Which I had been trying to avoid when this thread was in the other forum.
Not really by presenting suggestions on how to fix it or things to add. It's just disingenuous to call me out on warning you when we were in General at the time.
Agreed the range is an issue. However, TW has all the ranges shortened so it's consistent. At least until you get to Aerospace and the RPG. Then it doesn't make sense. Just like it doesn't make much sense to have an issue with 6 tons of infantry and vehicles to be ride inside a tank but it's okay if they're towing and additional 30 tons of cannon and ammo.
TW doesn't really have any of the RPG elements, other books handle that aspect. Most of the range differences in Aerospace apply to the void combat where atmosphere and gravity aren't factors. On the Altitude scale, there's altitude and angle of vision and fire that isn't readily available to most ground-pounders.
I said I'd be okay with it, not that we had to. And why not? It's tracked in AToW. Missile rounds are tracked by BA. I also think that having support weapons be far more effective balances out the nerf. With 2 SRMs per squad doing 2 points of damage each, the platoon could do up to 16 points of damage out to 9 hexes per turn with SRMs alone. If they have 5 rounds that's up to 80 points of damage. Currently, we have the same number of SRMs doing 4.32 damage out to 6 hexes per turn. 20 points of damage after 5 turns. I think having limited ammo for 4 times the damage and increased range is a fair trade.
I already explained, "why not". So quickly you forget or just don't bother to read.
It would be a nerf to Conventional infantry. By limiting the Ammo of Support Weapons you are quickly limiting how often they can fire that Weapon till they are relegated to Rifles, and they'll have all the fewer of those because of the Support Weapons.
Also, your numbers are off. The standard 24 Man SRM Platoon does 12 points of Damage, maximum. That's with 4 Squads of 2 SRMs each. So each Infantry SRM is doing 1.5 Damage (12 points / 4 Squads / 2 SRMs) per Turn. 5 Turns would make that about 8 Damage (rounding up) per SRM, or 60 Damage potential for the whole Platoon. The Damage multiplier in Tech Manual sticks them at 1.14.
Tracking in AToW is no excuse to impose on Total Warfare. They operate on different levels of detail.
Battle Armor are also constructed on a different scale. Their SRMs are at full power of range and Damage of the Vehicular counterparts, not the lighter man-portable options that ConvInf have.
They don't need to carry a ton of ammo to change ammo. Infantry have the option to choose between "averaged" rounds and infernos now. Why can't they have the option between anti-vehicle and anti-personnel? And if the only reason to have SRMs is to shoot armor, why do we have alternative ammunition? And Infantry don't have to be exclusively anti-armor. Infantry could fire smoke rounds, anti-personnel rounds, or other types of ammo instead of taking up tonnage in a Mech or Tank.
I've been looking at where the rules are to give Infantry Infernos, and for some reason I can't find it. I can find the one for Battle Armor, but not for ConvInf. I see where it talks about using Infernos with SRM Infantry, but not how they are equipped with it. The standard rules for Special Munitions state that these are replaced in full-ton lots (TW pg 141) and on that same page it says unless otherwise stated, infantry may not carry special munitions. While Infernos are later semi-exempted in the Infernos Special Munitions section, they only explain how they are used, not how they are given.
So you're going to need to provide a proper quote with reference that an SRM ConvInf Platoon can carry more that one type of Ammo before I believe they can just switch Ammo. You've misquoted and misrepresented too many rules to me just to believe your say so.
And again, in Total Warfare, they only have access to the 2 types of SRM Ammo. The "Alternative Ammo" you speak of is from a level of detail which would necessitate such differentiation. If you want Infantry to be "Anti-Infantry" in Total Warfare, that's what the MG and Flamer options are for or they carry Inferno Ammo.
And you can use Campaign Operations with TW.
Other way around. You use TW with CO.
Can you actually demonstrate a military actually using BattleMechs? That's various reasons for a military to use campers. Troopers would be better rested than those sleeping on the ground They'd make a good temporary base, that is more mobile than a tent city. They're more environmentally secure than a standard tent. No need to bring a food truck as rations and cooking facilities are included.
You take campers in the military because they are more mobile and resilient than tanks? How odd.
There is a reason why militaries don't use campers, they are big and the hauling power used on them could be used to haul more ammo and food. While a camper could maybe sleep 8, that same space could hold enough tents as well as the Ammo, food, and other supplies for a whole Platoon.
A bubble is still a bubble. It's how many bubbles get marked off that changed.
Ah, but you didn't say, "how many", you initially said, "how those bubbles get marked off has changed", then changed it to being "how many". The "how those bubbles get marked off" has not changed since CityTech, and probably even BattleDroids.
I did say where to find them.
You gave a book. While that's more helpful than some provide, it's always important to know where a person is looking. Even more so when someone asks for quotes, giving references isn't the same thing.
And the Heavy SRM and it's ammo are the same weight as the 2 shot SRM.
Which means that the standard Infantry SRM is lighter than what is normally used by Vehicles.
Actually it isn't since there are sources that have Infantry and BA SRMs being the same. It also shows how inconsistent the universe is by having different damages for TW and AToW.
The first source never said that. It never said to fire an Elemental Point's SRMs as if they were Conventional Infantry. TRO: 3050, and all other Total Warfare equivalents always presented them as firing the SRM-2 found on 'Mechs and Vehicles. Meanwhile ConvInf SRMs do Damage in 1 point increments, and always have.
And again, this sounds more like your problem is with AToW and RPG than with TW, because they are the ones not being consistent with the TW setting.
I've said where they were and even quoted sources for you. Also note the "any more" in your statement. That means at one point, they did. Reducing the damages badly nerfed support weapons in TW. Even rounding up the infantry SRM only does 1 point of damage to all BAR Armor levels in TW. In AToW, the SRMs are more effective against lower BAR levels. I get the need for some abstraction, and that that will reduce weapons damage in TW some but it shouldn't reduce them to being pointless. Why use many of the support weapons when we have rifles doing more damage at the same range or greater? If support weapons are supposed to be the anti-vehicle weapons why are they worse than primary weapons?
And I've given you the actual stats used in Battletech since CityTech which demonstrate that it is the RPG elements which are off.
Um...no. They're not heavy because the squad gets to carry two of them.
If they weren't heavy, why can't they move and fire if they are carrying two of them?
Why do you keep using MML as a source? Last I heard it wasn't canon. TW page 216 has the ballistic rifle platoon moving and shooting with the same number of troopers doing the same or more damage than the SRM Platoon. The SRM platoon either move or shoot and has greater range.
That's an odd statement to make. I rarely use MML as a source. I think you've confused me with another person again.
As to why I used MML in this case, it's because I've not calculated Conventional Infantry builds by hand and MML is a lot faster, and more reliable, then most other methods I have access to. As for being "not canon", CGL's been using them for their own official builds for a while now. So unless you can actually demonstrate where the fault is, your complaint is meaningless.
And you've also demonstrated your incapacity to read my statements in context again. I said the "Light" SRM team, i.e. the one that only took 1 SRM launcher instead of the 2 that Total Warfare's Standard which does not require a loss of MP to fire (which is 'Move or Shoot' for Foot).
TM though SRM infantry can move and shoot as long as they only have 1 SRM per squad. I don't know why there being only one would let the trooper carrying it move faster. And then there's the weapons. Since the nerfing of Primary weapons are limited to .60 damage. That is still more damage than the .57 infantry SRMs do. (And I include the 2 shot launcher as it does 1.14 which is .57 for each of it's 2 missiles.) Some primary weapons also have as good a range or better than many support weapons. It makes me wonder why use those support weapons outside of flavor.
The reason for the Move or Shoot modifier is because they have to be carrying 2 Secondary weapons to affect their range. They reason they lose the Move or Shoot is because the guy can't shoot as far, so they are "quicker" to set up. That's all I can think of. Is it great? Probably not.
And I have said that Ballistic Rifle Infantry Damage is rather high for what it is expected to do. Maybe not to you, but I have noted it in this thread.
Agreed. There are some things in AToW that don't translate or aren't needed in TW. What type of swimwear my scuba infantry wear doesn't matter. Infantry having multiple weapons to choose from should matter. Infantry vehicles providing greater damage, speed, and armor protection should matter. AToW items that can be used in construction, take weight, effect speed, or can limit stacking should matter.
They should only matter if your group is planning on AToW scenarios. For general pick-up games in Battletech, the question comes back as to why? That's far more detail than is needed for a unit that is unlikely to survive an encounter with most units with a dedicated weapon. That's why I said, AToW Accounttech will handle AToW's needs, and doesn't need to be addressed by general construction used for Total Warfare until and unless it needs to be presented in Total Warfare (or its equivalent).
At what scale? Because Patton. This is a replica of the actual artifact in the Patton Museum of Military Leadership at Fort Knox. I doubt he was alone in this.
(We will ignore NG units and unofficial modifications to their CUCVs.)
Addendum: It's always Patton
That's not a camping trailer. That's a mobile office. They even call it a MHQ in the title of the page.