Conventional Infantry Battle Armor Sheet

[Daemion]

Based on many suggestions in the 'Infantry Can Change' thread, I set out to make some sheets for personal use.  I have some of the true customizations in pure image files for the moment, to which I'll add them to a doc file for printing at home.  If you want a sheet of any of these, say so, and I'll post a pdf copy here of four squads.

The first set I made specify an armor class which defines how they take damage.  How I plan on implementing that damage should be kinda evident with the armor boxes.  I did create a complete blank so that anyone who doesn't want to use the stats I derived for the rifle or how to implement armor can do so.  Full Platoon page in the next post.

[Daemion]

Full Platoon page.  I sized each squad so that it could actually fit on a 3x5 card.

[Daemion]

Finally, I put together a few of my Standard Armor squads with the SRM support weapon filled in.  Both SRM 1 and 2.  And, I created Gyro Stabilized (gs) versions.

I plan on doing more like this for the Light Armor and Heavy Armor Classes, as well as specialty squads that have 2 or 3 weapons teams, as well as a plain anti-infantry squad with rifles. I'll post them as I make 'em.

I haven't decided yet on how much ammo each squad should carry for SRMs.  I have a maximum and minimum in mind, but I'm open to suggestions.

[DevianID]

Looks good as a mock up.  I was thinking an IS squad would look more like
Support team 1+2
Rifle team 1+2
Rifle team 1+2
Squad leader 1

This matches the IS 4 person squads a bit better.  Also, im no expert but riflemen usually operate in pairs at the smallest level.
Clans, with their more independent streak, could be individuals of 1x5.  This keeps the 4v5 thing, and they likely wouldnt need someone to help carry the heavy weapon.  Comstar 6 strong teams would be 3x2 most likely.

[Cannonshop]

Looks good as a mock up.  I was thinking an IS squad would look more like
Support team 1+2
Rifle team 1+2
Rifle team 1+2
Squad leader 1

This matches the IS 4 person squads a bit better.  Also, im no expert but riflemen usually operate in pairs at the smallest level.
Clans, with their more independent streak, could be individuals of 1x5.  This keeps the 4v5 thing, and they likely wouldnt need someone to help carry the heavy weapon.  Comstar 6 strong teams would be 3x2 most likely.

I find it sometimes amusing that Battletech swapped 'fireteam' with 'squad', but then, I was in the Army, not the Air Force, I wonder if they do it differently over there, because in the doctrine in which I was raised, a fireteam was five men, a squad was two fireteams and a squad leader, and a platoon was three or four squads with a platoon leader and platoon SNCO, and so on.

Not as a function of firepower, but as a function of situational awareness and terrain control (also there's somthing to be said for being able to let a few of your guys sleep while you're waiting for shit to go sideways.)

[Charistoph]

I think it looks good, but it sucks in comparison to what is being used today.  This limits a platoon to one single page.  MML can fit 3 on to a page, and the Tech Manual puts 4-5.  Conventional Infantry is simply too cheap to devote that much white space to.

MML can also provide 5 Squads of Power Armor on to a page, along with all the charts the player could use.

You don't need a picture of a person for every single member of the squad.  Leave that at the top like the Battle Armor Record Sheet.

You need a row per Squad to delineate how many people are in it.  Maybe a note for Support Weapons if they require a certain number of crew.  A couple of rows for Rifle Damage and Support Weapon Damage, and that's it.

[DevianID]

I think it looks good, but it sucks in comparison to what is being used today.  This limits a platoon to one single page.  MML can fit 3 on to a page, and the Tech Manual puts 4-5.  Conventional Infantry is simply too cheap to devote that much white space to.

MML can also provide 5 Squads of Power Armor on to a page, along with all the charts the player could use.

You don't need a picture of a person for every single member of the squad.  Leave that at the top like the Battle Armor Record Sheet.

You need a row per Squad to delineate how many people are in it.  Maybe a note for Support Weapons if they require a certain number of crew.  A couple of rows for Rifle Damage and Support Weapon Damage, and that's it.

While its not my sheet, I envision a platoon taking up 1 sheet, and being as costly and complex as mech.  I dont think 60 BV platoons make sense in the game, but a 300-600 BV platoon, with more pips, and more mobility/board presence, more range, more weapons attacks, in squad deployment (like protomechs) would make a 1 platoon per page worth a 'battlemech' slot in terms of page count.

[Daemion]

I think it looks good, but it sucks in comparison to what is being used today.  This limits a platoon to one single page.  MML can fit 3 on to a page, and the Tech Manual puts 4-5.  Conventional Infantry is simply too cheap to devote that much white space to.

MML can also provide 5 Squads of Power Armor on to a page, along with all the charts the player could use.

You don't need a picture of a person for every single member of the squad.  Leave that at the top like the Battle Armor Record Sheet.

You need a row per Squad to delineate how many people are in it.  Maybe a note for Support Weapons if they require a certain number of crew.  A couple of rows for Rifle Damage and Support Weapon Damage, and that's it.

I just created a proof of concept page.  You want it smaller, take the image and put it into a document and resize it. 

[Daemion]

From some of the reactions, it looks like this might be what some people were actually after. 

It was a version I came up with a while back. 

[Daemion]

Looks good as a mock up.  I was thinking an IS squad would look more like
Support team 1+2
Rifle team 1+2
Rifle team 1+2
Squad leader 1

This matches the IS 4 person squads a bit better.  Also, im no expert but riflemen usually operate in pairs at the smallest level.
Clans, with their more independent streak, could be individuals of 1x5.  This keeps the 4v5 thing, and they likely wouldnt need someone to help carry the heavy weapon.  Comstar 6 strong teams would be 3x2 most likely.

Do you want me to make a custom one in matching your suggested format?  Let me know if you want armor pips or not.

The reason I did what I did is because I'm gonna go for fistful of death dice rolling for the attacks with the squad.  It's something I figured should have been done with Battle Armor, as well.  It's easier to track the number of 'free rifles' in a squad this way. 

[Daemion]

How I Plan To Use These Sheets/Cards
The support weapon and the rifle attacks can (and will often be) directed at separate targets.  The rifles, in most circumstances, will be anti-infantry only, having no effect against armored targets.

The Support weapon will function the same as its counterpart found on tanks, BA, and BattleMechs, although I include the extreme range as an option, and something that Infantry wouldn't know better not to do.  If it is directed in an anti-infantry capacity, it'll get a x3 range boost against conventional infantry squad targets.  (I'm tempted to keep this to fire weapon as listed in the TW list of Anti-Infantry Weapons.  However, people are surprisingly squishy and easy to knock over or otherwise incapacitate, and I'm working from a direction that there's more to BT magic armor than just the armor.  And I may include some caveats to the damage output, regardless.
It depends on how my group feels about it once we try it out, hopefully this weekend.)

The Free Rifles in the squad will each get their own attack roll.  Following the example of A Time of War, which runs in 5-second turn increments, I'm wanting to give them 2 attacks in a Weapon's Fire Phase, but I'm tempted to link the extra attack to the Fatigue Chart. (More below.)  Each successful hit from a rifle scores one point of anti-infantry damage.

For simplification, the whole squad is given one gunnery value to work with.  However, if anyone is willing to run individualized gunnery per trooper/team, there's nothing stopping them. I may be doing that for hero/character or irregular squads.  And they will be working with every modifier that regular units will have to, including AMM mods, which will be running for the GoAC.

The Support Team and the Free Rifles can engage different targets with no penalty.  All Free Rifles in a squad must target one enemy unit, like an enemy squad, however.  (Again, if your group wants to get fancy and allow each rifle to engage his own target, by all means.)

When taking anti-infantry damage, each point of AnInf damage is applied to the squad with a random d6 roll, consulting the trooper number to see which one got hit.  Anti-Infantry damage will be applied to any armor boxes first, before the trooper is hit and is eliminated as a mission-kill. If a trooper is eliminated in an anti-infantry attack while damage is still being resolved, any further damage to that trooper does not get rerolled.  If you're tracking trooper survival, the extra damage will count against that.

If the support team is hit with AnInf damage, and it wasn't enough to eliminate the whole team, roll 2d6.  On an 8 or better the Support Weapon itself has been damaged and no longer functions and the team can no longer make any attacks for the rest of the game or until the weapon is replaced.  Otherwise the support team will function until both troopers have been eliminated.  (I may work in a roll to see if a Rifleman needs to be sacrificed to keep the team functioning.)

Anti-Armor Weapons targeted against a squad will hit one trooper or team for sure.  However, there is a chance to catch a couple more.  Roll on the determining critical hits table, and the number of crits indicated is the additional number of troopers damaged.  Use any terrain's MP cost as a negative modifier to the roll.  In the case of Buildings, use the CF damage reduction granted to armored units as a negative modifier, instead.

Divide the weapons damage value by the number of troopers hit, or the number of remaining troopers/teams, (whichever is smaller) with any remainder lost to indicate the travel of the beam or bullet stream.  (Note: the double-damage applied to infantry squads out in the open still applies in this instance.)  Randomly determine one trooper as per anti-infantry attacks.  Then apply the damage as determined above to that trooper and each subsequent active trooper in the list going in sequential number order.  If you reach the bottom of the list with damage remaining, start at the top of the list and continue down. 

Targeting the Support Weapons Team is easy.  When a squad is targeted the attacker can declare whether they are targeting the support weapon team or making a general anti-infantry attack. (Let's face it, they support weapon team is going to be conspicuous, and they usually have to set-up in order to make an attack with that weapon.) If the support weapon team is directly targeted, no roll on the squad is required, and no check to see if extra troops were damage is made.  You were going for the weapon.  This means any cluster damage would all get tallied onto that team.  (The one exception would be LB-X cluster munitions.)


Fatigue
Whenever a squad spends MP on a fatiguing action, like running, they their fatigue level goes up by one.  During the Heat or End Phases of a turn, they make a 2d6 roll with the roll number associated with the corresponding fatigue level as the target value.  If the roll meets or exceeds the value, they overcome their fatigue and can spend MP normally during the next Movement Phase.  If they fail, they can only expend MP to Recover during the next Movement Phase.

Actions that are fatiguing:
- Running (Spending MP to move 1 or more hexes)
- Doubling the squad's rate of fire.  (MP spent to make an attack is not normally fatiguing.  However, a squad may undertake a fatigue to double the rate of fire for their Free Rifles.  They may only do this once per MP spent for an attack.  Because Support weapons will have to spend MP to reload, they do not benefit from this, only getting to fire once a turn, nominally.)

MP Expenditure will determine what a squad does in its turn.  MP is spent during the movement phase as normal, but what it is spent on will determine what is done during the movement and following phases.  It is now a matter of coming up with a small list of MP costs, as well as how much MP a squad normally has to it.

I'm thinking that most standard squads will have 2 MP.

(I am contemplating having the support team and the rest of the squad.  That could get a little complicated, but it would keep the list short.  If it's too much, I can come up with a longer list of more comprehensive actions.)

MP Actions List: (This is subject to change based on testing and suggestions.)
2 MP - Enter an adjacent Hex (Whole squad moves.)
1 MP - Make a Support Weapon attack. (Note: Support weapons cannot use this unless they first spend an MP to Set-up/Load. This MP can be combined with another action.)
1 MP - Set-up/Load (Support Weapon Team action.  This MP can be combined with another action.)
1 MP - Make a Free Rifle Attack. (The rifles make an anti-infantry attack.  This Action can be combined with the Set-up/Load Action or Make a Support Weapon attack.)
Edit: (Whoops, hit the post button instead of the preview. Wasn't done yet.)
1 MP - Recover (Reduce the squad's Fatigue Level by one.  This action can be combined with the Set-up/Load or Make a Support Weapon attack.) Note: The reason the squad can still benefit from recovery while still making support weapon attacks is because when the squad needs to move, the freshened troopers can pitch in to move the support weapon or aid with reloading as necessary. That's how I see it.

[Daemion]

Pinning
I'm still up in the air on whether I'll be using this a lot. But it's an option.

Any unit deciding to make an anti-infantry attack has two modes to choose from: Standard or Suppression Fire.

Standard is working to actually hit and wound troopers in a squad, and I've already tackled that above.

Suppressive Fire is a bit more casual in its fire expenditure, as the goal is to pin any infantry in a hex in place, slowing them down, and reducing any return fire.  For armored units like Mechs and Tanks, it's a special mode triggered by the gunner and carried out by the machine during a full 10 seconds compared to the hard bursts the guns would normally use for damaging armor.  For squads, it's a matter of a couple troopers popping up to lay down some shots while others duck and/or reload keeping up a steady rain of attacks.  This attack option is only available to weapons listed in the Anti-Infantry burst weapons list in Total Warfare [edit] when coming from non conventional infantry units. 

Target a hex with one or more target squads.  No to-hit roll is necessary.  Any conventional infantry units in the hex get the pinned result at the end of the Weapons Fire Phase. 

There is a chance for some damage to a squad.  If there is more than one squad in a hex, declare the squad targeted for general damage.  Then roll on the Determining Critical Hits Table.  Apply range modifiers and any cover modifiers as described in Applying Anti-Armor Damage as negative modifiers to the result.  The number of crits scored is the amount of Anti-Infantry damage scored against the targeted squad, and is applied as normal.     

[Charistoph]

While its not my sheet, I envision a platoon taking up 1 sheet, and being as costly and complex as mech.  I dont think 60 BV platoons make sense in the game, but a 300-600 BV platoon, with more pips, and more mobility/board presence, more range, more weapons attacks, in squad deployment (like protomechs) would make a 1 platoon per page worth a 'battlemech' slot in terms of page count.

So you want them to become Battle Armor, but better.  Just think about that for a few minutes.  Unaugmented individuals shouldn't have such a presence on the field unless they are some sort of metahuman one sees from DC or Marvel.

I just created a proof of concept page.  You want it smaller, take the image and put it into a document and resize it. 

No, it would require a complete redesign, not just resizing it.  A ConvInf Platoon with a similar restyling shouldn't take up more room than a Battle Armor Squad.

 

[Daemion]

I just noticed something.  I left out the effects of Pinning. 

Basically, on a turn in which the unit suffers from the Pinned condition, they lose one MP.  Or think of it as they have to spend 1 MP on the condition during the movement phase.

[Daemion]

TrueTanker wanted a custom of the Platoon built for his own use.  I obliged.  Here's the result.  Feel free to use it.

[Daemion]

Updated it for better ammo tracking.

[Daemion]

Looks good as a mock up.  I was thinking an IS squad would look more like
Support team 1+2
Rifle team 1+2
Rifle team 1+2
Squad leader 1

This matches the IS 4 person squads a bit better.  Also, im no expert but riflemen usually operate in pairs at the smallest level.
Clans, with their more independent streak, could be individuals of 1x5.  This keeps the 4v5 thing, and they likely wouldnt need someone to help carry the heavy weapon.  Comstar 6 strong teams would be 3x2 most likely.

Here are a couple without armor pips.  And, if you want to format them into a sheet, just use the insert image feature on whatever word processor you use, resize, move to front or rear of text, and place.

[Daemion]

The sheet I'll be using this weekend.

It's also got a summary of the house rules I'll be using, too.

[DevianID]

So you want them to become Battle Armor, but better.  Just think about that for a few minutes.  Unaugmented individuals shouldn't have such a presence on the field unless they are some sort of metahuman one sees from DC or Marvel.
 

Indeed, I want 4-6 squads of infantry to be the equal of 1 squad of good battle armor in the 300-600 range.  An elemental team versus a well equipped infantry platoon, armed with anti armor weapons, should be a threat to light mechs, tanks, and battle armor.  It takes 4+ squads to do it, so squad versus squad battle armor still wins handidly.

Currently, it takes 5- 7 platoons to equal the cost of 5 battle armor elemental troops.  Thats over 30 troops to 1 elemental.  That doesn't make sense unless the troops are lined shoulder to shoulder charging a gattling gun.

4-6 squads, moving like protomechs on a single activation, with stats for each weapon instead of the terrible conversion we have now, fit the scope of the battle.  Add in a +2 spread out to hit, and you have to target each squad individually same as the elements on protomech units. +1 To hit for battle armor squads, so +2 for even smaller infamtry, also fits the RPG size chart IIRC.

Edit: as an aside, these are not really 'unaugmented'.  The basic troop is assumed to be wearing armor, and has futuristic kit.  The genetic elementals and cybernetic wraiths are also things.  If you take a soldier from today and compared them to 1800s troops, I imagine that's what the kit will look like for modern infantry to battletech infantry.

[DevianID]

Daemon how are you planning armored, unarmored, and heavily armored for this record sheet?

[Charistoph]

Indeed, I want 4-6 squads of infantry to be the equal of 1 squad of good battle armor in the 300-600 range.  An elemental team versus a well equipped infantry platoon, armed with anti armor weapons, should be a threat to light mechs, tanks, and battle armor.  It takes 4+ squads to do it, so squad versus squad battle armor still wins handidly.

Range of what?  They already are equals out to a 600m range, unless you consider Field Guns.  BV?  I'll address that a little later.

And an Elemental Team IS a threat to Light Mechs, tanks, and other Battle Armor, provided they can catch them.  Properly prepared, so is an Infantry Platoon.  We almost lost a Phoenix Hawk to 3 Platoons who were lying in ambush.  Terrain and preparation are what makes the difference.

Currently, it takes 5- 7 platoons to equal the cost of 5 battle armor elemental troops.  Thats over 30 troops to 1 elemental.  That doesn't make sense unless the troops are lined shoulder to shoulder charging a gattling gun.

That's the BV cost, not their actual effectiveness.  5-7 Platoons, when in range, can easily wipe out a Point of Elementals if those Elementals are armed with Small Lasers, and also survive many scenarios more easily than those Elementals, too, largely because of how either takes Damage as well as a requirement of dispersal of fire.

Edit: as an aside, these are not really 'unaugmented'.  The basic troop is assumed to be wearing armor, and has futuristic kit.  The genetic elementals and cybernetic wraiths are also things.  If you take a soldier from today and compared them to 1800s troops, I imagine that's what the kit will look like for modern infantry to battletech infantry.

They are "unaugmented" according to the nomenclature of the period and universe in question.  The basic armor and kit of a ConvInf (aside from the Mechanized) is still "unaugmented" when compared to that of an infantryman in Battle Armor, a crew in a Tank, or a Mechwarrior in a Battlemech.  Maybe you should read the Clan-focused stories, particularly those in which Bloodnames are fought for, and get caught up on the terminology.

[truetanker]

Daemon how are you planning armored, unarmored, and heavily armored for this record sheet?

When I requested the modifications, I had envisioned the Taurian and Marian style units. But I also wanted the ComGuard / Word of Blake style Squads as well, in case I needed them.

Using the standard Boxes per Squad to represent a Trooper, you can see I can fit 10 total, representing a full unit. Using /s and Xs to rep the Divisor numbers. As is they are standard 1 generics.

But, if used as Battle Armor, you can assign the Squad Number as the Trooper inside and the same 10 Boxes can be Armor Value per Battle Armor, leaving you enough room to field a Battle Armor Squad, Point or Level, again using /s and Xs to represent damages if greater Armor Value than 10.

You can always block out units not used and such.

TT

[DevianID]

Ah true tanker, so like heavy armored infantry would use the / and X like hardened armor does on battlemechs.  That's elegant, i like that.

Charistoph, 300-600 is battle value range.  I guess my context wasn't clear, my bad.  Same with elementals, elementals are the equal to a light mech and threat to armor and such, my context was that infantry are not, but a platoon should be.  If you need a special scenario rule 'hidden units' to make infantry good, then infantry arnt good the hidden units rule is.  Like, an SRM carrier is also a good hidden unit, its not an infantry specific thing.

I believe a platoon is comically too cheap and Napoleonic.  Waterloo had blocks of soldiers shoulder to shoulder getting destroyed by the dozen by mortars and such.  In battletech, a future combat setting, a single blast lf a machine gun can down 24 troopers in grassland terrain... Thats, just, not a thing right? 

I'm not a military person, someone from the army please enlighten me if I am wrong, but a quick machine gun burst on a not suprised unit of infantry, who are combat deployed and have visual on the enemy, gets a couple troops on a hit at most, right?

And that's why I want each squad in a platoon to be a real unit, with the platoon costing 300 to 600 battlevalue base.  That puts a 7 strong squad at around 100 BV, about half as good as 4 inner sphere 3052 battle armor, and about 25% as good as 5 elementals.  More range on their guns, armor as armor pips not bad damage divisors, and a +2 target size bonus.

[Cannonshop]

Ah true tanker, so like heavy armored infantry would use the / and X like hardened armor does on battlemechs.  That's elegant, i like that.

Charistoph, 300-600 is battle value range.  I guess my context wasn't clear, my bad.  Same with elementals, elementals are the equal to a light mech and threat to armor and such, my context was that infantry are not, but a platoon should be.  If you need a special scenario rule 'hidden units' to make infantry good, then infantry arnt good the hidden units rule is.  Like, an SRM carrier is also a good hidden unit, its not an infantry specific thing.

I believe a platoon is comically too cheap and Napoleonic.  Waterloo had blocks of soldiers shoulder to shoulder getting destroyed by the dozen by mortars and such.  In battletech, a future combat setting, a single blast lf a machine gun can down 24 troopers in grassland terrain... Thats, just, not a thing right? 

I'm not a military person, someone from the army please enlighten me if I am wrong, but a quick machine gun burst on a not suprised unit of infantry, who are combat deployed and have visual on the enemy, gets a couple troops on a hit at most, right?

And that's why I want each squad in a platoon to be a real unit, with the platoon costing 300 to 600 battlevalue base.  That puts a 7 strong squad at around 100 BV, about half as good as 4 inner sphere 3052 battle armor, and about 25% as good as 5 elementals.  More range on their guns, armor as armor pips not bad damage divisors, and a +2 target size bonus.

ah, back in the 1990s we knew better than to cluster more than four guys in a 15 meter radius,-because Grenades and Mortars are a thing that exists and has in modern form since before 1914.

However, Battletech's infantry are...well...unskilled, largely untrained, and worthless-they HAVE to cluster up like pre-napoleonic armies because they can't shoot.

it's literally the only explanation that makes sense for why you'd concentrate twenty eight guys inside the blast/frag radius of a 60mm mortar without wrapping them in some kind of powered armor that can take that scale of hit.

9and if you HAVE that kind of armor, you're not going to do it because it's harder to get 28 guys to approach an enemy soft point without drawing fire, than to move in ranger file with 15 meter spacing between grunts.)

so you're dead right, the devs basically took Napoleonic tactics into the 31st century, only without the rapid marching pace or emphasis on mobile field artillery.

I attribute it to the few vets among them being largely Air Force or Navy types, with no input from Army or Marines.

[Cannonshop]

For those of you who don't know, I wasn't even INFANTRY and we were trained better than Battlech "Infantry" about not clustering up to make a cheaper, easier target for enemy mortars, machine guns, and the like.

I was frogging AIR DEFENSE, we only did 'road marches' to let someone tick off a box...at least, on foot, with weapons.

Get a modern infantryman, and you won't get a whole platoon inside a 30 meter circle anywhere but the chow tent or boarding the truck/APC, because that's counter-to-survival.

You go through the books, and everyone's got a helmet commset...which they would have, along with whatever night-vision, etc. the nation could afford.  What they ain't gonna do, is cluster up like the Somme, because that's a good way to get killed without doing anything useful.  You're easier to SEE in a large group, and area effect weapons, including thermobarics? are a thing in the 'now'.

so you'd spread out, because it allows you the chance to NOT be inescapably within the blast radius of half the shit that's being fired at you.

in the case of Battletech, it's not the "Future of the 1980s" regarding infantry , it's the future of the 1680s, with massed formations shoulder to shoulder in concentrated blocs.  that's how the rules are configured on infantry, pre-napoleonic unit structure and organization, 30th century weapons and gear...including the stuff being lobbed at you.

[Daryk]

Building units with squad size 2 can get after some of that... ;)

[Cannonshop]

Building units with squad size 2 can get after some of that... ;)

Kind of my thought.  The real problem, is that the out of scale condition with infantry's been in the game since Infantry was introduced.  that means there's a hell of a lot of outright inertia involved, including multiple sourcebooks, scenario books whether out of print, in print, or in development, because the base assumption's been in place in the game rules since 'citytech'.

That, in turn, makes a serious revamp very difficult to sell, esp. considering the sheer amount of sweat-work that went into developing the current generation rules for Techmanual.

[Daryk]

I suppose the good news is that all that sweat work supports squads of 2...

[Cannonshop]

I suppose the good news is that all that sweat work supports squads of 2...

Thing to remember is, what these guys are working on, might actually BE better.

[truetanker]

Why I can see the SLDF used the Buddy system.

2 Troopers Per Fireteam, 3 Fireteams and a Commander per Squad, 3/4 Squads per Platoon.

Two Fireteams of Trooper, Generic Soldier: carries Primary Weapons
One Fireteam of Support Trooper, Generic Soldier: carries the Squad Support weapon and Primary
One Command Trooper, Generic Soldier: carries Primary Weapon

Times this by 3 for Jump and other Specialists

Add 4th for Foot Platoons.

Three Fireteams of Support Trooper, Generic Soldier: carries the Squad Support weapon and Primary
One Command Trooper, Generic Soldier: carries Primary Weapon

The Clans saw this and was like "We have 2 extra soldiers per Squad, let us cut down to base Five instead. And we can add a Fifth Squad to this mix."

2 Troopers Per Fireteam, 2 Fireteams and a Commander per Squad, 4/5 Squads per Platoon, which was relabeled as a Point.

Jump and Specialists are 4 Squads of 5
Foot uses 5 Squads of 5

ComGuard and Word of Blake saw the Star League Defense Force's Standard and thought 1 Soldier extra per Squad was Heresy! And removed them from their rank and file but decided to use the base Six model.

2 Troopers Per Fireteam, 3 Fireteams including a Commander per Squad, 5/6 Squads per Platoon, which the relabeled as a Level I.

Jump and Specialists are 5 Squads of 6
Foot uses 6 Squads of 6

But this is a fanon idea, which makes sense...

TT

[Daryk]

Thing to remember is, what these guys are working on, might actually BE better.

I'm unconvinced so far but could be persuaded.

[Daemion]

Three Fireteams of Support Trooper, Generic Soldier: carries the Squad Support weapon and Primary
One Command Trooper, Generic Soldier: carries Primary Weapon

TT

Yes.  I want to be able to emulate this as a dedicated heavy weapons squad, similar to the mortar and heavy weapons squads seen in 40k Imperial Guard.  It makes sense to specialize in some cases.

[Daemion]

We tried it out today. 

The scenario I had set up didn't really get the infantry into action against each other, but we did get to use the fatigue system as he moved a pure rifle squad out of a fire base to protect a Thumper Artillery Cannon Turret.  The APCs I had rushing the base were able to get trounced by the Hero's Champion Mech.  I even allowed for the squads to survive simple destruction by IS damage due to this being the Dark Age and steady improvements.  But the amount of damage destroyed two APCs to the point of blowing up. (BMR vehicle damage rules.)

My friends said they liked it, regardless.   I'll be setting up another scenario for a proper parts raid for this little campaign, and we'll get to really do proper mano-a-mano, squado-a-squado action. 

[Charistoph]

Charistoph, 300-600 is battle value range.  I guess my context wasn't clear, my bad.  Same with elementals, elementals are the equal to a light mech and threat to armor and such, my context was that infantry are not, but a platoon should be.  If you need a special scenario rule 'hidden units' to make infantry good, then infantry arnt good the hidden units rule is.  Like, an SRM carrier is also a good hidden unit, its not an infantry specific thing.

Infantry Platoons also don't cost as much as a Light Battlemech in BV.  They average about 90 BV, which means it takes 3-4 of them to equate to a Light Battlemech among the cheapest Battlemechs, and about 5 to face an equivalently skilled Elemental Squad.  Obviously it's even more with a Front-line Regular Elemental force when compared to a Regular ConvInf Platoon with no Anti-Mech capabilities.

And unless you're getting those Infantry moving the same as a Light Mech, it really doesn't matter.  Last I checked, though, even Hover Mechanized can't match the speed of the average Light Mech that isn't a Trooper like the Panther.  That means, outside of needing to Run on Pavement, most Infantry will be outmanuevered by most Light Mechs.

And being in Urban environments is where Infantry starts to match up properly with Mechs.  They don't Fall.  The don't Skid.  They don't take Damage from going through a building.

I believe a platoon is comically too cheap and Napoleonic.  Waterloo had blocks of soldiers shoulder to shoulder getting destroyed by the dozen by mortars and such.  In battletech, a future combat setting, a single blast lf a machine gun can down 24 troopers in grassland terrain... Thats, just, not a thing right? 

The combat doctrine of the modern military is all about either putting Infantry in control of a location in an environment filled with machine guns and explosives designed to take out mobs of people.

Combat in the 31st Century is focused around mechanized kaiju.  A Squad is barely able to make a dent in them, and that's only because of how the Armor on those kaiju works.  To do anything serious, you need to bring the full firepower of a platoon on a target.

For all your mockery of napoleonic considerations, they would think the same of seeing our infantrymen moving in skirmish order in WW2 to today.

And that's why I want each squad in a platoon to be a real unit, with the platoon costing 300 to 600 battlevalue base.  That puts a 7 strong squad at around 100 BV, about half as good as 4 inner sphere 3052 battle armor, and about 25% as good as 5 elementals.  More range on their guns, armor as armor pips not bad damage divisors, and a +2 target size bonus.

1st off, the ConvInf Squad is a real unit.  I've even baked a couple.

2nd, in order to justify a Platoon being worth that much, each Squad needs to be as powerful AND RESILIENT as a Platoon is now, and at least as mobile as the average Battle Armor.  That's a HUGE jump in personal power.  Right now, a 500 BV Platoon is an LB-20X or RAC/5 Field Gunner.  That's super-hero expectations in comparison to what they were.

[DevianID]

Infantry Platoons also don't cost as much as a Light Battlemech in BV.  They average about 90 BV

Yes, I know, thats my entire point.  A platoon, as a unit of order, should be as complex as the smallest battlemechs.  This includes having a comparable cost to the 20 ton mechs.  Like battle armor.  90 BV is a joke when the core gameplay unit is in the 1000's.

How would a squad of 7 be worth 100 BV?  Its easy.  Deploy by fireteams of 2, as discussed above, so a machine gun doesnt eat 2-24 soldiers.  In place of damage divisors, if the infantry has armor, give them a pip of armor per soldier.  If they have heavy armor, do the '/ X' thing suggested just like hardened armor.  So the standard 2 strong rifleteam with standard infantry armor would have 2 internal pips and 2 points of armor, and attacks that hit the squad would randomize which team is hit, same as battle armor.  Increase the MP, to include run/sprint.  Give infantry the +2 size modifier, because they are smaller then battle armor.  Give them the normal weapons, so a platoon with a heavy weapon squad has multiple SRM2s if they are carrying multiple SRM2s, and not the odd .5 damage rounding thing we have now.  Give rifles more range, and make rifleteams have their own weapon attack, separate from the grenade launcher, separate from any heavy weapon in the squad.

Edit: at a glance, a platoon might have 3 rifle squads and 1 weapon squad.  Each rifle squad would have at its disposal a grenade launcher or 2, an SRM2 OS, a burstfire weapon, and several rifles.  The weapon squad would have 2 machine guns and 2 SRM2, plus rifles.

[Charistoph]

Yes, I know, thats my entire point.  A platoon, as a unit of order, should be as complex as the smallest battlemechs.  This includes having a comparable cost to the 20 ton mechs.  Like battle armor.  90 BV is a joke when the core gameplay unit is in the 1000's.

You're not making a point, just stating a desire with nothing to support it.  There's a reason that ConvInf Foot Platoons are cheap, and it's not due to their firepower.

How would a squad of 7 be worth 100 BV?  Its easy. 

No, it isn't without making them all metahumans that could toss Batman around all day and make the Thing nervous.

Deploy by fireteams of 2, as discussed above, so a machine gun doesnt eat 2-24 soldiers. 

A Heavy-class Machine Gun (i.e. the one mounted on Vehicles and Mechs) is 5 BV, 6 if you include Ammo.  Even having 3 in a Squad, you're about 82 BV shy of 100 BV at 4/5.

Or if you're referring to taking them out, that's something a PPC can now do if they are in the open.

In place of damage divisors, if the infantry has armor, give them a pip of armor per soldier. 

Without Damage Divisors, a Medium Laser can take out one of your Fire Teams quite handily, even with Armor, and if they are in Cover.

Increase the MP, to include run/sprint. 

Foot Infantry already move a 1 MP at a run or a sprint.  That's already a 3m/s pace, quite notably faster than the average person walks.  The average person in their 20s usually pulls in the 1.3m/s range.  So 1MP IS a Run.  Even an unarmored Elemental would be hard put to have a walking pace that is capable of averaging a full 1 MP before running is involved.

Give infantry the +2 size modifier, because they are smaller then battle armor. 

I assume you mean a +2 To-Hit modifier, right?  There isn't a "size" modifier in the game as part of the normal definitions.

Give them the normal weapons, so a platoon with a heavy weapon squad has multiple SRM2s if they are carrying multiple SRM2s, and not the odd .5 damage rounding thing we have now. 

So 2 men are going to walk at 3m/s while carrying a literal metric ton of a launcher, as well as the Ammo to keep it firing long enough to justify them lugging a ton.  You're literally over Bane levels of strength here, approaching Spider-man levels.  Meanwhile, that's only 15 BV, per launcher, before Ammo.

Aside from having ubermench as your troopers that would make Elementals cry in jealousy, you've said nothing to justify a Squad being worth that much BV.

Give rifles more range, and make rifleteams have their own weapon attack, separate from the grenade launcher, separate from any heavy weapon in the squad.

Sorry, this does nothing to improve BV.  Rifle Attacks will have to be reduced again to justify their range.  Because of that annoying range, it just makes them a bigger, and more squishy target, and not worth bringing because they are now so expensive and squishy that they aren't even worth taking for Initiative-scumming.

To be honest, I don't even find Elementals to be worth their BV right now because of the ease of which it is to hurt them due to their general lack of speed.  Players just find them scary, which has done more for hurting them than any of the attacks I've landed with them.  Same thing applies with Protomechs, really.

[Daemion]

To be honest, I don't even find Elementals to be worth their BV right now because of the ease of which it is to hurt them due to their general lack of speed.  Players just find them scary, which has done more for hurting them than any of the attacks I've landed with them.  Same thing applies with Protomechs, really.

And they carry SRMS, too, in very limited supply.  I've found the only time I employ BA is as clean-up or a guard against swarming/and other physical attacks as they sit in the hex with a friendly mech, like a sniper on a hill.  The weapons ranges for what ever else they carry just isn't enough unless you see a moment of opportunity.  I've played plenty of BA in games, and I know the speed and range is their biggest detriment, even in a city environment. 

But, I look at that as the general point.  BattleTech isn't about the Infantryman.  Are they fun to have?  On occasion and in certain circumstances.  And, I want them to be fun when I do have them for that very instance.  The current stock rules for conventional infantry are NOT fun.  Not in that they're worthless, but that they're boring to employ.  They may work if someone is a player that wants to run massive battles with a Battalion's worth of units to a side.  But, when it comes to lance to demi-lance level games, which is what my group generally plays, they aren't at all interesting to field.  Battle Armor are at least interesting, if lack-luster.

And, I think that's what DevianID is trying to get at.  (I may be misreading between the lines, so I'll wait to see if he confirms that.)

[Daryk]

This is the branch of the discussion that does not persuade me... :/

[Charistoph]

And they carry SRMS, too, in very limited supply. 

While augmented which the Clan version on Vehicles is half a ton instead of a metric ton.

I've found the only time I employ BA is as clean-up or a guard against swarming/and other physical attacks as they sit in the hex with a friendly mech, like a sniper on a hill.  The weapons ranges for what ever else they carry just isn't enough unless you see a moment of opportunity.  I've played plenty of BA in games, and I know the speed and range is their biggest detriment, even in a city environment. 

Not much different, in many respects, as Conventional Infantry.

But, I look at that as the general point.  BattleTech isn't about the Infantryman.  Are they fun to have?  On occasion and in certain circumstances.  And, I want them to be fun when I do have them for that very instance.  The current stock rules for conventional infantry are NOT fun.  Not in that they're worthless, but that they're boring to employ.  They may work if someone is a player that wants to run massive battles with a Battalion's worth of units to a side.  But, when it comes to lance to demi-lance level games, which is what my group generally plays, they aren't at all interesting to field.  Battle Armor are at least interesting, if lack-luster.

But here's the other side of the coin.  What is being asked is the equivalent of suddenly every Infantryman is now Custodes carrying around weaponry of Astartes Dreadnoughts. 

By increasing the cost, while not actually increasing the strength (going with BA-scale SRM launchers with equivalently-limited Ammo would not sufficiently increase their strength) and survivability of the unit makes people less want to take them.

If you increase their strength and durability by too much, you devalue everything else that is heavier, because they will be compared to how they used to be.  Battle Armor will seem weaker.  Protomechs will seem weaker.  Even Light Mechs will seem weaker in comparison.

[Daemion]

Honestly, I've gotten past trying to convince any of y'all of anything.  I just put out ideas as a matter of sharing.  Take it or leave it at your leisure. 

It looks like I've finally found a format for infantry that hits all the buttons I'm looking for.  Now it's just a matter of refining it for personal use.

[DevianID]

This is the branch of the discussion that does not persuade me... :/

Yeah, I feel you.  If it helps any, my ideal for infantry is to do away with the conversion formula in the companion, and make infantry move and act like ATOW with much less abstraction, making them more similar.  The companion formula adds lots of weird things, like combining the grenade launcher with the rifle... Why?  Just have a rifle and a grenade launcher on the sheet, if the unit carries both.

Thats where the size mod comes from (RPG hit chart makes battle armor 1 easier to hit then infantry), I pulled my movement stats of 1/2/3 for green, skilled, and augmented from the RPG movement stats, obviously I want the range and damage from the RPG so an SRM is an SRM and not some odd blended rifle attack like the companion formula.  Also, flak at BAR5 and 1 point of battlearmor is in the 4/5 range, which is why I liked armored infantry in BattleTech to have 1 armor pip, and the BAR6 plate to have 2 pips like the 5/6 2 point battle armor does.

[Daryk]

You're not wrong about the weirdness of combining the Grenade Launcher with Rifles, especially since the launchers they use for those purposes don't exist as separate weapons.

[Daemion]

Yeah, I feel you.  If it helps any, my ideal for infantry is to do away with the conversion formula in the companion, and make infantry move and act like ATOW with much less abstraction, making them more similar.  The companion formula adds lots of weird things, like combining the grenade launcher with the rifle... Why?  Just have a rifle and a grenade launcher on the sheet, if the unit carries both.

Thats where the size mod comes from (RPG hit chart makes battle armor 1 easier to hit then infantry), I pulled my movement stats of 1/2/3 for green, skilled, and augmented from the RPG movement stats, obviously I want the range and damage from the RPG so an SRM is an SRM and not some odd blended rifle attack like the companion formula.  Also, flak at BAR5 and 1 point of battlearmor is in the 4/5 range, which is why I liked armored infantry in BattleTech to have 1 armor pip, and the BAR6 plate to have 2 pips like the 5/6 2 point battle armor does.

Same.  And, applying them to the Battle Armor sheet layout helps bring that bit of crunch. 

And since the RPG is run in 5-second turns, and you get two actions a turn, I wanted to emulate that potential higher rate of fire with infantry rifle attacks, but strictly against other infantry. If a guy is holding ground, he can potentially get off 4 attacks.  Am I right on this?  (I ask because I'm not learned in AToW.  I'm basing it off of comments I get from DevianID and Daryk.  To me, a simple two-actions a turn system seems to be typical, especially from my experiences in DnD and Pathfinder.)

You pointed out that all it takes to incapacitate a person is a hit, with body armor providing a kind of portable cover that's good maybe once.  So, we don't need some weird damage conversion to emulate that when one squad is shooting at another.  It doesn't matter how many bullets are put into the attack at the BT scale, or how big.  It's just a matter of did this rifleman score a hit?  What about the next one? 

People have no problem rolling for each and every ER Medium Laser on a Nova.  The only concern they have is how many to fire, deciding whether or not to go straight into shutdown, and what level of hampering they'll accept after the fact. 

Why should that be a problem when running an infantry squad, including Battle Armor? 

People don't seem to mind tracking and resolving a combination of LRMs, SRMs, Autocannon and PPCs or Lasers in a single Mech or vehicle attack. 

So, why should people balk when Infantry can resolve a heavy support weapon, a light support weapon (grenade launcher or man-pack flamer or shot gun), and individual rifles from an infantry squad, or an Elemental firing its anti-Mech Weapon, it's SRM 2-pack, and its sub machine gun or shot gun?  Sure, some weapons like the rifles and light support weapons will (and should) only effect one unit type (other conventional infantry).  But, that's what they're for, even in a game of Armored Combat (in the 25th and a Half 31st century.)

So, if all you need to track is whether a guy got hit and how many times, there's no reason not to resolve each rifle attack individually from a squad to see if that hit was made.  It fits the style of BT combat from other, more prominent BT combat units.  And, unless you go into some weird formation types for infantry squads (Marians, and arguably Kurita infantry from the old house book) you'll typically be looking at 5 such attacks from any given squad, because two guys will be operating a more complicated weapon. 

Yes, I am saying we can finagle a form of BattleTroops into the stock BT game, and have it bridge the RPG with a touch of scaling gloss.

[Charistoph]

Honestly, I've gotten past trying to convince any of y'all of anything.  I just put out ideas as a matter of sharing.  Take it or leave it at your leisure. 

It's called "Feedback" while taking in to account more than just one single aspect of the game as well as the history of the game.  If you don't want RandomInternetPerson#549813 giving feedback you don't like, don't post it where random internet people can read and respond.

If it helps any, my ideal for infantry is to do away with the conversion formula in the companion, and make infantry move and act like ATOW with much less abstraction, making them more similar.  The companion formula adds lots of weird things, like combining the grenade launcher with the rifle... Why?  Just have a rifle and a grenade launcher on the sheet, if the unit carries both.

The compilation and conversion system IS rather obnoxious and unnecessary.  Even worse when the only notable difference between Rifles and SRMs is their Range bands.  It's far easier to have them separately targetable and then set them as 1 Damage/X People, rounding up (in case of Small Arms).

Thats where the size mod comes from (RPG hit chart makes battle armor 1 easier to hit then infantry), I pulled my movement stats of 1/2/3 for green, skilled, and augmented from the RPG movement stats, obviously I want the range and damage from the RPG so an SRM is an SRM and not some odd blended rifle attack like the companion formula.  Also, flak at BAR5 and 1 point of battlearmor is in the 4/5 range, which is why I liked armored infantry in BattleTech to have 1 armor pip, and the BAR6 plate to have 2 pips like the 5/6 2 point battle armor does.

So you're trying to shove in mechanics from another game (admittedly in the same universe) that operates on a completely different level of scale while completely ignoring that scale difference?

So, why should people balk when Infantry can resolve a heavy support weapon, a light support weapon (grenade launcher or man-pack flamer or shot gun), and individual rifles from an infantry squad, or an Elemental firing its anti-Mech Weapon, it's SRM 2-pack, and its sub machine gun or shot gun?  Sure, some weapons like the rifles and light support weapons will (and should) only effect one unit type (other conventional infantry).  But, that's what they're for, even in a game of Armored Combat (in the 25th and a Half 31st century.)

Who has balked at the separation of weaponry in this thread?  I think I've done the most, and the only thing I balked at was considering ConvInf using the same launcher that a Mech or Vehicle uses.

So, if all you need to track is whether a guy got hit and how many times, there's no reason not to resolve each rifle attack individually from a squad to see if that hit was made.  It fits the style of BT combat from other, more prominent BT combat units.  And, unless you go into some weird formation types for infantry squads (Marians, and arguably Kurita infantry from the old house book) you'll typically be looking at 5 such attacks from any given squad, because two guys will be operating a more complicated weapon.

True.  Even with Battle Armor Squads, their weapons are all basically tracked as a Cluster Weapon based on the number in the unit (times launcher tubes for Missiles).  At the scale of Total Warfare, though, that is sufficient.  One does not need to do 20 To-Hit rolls for 20 Rifle Infantry then calculate the Damage from there when there is a more streamlined and consistent mechanic.

[Daryk]

I've been advocating for a reduction in the number of scales we need to convert between, not an increase.

RPG Scale?  Yep!  Need it!
BA Scale?  Nope... not so much.
TW Scale?  Hell yes!  This is the soul of the game!
Alpha Strike Scale?  Not so much... seems an unnecessary "in between" scale...
BattleForce Scale?  I can see the need for this, but it's not exactly clean, and probably led to the above...
SBF Scale?  Not sure we need this in addition to the above.
ISAW Scale?  Yep!  This isn't a bad abstraction at the top level.

I probably missed a level or two, but my points stand.  I don't see a need for more than four (RPG, Tactical, Operational, and Strategic).