Author Topic: Battle Armor of the Week - Nighthawk PA(L) (Read 25325 times)

Hellraiser · « **Reply #30 on:** 14 April 2012, 16:14:00 »

Haha, very funny, ::)
I actually didn't even make it to the end of the 1st sentance let alone the hint before I noticed the spelling error directly above.

Fixed ;)

Crow · « **Reply #31 on:** 03 November 2019, 06:56:37 »

Does anyone have any experiences using Nighthawks to spot for artillery or indirect fire? Did they survive?

AlphaMirage · « **Reply #32 on:** 03 November 2019, 09:45:23 »

Quote from: Crow on 03 November 2019, 06:56:37

Does anyone have any experiences using Nighthawks to spot for artillery or indirect fire? Did they survive?

I played against a guy that did. All you need is something more potent to deal with first. I haven't gotten a chance to do it yet but see a great deal of potential for a heavy 6 man squad of them

Hellfire · « **Reply #33 on:** 03 November 2019, 10:27:28 »

Quote from: sillybrit on 29 January 2012, 15:54:30

We had to wait until the 2005 publication of Combat Equipment to get the first complete look at the powered armor that equipped the SLDF's elite Special Armed Services - the name undoubtedly a salute to the real world Special Air Service of the British Army. The SAS, or Blackhearts, were just one arm of the Special Forces Command alongside the All-Weather Armor Corps or Foul Weather Fiends, BattleMech battalions trained to operate in the most hostile environments, and the Special Forces Aero Wing or Flying Lions, an aerospace unit that not only undertook the most dangerous missions but also had a precision flying display team. With the Blackhearts known to possess a hundred battalion-sized teams towards the end of the Star League, they potentially fielded thousands of Nighthawks, and it's an unspoken testament to their skills at black ops that the PA(L) was not more widely known.

Ran into an interesting note about this in Field Manual Federated Suns the other day. The book says one of the special forces units that operated the Night Hawk was the Rapid Deployment Mixed Arm Forces units aka the Deneb Light Cavalry out of Deneb Kaitos. Did that end up getting addressed in the newer Star League books?

Weirdo · « **Reply #34 on:** 03 November 2019, 10:32:18 »

Quote from: AlphaMirage on 03 November 2019, 09:45:23

I played against a guy that did. All you need is something more potent to deal with first. I haven't gotten a chance to do it yet but see a great deal of potential for a heavy 6 man squad of them

More potent, or redundantly so. If killing one squad will stop the IDF rain, then that squad's turns are numbered. But three or four squads scattered around the battlefield with overlapping fields of LoS? That requires enough firepower to kill that your opponent may decide it's not worth it and just decide to focus on your main battle line.

AlphaMirage · « **Reply #35 on:** 03 November 2019, 12:11:05 »

I don't know if I've ever played with someone that brings the rain like that Weirdo. While I agree that having multiple squads is good I have never played a game where I couldn't reach the indirectly firing unit with at least some of my force and shut it down at least for a little while. My biggest problems is always Gauss boats with poor map selection on the part of the GM

Daryk · « **Reply #36 on:** 03 November 2019, 12:54:07 »

If all you're going to use them for is spotting, you don't PA(L). Squad deployment of regular infantry works just fine.

Colt Ward · « **Reply #37 on:** 04 November 2019, 15:52:30 »

Thing is the Nighthawks will be able to move about more and so can adjust their position to find baddies . . . and IIRC, the Nighthawks have more/better sensors which will matter when doing DB or other advanced set ups.

I have not used Nighthawks for this, but GDL Scouts work really well . . . and then will annoy folks when they get to a mech's leg. They were of the early 4 jumping BA which made it easier to get to a target's legs.

So for me, Nighthawks are better b/c they can also play clean up.

Daryk · « **Reply #38 on:** 04 November 2019, 18:19:15 »

Nighthawks move the same as Jump Infantry (i.e., 1/3), but I agree if you want them for more than spotting they're the better choice.

Colt Ward · « **Reply #39 on:** 04 November 2019, 21:32:53 »

Yeah, I was pointing to using the jump for dismissed Scouts to get in leg attacks. While the Nighthawks do not jump as far, they will still be ignored . . . until you get that first leg crit.

Crow · « **Reply #40 on:** 01 February 2020, 04:29:43 »

What is the weight of Nighthawk PA(L)? As in, how much space do 4 take in an Infantry Bay?

Daryk · « **Reply #41 on:** 01 February 2020, 04:48:04 »

Sarna says 400 kg. If you're using the "specific weights" optional rule, that would be 1.6 tons for four.

Moonsword · « **Reply #42 on:** 01 February 2020, 09:06:52 »

I'm not familiar with that one but the Advanced Battle Armor Weights table on TO page 186 has them at 0.25 tons, one ton per four suit squad.

glitterboy2098 · « **Reply #43 on:** 02 February 2020, 19:52:17 »

Quote from: Moonsword on 01 February 2020, 09:06:52

I'm not familiar with that one but the Advanced Battle Armor Weights table on TO page 186 has them at 0.25 tons, one ton per four suit squad.

Suddenly the standard version Goblin 'Infantry Tank' becomes much more useful in combined arms.

Daryk · « **Reply #44 on:** 02 February 2020, 19:58:07 »

Huh... comparing TO page 187 to TM page 163, it seems they erred at the bottom end. Medium, Heavy and Assault BA all match, though.

Colt Ward · « **Reply #45 on:** 02 February 2020, 21:57:12 »

And the Ferret's with a single ton bay . . . especially IIRC they jump.

Hellraiser · « **Reply #46 on:** 03 February 2020, 22:13:06 »

3-2-1....... Green Light & I'm not slowing this Helo down !!! vrooomm

Crow · « **Reply #47 on:** 16 March 2020, 10:59:07 »

Does anyone have any experience using Nighthawks with infantry TAG to spot for artillery or Semi-guided LRM fire? Was it a good idea or a bad idea?

Colt Ward · « **Reply #48 on:** 16 March 2020, 11:03:22 »

Works fine . . . but the range is shorter for Infantry IIRC . . . and the Nighthawk are squishier than something like the Kage or Achileus. Best bet IMO is as a hidden unit . . . right up until the point the target is in mid or maybe even (if no enemy BAP) short range. Have a plan to bug out or drop down behind a hill for cover, though I play with DB so if your break LOS you can shift position and pop up last.

Weirdo · « **Reply #49 on:** 16 March 2020, 13:27:43 »

What he said. Slow TAGgers tend to draw a lot of fire as soon as they reveal their threat level, so keeping your Nighthawks alive for more than a turn or two will be difficult. In fact, it might be a good idea to assume that you'll only get a very small number of TAG shots out of them when you decide if they're worth bringing.

As for getting that use out of them once they're on the battlefield... My thoughts pretty much echo Colt's. Keep them hidden until the last minute, and use every trick in the book to keep them alive - EVERY TRICK. If heavy buildings are available, put them in there. If not, put them in heavy woods, and make sure they're using the Digging In rules from TacOps. In both cases, be prepared to abandon that hex and retreat at a moment's notice, because artillery and/or enemy infantry are always a thing.

If neither heavy woods or buildings are available... don't bring Nighthawks to the fight. They'll just die too fast.

Daryk · « **Reply #50 on:** 16 March 2020, 17:27:25 »

As usual, Weirdo has the right of it...

DOC_Agren · « **Reply #51 on:** 07 June 2020, 20:58:58 »

like all spotters, hiding and being ready to bug out at a moment notice to survive.

Wrangler · « **Reply #52 on:** 08 June 2020, 06:58:16 »

Nighthawks were always intended as scout armor weren't they? Makes sense keep them on the move and fight from cover and concealment.

Nikas_Zekeval · « **Reply #53 on:** 08 June 2020, 08:02:51 »

Quote from: Wrangler on 08 June 2020, 06:58:16

Nighthawks were always intended as scout armor weren't they? Makes sense keep them on the move and fight from cover and concealment.

How do they look on RP as opposed to Tabletop scale? IIRC ATOW mentions that even relatively 'weak' battle armor when up against Mechs or tanks looks like the Terminator more or less when on RP scale against PCs and NPCs.

Daryk · « **Reply #54 on:** 08 June 2020, 17:16:56 »

PA(L) at the AToW scale are quite frightening... not so much at TW scale. I think that was "as intended"... ^-^

Weirdo · « **Reply #55 on:** 08 June 2020, 20:55:34 »

Pretty good way to illustrate the vast difference in power that lies between an AToW fight and a TW battlefield...

Nikas_Zekeval · « **Reply #56 on:** 08 June 2020, 22:05:35 »

Quote from: Weirdo on 08 June 2020, 20:55:34

Pretty good way to illustrate the vast difference in power that lies between an AToW fight and a TW battlefield...

It's a matter of scale, you can carry larger, and more, weapons when you are based on a vehicle, rather than on yourself. BA exists in a scale that sits between the two. Large enough to carry a few weapons, but small ones on the vehicle scale and armor just enough to stop one large, or a couple medium weapon hits.

On the infantry scale? That 'piddling' machine gun or 'small' laser is an infantry support weapon that requires a small vehicle or several soldiers to move, and is often set up in a static position. Making a single suit, even the 'small' PA(L) a walking machine gun nest.

And battle armor's protection is roughly scaled to their armament. So you needs those multi-man crewed weapons, or other anti-tank/armor 'heavy' weapons, to have a decent chance of doing more than scratch the armor. But you can't carry the armor one does, so I can see why things get, messy, for PBIs. Which kinda fits how a single machine gun IS Standard BA squad/Elemental point can chew through an entire infantry platoon in TW, quickly and often with little loss in return.

In ATOW you carry a weapon, in TW weapon carries you. :thumbsup:

grimlock1 · « **Reply #57 on:** 09 June 2020, 11:27:25 »

I asked the RPG side of the forum for help understanding the RPG combat rules and the referred me to these vids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9n6xNEAboA&list=PLW4v4K6PB7qIWAumfYAqdfxOlk4OgDOTD&index=9&t=0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZjMMr02-kc&list=PLW4v4K6PB7qIWAumfYAqdfxOlk4OgDOTD&index=9

And I have friends who thing TW is overly complicated.

Anyway, it seems like the Kage trooper is rather hard to kill, but there's a whole lot of moving parts in this system!

Hellraiser · « **Reply #58 on:** 19 June 2020, 20:02:13 »

One thing I wish in Infantry rules was that you got multiple TAG attempts instead of just 1 for having multiple TAGs.

Its annoying that your 4 TAGs either all miss or all hit, etc etc on a single roll. But there is no benefit for having multiple TAGs connect from a BA squad.

I feel like there needs to be a some sort of benefit for having 4 in a squad or 8 in the Foot Platoon that has them from TRO3085.

Is there even a difference for the Conventional Infantry if you have them as 1/Squad or 2/Squad? Since the TAG roll is a separate roll?

Weirdo · « **Reply #59 on:** 19 June 2020, 20:20:22 »

There is not, TAG on any infantry unit (armored or conventional) is very much a simple yes/no affair, you have it or you don't. This tells me a few things:

First off, there are some things in Battletech that are legal to do, but that doesn't mean they're ever actually a good idea. Multiple TAGs per conventional squad send to be one of those things.

Second, we know that TAG is more than just a simple laser designator. As such, my headcanon is that no single infantry or BA unit can actually manage all that a vehicular TAG does, you need multiple cooperating units to do it. For the sake of sanity, I'm completely ignoring the fact that these units can continue TAGging even in the face of heavy casualties. Just say something something picking up the unit used by your dead buddy, as needed.