3/5/3 or 4/6 movement better for a firesupport Heavy Mech 3025 era

[TigerShark]

Saved tonnage means absolutely nothing if it's not even there to fight.  The primary advantage 4/6 has over 3/5 is overland strategic speed.  If you're playing pick-up games, of course that won't matter.  If you're playing a campaign, it can easily mean the difference between getting there in time and losing the entire theater.

If I'm playing a campaign, a DropShip is/would be used for transporting slower units. The land speed of the unit is absolutely moot when considering that point. You wouldn't require your army to drive 300 miles from or to a battle.

[deathfrombeyond]

Jump Jets are great in a pinch, not for playing leap frog and botching your own targeting modifiers.

Yup. Intellectually I understand the concept, but I don't have enough discipline to implement it. ;D

[Fear Factory]

Yup. Intellectually I understand the concept, but I don't have enough discipline to implement it. ;D

It happens to the best of us.

[TigerShark]

Yup. Intellectually I understand the concept, but I don't have enough discipline to implement it. ;D

Hehe.

[Beazle]

I really don't think I'd want to be part of the tech pool that had to work on Mechs that used jump jets for strategic level movement.

Jumping around a few times in a combat situation is one thing, but using jump jets enough to make a major difference in a mechs average speed over a couple hundred KM would most likely cause some severe maintenance issues.

[Fireangel]

I really don't think I'd want to be part of the tech pool that had to work on Mechs that used jump jets for strategic level movement.

Jumping around a few times in a combat situation is one thing, but using jump jets enough to make a major difference in a mechs average speed over a couple hundred KM would most likely cause some severe maintenance issues.

Thing is that most of the time it would run at 5 MP, using the 3 jump MP when it comes up to situations where you move farther by jumping 3 than by running 5 (climbing, descending going around obstacles like narrow rivers, walls, ditches).

[Gryphon]

Also, the idea that combat forces in Battletech don't march long distances is not really supported by any o the fluff. They are forever going on about how force X marched Y distance to engage force Z where they never expected it.

More than that, Battletechnology as a whole is stupidly resilient compared to what we have now. (I am not going into is impossibility here, just what we know). A mech stored under ground for 300 years is dug up and refitted in the field, and serves in combat a week or so later. What can you think of in our modern setting that would even come close to that?

As for using jump jets to move strategically, for mush the same reasons as above, I suppose you could do it, but fluff also provides examples of various types of mechs having issues with their jump jets, usually their leg actuators having failure problems. Other mechs are fluffed as being especially resilient to such things, to the point where their used fairly commonly as death from above assault units.

In the modern world, even the M-1 Abrams get trucked to war, but in the future of Battletech, they are more than willing to land a few hundred miles away and allow their mechs to walk to the fight, taking their AFVs and infantry along with them to do it too.

Hmm...I winder if support vehicles, being somewhat more "fragile" in nature, can do the same sort of strategic level hike?

[TigerShark]

"Forever" going on about it? Hmm. I don't recall it in the literature. Can you give some quotes from the novels or short stories?

[Marveryn]

interesting all these stragic movement profile fail in only one thing.    You saying that your 3/5/3 mech is the slowest units in your group and your support mech is slowing your entire army down which mean your not using any assaults since most good ones are in the 3/5 range nor your using heavy track vehicles.  even if your considering roads for your heavy vehicles that limits you movement wise on w here you want to fight your openents as you would be dependending on staying on a road as long as possible.  I would theorizes most armies particular battalion and up the max speed for group as a whole will actually be less then 3/5/3.   Not everyone can be patton.     That also why the game have scout mechs and meds.  to find and engagement the enemy long enough for those slower elements to reach the battlefield and allow your support to make a difference. 

[Fireangel]

Also, the idea that combat forces in Battletech don't march long distances is not really supported by any o the fluff. They are forever going on about how force X marched Y distance to engage force Z where they never expected it.

They do march long distances, but when they need to get somewhere fast, the 5/8's, 6/9's and faster 'mechs respond.

Look at it this way: Imagine you are in New Lebanon, New Kansas; geographic center of the "Continental 48" administrative region of a planet that bears a striking resemblance to at least one other planet in the Inner Sphere. This city is the military center of the planet, with the bulk of your heavy 'mech forces stationed there.

As an average planet, it has a population of approximately two billion, with cities and manufacturing centers spread out throughout the globe.

An invader comes and decides to land forces in the capital of Washing Town, the major spaceports of New Chicago, New New New York and New Vancouver, as well as New Beijing, New New Delhi, New New Tokyo, New Sidney and New Buenos Aires.

Not to worry, since your RCT*'s armour and infantry regiments are spread out throughout the globe at these potential hot spots, supported by the planetary militia.

You have no dropships, so you need to respond either by shipping your forces using small craft or fixed wing transports like the Planetlifter or King Karnov, rail or ship OR you march them there.

Additionally, you need to strike back at the invaders before they crush the "lesser" units facing them. Since you did not have your forces neatly packed up for fast transport, you need to secure transport, which may take days for your entire force. What to do?

Prioritize: select one of the closer targets, like Washing Town or New Chicago and send your fastest forces overland. These will likely be (in 3025) Locusts, hovers and some wheeled designs, with APCs and infantry. Behind them will be the 6/9/6 Wasp/Stingers (possibly riding commandeered road transport) and the 5/8/5 Wonder-55's. 4/6/x and slower need not apply; they will be shipped in later, if they were not already deployed on-station before the invasion.

If the invasion takes place primarily in New Beijing or New Sydney, there is no point in even marching out; the New Shanghai garrison may hoof the 1,350km distance** "on foot", but they will not arrive  for half a day at the soonest, assuming they don't move at 4/6/4 speeds or less.

At a local level, overland travel may well be the only real option; New Shanghai to New Beijing, or New Lebanon to Washing Town, even for the slower forces; at this scale, provided it's not mountainous or broken terrain, a 4/6/- and 3/5/3 are pretty much equal. On flat terrain or straight-arrow roads, the 4/6/- will have a 10.8 kph edge, but if the roads are twisting and/or the terrain is broken, the 3/5/3 will have the edge.

At distances over 1,000 km over flat terrain, marching overland is not really an option if you want your 4/6 or slower forces to arrive in a timely manner; at 64.8 kph (6 MP), 16 hours of running over straight-arrow highways will put you 1,036.8 km away in no real condition to fight.

There is a reason why the real world military has military trains to ferry tanks long distances; hoofing it is just not practical.


* Using RCT for default force allocation; need not be an actual RCT.
** Rail lines; roads have to take a less direct route.

[Belisarius]

It is also true that the operational level maneuver we're discussing (because for Battletech strategic operations usually involve multiple star systems) requires the projection of logistics nodes for multiple reasons. The logistics vehicles are going to be your limiting factor for maneuver, not your slowest mechs. In terms of tactical maneuver, your heaviest vehicles and mechs should be maneuvering against static objectives that force the enemy to react, rather than trying to hunt or pursue swifter enemy vehicles. They, then, can form your base of fire against the enemy as they try to re-take key supplies or HQ facilities. If the enemy tries to defend, then they get the full weight of your heaviest hitters and, eventually, crumble (if you've massed adequately).

In either case, your heavy support mechs don't need to be particularly swift on their feet. They do need enough maneuverability to get into good firing positions. 3/5/3 is the ideal speed for such a unit.

[Kathil Uhlans]

One major difference that has only been referenced indirectly is the doctrine of the force, as far as 'Mech and vehicle allocation.  Specifically, how are 'Mechs organized at the company level?

If your fire support designs are for a Heavy Company fielding Warhammers and Marauders, with Wolverines and Shadow Hawks as flankers, then 4/6/0 makes sense to maintain the low-level strategic mobility (city-to-city movement, hundreds of kilometers).

If your general company-level force is ranging into the Assault class, with Atlases, Awesomes, etc., 3/5/3 won't slow your force strategically, and does give the ability to position fire support quickly.  At that point though, do you want a little extra mobility, or do you take Assault-class fire support designs like the Longbow for the extra firepower.

Since I generally field Light, Medium, Medium or Medium, Heavy, Heavy Lances for my Companies (Recon, Battle, Fire, respectively), I want to keep my Fire Lance as fast as my Battle Lance.

If you field Medium, Heavy, Medium, or Heavy, Assault, Heavy, then the strategic movement is set by the Battle Lance anyway, so 4/6/4 (Medium) or 3/5/3 (Heavy) Fire Support designs make a lot more sense.

[Orin J.]

interesting all these stragic movement profile fail in only one thing.    You saying that your 3/5/3 mech is the slowest units in your group and your support mech is slowing your entire army down which mean your not using any assaults since most good ones are in the 3/5 range nor your using heavy track vehicles.

it's not really that interesting, since most good Assault 'mechs are 3/5/0 which makes the argument of "4/6/0 or 3/5/3" something of a moot point since both are slowed down by keeping pace with the heavy metal.

[Scotty]

I obviously can't speak for everyone here, but I tend to leave 3/5 anythings for the real Assault outfits.  If I've got a Heavy company (Light scout, Heavy battle, Heavy fire support), nothing in my company is going to be moving slower than 4/6 if I can help it.

[Belisarius]

Meh. That'd be too restrictive for me. I love the Hammerhands, for example, as a heavy hitter. In point of fact, most of my favorite mechs rely more on jumping or standing still in combat than they do running (notable exception being the CRD7W). Not to say I'm jump-happy, but a mech that can get into that heavy woods on a hill quickly, provide fire support that's hard to hit, and then dismount quickly should the need arise, is just a more viable fire support platform.

[Fallen_Raven]

"Forever" going on about it? Hmm. I don't recall it in the literature. Can you give some quotes from the novels or short stories?

I don't have a copy of it, but Mercenary's Star has the Grey Death Legion supporting a group of rebels (feel free to fact check me here) who march on a major city. At one point in the march things go wrong because the rebel leader puts his slower 'mechs near the front, and leavesall the jumpers in the back of the column.

The Archer Christifori novels have the Avengers making several strategic marches, frequently cut off from Dropship transport.

At Tukkayid the Clans marched for long distances away from their Dropships, which to the best of my knowledge weren't part of the bid to take part in the Trial.

[Belisarius]

In each of those cases, we're talking about operational maneuver. In operational maneuver, you have to push logistics in support of your moves. That's where the Clans got themselves into trouble on Tukayyid. 3/5/X are just as suited for long marches as 4/6/0 (which is to say that neither are very well suited). The advantage of the X is simply insurmountable in the kind of inhospitable terrain that a savvy commander chooses for his tactical defense (a favorite of mine, operational offense / tactical defense).

[Beazle]

Thing is that most of the time it would run at 5 MP, using the 3 jump MP when it comes up to situations where you move farther by jumping 3 than by running 5 (climbing, descending going around obstacles like narrow rivers, walls, ditches).

Honestly, i don't see mechs using running movement for long distances either.  Both for wear on the mechs and the fatigue on the pilot.  I could be wrong, but i always just assumed that walking speed for a mech was like cruise speed for a vehicle, which is to say, the highest speed that can be maintained safely over long periods.

Now, a walk of 3 doesn't seem much slower than a walk of 4 during a battle, but over a couple hundred Km a 33% higher speed would add up.

I don't have a copy of it, but Mercenary's Star has the Grey Death Legion supporting a group of rebels (feel free to fact check me here) who march on a major city. At one point in the march things go wrong because the rebel leader puts his slower 'mechs near the front, and leavesall the jumpers in the back of the column.

The Archer Christifori novels have the Avengers making several strategic marches, frequently cut off from Dropship transport.

At Tukkayid the Clans marched for long distances away from their Dropships, which to the best of my knowledge weren't part of the bid to take part in the Trial.

I remember that passage.  They did a long hike thought some rough terrain.  The lead mech broke down (or got stuck?), and they had trouble getting past it because of the terrain.  (which is always seemed pretty contrived to me.  Who would take armed forced though an area so tight that even mechs could only go single file?  you'd be fish in a barrel if anything went wrong)

I have many more vague remembrances of tales (from short stories, novels, and assorted fluff) of units mechs to do long overland marches to hit people where they didn't expect it.  Early in the life of the BTU, warfare was often described as a war of maneuver, with sides sometimes surrendering without a fight upon realizing that they had been out maneuvered.  That all slowly started to go away with later publications (or, at least, wasn't emphasized as much) while the use of vehicles steadily increased.

I've always considered the ability of mechs to do that (with their ability to walk over most terrain, and even underwater) to be one of the primary reasons mechs replaced vehicles as the lords of the battlefield.

[Fireangel]

Honestly, i don't see mechs using running movement for long distances either.  Both for wear on the mechs and the fatigue on the pilot.  I could be wrong, but i always just assumed that walking speed for a mech was like cruise speed for a vehicle, which is to say, the highest speed that can be maintained safely over long periods.

Now, a walk of 3 doesn't seem much slower than a walk of 4 during a battle, but over a couple hundred Km a 33% higher speed would add up.

For the most part, I do agree with you, but we have to consider a couple factors:

First is that considering the scale of combat in BT, if you are rushing your heavies (i.e. the 3/5/x's and 4/6/x's) overland in a situation where that extra 10.8 kph will make a difference, you will want your force to get there as quickly as possible.

Second is that if the 4/6's maintain a walking speed of 4, the 3/5/3's can keep up by "jogging" at a "slow run" of 4 as well. If you HAVE to move your slow force overland, a little extra work in maintenance after the battle will be a small price to pay for maintaining force cohesiveness.

[Beazle]

For the most part, I do agree with you, but we have to consider a couple factors:

First is that considering the scale of combat in BT, if you are rushing your heavies (i.e. the 3/5/x's and 4/6/x's) overland in a situation where that extra 10.8 kph will make a difference, you will want your force to get there as quickly as possible.

Second is that if the 4/6's maintain a walking speed of 4, the 3/5/3's can keep up by "jogging" at a "slow run" of 4 as well. If you HAVE to move your slow force overland, a little extra work in maintenance after the battle will be a small price to pay for maintaining force cohesiveness.

But what if your already pushing your 4/6s into a jog or slow run in order to keep up with your 5/8s?  Now your 3/5/3s are going to have to go to a fast run, and hit those jets more often, which could lead to breakdowns on the march.

I think this (meaning the original topic) is really one of those questions that doesn't have a clear answer.  There are advantages to both, and which one i'd pick would depend a lot on my unit's existing TO&E.

I don't like to pick units in a vacuum.  I'd go with the fire support movement profile that most fit the movement profile of the units it was going to be attached too.

[Fireangel]

But what if your already pushing your 4/6s into a jog or slow run in order to keep up with your 5/8s?  Now your 3/5/3s are going to have to go to a fast run, and hit those jets more often, which could lead to breakdowns on the march.

I think this (meaning the original topic) is really one of those questions that doesn't have a clear answer.  There are advantages to both, and which one i'd pick would depend a lot on my unit's existing TO&E.

I don't like to pick units in a vacuum.  I'd go with the fire support movement profile that most fit the movement profile of the units it was going to be attached too.

The difference between 4/6 and 5/8 is so large (in this context, especially considering the large number of 5/8/x jumpers in 3025) that the two kinds of units would not (or should not, under ideal circumstances) be kept together in a forced overland march.

If you have 3/5/3's in the mix, you might as well leave the 3/5/3's trail as their own group... unless the terrain dictates jumpers.

Remember that the ONLY circumstance in which you will conduct a forced overland march is in response to enemy action AND where you don't have suitable transports for your slower assets.

Invader arrives, you send your fastest units to engage ahead of the main body. You can let the slowpokes trail OR you can leave them behind readying transports for a relatively fast response either in support of the (faster) units that are already engaged or elsewhere, just in case.

There will always be a cutoff; forces that are fast enough can be sent overland, provided they can arrive on-site within a reasonable period of time. If unit cohesion is maintained keeping pace with the slowest units (3/5/x), you will have a slow-moving force out in the open just begging to be attacked and easily out-maneuvered by forces relying on faster units or dropships (they had to arrive on-planet somehow).


Simply put; forces should be organized around their movement profile in order to maintain unit cohesion under such circumstances.

[Beazle]

The difference between 4/6 and 5/8 is so large (in this context, especially considering the large number of 5/8/x jumpers in 3025) that the two kinds of units would not (or should not, under ideal circumstances) be kept together in a forced overland march.

If you have 3/5/3's in the mix, you might as well leave the 3/5/3's trail as their own group... unless the terrain dictates jumpers.

Remember that the ONLY circumstance in which you will conduct a forced overland march is in response to enemy action AND where you don't have suitable transports for your slower assets.

Invader arrives, you send your fastest units to engage ahead of the main body. You can let the slowpokes trail OR you can leave them behind readying transports for a relatively fast response either in support of the (faster) units that are already engaged or elsewhere, just in case.

There will always be a cutoff; forces that are fast enough can be sent overland, provided they can arrive on-site within a reasonable period of time. If unit cohesion is maintained keeping pace with the slowest units (3/5/x), you will have a slow-moving force out in the open just begging to be attacked and easily out-maneuvered by forces relying on faster units or dropships (they had to arrive on-planet somehow).


Simply put; forces should be organized around their movement profile in order to maintain unit cohesion under such circumstances.

Actually, if your sticking to a walking speed the difference between a 4/6 and a 5/8 is actually smaller (proportionally speaking.)  So it would be easier for a 4/6 to keep up with a 5/8 than it would be a 3/5 to keep up with a 4/6.  While sticking to just ground speed that is. ( a 4/6 only have to increase it's "cruise" speed by 25% to keep up with a "cruising" 5/8, while a 3/5 needs a 33% increase to keep up with a 4/6.)

So, in my opinion, it would be easier to work a 4/6 into my TO&E than it would be a 3/5/3.  I'm not saying I wouldn't use a 3/5/3, because i would, I'd just be more likely to use it as support for assault lances than i would be to send it out with heavies or mediums.

[Belisarius]

My point is that organizing based upon movement profile makes a great deal of sense for tactical maneuver, but less sense for overland movement (again, because the limiting factor isn't the speed of your mechs but rather the speed of your logistics to keep up). So having a bunch of mechs that move 4/6/0 and 3/5/3 together may, or may not (depending on your maneuver plan), make sense. And having 7/11 or better in the same outfit may make less sense. But I would keep in the back of my mind that the 3/5 support vehicle is the real limiter in overland movement.

[TigerShark]

I certainly don't recall any such demands being placed on forces under normal circumstances. Where is everyone getting this from? Please provide quotes.

[Beazle]

I certainly don't recall any such demands being placed on forces under normal circumstances. Where is everyone getting this from? Please provide quotes.

I think it's safe to say we're pretty much theory-crafting in an area that isn't really covered by the rules.

[Belisarius]

I was simply theorycrafting as Beazle says. That said, you could make an argument that Clan Wolf's relatively slow speed in their Tukayyid campaign (compared to the more ardent Crusader Clans) even taking into account their late start, was as a result of so much care being taken to push forward logistics. The advent of the Zugvogel likewise suggests a need that had, up until then, gone unfulfilled. Given the fact that this is a 'wargame' it is common to ignore the need for logistics; but that doesn't make them any less necessary in 'war'. It's not fun and engaging to count beans and bullets and imagine all the necessities required to keep one hundred Battlemechs moving and fighting for weeks against a determined defender, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be happening (even if it occurs off camera).

[TigerShark]

That's not a good example for promoting ground speed. lol Clan Wolf was the only Clan to make major gains on Tukkayid.

[Belisarius]

It's a great example of how ground speed isn't necessarily a predictor of victory. Just because you can move fast, doesn't mean that the enemy can't hammer the ever-loving stuffing out of you. You have to be able to reconstitute and recover after engagements in order to move like a steamroller. That's what Clan Wolf did.

[Fireangel]

Keep in minds that all clan units during REVIVAL had dropship transports at their beck and call AND clan omnis (pretty much the only units used in the initial engagements) are disproportionally fast for their weight, with heavies moving at IS medium speeds, mediums matching IS lights and so on, while outgunning them across the board.

It was terrible to get reports of invaders moving at medium speeds, sending out your mediums and find them facing heavies that totally outclass them.

[deathfrombeyond]

Okay, I voiced my preference for 4/6 earlier on, and let me elaborate again.

I prefer 4/6 for 3025 era machines in the 60-75 ton range. Why? Because 4/6 gives flexibility for walking hex turns that will still generate a +1 movement mod, and running hex turns that will still generate a +2 movement mod. This flexibility really doesn't exist with 3/5/3 machines, unfortunately.

In a related topic, I really wish that hex facing turns didn't cost as much MP as they do. I know I'm going to catch a lot of flak for it, but I wouldn't be opposed to getting one free hex face turn every time a unit moves into a new hex in order to facilitate tactical movement.

What do you guys think?