Medic!

[Daryk]

Eh, with the current infantry weapon rules, as long as your weapons are damaging enough, you effectively are handing every trooper a machine gun (even without resorting to the infamous M42B...  ).

[RifleMech]

Eh, with the current infantry weapon rules, as long as your weapons are damaging enough, you effectively are handing every trooper a machine gun (even without resorting to the infamous M42B...  ).

Yeah. I think that's a bit too much abstraction.

[pokefan548]

Yeah, the current infantry rules are notoriously scuffed. In A Time of War (where infantry weapons naturally get more love from the rules) standard Support Machine Gun can wipe over half a squad with one Suppression Fire Attack with a long range equivalent to over 8 TW hexes, but can't do jack squat against BattleMech armor without a magic roll of 10+ MoS. Meanwhile, in Total Warfare, Support Machine Guns vary from being a slight nuisance to infantry (if you only have one per-squad) to a rampaging inferno of death (if you have two per-squad), while also contributing a solid amount of damage vs. BattleMech armor, their only drawback being a reduced long range to six hexes. And that's not even getting into how burst weapons and underslung grenade launchers are factored into the equation. Oh, and range calculations make sniper rifles entirely useless (and before you point at Shrapnel snipers, I consider those outliers as their design principles clearly strayed from established AToW stat patterns as a workaround to make them useful in TW).

I've had some fixes cooking, but those don't belong in this thread.

On another note: Campaign or Tactical-scale combat? Yes, medics, all the medics, love my medics, God bless those medicinal maniacs and their MedTech rolls. TW-scale one-off skirmish? Nah, don't bother.

[Failure16]

Historically, the developers of BattleTech have done better when they stick to BattleMechs over conventional forces. What is being uncovered in this thread is surely proof of that.

They could have made it so much easier on themselves if they just made rifle teams/squads and specialist teams with whatever they wanted to include: heavy/support weapons of myriad types, HQ, medics, etc.

I'll stick with my CityTech/BTM:RoW infantry and 3026-era support teams based on how BTU infantry platoons were armed with input from BattleTroops. Then I can continue imagining the anti-armor damage a platoon does is from disposable LAWs or their heavy weapons while their anti-personnel damage is from their rifles/personal weapons. I like to keep my suspension of disbelief limited to the BattleMechs and space-related aspects of the milieu (the latter of which includes the economics too, natch) and save the conventional forces for how things have operated since Mankind has started killing each other institutionally. 

[RifleMech]

It would be nice if Infantry were reworked. Even if only as advanced rules. Their issues seem to be growing. 

[Daryk]

It helps if you think of BT auto-rifles as more like Aliens Pulse Rifles rather than M-4s... 

[Failure16]

It helps if you think of BT auto-rifles as more like Aliens Pulse Rifles rather than M-4s... 

I'm okay with the ablative armor concept. There is an easy way to have a penetration mechanic and not change a single rule (though it would pretty much obviate nearly every design because of survivability concerns), but that's not the way the universe runs, and that's okay.

But if tank and 'Mech armor can be ablated in the same fashion and at a commensurable rate by small arms as it can be by heavy weapons and AFV-level weaponry, that is kind of a problem with the armor, not so? These were decisions that did not have to be made because there was no requirement that small arms damage AFV-grade armor. The problem--as I see it--stems from the singular fundamental issue that the developers at that time and in that place couldn't see the forest for the trees.

Not that anything I say, especially here, is likely to change it.

But it nice to see I am not along in this confuzzlement.

[Daryk]

The infantry weapon abstraction was better (in my opinion) before the most recent "nerf".  An easier fix would have been a change to how they added in grenade launchers, plus moving the M42B to being a Support Weapon (since it has BOTH the grenade launcher AND machine gun characteristics in the STANDARD list).

[pokefan548]

The infantry weapon abstraction was better (in my opinion) before the most recent "nerf".  An easier fix would have been a change to how they added in grenade launchers, plus moving the M42B to being a Support Weapon (since it has BOTH the grenade launcher AND machine gun characteristics in the STANDARD list).

But then, that comes with its own problems. It's still a somewhat common primary weapon in the FedSuns' higher-end infantry units, and arguably is so valuable for the reason that a company armed with these rifles can make do with almost no support weapons at all. Moving it to support weapons would break some canon formations where these rifles are the standard-issue. Not wanting to get too into it for the sake of no putting fan rules here, I'm of the opinion that infantry should be refactored to have separate primary and secondary/support weapon attacks with significant changes to damage calculations (separate anti-infantry and anti-armor, for example), with some support weapons like the FB M42B and Mausers essentially filling both roles. But I digress, OP's topic is about medics. There is much reason and justification to whinge about how infantry weapons are currently handled at TW scale, but I think that belongs in another thread. Should probably get back on-topic before we completely derail.

On that subject, an interesting phenomenon: in non-campaign skirmishes, I feel that there's a sweet spot where medics are most useful, and that is with standard-rules AToW Personal/Tactical Combat. At Total Warfare scale, they do nothing outside of campaigns, and when using Hit Locations and Expanded Wounds in P/T combat they mostly exist to stabilize wounded casualties for medivac. Meanwhile, if you're not using those rules all you need to do is pump a couple hundred extra XP into BOD for each of your infantrymen and your medics can just hang around to stop bleeding and administer stim patches to keep them in the fight. With 6 BOD, an infantryman wearing most armors can take a standard auto-rifle round (without modified bonus damage, mind you) and still keep on kicking with a mere -1 wound modifier, and of course only 1 fatigue from damage because the dazed wound effect isn't a thing without hit locations.

Of course, if you are in a campaign setting, if you're rolling Expanded Wounds, dear god spare no expense for a crack team of combat medics and rear-echelon surgeons and a fleet of MASH trucks. When almost every hit is a crippling wound that requires a surgery check to fix lest it become permanent (plus the ease at which your average grunt can take over 75% damage and thus be ineligible for passive healing even without wounds), pretty much every engagement that isn't totally one-sided will end with both sides' doctors working 72-hour shifts.

[RifleMech]

It helps if you think of BT auto-rifles as more like Aliens Pulse Rifles rather than M-4s... 

Lol

The infantry weapon abstraction was better (in my opinion) before the most recent "nerf".  An easier fix would have been a change to how they added in grenade launchers, plus moving the M42B to being a Support Weapon (since it has BOTH the grenade launcher AND machine gun characteristics in the STANDARD list).

What if the rifle was kept as the primary but the addons such as grenades or whatever were moved to support? That way the whole platoon can have the same rifle but only a few can use it as a support weapon.

But then, that comes with its own problems. It's still a somewhat common primary weapon in the FedSuns' higher-end infantry units, and arguably is so valuable for the reason that a company armed with these rifles can make do with almost no support weapons at all. Moving it to support weapons would break some canon formations where these rifles are the standard-issue. Not wanting to get too into it for the sake of no putting fan rules here, I'm of the opinion that infantry should be refactored to have separate primary and secondary/support weapon attacks with significant changes to damage calculations (separate anti-infantry and anti-armor, for example), with some support weapons like the FB M42B and Mausers essentially filling both roles. But I digress, OP's topic is about medics. There is much reason and justification to whinge about how infantry weapons are currently handled at TW scale, but I think that belongs in another thread. Should probably get back on-topic before we completely derail.

On that subject, an interesting phenomenon: in non-campaign skirmishes, I feel that there's a sweet spot where medics are most useful, and that is with standard-rules AToW Personal/Tactical Combat. At Total Warfare scale, they do nothing outside of campaigns, and when using Hit Locations and Expanded Wounds in P/T combat they mostly exist to stabilize wounded casualties for medivac. Meanwhile, if you're not using those rules all you need to do is pump a couple hundred extra XP into BOD for each of your infantrymen and your medics can just hang around to stop bleeding and administer stim patches to keep them in the fight. With 6 BOD, an infantryman wearing most armors can take a standard auto-rifle round (without modified bonus damage, mind you) and still keep on kicking with a mere -1 wound modifier, and of course only 1 fatigue from damage because the dazed wound effect isn't a thing without hit locations.

Of course, if you are in a campaign setting, if you're rolling Expanded Wounds, dear god spare no expense for a crack team of combat medics and rear-echelon surgeons and a fleet of MASH trucks. When almost every hit is a crippling wound that requires a surgery check to fix lest it become permanent (plus the ease at which your average grunt can take over 75% damage and thus be ineligible for passive healing even without wounds), pretty much every engagement that isn't totally one-sided will end with both sides' doctors working 72-hour shifts.

I don't think Medics should be limited to Campaigns but I agree that's where they mostly end up. Maybe it would help if the rules better defined how the Medics treated the wounded? Also maybe there could be rules for transporting the wounded? How long does it take to triage and load a patient into an ambulance?

[Daryk]

The problem came when TPTB blended the Support Weapon machine gun barrel with the Under-barrel Grenade Launcher of the non-Machine Gun Primary weapon.  That created a Heavy Burst Primary Weapon (which doesn't exist otherwise).  The current nerf appears to have tried to address that issue, but spread the problem to another half-dozen or so weapons... 

[pokefan548]

#JusticeForMauser

And yeah, not a fan of the band-aid fix. I know there was talk, however, of some of TPTB wanting to redo weapon conversions (and possibly infantry in general) entirely. We'll see if that ever comes to fruition.

[Daryk]

With you on #JusticeForMauser.  I can only hope TPTB resolve their argument logically... 

[RifleMech]

The problem came when TPTB blended the Support Weapon machine gun barrel with the Under-barrel Grenade Launcher of the non-Machine Gun Primary weapon.  That created a Heavy Burst Primary Weapon (which doesn't exist otherwise).  The current nerf appears to have tried to address that issue, but spread the problem to another half-dozen or so weapons... 

Why does that make my head hurt?

[Daryk]

It's not just your head that hurts... 

[pokefan548]

I don't think Medics should be limited to Campaigns but I agree that's where they mostly end up. Maybe it would help if the rules better defined how the Medics treated the wounded? Also maybe there could be rules for transporting the wounded? How long does it take to triage and load a patient into an ambulance?

They do. You actually quoted my paragraph talking about those rules.

[RifleMech]

It's not just your head that hurts... 

 

They do. You actually quoted my paragraph talking about those rules.

There's a rule for how long it takes to get patients into an ambulance? 

[pokefan548]

There's a rule for how long it takes to get patients into an ambulance? 

Provided the weight of the individual and their gear can be carried without hitting Overencumbered, there's nothing stopping people from carrying or dragging other people, and at TW scale there's nothing stating that wounded soldiers aren't carried with the rest of the platoon (they never reduce their transport weight, after all), so a simple mounting action should be enough. All else fails, you can treat them as cargo and use the cargo loading rules from CO if you want to be really particular.

As for the rules regarding how medics treat wounded infantrymen, AToW and AToWC have whole tables of wounds that can be afflicted during combat (provided you're using hit locations) and corresponding rules for surgery skill checks, surgery time and requirements, and post-surgical recovery and general healing.

[truetanker]

So what your saying is I can load my wounded into as cargo? Hmmm... * Captured train cattle car is loading sir! Shall I inform the Doctor now? Or would you?

TT

[pokefan548]

Hey, if your options are between a literal rickshaw and nothing, load those casualties on the rickshaw and run like the wind for the nearest M.A.S.H.
Anything that moves faster than ol' leggy is worth a shot when you've got a sucking chest wound.

[Kret69]

I collect my medical force for thematical campaigns but at the same time, they are useless in any scenario. Typical CBT battle lasts several minutes top. The actual provision of medical care, SAR services etc. requires a separate game on Strategic Operations rules. It takes hours, then days, then months of treatment.

During a CBT fight it really doesn't matter much, even for infantry, if you have medics in the force.

Strategic Operations gives pretty good basis for making your own medical system. Which means you have to decide on your own:
- what tasks your medical force has to fulfill
- what layers/tiers of care you want to provide
- what amount of money, equipment and specialists you have

and only THAT will determine how the medics in your force will look like and act like.
For example, MASH truck is a concept that was obsolete already when it was published in CBT. But it doesn't matter, because maybe MASH model will be good for your force, and maybe you prefer to make combat hospitals model, or maybe you can only afford the medieval model of collecting wounded after the battle and carrying them with carts and beasts of burdens to the capital city of your peripheral planet that declined in development to a tech level of Earth's 1620s?

Myself, I like to have one dropship ready to deploy a combat hospital on a planet (assuming Earth-like conditions) and a deep space rescue ship that will patrol and react to distress calls on protected lanes. That last one could be a large merchant vessel repurposed or, hopefully soon, an old frigate refitted with several extraction collars. And a full hospital capability * on board.

*because manning it will always be a challenge