Tell me about company sized battles

[Beukeboom Fan]

Reaver: thank you for the treatise, it was very helpful.

I recently played a game with a reinforced star (1 med, 1 heavy, 3 weak assaults, plus two athenas) against a heavy/assault IS company (which included a token salvaged ryoken b).  Though I managed to fairly quickly bring down two of the IS mechs and severely cripple one or two more, once a couple banshees, a thunderbolt, and a stalker got close enough to combine their fire, my gladiator and gargoyle went down fast.

As bvs go up, massed tonnage with high armor can overcome an outnumbered if technologically superior foe.

Next time I'll try to arrange company v company.

The issue you faced isn't just that they out-tonnaged you - it was that you let them get close.  Maybe you were playing on a smaller map, or you just didn't "try" hard enough to keep the range open.  (Not making a judgement - because both sides are trying to beat the other guy - and sometimes the other guys just controls the tempo or engagement better.)   

Any time your outnumbered that badly - you need to ensure that you've got a mobility advantage and you take FULL advantage of it.   The I/S 4 mechs you mentioned probably had as much armor as your entire force - and can put the beat down at close range.   It sounds like you were in for a tough fight depending on the force mix.  The "star vs. company" battle typically is against unupgraded I/S 3025 type tech, and the clan mechs you mention aren't exactly the cream of the crop from an effectiveness standpoint.  On a small map - I think you'd really be in trouble - and it sounds that is exactly what happened.

[Reaver]

Agreed.  Clantech or not, facing odds of more than 2 to 1 is almost certain death just because of the die rolls.  The first, best, and only way to win that fight is to force them to spread their forces and defeat them piecemeal.  A star vs. company of upgraded IS tech, including some salvaged Clantech, will be a defeat for you.  A lance vs. star engagement is a victory.  So you have to take advantage of your range and maneuverability to keep only one lance at a time in effective combat range.  The lesson about mutual reinforcement is your golden ticket.

Just to give you a pointer, consider a battle I once gamed out with about 30 other people once.  In this case, it was a battalion vs. trinary fight.  The trinary's objective was to advance across the board, where our objective was to stop them.  We had hidden positions and prepared positions.  Unfortunately, we also spread our forces too thin, so when they ran over our right flank, I (out on the left flank) could not support without leaving my hidden positions.  Quite literally:  I had a Kintaro with a maximum range of 15 hexes.  The other end of the line was about 19 hexes away, and they were shooting from a range of 5-6 hexes beyond that.  I was only able to contribute a) because one star ran at me in an attempt to envelop the company on the right flank, so I could get to medium range in a single turn of movement, and b)  we didn't have a choice in moving out, since the company on the right would have been obliterated if they had faced the combined firepower of an entire trinary for another turn.  Map it out, and you'll have a good conception of how valuable turning a flank can be.

[Cannon_Fodder]

Our gaming group's unit is a little over a company. We nearly always face a company or 2. You need a fairly large gaming area. Our table is 6' x 6' (60 Hex x 50 Hex).

[Akalabeth]

While you might get the impression that Company v. Company battles would take longer, in reality, they tend to only take slightly longer to resolve than Lance on Lance engagements.  Even more so than Lance vs. Lance fights, in Company scale battles, focusing fire against only a single target drops 'Mechs very rapidly.  All else being equal, the side with the most firing discipline when it comes to selecting and coordinating targets is the side that comes out the victor.  Do not make the mistake of having every unit engage a separate target.  Your company should focus on only one or two 'Mechs with the goal of destroying them utterly in one turn.  If you can rapidly drop a good number of their units early on, then the difference in firepower becomes insurmountable and they'll be forced to concede defeat.

Wow what a boring strategy remind me never to play a game against you.

In our group we seldom concentrate more than 2 or 3 mechs versus one simply to avoid the tedious routine of gang firing a guy.

[MadCapellan]

Wow what a boring strategy remind me never to play a game against you.

In our group we seldom concentrate more than 2 or 3 mechs versus one simply to avoid the tedious routine of gang firing a guy.

Hey, I'm sorry you don't like effective strategies.  I'm not sure why your group enjoys making things harder on yourselves, but I know I'd rather eliminate as much firepower from the other side as rapidly as I can, and that's done by concentrating firepower to bring down 'Mechs. 

I can't tell you how many times I've been at a game which was decided turn one because one side had firing discipline and combined all their fire on 1-3 'Mechs and the other side spread their fire all over the place.  The side that concentrates fire drops 1-3 'Mechs a turn, and the side that just fires at will tends to only bring down one if they get lucky or have been working at it for several turns.  That's a decisive difference.  In company and battalion scale games, if you aren't concentrating fire, you might as well be playing yahtzee, because only lucky TACs or head-hits are going to win things for you. 

[MistWolf]

MadCap, you're right about concentrated fire. That's why I try to maneuver to concentrate firepower on the opponents while keeping them from doing the same to me. I've found a lance of real fast light mechs in the enemy's back field breaks up their formations during company sized battles.

During one official event company sized battle where we were the underdog Capellans fighting against the Fedscums, we concentrated fire power where we could, took shots of opportunity when we couldn't and took up positions to cover lanes of fire with our larger mechs while breaking up their formations with fast, light mechs. That allowed us to carry the day

[mensa12345]

Wow what a boring strategy remind me never to play a game against you.

In our group we seldom concentrate more than 2 or 3 mechs versus one simply to avoid the tedious routine of gang firing a guy.

You call boring, I call tactics.

[rlbell]

Wow what a boring strategy remind me never to play a game against you.

In our group we seldom concentrate more than 2 or 3 mechs versus one simply to avoid the tedious routine of gang firing a guy.

You need to find a game that models battleships slugging it out, as multiple units firing at the same target makes corrections difficult (each ship needs to correctly identify its own shell splashes/hits).

If you prefer BattleTech (which is perfectly understandable), play clan versus clan engagements and enforce zell.

For a battle between two inner sphere companies, each player should have at least a lance, so suddenly having a mech blown to bits in a single fire phase is not such a bad thing.

For twenty-four players, each with a single mech, one side maintaining strict fire discipline will not be much fun for most players except for the guy determining the primary target.

[Jackmc]

You need to find a game that models battleships slugging it out, as multiple units firing at the same target makes corrections difficult (each ship needs to correctly identify its own shell splashes/hits).

They had that issue solved by WWII at the latest.  I just recently finished reading Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors and all the American crews mention the surrealism of the rainbow splashes created by the numerous near misses from multiple IJN ships who were each firing shells equipped with a signature color dye pack in order to tell their misses apart from those of other IJN ships.

-Jackmc

[ChrisW]

Wow what a boring strategy remind me never to play a game against you.

In our group we seldom concentrate more than 2 or 3 mechs versus one simply to avoid the tedious routine of gang firing a guy.

sounds sad but it is the only way to fight the clanners, especially when your tech level is 3025 - 3050 and your trying to play some of the opening bouts of the invasion.

we used to play 3025 pretty die-hard. one of the GMs started advancing the timelines and got the group slowly used to the new tech, mainly upgrades to existing chassis (some old dogs don't want to change :D) sneakily he had us out on the periphery doing a milk run of a defensive contract when he hit us with a clan scout force. a binary of mediums and lights tore us up hard but we forced them back. only option for the dispossessed was to acquire the fallen mechs. (our company was reduced to a reenforced lance with the unblown up mechs)

took four of us concentrating fire to take out the nova, and he took out 3 of the heavy mechs..:)

[Colt Ward]

I prefer company sized battles simply because increasing the number of units on the map decreases the luck factor . . . no longer does a gauss rifle knock out a quarter of your units or sometimes two thirds of your combat power.

With that said, I play MM generally with all the frills . . . artillery, vehicles, battle armor, VTOLs and advanced rules.

[Akalabeth]

Hey, I'm sorry you don't like effective strategies.  I'm not sure why your group enjoys making things harder on yourselves, but I know I'd rather eliminate as much firepower from the other side as rapidly as I can, and that's done by concentrating firepower to bring down 'Mechs. 

Uh, because we're playing the game to have fun? If you're just playing to win it gets pretty boring. Mind you we don't play one on one we play group of players VS a GM. We concentrate fire sure, but not on only a couple of mechs.

sounds sad but it is the only way to fight the clanners, especially when your tech level is 3025 - 3050 and your trying to play some of the opening bouts of the invasion.

Well that makes sense as 3025 is going to outnumbered clanners so you're going to be gang firing all the time.

You call boring, I call tactics.

Actually I call them boring tactics.
It's the same as people who get an assault mech and just park in woods and fire downrange. Boring. Or people who get laser boat clan mechs and just jump around for a +3 all the time. Boring.

Sure I'll concentrate fire and sure sometimes I'll take up a firing position, but 6 mechs against 1? I'd rather fire at 4-5 different mechs and hope for a head shot or a lucky concentration of damage.

[MadCapellan]

Sure I'll concentrate fire and sure sometimes I'll take up a firing position, but 6 mechs against 1? I'd rather fire at 4-5 different mechs and hope for a head shot or a lucky concentration of damage.

Wow, that's incredibly silly.  Battletech is still a strategy game, and ultimately, while you are playing you're trying to win.  Playing the way you describe is just playing a dice lotto.  Not actually using a strategy and just relying on the dice to work there magic is what I'd call boring.  You might as well just all stand in the middle of the board and roll dice until someone's 'Mech goes down, I mean, why bother moving, that only slows things down, right?  People find it exciting when 'Mechs die, yes?

[klinktastic]

Wow, that's incredibly silly.  Battletech is still a strategy game, and ultimately, while you are playing you're trying to win.  Playing the way you describe is just playing a dice lotto.  Not actually using a strategy and just relying on the dice to work there magic is what I'd call boring.  You might as well just all stand in the middle of the board and roll dice until someone's 'Mech goes down, I mean, why bother moving, that only slows things down, right?  People find it exciting when 'Mechs die, yes?

LOL...they make another game, one that's much cheaper, if you like rolling dice.  It's called Yahtzee.

[A. Lurker]

Let's try not to exclude the middle here, shall we?

Yes, on the one hand I'd expect just about every BattleTech player except for the inevitable real oddballs to play to win at some level. Defeating your opposition is kind of the point of the exercise, just as most people don't play chess to roleplay out a doomed romance between the white king and black queen. (Though now that I've mentioned that, I wouldn't actually be too surprised... ;))

On the other hand, I rather don't think quite as many players would be equally willing to make victory their first, last, and only priority at the expense of everything else...and if we can agree on that, then we're back to the whole personal taste issue with regard to why people ultimately decide to play BattleTech and why some things one person considers "fun" don't work for the next one at all.

[Fallen_Raven]

Yes, on the one hand I'd expect just about every BattleTech player except for the inevitable real oddballs to play to win at some level. Defeating your opposition is kind of the point of the exercise, just as most people don't play chess to roleplay out a doomed romance between the white king and black queen. (Though now that I've mentioned that, I wouldn't actually be too

Does that include the goal of trying to empty an entire bin of SSRM2 ammo? Because that could be harder than winning by far.

[Jim1701]

Besides, concentrating fire on one target is only boring if your opponent is just sitting there and LETTING you do that.  If you can regularly drop the hammer on one target with more or less your whole force and your opponent cannot respond in kind then your opponent needs to start paying more attention to what he's doing.  And if you're BOTH just walking up to each other and start whaling on each other then you both need to pay more attention to what you're doing.

[Akalabeth]

Wow, that's incredibly silly.  Battletech is still a strategy game, and ultimately, while you are playing you're trying to win.  Playing the way you describe is just playing a dice lotto.  Not actually using a strategy and just relying on the dice to work there magic is what I'd call boring.  You might as well just all stand in the middle of the board and roll dice until someone's 'Mech goes down, I mean, why bother moving, that only slows things down, right?  People find it exciting when 'Mechs die, yes?

Yes and your method is what?
I'm going to shoot everyone at Mech A this turn
I'm going to shoot everyone at Mech B this turn
I'm going to shoot everyone at Mech C this turn

Great strategy.
I call that monotony.

What's the point of playing 12 mechs? You might as well just play 1 on 1. At least then it would be interesting.

The point of having larger forces is having a more fluid battle. Gang firing one or two mechs makes battle size completely irrelevant. All you're doing is rolling more dice and marking more circles.

[A. Lurker]

Does that include the goal of trying to empty an entire bin of SSRM2 ammo? Because that could be harder than winning by far.

Just connect enough launchers to it. ;)

Now if you were trying to empty a fully-stocked bin with a single Streak-2 rack...yeah, that could take a while. And I imagine that an opponent who didn't appreciate the battle taking so long to resolve just so you can try to reach that elusive personal goal would complain, too. :)

[Kobold]

Yes and your method is what?
I'm going to shoot everyone at Mech A this turn
I'm going to shoot everyone at Mech B this turn
I'm going to shoot everyone at Mech C this turn

Great strategy.
I call that monotony.

What's the point of playing 12 mechs? You might as well just play 1 on 1. At least then it would be interesting.

The point of having larger forces is having a more fluid battle. Gang firing one or two mechs makes battle size completely irrelevant. All you're doing is rolling more dice and marking more circles.

You seem to be suggesting that all he is doing is lining up twelve mechs in an empty field with ER LLs and marching as a unit towards the opposing forces with no maneuvering, no cover, no need for any tactics at all.

That seems unlikely.

[MadCapellan]

What's the point of playing 12 mechs? You might as well just play 1 on 1.

1. Because my opponent is probably trying to do the same thing to me
2. Because both of us are going to try to mamneuver in such a way as to prevent each other from doing it.

Ergo, unlike a one on one duel, which is typically won by the player with the best dice, this battle is one by the side which best maneuvers their force, which is to say the most skilled.

The point of having larger forces is having a more fluid battle.

Which is exactly what I described.

Gang firing one or two mechs makes battle size completely irrelevant. All you're doing is rolling more dice and marking more circles.

Hardly.  "Gang firing", as you call it, makes positioning and LOS far more important, because incoming fire is potentially much more deadly.  Failing to combine fire, all you are doing is playing several separate 'Mech duels, and strategy is right out the window.  There is a very good reason why a lot of Clan players hate Zellbriggen - it's a losing strategy.

[A. Lurker]

I'm not sure why anybody'd complain about boredom in BattleTech, to be honest. Of course it's a boring game! I mean, move some playing pieces, roll a bunch of dice, repeat until only one side has any playing pieces left to move? Where's the fun in that?

Clearly, then, the boredom must be what we're all here for in the first place. :D

[markhall]

I'm not sure why anybody'd complain about boredom in BattleTech, to be honest. Of course it's a boring game! I mean, move some playing pieces, roll a bunch of dice, repeat until only one side has any playing pieces left to move? Where's the fun in that?

Clearly, then, the boredom must be what we're all here for in the first place. :D

I know its why I signed up.

[mensa12345]

You seem to be suggesting that all he is doing is lining up twelve mechs in an empty field with ER LLs and marching as a unit towards the opposing forces with no maneuvering, no cover, no need for any tactics at all.

That seems unlikely.

Sounds like World War I to me. 

[Sartris]

Sounds like World War I to me.

In World War I you at least had a trench to hide in from time to time

[Khymerion]

So, infantry fighting in Battletech?  Dug into field works with field guns sounds a whole lot like this!

[Beukeboom Fan]

Hardly.  "Gang firing", as you call it, makes positioning and LOS far more important, because incoming fire is potentially much more deadly.  Failing to combine fire, all you are doing is playing several separate 'Mech duels, and strategy is right out the window.  There is a very good reason why a lot of Clan players hate Zellbriggen - it's a losing strategy.

Strongly agree with this.  In a lance size game - make a bad move and a mech can get hurt.  In a company sized game - a mech gets torched.

REALLY stresses the need for coordination, because it's all about maneuvering to bring all your fire to bear while denying your opponent the ability to do the same.  IMO - that's why big multi-player games can be so frustrating - because you're relying on your teammates to play smart, and if they don't you likely get torched.

[Akalabeth]

Sounds like World War I to me.

You  need to read up on WW1 then.

It's more like Napoleonic war-era with Red and Blue Coats that sort of thing.

[mensa12345]

You  need to read up on WW1 then.

It's more like Napoleonic war-era with Red and Blue Coats that sort of thing.

You need to read up on the Napoleonic Wars, then, if you think those were the tactics.

[vergaul]

Nothing breaks verisimilitude like a mech suddenly turning away from a closer mech that it fired on last turn to engage a mech that is further away and hasn't traded fire with it because the pilot magically becomes aware that he has a better chance of hitting it.  The fact that 11 other mechs are doing the exact same thing doesn't help.

I still do it (nobody likes to lose) but it still feels distinctly gamey when it happens.