Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Next stupid question:

Scenario Design.

What is the 'best case' use for a light warship-based solely on the rules as they currently stand in common usage. (aka if it's a 'house rule' it's one of the options from the books, or is one so commonly used you can plop it on a convention table without more than five minutes to explain it and most players will accept it.)

We KNOW bigger warships are more optimized, what I'm looking for, are scenarios that can be built to make smaller warships fun to play.

I found that the only niche is the carrier role. One 1,250,000 tons ship can have up to 21 doors(1250000 ÷100000 +8 = 12.5 + 8 -> 21) while one 2,500,000 tons ship can have up to 33. So for the same tonnage, many smaller ships have more doors therefore able to handle more ASFs at a time and provides them the faster scramble and rearm.

That means, hilariously, the lightest 100,000 tons ships are the best carrier of its own. Although you should consider the dropships it can carry can also be the carrier of its own as well, but the fighters a warship may handle by itself does matters as well.

Also remember that the repair facility reduces the numbers of collars by a half. It's more waste to reducing up to 25 collars of a 2,500,000 tons warship, than reducing up to 12 collars of a 1,250,000 tons warship.

And although I wonder that there are any fan for this, but the dropshuttle bay is capped to the numbers of armor facing, therefore the 600,000 tons warship is the most efficient mass to handle those.
Princess Maker 2:Regeneration. Guess I get to see how good of a dad I'll be. 
Javelin is a monster with Infernos.  SRM-6 Infernos may actually be better that Flamers due to both Range and reliability.  Only downside is that they are they don't get the open-air bonus (but aren't really hurt by it, either).

I should also note, they are brutal to Vehicles and nasty to 'Mechs.  After dealing with one, our group has a default "Destroy on Sight" order for Javelins because of their Inferno use.

Outside of that Firestarter, and Vulcans are probably my first and second choices for dealing with ConvInf.  For Battle Armor, that's a different story.
The Periphery / Re: Taking the Bull By the Horns: Taurus Rising
« Last post by Rainbow 6 on Today at 02:29:32 »
Decent amount of clan tech as well, which I assume is coming via trade with the Foxes.

When the merger with the Protectorate happens what will that add to the production list?
RCTs aren;t the eivilant of a galaxy they're the equivilant of a cluster as proven again and again and again in the fiction (FASA and CGL both tend to utterly ignore supporting combined arms)
Reading through that excerpt on the flamethrowers in WWII, I am left scratching my head as to why the South Pacific forces had so many troubles with parts quality and reliability, when the Central Pacific theater had perfectly useful flamethrowers and loved them.  Different companies and QA supplying each theater, perhaps?  Something to look into for the logistical side of things.

Interesting that the flamethrowers started with the engineers before being sent to infantry troops, rather than starting with the infantry directly.  I suppose I can see it being a case of "engineers attack fortifications" and that's what a thrower does best.

I agree on three platoons per company; it fits the rule-of-three in organization and command structures.  It also fits the playable unit organization as well, with three infantry platoons making the core of a game force.

You make a great case for having the PL dismount and join the six rifle teams as part of the assault element, leading the infantry directly rather than from a vehicle.  That would leave one Otselot 20 without a commander, but the other two Otselot 20s in the platoon can keep them covered while the gunner does double-duty...or not, see below.  The PSG remains with the one Otselot 90 and deploying the two heavy weapons squads to provide SBF to the three-squad assault element, and bringing the 90mm gun to do the same.

Basically I see it as the PL leads the main effort, which is the dismounted assault element while the vehicles support its activities.  The PSG leads that support element from the biggest gun in the platoon, the Otselot 90, and coordinates its actions with the PL.  That makes more sense to me than the other way around.

Going with Organization 2 and splitting the HWTs was an idea I hadn't considered; I'd been stuck in the homogenous squad mindset for too long.  I like your idea, it provides four sources of anti-armor/anti-bunker fire with the single 90mm gun and three HWT/RRs, opening holes for three FLMR teams to exploit. 

The HRTs were a neat idea, and I don't want to lose them I admit.  Perhaps the Otselot 20 simply doesn't use all the seats available to it, giving each rifle squad seven personnel counting the squad leader.  That gives the eighth seat in the lead Otselot 20 to the PL, letting each Otselot have its four-man crew fully staffed and not doublehatting a PL as a vehicle commander as well.  I'd also have seats available in the other two vehicles to attach a medic and forward observer without compromising the integrity of a seven-man squad.  That would free up a chunk of mass in each of the Otselot 20s to carry extra beans, bandages, bullets, and beer.  The four Bs of any happy platoon, I suppose.  The FO only carries a Skorpion, but his primary weapon is his radio, map, and binoculars.  He should be protected by the rifle squad, and hanging out with the PL to coordinate fires from the battalion mortar battery or brigade artillery batteries.

Otselot 20 Squad
  Vehicle Commander (Skorpion PDW)
  Vehicle Gunner (Skorpion PDW)
  Vehicle Driver (Skorpion PDW)
  Vehicle Rear Gunner (Skorpion PDW)
  Platoon leader/Medic/Forward Observer (Skorpion Sidearm)
  Squad Leader (FN 49, LAW)
  Machine Gunner (FN MAG)
  Assistant Machine Gunner (FN 49, LAW)
  Grenadier (M79)
  Rifleman (FN 49, LAW)
  Rifleman (FN 49, LAW)
  Rifleman (FN 49, LAW)

The Asst MG man carries a spare barrel and a few belts for the MAG, lightening the load a little for the MG gunner.  The PL/Medic/FO are extraneous to the rifle squad, and tend to hang around each other while dismounted but ride in separate cars.  That's fifteen vehicle crew, the PL/Medic/FO, the PSG, three seven-man rifle squads, and two three-man heavy weapons teams.  Total platoon personnel comes to 46 by my count.  A reasonable platoon size, I think.

  Mechanized Infantry Platoon (Otselot 20 x3, Otselot 90, HRT x3, HWT/RR, HWT/FLMR)
  Mechanized Infantry Platoon (Otselot 20 x3, Otselot 90, HRT x3, HWT/RR, HWT/FLMR)
  Mechanized Infantry Platoon (Otselot 20 x3, Otselot 90, HRT x3, HWT/RR, HWT/FLMR)

The Otselot 90 still only carries six dismounts, so it's just got its two team leaders, the heavy weapon gunners, and two riflemen/gunner assistants in each.  The PSG does doublehat as the VC for the 90, since there's not enough room to put him in the infantry compartment.  The notes from the flamethrower article are well taken, and I can see each of the HWTs being directly supported by an HRT to suppress a target by fire and allow the HWT to approach and destroy it.

Total flamethrowers (and Carl Gustafs) per battalion is nine, which is a little higher than the total you mentioned before but not excessively so. 

I don't know how many TOEs this has been, trying to suss out something workable, but I think I like this one.  I just hope it hasn't been boring with editing lists over and over again, trying to work out a platoon for the 2505 MLF.

Looking back to 2495, one platoon includes two BTR-152Ks and two BTR-152As with the 23mm guns gives me eight vehicle crew, a PL and PSG, four six-man HRTs and two four-man HWTs for 42 personnel - I'll keep the same RR/FLMR split with one HWT to each BTR-152A.  That keeps continuity of infantry equipment between the older vehicles and the upgrade to Otselots. 

Also I found a neat version of an HK 51 with a foregrip and wood furniture, so I took the sights off, then put a G36 carry handle & optic and a suppressor on it to fit it out like you might find in Moroz's Marauders.  I think it's pretty sweet looking in aesthetics, and is the kind of toy you'd take on a special forces raid.
Fan Designs and Rules / Re: Only 5 Free Heatsinks
« Last post by PuppyLikesLaserPointers on Today at 02:02:20 »
Oh, I understand.
That is a self-contradiction. A Land-Air-Mech has three modes, so the ideal is where each mode has a reason for existing (read: useful niche). So something like this:
Fighter-mode: Orbital insertion & exfiltration, so should be able to run from ASF.
AirMech-mode: Fast surface movement
'Mech-mode: Ground Combat

Humanity can lie sideway and roll but it does not means human should consider this as one of the main way of movement. What is exists does not means it is useful or reasonable to consider. Especially for Battletech, where many equipments are simply exists to denote its inferiority due to its lower tech level.

Seriously, you need to keep jumping no matter it's AirMech or Battlemech mode to survive, due to its pathetic tonnage and various limitation. And with guaranteed +3 TMM for my attack, why not to cauise more TMM against the opponents? I just cannot think using LAM as battlemech mode. It's a stupid plan unless you want to use a mech bay, for it have really no advantage over normal battlemech, and for positioning and shoot AirMech is already enough. Else what you want to face is nothing more than mere riflemen(not the mech, the infantry I mean).

Although I do concur that it's more reasonable to consider than think about to use the vehicle mode of tracked quadvee. I wonder that it even required to be a quadvee either, unlike wheeled quadvee which have the different traits on both modes at least.
The Lumberjack LM1/A should be tagged as Primitive technology, as its introduction date is well before the introduction of non-Primitive Industrialmechs, but just after Primitive Industrialmechs reach production with the Terran Hegemony. See Interstellar Operations: Alternate Eras, page 44.
All while other units can get a TMM as high as the AirMech
I mean you say stuff like that, but havent shown it.  It's not about being able to move 18 hexes with a sprint that makes you lose all your shooting, its about moving for a +7 max TMM and still shooting, with good armor-- with single heatsinks too of all things.  For the price, versus the competition, air mech movement+armor+weapons are grossly higher then the competition.

No one cares that LAMs are fast because they are playing a racing game.  They care that the LAM, in its basic form without other advanced tech, literally flies circles around everything else.  You need lots of advanced tech to start bridging the gap to the 3025 stinger.  The better tech 23mp SNPPC 3MLas phawk with doubles requires far too much effort to kill, while hitting way above its speed category compared to a savanah master or ferret Vtol.

I shared the example of the spider versus the stinger LAM.  Mechs can't compete with the stats LAMs put up.  WIGE vehicles are terrible, a joke.  Vtols don't get near 27 with armor and weapons to back it up, though some good jet boosters get close with high tech late era designs.  What are you playing with that hits +7 TMM that's better then the 80 armor 3 medium laser basic stinger LAM?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10