I think there's a difference between CQB and melee combat...
Not really. Melee is actually included in the CQB concept. The close combat is an affair of grenades, pistols and bayonets. It is a dramatic and furious friction where no quarters are given, a kill or be killed situation.
In Battletech scale (1/285) the details of what happens in those 10 meters are foggy.
Close combat includes melee, grenades to “clean” trenches and positions and the use of pistols. And whatever else troopers have at hand to defeat the enemy.
At the same time, I agree with OP that you can do away with 'mechanized' infantry, but without fixing small vees with infantry, 'mechanized' infantry are much more fair regardless of the abstraction being silly. In fact, their 'badness' compared to normal small vee transports plus normal infantry is often what people dislike. Mechanized hover infantry that move 5 are way way more 'balanced' then a 20+ hex moving alternative (that often costs and weighs much less).
I indeed included a hover motorized profile that has move statistic of 5. The “normal” motorized infantry moves at a rate of 3, so it seemed ok.
When I will have time, I am going to try to “build” a simple hover sled with the rules in Combat Equipment. And to see how much fast it can be keeping it game balanced.
I think that building mini-vehicles with Combat Equipment is the best way to equip the motorized infantries.
For feedback to the OP's word doc.
You kept damage divisors, but added squad deployment with platoon activation. I like squad deployment, I think its superior to the Napoleonic 28 people crammed into a 30 meter hex system. I also prefer the squad deployment style from Battledroids compared to the Napoleonics set down in citytech.
I prefer the squad deployment, that is an optional rule that I found for the first time in Maximum Tech but that I think should be the standard. As you say, the “napoleonic” deployment is not realistic and lacks the flexibility of modern warfare.
About the damage divisors, I just find it an ok rule.
But while I think damage divisors on stacked up infantry dont make any sense, after reading through your entire word doc you appear to have made a very 'total warfare' rule set which I can appreciate, which included damage divisors. You kept the generic weapon types from total warfare, and ditched all the techmanual weapons.
I indeed copied the TW standard rules and then proceeded to fix what I really disliked.
As I said, to rewrite from the ground the rules can take lot of time and be too divisive. To talk with other players it is better to begin from a common ground.
So while I hate damage divisors as a game mechanic and a lore justification, I do appreciate keeping infantry 'Total Warfare' compliant except to include Tac Ops infantry v infantry, and a nod to archaic infantry just to handwave away bows.
Yes, we talked a lot here with other users about archaic weapons. In my opinion they have no place on a standard Battletech game, but the Techmanual included the whole Rpg equiment list and they appeared. I think they should appear very very rarely and they should be a strong disadvantage against any more modern equiment.
End result feedback? For me, its not enough of a simplification while also not enough of an overhaul to make it worth teaching my players, as its still not new player friendly with all the tac ops charts and total warfare bespoke damage reduction or burst fire weapons still needing to be referenced. It adds squad deployment, with some rules for stacking squads up, but those extra rules about combining fire with bonuses to hits versus the base squad rules dont play well on the board.
I think the official (even if optional) rules for close assaults are a good start to begin talking. Perhaps another start can be the swarm rules that are used against ‘Mechs and vehicles, and perhaps there is a way to tweak and use them even for infantry. What I really think should not be considered is the absurd list of knives, whips, batons, maces and so on that we find in the construction rules.
Oh and the concentrated fire is just an after thought. I was not really sure about that. I just asked myself “what if more than one squad of the same platoon decides to fire to the same target”? Like a vehicle that fires everything it had against a single target. It can go away.
Since im assuming you arnt touching BV, its still a lot of work and real life time resolving 80BV infantry.
That is a matter that, eventually, I will left to someone more skilled with the maths.
Also, I have not assigned a points value to the infantry abilities, because that should be done after some playtest.
I just think the less valued one should be “high morale” and the more costly the “special operations” one. But I have no clue for now.
Thanks to both for your feedbacks!
