Register Register

Author Topic: Towed field guns vs Turrets  (Read 1150 times)

kaliban

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 335
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #30 on: 06 June 2021, 11:54:46 »
Just for budget you may buy some Gun Trainers. They are really cheap. You can buy about three cheapest trailers instead of a Light SRM Carrier. Although the cheaper one's overall performance is not so good. You can move it by tow it, and you don't need the time to build on the field either.

Towed guns are cheap but they are easily slaughtered. Although I doubt cheap gun trailers are much better than them, but at least trailers will withstand some anti-infantry gunfire. While the infantry guns are cheap, but the dead guns never shoots.

Well, if you can build or already have fortified buildings then you better take the turrets for all you need to do is simply put a turret on it. If you have enough time to already build it, then you have enough times to make a building with a turret as well. But if it isn't, then you cannot afford any turrets at all so it's not an option and leave the towed guns the only choice. It's the matter of the time, rather than matter of the choice, I think. Turrets needs a structure, but towed guns are not.

Maybe I have the wrong idea on guns trailers:

- As they immobile, they suffer a -4 to be hit like turrets

- They suffer normal damage from weapons, different from motorized towed guns that suffer damage as conventional infantry

I understand it is much easier to destroy a trailer with regular weapons than a towed gun that require anti-infantry weapons. A towed gun use soldiers as armor:  a 16-men half platoon can manage an AC/5 even one half of the men are gone. To be protected they need appropriate terrain with the advantage the forests make them difficult to hit.

Maybe a middle ground between a turret and a field gun is to place a motorized platoon inside a pillbox building, allowing to fire 360o

 

CVB

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 281
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #31 on: 06 June 2021, 12:31:39 »
- As they immobile, they suffer a -4 to be hit like turrets

- They suffer normal damage from weapons, different from motorized towed guns that suffer damage as conventional infantry

I understand it is much easier to destroy a trailer with regular weapons than a towed gun that require anti-infantry weapons. A towed gun use soldiers as armor:  a 16-men half platoon can manage an AC/5 even one half of the men are gone. To be protected they need appropriate terrain with the advantage the forests make them difficult to hit.


Adding an ICE APU to a trailer costs very little and saves you from being immobile. As to which unit dies faster, that depends entirely on the enemy. Take a look at Daryk's M42B shenanigans (link in his .sig)
(Note: Daryk, you are sick in a wholesome way  ;)  :thumbsup: )

So, as usual: It depends...
« Last Edit: 06 June 2021, 12:33:49 by CVB »

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19566
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #32 on: 06 June 2021, 12:43:01 »
Honestly, turrets, trailers, and field guns all die extremely quickly.  You don't want to be relying on any of them as your only defense if you don't have to.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19594
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #33 on: 06 June 2021, 12:56:02 »
Thanks for the mention CVB!  :thumbsup:

Wolf72

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1893
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #34 on: 06 June 2021, 13:13:59 »
Not rules legal, fairness is in the eye of the beholder...

So anything that's really light ... say a 20t V and a 20t T, would take two spots.  If the campaign/time permits might be better to move the trailers as cargo.  I'm thinking of a bunch of 5t-15t trailers I made up ... better answer might just be to have them fluffed as produced via each planet (locally).
War does not determine who is right, only who is left. -- said no Clanner ... ever!

KS #1357

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19594
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #35 on: 06 June 2021, 13:26:10 »
Cargo is definitely the best way to go for trailers with the current interpretation of the rules.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1148
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #36 on: 07 June 2021, 00:25:19 »
Maybe I have the wrong idea on guns trailers:

- As they immobile, they suffer a -4 to be hit like turrets

- They suffer normal damage from weapons, different from motorized towed guns that suffer damage as conventional infantry

I understand it is much easier to destroy a trailer with regular weapons than a towed gun that require anti-infantry weapons. A towed gun use soldiers as armor:  a 16-men half platoon can manage an AC/5 even one half of the men are gone. To be protected they need appropriate terrain with the advantage the forests make them difficult to hit.

Maybe a middle ground between a turret and a field gun is to place a motorized platoon inside a pillbox building, allowing to fire 360o

 

But while even the infantry rifles can kill the gun platoon, trailers are more resistant to such type of attacks. It is far from the immunity consider the modern armor's fragility against infantry rifles but at least it's far better than the infantry when you face flamers and machine guns.

Also trailers are not need to be constructed on a place. The only problem is Gun Trailer's introduction year but if you had some factory you may had some of your own.

-------------------------------------
Anyway both of them are not something to be compared. Turrets are fixed buildings, and field guns are the motorized/mechanized infantry. The first questions before think about field gun vs turret would be, 'am I have enough time and infrastructure to build it?' and 'am I only need to protect limited area sheltered in a wall, if I can afford such a fortress?'

Although I doubt field guns can react well against the raid against remote towns that must be out of your fortress, but it would be at least better than turrets in this case, for example. You cannot carry your turrets, but you can with field guns.

But in contrast, if you can have a full walled city and all you need to protect is nothing more than that, and if you can afford enough money and infra to make a fortress, turrets would be your primary defense.

kaliban

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 335
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #37 on: 07 June 2021, 10:54:38 »
Trailers are not much different from other combat vehicles and can be destroyed from distance with any kind of weapon. Also at cbills it is very similar to deploy cheap ICE vehicles. Under the budget restrictions I am imposing, probably the best would be some Flatbed trucks with no armor and armed with LRM for indirect fire behind elevations or buildings

Turrets can be placed in buildings with high CF but again can be beaten from distance. They are tough but they are expensive and difficult to hide.

Infantry has the advantage of damage reduction from most of weapons. Some others like MG and flamers make a lot of damage but they are very short range weapons. They also can be easily hidden.

I have made simulations in Megamek placing field guns inside buildings and actually there is not much advantage unless you have a hardened building that prevents damage to be transferred to the infantry. Makes more sense to place them in wood or rubble hexes.

AC/5 and AC/20 make a good combination. If the opposite force try to close with faster mechs carrying anti-infantry weapons they will face the AC/20s and firing from distance it will a tedious exercise of killing a few soldiers each turn until the gun cannot be fired anymore. Motorized infantry has 3 MP and can easily find shelter behind elevations buildings and multiple wood hexes.

The main counter tactic is probably artillery but I doubt pirate raiders coming from Tortuga Dominions or Port Krin can threaten Outworlds Alliance with Thumpers and Long Toms


PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1148
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #38 on: 07 June 2021, 11:24:44 »
I think that you need to spend considerable money and manpower on the construct the fortfied building and turrets, isn't? Also the enough time.

And I don't think that pirates are only have the armors. They are more like to have the infantry as well.

Anyway what's the situation? Are you try to protect one and only inhabitable city on the local planet? Or you need something to go everywhere and deal with those pirates?

kaliban

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 335
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #39 on: 07 June 2021, 12:49:42 »
I think that you need to spend considerable money and manpower on the construct the fortfied building and turrets, isn't? Also the enough time.

And I don't think that pirates are only have the armors. They are more like to have the infantry as well.

Anyway what's the situation? Are you try to protect one and only inhabitable city on the local planet? Or you need something to go everywhere and deal with those pirates?

I am working on a garrison force for this blog about Outworlds Alliance I am writing (https://owa3025.blogspot.com/). Out of 38 inhabited planets most of them have 50,000 inhabitants or less, mainly concentrate in one or two main cities plus small scattered villages. Some worlds are mining outposts with some strategic value.

The OA doesn't have plenty of combat units to spread along these places, so I am imagining a local militia with local conscripts with light vehicles and towed guns. I raised the initial question because towed field guns sounded better than fixed turrets but I am not sure if I am missing something



Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19594
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #40 on: 07 June 2021, 16:51:46 »
Hmmm... can Artillery Cannons be Field Guns?  I don't really see a reason why not, aside from the sheer terror of a platoon dragging around a Long Tom Artillery Cannon with Thermobaric ammunition.  If there's anything left after five shots of that, they're well within their rights to run for their lives...

CVB

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 281
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #41 on: 07 June 2021, 16:57:59 »
Yes, they can. Only one tube per platoon, and MP reduced to 1.
« Last Edit: 07 June 2021, 16:59:56 by CVB »

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19566
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #42 on: 07 June 2021, 17:21:05 »
Hmmm... can Artillery Cannons be Field Guns?  I don't really see a reason why not, aside from the sheer terror of a platoon dragging around a Long Tom Artillery Cannon with Thermobaric ammunition.  If there's anything left after five shots of that, they're well within their rights to run for their lives...

Artillery Cannons can only use standard rounds.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19594
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #43 on: 07 June 2021, 17:32:34 »
Not since IO was published (pages 165-166 refer)...  8)

CVB

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 281
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #44 on: 07 June 2021, 17:34:10 »
IO, p. 165:
Quote
Artillery Cannons (see p. 285, TO) can also fire fuel-air
munitions.

Has this been changed?

edit: ninja'd
« Last Edit: 07 June 2021, 17:36:07 by CVB »

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19594
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #45 on: 07 June 2021, 17:38:51 »
Not to my knowledge.  And I believe there may have even been a rules question about it a while back that confirmed it.  Thermobarics are THE WAY!  :D

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19566
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #46 on: 07 June 2021, 19:17:30 »
Well, that's terrifying.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19594
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #47 on: 07 June 2021, 19:45:49 »
As it should be.  Thumper Artillery Cannons are only 10 tons and 5 heat, and get 20 shots per ton...

Natasha Kerensky

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2293
  • Queen of Spades, First Lady of Death, Black Widow
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #48 on: 07 June 2021, 20:18:26 »
I am working on a garrison force for this blog about Outworlds Alliance I am writing (https://owa3025.blogspot.com/). Out of 38 inhabited planets most of them have 50,000 inhabitants or less, mainly concentrate in one or two main cities plus small scattered villages. Some worlds are mining outposts with some strategic value.

The OA doesn't have plenty of combat units to spread along these places, so I am imagining a local militia with local conscripts with light vehicles and towed guns. I raised the initial question because towed field guns sounded better than fixed turrets but I am not sure if I am missing something

Besides a mobile force to engage the bandits before they reach a population center, you want some kind of fixed positions to defend the one or two main cities on each planet.  That could be turrets.  But you’re probably better off with layers of earthworks that provide Improved Positions for field guns and other infantry as well as Hull-Down positions for whatever vehicles and gun trailers you use.  Add mines, difficult terrain (rubble, water, etc.), and artillery.  For example, you could ring a town with:

In City:  Artillery Field Guns and Spotters
Hex Row 8:  Level 2 Rampart w/ Mines & Rubble
Hex Row 7:  AC/2 Field Guns and Inferno/Anti-Mech Platoons (all Improved Positions)
Hex Row 6:  Level 1 Rampart w/ Mines & Rubble
Hex Row 5:  AC/5 & AC/10 Field Guns and Inferno/Anti-Mech Platoons (all Improved Positions)
Hex Row 4:  Level 1 Rampart w/ Mines & Rubble
Hex Row 3:  AC/20 Field Guns and Inferno/Anti-Mech Platoons (all Improved Positions)
Hex Row 2:  Level 1 Rampart w/ Mines & Rubble
Hex Row 1:  Level -1 Water
Hex Row 0 (or less):  Rubble w/ Mines and/or Pre-Designated Artillery

At Hex Row 0, an enemy unit is in short-range for every AC Field Gun and the first ring of Inferno Platoons and is subject to Pre-Designated Artillery strikes and whatever Mines or Rubble they trip on.

In Hex Rows 2, 4, and 6, enemy units are slowed by Ramparts (essentially Level 1 Hills) and risk leg damage from Mines and/or falling damage from Rubble PSRs in those hexes (the tops of the Ramparts).

In Hex Rows 3, 5, and 7, the AC Field Guns and Inferno Platoons are in Improved Positions (see TacOps), which gives them CF15 of protection (so they can get off shots before taking damage) and Hidden Unit protection (until they fire).  Inside those valleys, infantry can also mount Anti-Mech attacks.  Obviously, any friendly vehicles and gun trailers could also go Hull-Down in these valleys for a +2 to-hit.

Hex Row 1 adds a Water obstacle to separate enemy infantry and vehicles from enemy mechs before they begin the assault in earnest.  That and the Level 2 rampart in Hex Row 8 also keep all but the longest jumping mechs from bypassing these defenses.

It’s a lot of earthmoving, but unlike walls and turrets, dirt and rubble is free, still requires 200 points of damage to reduce, and can impose its own Mine and Rubble hazards.  And the Field Gun and Infantry Platoons (and vehicles) occupying those earthworks don’t suffer the -4 to-hit that immobile turrets do, while getting the benefits of Improved and Hull-Down Positions.

This exact scheme may be overkill for a city population of 50K, but you can reduce the layers as well as density of the Field Gun and Infantry Platoons (although you want some overlapping fields of fire).  I would keep a substantial Artillery Field Gun force (4-12 pieces) and Spotters in the city to swing enough firepower to make a difference where it’s needed.

Around entrances, I’d have command-detonated or vibrabomb mines under the roads and whatever obstacles (Light Walls, Gravel Piles from TacOps) could be hastily thrown across them.  The earthworks should run parallel to the roads near the entrance so the road runs through a “valley of death” between the earthworks.  If you invest in any turrets, this is where to place them.

Lastly, if you know the enemy is bringing VTOLs or fighters, you’ll want some flak rounds in the AC/2s and artillery guns.

Hope this helps.
« Last Edit: 08 June 2021, 02:11:28 by Natasha Kerensky »
"Ah, yes.  The belle dame sans merci.  The sweet young thing who will blast your nuts off.  The kitten with a whip.  That mystique?"
"Slavish adherence to formal ritual is a sign that one has nothing better to think about."
"Variety is the spice of battle."
"I've fought in... what... a hundred battles, a thousand battles?  It could be a million as far as I know.  I've fought for anybody who offered a decent contract and a couple who didn't.  And the universe is not much different after all that.  I could go on fighting for another hundred years and it would still look the same."
"I'm in mourning for my life."
"Those who break faith with the Unity shall go down into darkness."

kaliban

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 335
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #49 on: 07 June 2021, 23:42:26 »
Besides a mobile force to engage the bandits before they reach a population center, you want some kind of fixed positions to defend the one or two main cities on each planet.  That could be turrets.  But you’re probably better off with layers of earthworks that provide Improved Positions for field guns and other infantry as well as Hull-Down positions for whatever vehicles and gun trailers you use.  Add mines, difficult terrain (rubble, water, etc.), and artillery.  For example, you could ring a town with:

In City:  Artillery Field Guns and Spotters
Hex 8:  Level 2 Rampart w/ Mines & Rubble
Hex 7:  AC/2 Field Guns and Inferno/Anti-Mech Platoons (all Improved Positions)
Hex 6:  Level 1 Rampart w/ Mines & Rubble
Hex 5:  AC/5 & AC/10 Field Guns and Inferno/Anti-Mech Platoons (all Improved Positions)
Hex 4:  Level 1 Rampart w/ Mines & Rubble
Hex 3:  AC/20 Field Guns and Inferno/Anti-Mech Platoons (all Improved Positions)
Hex 2:  Level 1 Rampart w/ Mines & Rubble
Hex 1:  Level -1 Water
Hex 0 (or less):  Rubble w/ Mines and/or Pre-Designated Artillery

At Hex 0, an enemy unit is in short-range for every AC Field Gun and the first ring of Inferno Platoons and is subject to Pre-Designated Artillery strikes and whatever Mines or Rubble they trip on.

In Hexes 2, 4, and 6, enemy units are slowed by Ramparts (essentially Level 1 Hills) and risk leg damage from Mines and/or falling damage from Rubble PSRs in those hexes (the tops of the Ramparts).

In Hexes 3, 5, and 7, the AC Field Guns and Inferno Platoons are in Improved Positions (see TacOps), which gives them CF15 of protection (so they can get off shots before taking damage) and Hidden Unit protection (until they fire).  Inside those valleys, infantry can also mount Anti-Mech attacks.  Obviously, any friendly vehicles and gun trailers could also go Hull-Down in these valleys for a +2 to-hit.

Hex 1 adds a Water obstacle to separate enemy infantry and vehicles from enemy mechs before they begin the assault in earnest.  That and the Level 2 rampart in Hex 8 also keep all but the longest jumping mechs from bypassing these defenses.

It’s a lot of earthmoving, but unlike walls and turrets, dirt and rubble is free, still requires 200 points of damage to reduce, and can impose its own Mine and Rubble hazards.  And the Field Gun and Infantry Platoons (and vehicles) occupying those earthworks don’t suffer the -4 to-hit that immobile turrets do, while getting the benefits of Improved and Hull-Down Positions.

This exact scheme may be overkill for a city population of 50K, but you can reduce the layers as well as density of the Field Gun and Infantry Platoons (although you want some overlapping fields of fire).  I would keep a substantial Artillery Field Gun force (4-12 pieces) and Spotters in the city to swing enough firepower to make a difference where it’s needed.

Around entrances, I’d have command-detonated or vibrabomb mines under the roads and whatever obstacles (Light Walls, Gravel Piles from TacOps) could be hastily thrown across them.  The earthworks should run parallel to the roads near the entrance so the road runs through a “valley of death” between the earthworks.  If you invest in any turrets, this is where to place them.

Lastly, if you know the enemy is bringing VTOLs or fighters, you’ll want some flak rounds in the AC/2s and artillery guns.

Hope this helps.

It does help, indeed!

Probably the perimeter around a small city is too big for a such in-deep defense but the concept can be used in a less dense combination. 

I don't count on flak ammo being distributed to garrison troops but the only VTOLs available to pirates by 3025 seem to be Warriors H-7/A/C that have very weak armor protection - it seems easy to counter them

Mendrugo

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4814
  • Manei Tetatae
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #50 on: 08 June 2021, 00:09:23 »
Both the Capellans and Lyrans have made use of the "walled city" defense model. 

As laid out in the NAIS Atlas of the 4th Succession War and the Clan Wolf sourcebook, the standard setup appears to be a high ferrocrete curtain wall surrounding the city, with a cleared free fire zone surrounding it and deep minefields covering the approaches.  Towers at regular intervals mount heavy turrets.  It's not expressly stated, but it would make sense for there to be a fighting platform along the upper rim of the wall so 'Mechs could provide mobile fire support while enjoying partial cover.

The Capellan version delayed the inevitable, but ultimately fell to the Davion advance.  The walls were still standing by the time of the Capellan Crusades, though.  Clan Wolf tore through the walls erected by the Duke of Tamar with ease.

I personally prefer turrets to mobile field guns, because you can pack a lot more firepower into a single turret, and it'll continue to be functional until the structure falls, whereas an infantry formation with equivalent armament will be losing weapons every time the enemy opens fire.  I've gotten a lot of joy out of the specialty turrets in the McCarron's Armored Cavalry book over the years, particularly the Mosquito Tower (10 AC/2s - fun with specialty ammo), Primary Missile Hell (who doesn't like 9 LRM-20s?), and the various anti-'Mech pits (rigged cover with command detonated mine, collapses under a 'Mech and drops them into a pit, which can be filled with oil and set on fire; or neighboring infantry can drop 100-point AeroTech bombs down a chute on the fallen 'Mech; or a ring of flamers can toast the fallen 'Mech to shut it down for capture.)
"We have made of New Avalon a towering funeral pyre and wiped the Davion scourge from the universe.  Tikonov, Chesterton and Andurien are ours once more, and the cheers of the Capellan people nearly drown out the gnashing of our foes' teeth as they throw down their weapons in despair.  Now I am made First Lord of the Star League, and all shall bow down to me and pay homa...oooooo! Shiny thing!" - Maximillian Liao, "My Triumph", audio dictation, 3030.  Unpublished.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1148
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #51 on: 08 June 2021, 00:16:29 »
Yeah if you want to protect the city you should build some turrets. Also if you want to make a wall through your city, why not to put some turrets on the top of this 'wall'? Some field guns can move through your walls and may reinforce the weaker positions, though, but some hardened structures are not so easy to destroy - at least not so fast.

It is unlikely that the pirate forces lacks aircraft, though. These goons are need a jumpship and dropship, means they must be have some aero wings that can be used for the ground support as well.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19566
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #52 on: 08 June 2021, 00:27:23 »
Yeah, and flak ammo is cheap and widely available.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Natasha Kerensky

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2293
  • Queen of Spades, First Lady of Death, Black Widow
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #53 on: 08 June 2021, 02:56:46 »
Probably the perimeter around a small city is too big for a such in-deep defense but the concept can be used in a less dense combination.

You can also assume that a town has some natural defenses — situated on or against a cliff, surrounded by rivers or lakes on certain sides, holding a narrow pass, next to nigh impassable terrain types from TacOps, etc. — such that you only have to erect defenses on certain sides or approaches to the town (not completely encircle).

I personally prefer turrets to mobile field guns, because you can pack a lot more firepower into a single turret, and it'll continue to be functional until the structure falls, whereas an infantry formation with equivalent armament will be losing weapons every time the enemy opens fire. I've gotten a lot of joy out of the specialty turrets in the McCarron's Armored Cavalry book over the years, particularly the Mosquito Tower (10 AC/2s - fun with specialty ammo)

So here’s an example of where field guns can be better.

The old Mosquito Tower had a CF of 150, i.e. it would take 150 points of damage to knock out the ten AC/2s in the old Mosquito Tower. 

Spread those same AC/2s among ten field gun platoons in improved positions.  The improved positions give each platoon a CF of 15, which means you have to inflict 15 points of damage — or 150 points total, same as the Mosquito Tower — before you can start attriting the platoons.

Assuming 28-man platoons, you then have to inflict another 23 points of damage to each platoon — or 230 points total — before silencing the the AC/2s.  Worse, this damage does not enjoy the -4 to-hit modifier that your damage gets versus the immobile Mosquito Tower.

Even after you disable the AC/2s, the AC/2 platoons can fight on using their infantry weapons and even anti-mech attacks (if they’re the right type), whereas infantry in a collapsed turret is just dead.

And lastly, improved positions are also hidden positions, so unless an AC/2 platoon fires first, you have to hunt each of them down.

Of course, field guns can also be positioned in ways that cover more area with overlapping fire than those same guns in a single turret.  And turrets are uniquely vulnerable to artillery fire from beyond range — field guns can be repositioned when artillery starts while turrets cannot.

I’m not saying field guns always beat turrets.  (A lot of that depends on turret design.) But field guns have also overlooked or misunderstood advantages vice turrets.

Quote
Primary Missile Hell (who doesn't like 9 LRM-20s?), and the various anti-'Mech pits (rigged cover with command detonated mine, collapses under a 'Mech and drops them into a pit, which can be filled with oil and set on fire; or neighboring infantry can drop 100-point AeroTech bombs down a chute on the fallen 'Mech; or a ring of flamers can toast the fallen 'Mech to shut it down for capture.)

In college, I actually played with the guys who wrote that scenario pack.  We ran “B” unit campaigns, which were gritty and more role-playing oriented.  And we ran “A” unit campaigns, which were more power-gaming oriented.  Needed to say, McCarron’s was written around “A” unit play.
"Ah, yes.  The belle dame sans merci.  The sweet young thing who will blast your nuts off.  The kitten with a whip.  That mystique?"
"Slavish adherence to formal ritual is a sign that one has nothing better to think about."
"Variety is the spice of battle."
"I've fought in... what... a hundred battles, a thousand battles?  It could be a million as far as I know.  I've fought for anybody who offered a decent contract and a couple who didn't.  And the universe is not much different after all that.  I could go on fighting for another hundred years and it would still look the same."
"I'm in mourning for my life."
"Those who break faith with the Unity shall go down into darkness."

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19594
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #54 on: 08 June 2021, 04:42:36 »
Those things are the reason to put your AC/2s out front...  :)

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2492
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #55 on: 08 June 2021, 05:46:07 »
Depends on where . I like the KISS principle of gun emplacements with or without a turret .

But there is something to be said for 3 HVAC/2 on a level 2 hill with a level 3  hill behind it .  So when the when they fire the smoke produce occupies their hex as opposed to the hex behind them . +2 Dug In , +2 heavy smoke , +1 light woods , +4 range  so at long range a moving regular pilot has no shot as will a veteran if he runs . The  medium range of the HVAC /2 is the long range of most weapons . And field guns ignore the possibility of the guns exploding when you roll a 2 to hit . Say a Jihad fight in the Swiss Alps is the perfect terrain for it . Outside the very best ground possible , I personally do not like to use Infantry as largely ineffectual cannon fodder as so many others do . Infantry/battle armor is supposed to be short term area denial units on the combat lines or rear area salvage or police action security . Field guns moves them into combat support units where unless you are using hidden unit rules and they are using an AC/20 ultra they will very unlikely live long enough to shoot the single ton allocated to each gun .
« Last Edit: 08 June 2021, 05:50:02 by Col Toda »

kaliban

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 335
Re: Towed field guns vs Turrets
« Reply #56 on: 08 June 2021, 07:48:14 »
Depends on where . I like the KISS principle of gun emplacements with or without a turret .

But there is something to be said for 3 HVAC/2 on a level 2 hill with a level 3  hill behind it .  So when the when they fire the smoke produce occupies their hex as opposed to the hex behind them . +2 Dug In , +2 heavy smoke , +1 light woods , +4 range  so at long range a moving regular pilot has no shot as will a veteran if he runs . The  medium range of the HVAC /2 is the long range of most weapons . And field guns ignore the possibility of the guns exploding when you roll a 2 to hit . Say a Jihad fight in the Swiss Alps is the perfect terrain for it . Outside the very best ground possible , I personally do not like to use Infantry as largely ineffectual cannon fodder as so many others do . Infantry/battle armor is supposed to be short term area denial units on the combat lines or rear area salvage or police action security . Field guns moves them into combat support units where unless you are using hidden unit rules and they are using an AC/20 ultra they will very unlikely live long enough to shoot the single ton allocated to each gun .


I also don't like to use soldiers as cannon fodder but under the concept of a Planetary Militia and city garrison, they are local conscripts that fight for their land. It makes sense to me giving them a few towed field guns and train them as motorized infantry instead of building a fortification around a small city or provide combat vehicles that cost more to maintain.