C3 Master-Slave for six-unit groups?

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

I like six-unit, rather than typical Inner Sphere four-unit or Clans five-unit. But I don't want Improved C3 for it can't extend over six and its battle armor version is too heavy to wield(and I don't want to be framed for the blakist remnant either).

The problem is, link six unit requires three slaves and three masters. But was it the typical way for the ComGuard before they make Improved C3?

And what about the battalion level, if a lance is consist of six units(so each lance is an augmented lance)? Grouping by two 'lances' each and connect them?

[Empyrus]

IIRC, canonically, the ComStar used weird master-slave combination for all their units, which seems to be strictly illegal (at least i interpreted things being as each unit having both). In practice, we've never actually seen them use standard C3 systems. So perhaps they quickly figured out they can't actually use C3 system practically and proceeded to develop C3i system.

You can actually get away with two masters and four slaves. Or, well, two 'Mechs with master computers, one just needs to carry two of them...

Personally, i'd just use two partial networks. Two "light" lances, with one master and two slaves each, and just live with the fact the networks don't interface.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

I have come to understand why ComGuard was disbanded.  :(

[Sartris]

yeah it would look like this (badly edited from BMM)



amusingly, such a setup isn't canonically usable as comstar doesn't have access per the MUL to any dual master units

[dgorsman]

ComStar formations are heavily mixed.  It's not that big a stretch to see them network four out of the six in a Level II leaving out BA or some vehicles.  They may even have slaves in the extra units and rotate through them based on expected combat requirements.

There's also the option to network up to half a Level III together (by IIs, not in total numbers) that way, which isn't too shabby.

[Maelwys]

There was never any real indication that ComStar actively used C3 while creating the c3i system. They got some systems from the DC and experimented on them, trying to fit them into their Level system, but its not like they were deploying them in their forces until they came up with the c3i system.

I mean, I suppose its possible, but we don't really see any indication of it.

[Hellraiser]

I would just create a standard lance & leave it at that.

2 of the units don't need the C3.

Though I can't imagine there was a long period of using C3 before inventing C3i

And it would have mostly been in the testing phase, so really, see above, no need to have it be a full L2.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

If you using a unit with two C3 Masters, then why not to using three units with one C3 Master instead? Having a unit with two C3 Masters will reduce the overall effectiveness of the whole platoon I think....

[RifleMech]

You could ignore the part about being a Blakest remnant and use C3i. There are other groups that do use 6 unit lances. The Capellans come to mind.

[Colt Ward]

Really IMO the question comes down to are all 6 of the units in your 'lance' mechs or is it mixed like the Cappies' augmented lances?  Because using 4 mechs and 2 BA or vehicles allows you to get away with the 3/1 in a usual lance.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

But vehicles are also able to use C3, and they are good candidates as well. Since each vehicle are the equal unit of a Lance, I don't think that it is a good idea to leave some vehicle from the C3 network.

[Hellraiser]

Not every mech/vehicle however is a good C3 unit.

Pick 4 you really like that match up well.

Then add in 2 units of any unit type you want.

For example:  4 w/ C3 on top
Assault Track
Heavy Mech
Medium Mech
Light Vtol
+
Hover APC
Battle Armor

This makes for a nice L-II

[Sartris]

in order to do demi-company c3 before the jihad, pretty much every one of your level IIs would either be half custom refits or Avatar Cs. sub-70 ton C3M units don't start appearing until later and by then c3i is a much more viable option for the level ii

[Hellraiser]

sub-70 ton C3M units don't start appearing until later and by then c3i is a much more viable option for the level ii

Ugh, don't get me started on that.

To this day there is STILL not a Firestarter-Omni or Black Hawk-KU-Omni that have a standard configuration w/ C3M.  (It KILLS ME)

I think when C3M first came out it was tested in Heavy lances where you had an Atlas or Cyclops with Master where there was only Lances & they didn't bother with Companies even though it was "possible".

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Although Level II considers each tanks and battle armor unit as individual unit, I think that a hover APC and a battle armor squad are considered as one unit per lance configuration. Since more than two dozens of battle armors(around 4 to 7 units) are required to do something against a proper battlemech, only consider one squad of battle armor as equivalent of one battlemech or tank seems not making any sense for me - yes, I mean you clanners!

Well, put aside the silly talks, I think that units without any weapons/can't have C3(medium or lighter battle armor, for example, and even assaults are struggle to have one actually) would be ok to not have C3, but... even for something without much weapons, a fast unit can be a 'spotter' of C3 so Hover APC(not the one with this name, but the hover that have battle armor capacity and a C3 slave) seems a good candidate of C3 actually.

[grimlock1]

I ran a 6 unit formation using 5 slaves and 1 Master, until I saw TW and realized that was illegal.

My interpretation from RoW was that each C3 computer acted as a hub for 3 slaves.  The company command system had 2 C3 computers, one to be the hub for the 3 slaves in the command lance, and one to talk to the other to lance commanders.  Based on that, I concluded, incorrectly, that something like a a Naginata could talk to up to 5 subordinate C3 elements, 3 slaves in the command lance, and 2 Computers from the lance commanders.  So why couldn't it talk 5 slaves? 

[Hellraiser]

Although Level II considers each tanks and battle armor unit as individual unit, I think that a hover APC and a battle armor squad are considered as one unit per lance configuration. Since more than two dozens of battle armors(around 4 to 7 units) are required to do something against a proper battlemech, only consider one squad of battle armor as equivalent of one battlemech or tank seems not making any sense for me - yes, I mean you clanners!

Well, put aside the silly talks, I think that units without any weapons/can't have C3(medium or lighter battle armor, for example, and even assaults are struggle to have one actually) would be ok to not have C3, but... even for something without much weapons, a fast unit can be a 'spotter' of C3 so Hover APC(not the one with this name, but the hover that have battle armor capacity and a C3 slave) seems a good candidate of C3 actually.

Something like the Maxim-C3S is probably what you want then.   C3Slave + 4 Ton BA Bay.
And that is its own separate unit by C* standards.

Another option to consider is taking the Maxim-Infantry variant with 12 ton bay so you have to L-1s of 6 suits of BA each.  Just depends on if you want 4 or 12 BA in total.

It doesn't matter if Infantry is weaker than Mechs, we all know that, its just a slot on the TO&E chart.
Clearly an Infantry L-II will not be as powerful as a Mech L-II, but they don't have to be the same power, they do different jobs.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Yeah being weak does not always determines their size as a unit.

But still, an infantry unit and the unit's transporter should be considered as one unit as a whole, because they are expected to be work together.

And, yes, a hover APC with C3 will be a good spotter of the unit. Even if it doesn't have any weapons, it can increase the overall damage output of the whole lance by C3.

[Sartris]

the proliferation of ECM pretty much negates much of the effectiveness of C3 after 3055. you're best off selecting a strong lance that happens to use C3 rather than building around the system. it's incredibly easy to shut down an entire network

[Colt Ward]

the proliferation of ECM pretty much negates much of the effectiveness of C3 after 3055. you're best off selecting a strong lance that happens to use C3 rather than building around the system. it's incredibly easy to shut down an entire network

Which is a problem with the basic rules not allowing ECM to operate in ECCM mode- the single rule change would actually make C3 and C3i more worth it.

grimlock, you COULD make that Naginata do that . . . but neither of the networks would talk to each other.

[Sartris]

i understand why they didn't include eccm in standard rules. especially before the Angel errata we added an entire ****** phase just dedicated to mapping ECCM fields and counting the effects. it seems straight forward until you start to realize how weird overlapping pockets develop. it also absolutely bogs down movement because you have to consider the ECM/ECCM overlay for a ton of your units.

[grimlock1]

Something like the Maxim-C3S is probably what you want then.   C3Slave + 4 Ton BA Bay.
And that is its own separate unit by C* standards.

Another option to consider is taking the Maxim-Infantry variant with 12 ton bay so you have to L-1s of 6 suits of BA each.  Just depends on if you want 4 or 12 BA in total.

It doesn't matter if Infantry is weaker than Mechs, we all know that, its just a slot on the TO&E chart.
Clearly an Infantry L-II will not be as powerful as a Mech L-II, but they don't have to be the same power, they do different jobs.

Given the option, I think I would rather have the BA squad tied into the C3 net.

[Colt Ward]

i understand why they didn't include eccm in standard rules. especially before the Angel errata we added an entire ****** phase just dedicated to mapping ECCM fields and counting the effects. it seems straight forward until you start to realize how weird overlapping pockets develop. it also absolutely bogs down movement because you have to consider the ECM/ECCM overlay for a ton of your units.

New phase?  I will be honest, its probably one of the reasons I prefer hexes because its very easy to plot it out.  IMO it is no more complicated than plotting the ECM bubble in the first place.  Its a bad rule division because it makes ECM a hard counter period- as pointed out it negates C3 along with Art IV, NARC and other systems you pay for in BV without any chance to offset.

[Sartris]

You plot all the bubbles for each hex in question and then do the +/- counting so I disagree that it’s as easy as just doing one. Get four or five ecms dinging off each other and figure out the C3 lanes from that cluster.

much like fire and smoke t’s more trouble than it’s worth unless megamek is doing the work for you or you’re playing with a very small number of ECMs. I find any more than 3 or 4 to be annoying
 
I’ll just say flatly that I’m generally opposed to rules that add more counting or dice rolling than is already required

[dgorsman]

Could probably be simplified into a dice roll based on numbers of competing systems.  Like the double blind rules, the full set is fine when there's a computer mediating but for physical tabletop gaming something much simplified is needed.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Could probably be simplified into a dice roll based on numbers of competing systems.  Like the double blind rules, the full set is fine when there's a computer mediating but for physical tabletop gaming something much simplified is needed.

I am half believe that the whole battletech ruleset is intended to be run on the computer games, and the developers are not consider that it is a tabletop at all when they design the game structure. It is too, too complicated for a tabletop game. -_-; Perhaps it can be a good rival to GURPS.

[Sartris]

very few of battletech's rules are complex. they're procedurally laborious - that is you go through a lot of steps to obtain a simple result. some are just difficult to replicate on the tabletop like double blind. others just needlessly slow the game down. mercifully the worst offenders are largely contained to optional rules i can decline to use them. this is why they're easily simulated by a computer - they're really not that complicated beyond actually generating the results.

[grimlock1]

I am half believe that the whole battletech ruleset is intended to be run on the computer games, and the developers are not consider that it is a tabletop at all when they design the game structure. It is too, too complicated for a tabletop game. -_-; Perhaps it can be a good rival to GURPS.

A guy in my Pathfinder group has commented that Battletech's rule set sufficiently robust that it translates into realtime with very little need for tweaks or adjustments.  He was trying to argue that the this was intentional. That people at FASA had prophetic dreams of what things like the Podbays, and built their tabletop game so that it would translate cleanly into that media.  I'm not so convinced.

[Hellraiser]

But still, an infantry unit and the unit's transporter should be considered as one unit as a whole, because they are expected to be work together.

And that is how you have people taking an Ajax with a 4 ton infantry bay for "free".   :D

My "Elementals" point brought their "Timberwolf-A.PC" along  :D

At best you could maybe make an argument about something like the Heavy Hover-APC with 6 tons of Cargo & 1.5 tons of Guns & Ammo as being "Free".

The Maxim I suggestion would be a no no as far as I'm concerned.

Basically anything that can perform a 2nd function isn't an "APC" to me. 

Its a combat unit & takes up a TOE Slot.

But hey, that's me.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

And that is how you have people taking an Ajax with a 4 ton infantry bay for "free".   :D

My "Elementals" point brought their "Timberwolf-A.PC" along  :D

At best you could maybe make an argument about something like the Heavy Hover-APC with 6 tons of Cargo & 1.5 tons of Guns & Ammo as being "Free".

The Maxim I suggestion would be a no no as far as I'm concerned.

Basically anything that can perform a 2nd function isn't an "APC" to me. 

Its a combat unit & takes up a TOE Slot.

But hey, that's me.

In these cases isn't Ajax and Timberwolf are bring the 'accessory' with it? :p That covers their weak spot.

My thought is, although they can acts individually, but being a transport/infantry makes a tie between them. Ajax is a fearsome assault tank, but its basic config can't deal with ambushing infantry well enough(D variant does, but it it is somewhat different with the frontline duty), or it can be distracted. But its attached battle armors can deal with possible ambush attempts and keep Ajax deal with its priority. Battle Armors are have to leave their transport when they are fight for their own, but they needs to return when they want to go, and they are expected to be fights side by side with their transport as well.

----------------------
Anyway, taking a unit with two C3 Masters seems an option, but is it have the advantage over using three units with a C3 Master? I know that its cost is not a joke, but won't a unit with 2 Masters cause less problem than just having three masters? Well, it seems an advantage that you need only two unit to keep behind rather than three.

Also as pointed out, for ComGuard not all Level I section of a Level II can get a C3 Slave either....

[Hellraiser]

3 C3-Masters seems like a huge waste of tonnage in a 6 man unit.

Honestly,  I still thinking just using a single C3 lance leaving 2 units off is the best option.
Especially since you've stated you want some infantry in the unit.

That or just use C3i.


Best ones to leave off IMHO are the Infantry obviously, and either, the APC, or,  a "Bodyguard" unit.

If you have the C3M & 1 Slave as "Gunners" from long range.  And you have 2 Spotters (1 of them being an IFV)
Then you have perfect option to leave off a Bodyguard type unit who won't be providing a lot of long ranged firepower but will be the mid ranged interceptor operating between the gunboats & spotters.
In that roll it really doesn't need C3S since you should still be getting medium or better ranged shots from either the gunboats or spotters.


Example Force:
Atlas-CM
LRM Carrier-3058
Nightsky
Maxim-C3S
Spider-C
IS Standard BA Squad


The above unit will rain down 80 LRMs to crit hunt any holes the Gauss & ERLL make.

All while dropping off BA in the enemy rear area.

And good luck getting at the LRM carrier when its behind and Atlas & there is a Nightsky mounting Pulse Lasers & Axe roaming the mid field.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

I found the problem is, it is comparing a 'lance' with 3 slaves and 3 masters and a lance with 4 slaves and 3 masters(if it is a mech/vehicle lance). Anyway the numbers of masters are all the same, and the function of a unit with two C3 Masters surely reduced compared by a unit with a C3 Master. So, aside three slaves and one master, one lance have two unit with one C3 Masters while the other lance have one unit with two C3 Masters and one unit with a C3 Slave. Then which lance would make better overall performance?

I can agreed on that, reducing the units with C3 Masters by two can have the tactical advantage, that you are only need to hide two among them rather than three. But generally which one is better? Allowed to hide two rather than three units, or additional 4 tons of spare tonnage and 4 slots can be spent elsewhere? Will 'more tonnage' surpass the tactical advantage, or not?

[Col Toda]

I would deploy a lance of standard C3 and Hammer Anvil  combo  . TAG and Arrow IV .TAG and homing combo gives the accuracy  you expect from C3 so you might not notice  not all units are linked.  C3 is usless in indirect fire anyways so pointless to include in a network