an expanded time scale like used with aerospace or a more condensed one like what is being proposed for this BattleTroops.
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: 216
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #294 on: 16 December 2020, 19:29:40 »
That’s the thing. It’s never going to feel the same. It can’t. So unless you’re willing to sacrifice part of it for this alleged better battletech, you’re just shuffling and redealing yourself the same cards you don’t like

Is there an acceptable medium between CBT and AS? Yeah probably. But it’s not seeing print for the foreseeable future. If your wish out of this thread is to get an official rules change you will not get it.

Whatever it might be you’re all going to hate it anyway

Sure it can. There have been plenty of games out there that have done rule re-writes that still feel the same afterwards. They do this by identifying what is core parts of the game system that makes it feel that way for the players. This is what really hurt AS for a lot of people was that in the move to make it able to handle lots of mechs quickly it got rid of the stuff that makes BT, feel like BT. If we can get an LB-X20 hitting a mech and digging into the internals on the right-hand side of the target without a possible max of 100+ dice rolls, that should be the goal. If we can make it so that the phrase, "let me find/look at the table for that," is extinct that should be the goal.

And that would be the core difference between between AS and a BT 2.0. AS sped things up by removing player inputs and outputs. BT2.0 would be a process of looking at the mechanics between the inputs and outputs and redesigning them to be less brute force with a focus on User Interface with the game. Because that is the reality of BT, it is a ruleset that has solved every addition with either more dice rolls or individual rules. The LB-Xs are an example of the former, Electronic Warfare is an example of the later. By creating better rule systems to handle the input and output, we can keep the depth and detail while at the same time easing the effects of the rule/tech bloat by making it more intuitive or just having the information accessible.

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4257
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #295 on: 31 December 2020, 17:55:48 »
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.
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

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2043
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #296 on: 01 January 2021, 10:37:00 »
For instance, if the Clan Pulse Laser is the default Laser then instead of the -2 to hit that it currently gets, it would give no bonus, but any laser inferior to it (a 3025 IS Laser for instance) would get a to hit penalty. Instead of redesigning the game from the ground up, I would hope that the past would shape the future.

If that makes any sense to other people.

That sounds complicated and confusing. You'd have a set of rules for each era.


Depends on how you design the vehicle.  If it takes the full squad to operate the vehicle, then it becomes terrain while they're separate.  Immobile, but not necessarily in the way. 

If the vehicle has a minimum crew when the squad dismounts, it operates independently, but less whatever attack options the mounted infantry brought with them.

I don't see how this part is complicated.  Just use  some basic, decent sense in applying rules.

Vehicles still take space so they'd effect stacking occupied or not.

Can infantry operate smaller than squad size? If not, how can half a squad leave the vehicle?


It really is when you're making a consideration of hitting a moving target.  Yes this aspect is incredibly abstract, but we're also talking about vehicles that can't take heavy arms fire in any age.

It should be a consideration but it isn't. Protos get a chance at a miss but smaller units don't. A Motorcycle is just as big as a tank for stacking purposes except when used by infantry. So volume isn't really a consideration.

Quote
It is part of why heavy weapons do more damage to the mechanized versus the motorized.  It is very abstract, which I think is part of the problems we're having, correct?

Except the vehicles armor should provide some protection not a penalty. And yes, abstraction is a problem.

Quote
Different systems, different rules, different scale.  Not a valid comparison.

Except it's the same universe and different systems should be able to convert from one to another. Here they don't so something is broken.


Quote
So where does it state that the Sloth or Infilitrator Mk1 pilot wears a neuro-helmet?

Why would they need one? IndustrialMechs rarely make use of them. Why should Battle Armor?

Quote
BA armor is not segmented in to damage zones like Vehicles, 'Mechs, or even ProtoMechs.

You missed my point. If BA weren't abstracted to a single location they would not be as survivable as they are now.

Quote
You're conflating again.  Motorcycles are used by Motorized Infantry, not Mechanized Infantry.

Again, Capellan ARROW IV Field Artillery Infantry say otherwise.
https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Missile_Artillery_Infantry

Quote
Combat Vehicles and Support Vehicles can be.  At present, such things as a technical or jeep are not.

TechManual says otherwise.



Quote
And if it is armored enough to take a Medium Laser and keep ticking, it shouldn't be Mechanized Infantry.  I could see it being set up for Light Vehicles, which I think we're somewhat in agreement on, because until we separate the vehicles from the Infantry, they can only be abstracted.

Separating the vehicles from the infantry is like saying separating the BA from the infantry. The problem isn't that they're light vehicles. It's terminology. That and training perhaps? Right now people get stuck on "vehicles can't be infantry" and "BA are foor/jump infantry in super armor". However, in one case we've got up to 30 small vehicles moving and acting as infantry. In the other you've got up to 30 tiny mechs doing the same.


Quote
Again, lack of extrapolation. If Light Vehicles were hit like BA, they wouldn't need to have it cover 4-5 locations, all sides would be integrated.  These things really aren't meant to take hits from heavy arms as it is.

No it's a lack of abstraction. Elementals really could only continue to operate even after losing limbs and having half their suits blown away thanks to HarJel and lots of drugs. That made the abstraction of BA being a single location make sense. They could get hit with an AC/10 and keep going. That abstraction was carried over to all BA even though not all use HarJel and lots of drugs.

Quote
If you're adding new types of vehicles to differentiate local differences, you're changing things.  If you want to reduce abstraction or generalization, you're changing things.  If you want to be able to design new Light Vehicles like Battle Armor, you're changing things.

I didn't add the vehicles. I'm just pointing them out. What I'm wanting changed is the level of abstraction. If the "infantry" are going to be using vehicles, they should be treated like vehicles.


Quote
But if they are tied to something we can construct as a Vehicle, even a Light one, they won't ever really be Infantry.  Which gets back to Mechanized Infantry being Infantry specialized in coordinating with such vehicles and being loaded in by default on purchase, but otherwise still being Foot Infantry.

Why? Battle Armor are Infantry even though they're in tiny mechs. Why should that change for troopers in small vehicles? They are specialized. You can get 60 (2 Platoons) of single piloted vehicles in the same 30meter hex. As vehicles you can only get 2 per hex. They also move together and fire together. That's pretty specialized to me.


Quote
But the point is that to truly reduce, or eliminate, that abstraction, we have to separate the vehicle from the Infantry.  If you keep insisting on calling them Infantry, the abstraction really won't be removed.

BA are Infantry because they ARE Infantry (very HEAVY Infantry), not mini-Mechs.  ProtoMechs are the actual mini-Mechs.

I really don't care what you call the platoons. The fact remains you've got 4-30 per platoon moving and acting together. That's more than a vehicle lance.

BA are classed as very HEAVY Infantry even though many clearly have cockpit and robotic limbs. Why shouldn't a platoon of vehicles acting in concert be considered infantry?


Quote
So not abstraction, just reduction of generalization and expansion of customization, which is what I've been talking about.  Abstraction would have them be having the BA be the same as 55 Infantry, then converted to 5 units of 11 when the abstraction was reduced.

I have no idea what you're taking about. I'm saying if I wanted my "VEHICLE PLATOON" to use Boreas Cavalry Hovercraft, my platoon should be stated as using Boreas Cavalry Hovercraft. If I want my "VEHICLE PLATOON" to use Assuan Armored Bike they should be stated as using Assuan Armored Bikes. And so on for any vehicle type.


Quote
When I brought up such a concept of using construction rules and treating them like Infantry, you countered it.  This makes it fuzzy.

I don't know what you're referring to. I'm giving examples.

Quote
And have them constructed in a special way just like BA are and follow similar rules, but still have the Light Vehicles be Vehicles (with a stacking exception) just as Battle Armored Infantry are Infantry. 

This would not be screwing the lighter Combat Vehicles at present as the Light Vehicles would be constructed with smaller caps.  In some cases, they MIGHT overlap just like ProtoMechs and Battle Armor have points they overlap, but that's more about tuning construction than anything else.

Why must they have special construction rules? The key is in training and use. A Platoon is multiple vehicles moving and acting together as a single unit. Otherwise vehicles move and act on their own. Besides to be effective in anything other than occupying space, they're going to need to operate in a platoon. They're too small and weak to really do anything on their own.

Quote
Which is something that comes with a different rule system and scale.

One should be able to convert from one system to another. Right now many things don't which is a problem.


Quote
WW1 subs were even smaller, but still hardly as tiny as BT gets them, as they can be built in fighter sizes, but not well to the Gato class, to say nothing about a Seawolf or Typhoon.

Their use is more a map and scenario issue than with the game's rules at present.

The German Biber class weighs 5.7 tonnes. The British Welman class weighed 2.5 tons loaded.  The smallest sub in BT that I can think of is the Jonah at 2 tons.


Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #297 on: 01 January 2021, 17:58:22 »
It should be a consideration but it isn't. Protos get a chance at a miss but smaller units don't. A Motorcycle is just as big as a tank for stacking purposes except when used by infantry. So volume isn't really a consideration.

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.

Except the vehicles armor should provide some protection not a penalty. And yes, abstraction is a problem.

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).

Except it's the same universe and different systems should be able to convert from one to another. Here they don't so something is broken.

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.

Why would they need one? IndustrialMechs rarely make use of them. Why should Battle Armor?

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

You missed my point. If BA weren't abstracted to a single location they would not be as survivable as they are now.

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.

Again, Capellan ARROW IV Field Artillery Infantry say otherwise.
https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Missile_Artillery_Infantry

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

TechManual says otherwise.

Page for rules reference please.

Separating the vehicles from the infantry is like saying separating the BA from the infantry. The problem isn't that they're light vehicles. It's terminology. That and training perhaps? Right now people get stuck on "vehicles can't be infantry" and "BA are foor/jump infantry in super armor". However, in one case we've got up to 30 small vehicles moving and acting as infantry. In the other you've got up to 30 tiny mechs doing the same.

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.

No it's a lack of abstraction. Elementals really could only continue to operate even after losing limbs and having half their suits blown away thanks to HarJel and lots of drugs. That made the abstraction of BA being a single location make sense. They could get hit with an AC/10 and keep going. That abstraction was carried over to all BA even though not all use HarJel and lots of drugs.

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.

I didn't add the vehicles. I'm just pointing them out. What I'm wanting changed is the level of abstraction. If the "infantry" are going to be using vehicles, they should be treated like vehicles.

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

Why? Battle Armor are Infantry even though they're in tiny mechs. Why should that change for troopers in small vehicles? They are specialized. You can get 60 (2 Platoons) of single piloted vehicles in the same 30meter hex. As vehicles you can only get 2 per hex. They also move together and fire together. That's pretty specialized to me.

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.

I really don't care what you call the platoons. The fact remains you've got 4-30 per platoon moving and acting together. That's more than a vehicle lance.

BA are classed as very HEAVY Infantry even though many clearly have cockpit and robotic limbs. Why shouldn't a platoon of vehicles acting in concert be considered infantry?

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 have no idea what you're taking about. I'm saying if I wanted my "VEHICLE PLATOON" to use Boreas Cavalry Hovercraft, my platoon should be stated as using Boreas Cavalry Hovercraft. If I want my "VEHICLE PLATOON" to use Assuan Armored Bike they should be stated as using Assuan Armored Bikes. And so on for any vehicle type.

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.

I don't know what you're referring to. I'm giving examples.

Case in point with the response right above.

Why must they have special construction rules? The key is in training and use. A Platoon is multiple vehicles moving and acting together as a single unit. Otherwise vehicles move and act on their own. Besides to be effective in anything other than occupying space, they're going to need to operate in a platoon. They're too small and weak to really do anything on their own.

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?

One should be able to convert from one system to another. Right now many things don't which is a problem.

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.

The German Biber class weighs 5.7 tonnes. The British Welman class weighed 2.5 tons loaded.  The smallest sub in BT that I can think of is the Jonah at 2 tons.

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.

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.

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.
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: 801
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #298 on: 03 January 2021, 22:08:52 »
Because they are needed for Battlemechs.  One of the emphasized differences.
BattleArmour units use a special control suit that is interwoven with various sensors and feedback systems - not a neurohelmet per se.

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

One exception is enough but at the same time, that the unit is presented as using motorbikes while being field infantry is one of the examples that shows just how wrong and badly borked the infantry design rules are. Missile Artillery infantry should be a foot infantry unit tied into an Arrow IV Gun Trailer....and the foot infantry should be abstracted away in favour of simple "crew" as with any other vehicle. All we're doing with these specialised infantry units is adding complexity for the sake of complexity.

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. 

I don't see the need for much abstraction myself. You want a foot platoon? Use a platoon. You want a motorised platoon that uses  4 wheeled techncials? Use a foot platoon with 5MP (Wheeled) movement. You want a mechanised platoon? Use a foot platoon and add in distinct APCs and IFVs with individual record sheets....more paperwork, but they bring more firepower. What do these have in common? They are all Foot Platoons and there are no special rules for other units beyond xMP to dismount, xMP to mount.


"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: 861
Re: Time for a Battletech Revamping?
« Reply #299 on: 04 January 2021, 12:16:05 »
BattleArmour units use a special control suit that is interwoven with various sensors and feedback systems - not a neurohelmet per se.

Not all of them, if the lore behind the Sloth and Infiltrator RifleMech presented earlier has any sway.  But that just helps solidify the point that Battle Armor is not a Battlemech.

One exception is enough but at the same time, that the unit is presented as using motorbikes while being field infantry is one of the examples that shows just how wrong and badly borked the infantry design rules are. Missile Artillery infantry should be a foot infantry unit tied into an Arrow IV Gun Trailer....and the foot infantry should be abstracted away in favour of simple "crew" as with any other vehicle. All we're doing with these specialised infantry units is adding complexity for the sake of complexity.

I don't see the need for much abstraction myself. You want a foot platoon? Use a platoon. You want a motorised platoon that uses  4 wheeled techncials? Use a foot platoon with 5MP (Wheeled) movement. You want a mechanised platoon? Use a foot platoon and add in distinct APCs and IFVs with individual record sheets....more paperwork, but they bring more firepower. What do these have in common? They are all Foot Platoons and there are no special rules for other units beyond xMP to dismount, xMP to mount.

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.

A HMMV shouldn't be treated as 2-4 infantry because they can't go up a normal flight of stairs or swarm a mech's leg, yet that is what Battletech is telling us to treat it as.  A platoon riding a bunch of motorcycles will need consideration of what its capabilities would be in what it could do and if it could just abandon that capacity in favor of other abilities, such as when it swarms a Tank or hides on the 34th floor of an office building.

If there is a unit of infantry that is going to be riding vehicles of any significant mass, then the vehicles should be represented.  Motorcycles should get a pass on that due to the simple reason that they provide little coverage for the rider, are quite maneuverable compared their larger cousins, and mounting and dismounting of said is relitively simple and quick.  But that's just my opinion.
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.

 

Register