For some infantry we have to. There's no transport bays for Field Gun Infantry, Field Artillery Infantry and Beast Mounted Infantry.
Battledroids gave ammo for SRMs and Machine Guns. I don't know why we can't track them and other support weapons now. And if infantry are going to be changed, this would be a good time to change the record sheets as well.
Keep perspective. When I posted that, this thread was still in General. It wasn't a disagreement with the concept, just that bringing up the idea is Fan Design territory.
Field Gun infantry aren't a unit type, they are another unit type with specialized equipment. You do have a point about Beast-Mounted Infantry, which may be addressed here now that it has moved.
I disagree that Ammo should be tracked (outside of Field Guns) for ConvInf as they are a dedicated weapon system. Sure it would be possible with a redesign matching Battle Armor, but I don't agree with the practicality as the unit (be it Squad or Platoon) is designed around such Support (aka Secondary) Weapons as an identifying feature, nor are they as strong as what a Battle Armor unit carries.
Having Platoons being designed around Squads would offer an opportunity for each individual Squad to be carrying different Ammo or even different Support Weapons. This is a solution that doesn't bog things down too much minutiae.
Not so. We have rules for tracking training but the board game doesn't allow us to use training rounds. That's kind of a problem. We also track ammo as cargo. And why wouldn't the infantry ammo types be usable in Total Warfare? Depending on the game of course. If mechs and tanks can have Fragmentation rounds why can't infantry have anti-personnel rounds? If I have a game in a city with rioters, why can't I have my infantry use rubber bullets while playing Total Warfare? Or when using more advanced rules from TacOps?
You brought them up as being AToW, but now you're saying that they aren't? Which is it?
Infantry DO have anti-personnel rounds in their Primary Weapons. Of course, this was more about do they have a place in certain areas. As it is, even Infantry are just considered "casualties" when you mark them off, and it is other resources which declares them "dead" afterward. Training/Riot Rounds are no different other than anything else other than they aren't actually dead afterward.
Fluff wise? That'd depend on the MHQ. Rule wise, nope.
There are also no rules for the Foot Rifleman's sleeping bag. If it doesn't need to be actively represented on the board, then it can be abstracted away.
The Collapsible Command Modules.didn't get left out. If there's room for a Mech to carry and deploy a collapsible building why can't Mechanized/Motorized Infantry tow a trailer? Granted I think those infantry should be using vehicles but question is still valid. Why can't there be a very light trailer that could be used as quarters that vehicles can tow and drop off?
Because the Command Modules have an impact in scenarios and missions. Sleeping bags do not. Nor have you properly provided a case other than "I wanna have a camper trailer", while providing no military equivalent of such.
It's the same as armor on a tank. So much damage, so many bubbles get marked off.
Missing the point of the statement, as usual. This method of marking damage has not changed through the years because the Infantry Record Sheet hasn't really seen much change throughout the years. How much of Damage gets applied has changed, but not the marking itself. You can't even distinguish between individual Squads without having a separate sheet for each one.
Besides Battledroids? MechWarrior 3 says the Heavy SRM Launcher fires the same ammunition and vehicles and mechs and that each missile weighs 10 kg. Combat Equipment has a table having the SRM (and other support weapons) being the same as BA weapons and they use the same SRMs as vehicles and mechs. TRO:3026 gives the SRM shorter range but it still does the same damage. And then there's AToW. The infantry standard SRM and BA SRMs are both Ordnance E. BA SRMs do 6X/12S damage up to 270 meters. The Infantry Standard SRM Anti-Vehicle round does 8X/12A with a range of 740 meters. I'm not great with AToW but to me it looks like the infantry Standard SRM is better than the BA but in TW it's the opposite. And that's just the SRMs. There's other mentions about other BA weapons being the same as infantry weapons and are only heavy do to mounting brackets and feed mechanisms. So why isn't that reflected in TW?
The tube also has aiming gear that tie into targeting systems. The Infantry gear isn't going to be as powerful so I can understand them having an increased modifier based on distance. That shouldn't mean an infantry SRM shouldn't hit at 9 hexes. Just that it's harder to do so.
Just examples, no quotes.
TRO: 3026 doesn't support your statement. It doesn't carry the SRM support weapon or describe it. It has the LAWs, and Heavy SRM, which is just described as "a more powerful version of the smaller weapon used by infantry units." (pg 122).
Meanwhile, I could do damage in a 1 point Cluster with an Infantry SRM, and not within Rifle Range, since at least CityTech. Now, you can still have SRMs, but not as many so not slowing the unit down, representing a Light SRM team, and those are still effectively doing only 1 Damage.
It sounds more like your problem is more with AtoW than with Total Warfare's infantry rules.
I heard somewhere that you get a solid object of to at least 3km per second, it will do its weight in TNT explosion on impact. So, you aim at the ground, you're delivering an artillery blast with that hit. Even better if that crater happened to have stuff to turn into shrapnel.
It's the base energy equation, energy = mass * speed
2. Even then, the only difference between a Gauss slug and an old school cannon round used in ACW and older is elevation of the gun, size of the ball, and muzzle velocity. As I said, it might shrapnel out on a hit, but that doesn't compare well when compared to proper High Explosive rounds.
Although I'm tempted to go with a 2/1/1/1/1/1 set-up with most squads that have a team-based squad weapon*. That way, the squad is better dispersed, and the damage can be rolled on a d6 BA squad sheet.
And, for any additional Squad Weapons in the squad you would combine two ones into a two. So a squad with two squad weapons would be 2/2/1/1/1. A squad with three squad weapons would be what you suggested.
I'd probably rule that the squad weapon teams get a special marker on the sheet, but could be placed in any slot in the squad. As long as it's clear. That way, a two-weapon squad might be arrayed as thus:
1. 2 (SW)
2. 1
3. 1
4. 2 (SW)
5. 1
6. -
Easily workable, I think, and similar to what I had in mind what I presented building Platoons by the Squad concept. However, I do think that most Support Weapons in the Squad (baring more advanced gear), so in most cases the last two guys to die will be carrying the Support Weapons, unless Officers are the last?
*= I'm gonna start calling the 'support weapon' a squad weapon based on the definition of a SAW, or Squad Automatic Weapon.
Or SRM, or LRM, or Flamer, you know any of those Secondary/Support Weapons listed for Infantry right now.
In the past, I've looked at rolling a critical chance check to take out the squad weapon when a platoon or squad took a hit.
And, I had even gotten to the point where I was looking at just saying that any unit could target the squad weapon directly. Even with an Aliens-style support harness, a large anti-armor squad weapon is easy to pick out. And, killing the weapon wouldn't eliminate everyone in the squad. It would just mean that they had one less weapon to use to attack armored units. Very similar in a lot of ways to the BattleDroids rules, but with a simple fluff concept change.
I may mix in a bit of all three to show different levels of training and equipment. I elaborate in another post below.
Or it could just be another dude picking up the Support Weapon to take it over, so shooting Joe 4 doesn't mean anything in the long run because Joe 2 picked it up.
Still, a Crit Hit MIGHT be looking at the Support Weapon being too damaged to be recovered and fired so useless for Joe 2 to pick up Joe 4's BFG.
Regarding damage dealt by infantry:
I have no problem with Squad weapons doing vehicle scale damage at the listed vehicle scale ranges. None whatsoever. It makes sense.
The infantry rifles, on the other hand, I do have a problem with. Especially if they can do it in perpetuity. I might be okay with one or two shots of a specialized ammo mag or special charge clip designed for the purpose, but that should be a rarity that doesn't get handed out very much, up there with anti-Mech training. (Damage-wise, I'd probably limit that to 1 per trooper, and rolled on the cluster table for the number of troopers to see how many actually hit. But, again, one or two shots tops.)
I look at it this way, it's a trade off in the type of Armor being used. In order to make the Ammo from Rifle Cannons (and I suppose old missiles like Mavericks) the Armor became ablative to hamper their abilities to out-right penetrate. The trade off was that if enough Rifles hit one of those panels, it would pop off, and nothing really changed that till Hardened (and even then, just required more hits to accomplish the same task).
Still, if a Squad had 3 types of Damage rating in Support, Rifle, and Melee, I'd largely be fine with it. I think the Ballistic Rifle Damage is a bit excessive as it is when it matches SRM Damage in all but Range. But I guess they thought if Rifle Damage was so nerfed (look at Energy), nobody would bother taking them on to the field at all baring story scenarios.