Author Topic: Teach me about Fed Suns Artillery Units (Read 16841 times)

markhall · « **on:** 02 February 2011, 08:52:17 »

So I'm not a big user of Artillery.
Been on the recieving end Plenty of times. And respect it as one should.
But I've seldom added it to my forces.

But with the Formation of the LCT and their Light combat teams.
I figure I should get better informed.
So what are the regular used arty pieces on the Fed Suns Roster.

I'm figuring that
Thors,Long Toms will still be common.
Chapperals are sold all over.

Maybe the Demolisher which replaces the guns for arrow IV's

But beyond that I can't think of many units with it.
I doubt we'd have the O-Bakemono.

Moonsword · « **Reply #1 on:** 02 February 2011, 09:24:12 »

The Chapparal and the Demolisher, along with the Yellow Jacket Arrow IV. They can buy the tube Padillas from Aldis. The mobile Long Tom is probably around. The FS invented the cruise missiles, so justifying installations of those in the right circumstances (mainly defensive) isn't much of an issue, and all the others may well have field guns rather than actual vehicle platforms.

The Thor was pretty much gone from House ranks by the end of the Succession Wars, as was the older Padilla, while the Marksman faded away around the end of the Third.

Rorke · « **Reply #2 on:** 02 February 2011, 10:03:51 »

There is also of course an artillery variant of the Pilum to be considered. IIRC packs a Arrow IV system.

MadCapellan · « **Reply #3 on:** 02 February 2011, 10:24:48 »

I have to imagine the Federated Suns makes use of a lot of simple towed Artillery pieces. They don't have a huge selection of delivery vehicles. That said, as have already been mentioned, there are a number of generic platforms going around, including the Mobile Long Tom, Marksman (production restored in the 3060s in Lyran space), Arrow IV Demolisher, etc. As far as Federated Suns specific platforms, I can only think of a few - the aforementioned Yellow Jacket & Pilum, the Legionnairr variant, and the new LGB-8V Longbow from ONN should be available, as it's converted from Crofton built LGB-7Vs. Since the Federated Suns doesn't have a lot of unit's with TAG, however, I tend to stick to towed Long Toms and Aerospace Fighter delivered Arrow IVs when I play them. Long Tom is far superior to Arrow IV when homing missiles aren't an option.

Moonsword · « **Reply #4 on:** 02 February 2011, 10:26:09 »

I didn't mention the Marksman for the FS because from the fluff in TRO3050U, it's not being sold that widely.

IndyRI · « **Reply #5 on:** 02 February 2011, 11:21:37 »

I'd have to concur with MapCapellan in speculating a heavy preference for towed Artillery by the FS. Since their military focuses so heavily on combined arms and manuever tactics, artillery likely plays a key part in area denial to allow the infantry and vehicle-heavy RCTs to engage under the best possible circumstances. With a relative dearth of canon artillery designs being used by them, I'd say it would fit their TO&E much better to lean towards more dedicated designs for the purpose.

markhall · « **Reply #6 on:** 02 February 2011, 18:50:39 »

Never knew about the Pilum before.
It's not a bad design. I could see it fitting in with 2 Demolishers.

The Cruise Missles look like A Game breaker.
A fun moment. But a Game breaker.

Was looking through the Infantry field guns today. I do like the Idea of them.
I might do a 2 lances of vehicles and one of infantry.
Once I've done a little more research upon it.

The few times I've seen Fighter delivered Arrow VI it's never been that effective.

What Experience levels do folks fine work best with Arty?
I know the Margin of Error isn't too bad under the Total war rules.

MadCapellan · « **Reply #7 on:** 02 February 2011, 19:42:59 »

Quote from: markhall on 02 February 2011, 18:50:39

The few times I've seen Fighter delivered Arrow VI it's never been that effective.

First fighter fires underwing Arrow IV(s). Second fighter uses underwing to designate target. BOOM. Deadly effective.

Quote

What Experience levels do folks fine work best with Arty?
I know the Margin of Error isn't too bad under the Total war rules.

Accuracy with artillery sucks, regardless of experience level. Even with elite gunners, you'll need several turns of spotting to land accurately. Just account for the scatter and use standard gunners.

Moonsword · « **Reply #8 on:** 02 February 2011, 19:49:12 »

My preferred artillery doctrine is very, well, Red Army. I prefer to bring enough tubes of whatever type that the scatter rules start working for me. Never gotten to test that but the idea of a battalion's worth of Thumpers makes me giddy.

PsihoKekec · « **Reply #9 on:** 03 February 2011, 02:21:45 »

Only batallion? Red Army started at regiments comrade!

Moonsword · « **Reply #10 on:** 03 February 2011, 08:24:23 »

Oh, I'd be happy to take a regiment but I've never been in a game that size.

Paladin1 · « **Reply #11 on:** 03 February 2011, 09:41:45 »

You can get a battalion of Thumpers fairly cheaply too if you use the towed variant and attach it to the Mechanized Infantry Regiments. I'm trying to pull together enough field gun models to do this as a counter to my Long Tom Battalion, just so that all my forces can have artillery.

Anyway, as for the OP, I'd say that the majority of the artillery out there is going to be towed Thumper or Sniper pieces. I would expect there to be, comparatively speaking, somewhere around a 2:9 ratio of mechanized artillery units to towed units, especially given the nature of the new LCT. Realistically, you're probably looking at a blend of about one or two lances of mechanized pieces for every artillery battalion, not to include the ADA units.

Paladin1 · « **Reply #12 on:** 03 February 2011, 09:43:26 »

Quote from: Moonsword on 03 February 2011, 08:24:23

Oh, I'd be happy to take a regiment but I've never been in a game that size.

I have and it drags on forever. MM makes things a little better, but it still drags on for what seems like ages.

Most of my big games now though are about a battalion total. Maybe 48 units if both sides field short battalions.

markhall · « **Reply #13 on:** 03 February 2011, 10:11:12 »

Quote from: Paladin1 on 03 February 2011, 09:41:45

Realistically, you're probably looking at a blend of about one or two lances of mechanized pieces for every artillery battalion, not to include the ADA units.

Is the LCT not a Artillery Company in support?

Moonsword · « **Reply #14 on:** 03 February 2011, 10:11:40 »

Paladin1 · « **Reply #15 on:** 03 February 2011, 10:12:17 »

Quote from: markhall on 03 February 2011, 10:11:12

Is the LCT not a Artillery Company in support?

Company? I thought that it was left at a battalion. I'll have to check.

Paladin1 · « **Reply #16 on:** 03 February 2011, 10:13:14 »

Well so much for that. I'd go with one lance of mechanized units with two lances of towed pieces and call it even then.

markhall · « **Reply #17 on:** 03 February 2011, 12:06:42 »

I really don't see myself ever using a Battalion of Arty.
Just wouldn't feel right.

I think I'll just work on a company and X3 it for Fluff purposes.

Stormlion1 · « **Reply #18 on:** 06 February 2011, 00:22:43 »

I'm currently working out the same problem for Lancers, though I'm going for a mixed company of LRM Carriers, Long Toms, and a spotting vehichle I haven't decided on yet. It will compliment my Heavy Armor Company I already have.

mensa12345 · « **Reply #19 on:** 06 February 2011, 18:45:46 »

What happened to the Long Tom. I haven't seen a new mark of those since the original 3026.

Moonsword · « **Reply #20 on:** 06 February 2011, 18:53:27 »

It's still around. They're just so big that they're difficult to shoehorn into a chassis. And recently, the smaller pieces - Thumpers and Snipers - have gotten significantly more dangerous. Most Long Toms are apparently either fixed guns or towed artillery pieces, not self-propelled guns.

The vast majority of artillery we have units for is Arrow IVs, then Thumpers, then Snipers (although four of those designs are different variants of the Helepolis), and then just two Long Tom carriers I can think of off the top of my head - the Fortress and the Mobile Long Tom.

Stormlion1 · « **Reply #21 on:** 06 February 2011, 20:57:46 »

Quote from: mensa12345 on 06 February 2011, 18:45:46

What happened to the Long Tom. I haven't seen a new mark of those since the original 3026.

It doesn't need a new version, the Long Tom epitomizes artillery. You get essentially the same gun on a railway car, fixed tower or towed. The Gun though is always the same, at least I think so. Wonder if their was some giant foundry somewhere that pumps them out?

Jackmc · « **Reply #22 on:** 06 February 2011, 21:35:42 »

Quote from: markhall on 03 February 2011, 12:06:42

I really don't see myself ever using a Battalion of Arty.
Just wouldn't feel right.

Oh don't under value massed fire from an entire Arty Batt. Watching what happens to a mapsheet when somewhere between 36-72 rounds arrive on one tur nwill warm your heart.

Realistically though the most fustrating part of operating a BT Arty Batt is the fact that it's just a Batt. Usually if you've got a Batt, you've got a RCT, and even with 36 SPA's, the demand for fire support gets pretty deep when you're covering 9 manuvering combat regiments. I greatly prefer my post-Jihad RCT setup that's running a full Artillery regiment but only a Batt of Mechs.

-Jackmc

Nebfer · « **Reply #23 on:** 06 February 2011, 22:10:49 »

Quote from: PsihoKekec on 03 February 2011, 02:21:45

Only batallion? Red Army started at regiments comrade!

Ah yes the sound of 108 guns in the morning...

Jackmc · « **Reply #24 on:** 06 February 2011, 23:05:47 »

Quote from: Nebfer on 06 February 2011, 22:10:49

Ah yes the sound of 108 guns in the morning...

Meh, the FedSuns regiments operate on a 132 unit standard, so if you mount at least two tubes on each SPA that's at least 264 guns firing.

-Jackmc

Stormlion1 · « **Reply #25 on:** 06 February 2011, 23:39:49 »

As I want to represent every arty piece in my Lancers, I think I'll just stick with painting a company up for now. 108 would be overkill and I doubt I'd ever use anything that big unless I was taking Tikinov with Battleforce rules. :P

PsihoKekec · « **Reply #26 on:** 07 February 2011, 03:35:27 »

There's no better kill than overkill.

Devens · « **Reply #27 on:** 07 February 2011, 06:40:55 »

Quote from: Jackmc on 06 February 2011, 23:05:47

Meh, the FedSuns regiments operate on a 132 unit standard, so if you mount at least two tubes on each SPA that's at least 264 guns firing.

-Jackmc

Only Mechs, Vehicles are shown to operate in the standard 108 form in FM: Federated Suns.

Jackmc · « **Reply #28 on:** 07 February 2011, 11:49:58 »

Quote from: Devens on 07 February 2011, 06:40:55

Only Mechs, Vehicles are shown to operate in the standard 108 form in FM: Federated Suns.

Has this ben retconend because I was just referencing FM:FS two days ago for a project and it shows that armor regiments follow the mech regiment organization of 108+24. ie. Three 36 unit Batts + three Batt Command Lances +1 regiemntal command company for a total of 132 untis.

-Jackmc

Devens · « **Reply #29 on:** 07 February 2011, 12:09:13 »

Page and source of the retcon please. My FM: FS shows 108 per regiment.

Jackmc · « **Reply #30 on:** 07 February 2011, 12:32:41 »

Quote from: Devens on 07 February 2011, 12:09:13

Page and source of the retcon please. My FM: FS shows 108 per regiment.

I wasn't saying there was a RetCon, I was asking if there was one? I'm loooking at the Armor table on p. 23 which is a cut and past of the Mech table from p. 21 complete with error in the final "Combat Strength" entry which should read "120-220" instead of "120-132."

-Jackmc

Moonsword · « **Reply #31 on:** 07 February 2011, 12:34:49 »

Sounds like there was an errata fix somewhere. (Note: Errata and retcon are two different terms, folks.)

Devens · « **Reply #32 on:** 07 February 2011, 17:39:21 »

Quote from: Jackmc on 07 February 2011, 12:32:41

I wasn't saying there was a RetCon, I was asking if there was one? I'm loooking at the Armor table on p. 23 which is a cut and past of the Mech table from p. 21 complete with error in the final "Combat Strength" entry which should read "120-220" instead of "120-132."

-Jackmc

Actualy a reinforced regiment entry is errored but should be 120 - 156. 36 x 4 (Battalions) = 144 + 12 (Command Company) = 156

Hellraiser · « **Reply #33 on:** 07 February 2011, 18:26:59 »

Does the FedSuns even do Arti-Regiments ?

I thought it was Battalions assigned to Line RCTs and Companies assigned to Militia RCTs.

Of course I take that to mean SPA myself, tanks, etc.

With 5 Regiments of Infantry I would think at least a platoon/company of Fieldguns for a Regiment is not out of the question at all.

Another option, not mentioned, is the FS Omni Vees can pack in Artillery, though only the Schiltron-Prime as a canon config.

There is also the non-canon Sniper-SPA from BT Magazine.

I'd say your most common are Thumper-ICE of the canon designs.

Just some addition thoughts.

I'd like to see the fluff for the MWDA Sniper & Longtom units when it comes out, the Thumper-ICE was a very nice unit to stick back into canon history, I sincerely HOPE the same happens for the other 2 pieces.

Moonsword · « **Reply #34 on:** 07 February 2011, 18:36:10 »

We were suggesting that they should, not that they do.

Jackmc · « **Reply #35 on:** 07 February 2011, 18:50:04 »

Quote from: Devens on 07 February 2011, 17:39:21

Actualy a reinforced regiment entry is errored but should be 120 - 156. 36 x 4 (Battalions) = 144 + 12 (Command Company) = 156

No, a Battalion can can carry an extra company which would turn the base unit count to 48 + the Batt CO Lance would =52 which is correctly noted on the table. 52x4 = 208 + the regimental command company = 220.

-Jackmc

hussar · « **Reply #36 on:** 07 February 2011, 19:38:34 »

Pre Jihad the 2nd Davion Guards have Fielded an artillery regiment.

Paladin1 · « **Reply #37 on:** 07 February 2011, 19:41:10 »

I can remember one or two artillery regiments in the FM:FS but I can't remember for certain which RCTs they were attached too. I'm thinking the Light Guards and one of the Ceti Hussars though.

Taurevanime · « **Reply #38 on:** 07 February 2011, 20:04:00 »

No Ceti Hussars never have artillery regiments since they don't use the RCT structure but something very different.

deathfrombeyond · « **Reply #39 on:** 07 February 2011, 20:28:17 »

Quote from: Jackmc on 06 February 2011, 23:05:47

Meh, the FedSuns regiments operate on a 132 unit standard, so if you mount at least two tubes on each SPA that's at least 264 guns firing.

-Jackmc

I was under the impression that was only for the 'Mech regiment of an RCT, not for ALL regiments. Also, I was under the impression that 108 vehicles made up a standard armor regiment. Thus, any other further augmentation/added units would not be "standard".

Jackmc · « **Reply #40 on:** 07 February 2011, 20:32:57 »

Quote from: deathfrombeyond on 07 February 2011, 20:28:17

I was under the impression that was only for the 'Mech regiment of an RCT, not for ALL regiments.

Could be. I seem to recall that the FS favored the odd setup of 2 command companies per regiment and I thoguht that it applied to all line regiments not just emch ones, but I'm not finding the reference in FM:FS.

NVM, just was looking at the RCT table in FM:FS and it clearly shows that the Mech regiment is using the 132 build but the armor regiemtns are each using the 108 build.

-Jackmc

Devens · « **Reply #41 on:** 07 February 2011, 21:08:55 »

Quote from: Jackmc on 07 February 2011, 18:50:04

No, a Battalion can can carry an extra company which would turn the base unit count to 48 + the Batt CO Lance would =52 which is correctly noted on the table. 52x4 = 208 + the regimental command company = 220.

-Jackmc

Except that it says 3 to 4 battalions NOT reinforced battalions. Anything above 3 companies per battalion is a reinforced battalion. so no it can't be 220 max by the way it is written in the Field Manual.

Gracus · « **Reply #42 on:** 07 February 2011, 22:51:35 »

The 41st Avalon Hussars fielded an artillery regiment prior to their death.

Jackmc · « **Reply #43 on:** 07 February 2011, 23:18:31 »

Quote from: Devens on 07 February 2011, 21:08:55

Except that it says 3 to 4 battalions NOT reinforced battalions.

Ah,but look at what makes it a reenforced battalion or regiment "reenforced"; it's the additional command elements not the presence of a 4th company or battalion.

At the low end, you have a regular 3x3 mech regiment reenforced by three battlaion command lances for a total of 120 mechs, you then have the RCT-standard organization which adds the regimental command company for a total of 132 which is obviously what the authro of the table was thinking. However, you can also start adding in 4th companies and even a fourth battlaion, and you can reenforce the 4th battalion so it is possible to to have four 52 unit reenforced battalions led by the regimetnal command company for a total of 220. Thus, I stand by my assertion that the table is in error.

-Jackmc

deathfrombeyond · « **Reply #44 on:** 08 February 2011, 00:29:57 »

Quote from: Jackmc on 07 February 2011, 23:18:31

Ah,but look at what makes it a reenforced battalion or regiment "reenforced"; it's the additional command elements not the presence of a 4th company or battalion.

At the low end, you have a regular 3x3 mech regiment reenforced by three battlaion command lances for a total of 120 mechs, you then have the RCT-standard organization which adds the regimental command company for a total of 132 which is obviously what the authro of the table was thinking. However, you can also start adding in 4th companies and even a fourth battlaion, and you can reenforce the 4th battalion so it is possible to to have four 52 unit reenforced battalions led by the regimetnal command company for a total of 220. Thus, I stand by my assertion that the table is in error.

-Jackmc

Isn't this discussion somewhat academic?

I was under the assumption that the field manual really didn't cover artillery TOEs to the same depth as armor, infantry, or 'Mech TOEs.

Hellraiser · « **Reply #45 on:** 08 February 2011, 01:03:26 »

Quote from: Jackmc on 07 February 2011, 20:32:57

Could be. I seem to recall that the FS favored the odd setup of 2 command companies per regiment and I thoguht that it applied to all line regiments not just emch ones, but I'm not finding the reference in FM:FS.

I think what you might be thinking of is a line about FS having a RegComCompany and a FireSupportCompany for each regiment.
I want to say that is from HB:HD somewhere.

Devens · « **Reply #46 on:** 08 February 2011, 07:05:39 »

Quote from: Hellraiser on 08 February 2011, 01:03:26

I think what you might be thinking of is a line about FS having a RegComCompany and a FireSupportCompany for each regiment.
I want to say that is from HB:HD somewhere.

It that is in HB House Davion then that would be a change, though more of a filling out than an actual retcon. A retcon would me more like changing the RCT so that they were LCT's in the 4th Succession War.

Devens · « **Reply #47 on:** 08 February 2011, 07:10:59 »

Quote from: deathfrombeyond on 08 February 2011, 00:29:57

Isn't this discussion somewhat academic?

I was under the assumption that the field manual really didn't cover artillery TOEs to the same depth as armor, infantry, or 'Mech TOEs.

So far the information given is that they use Battalions and Companies just like the Vehicle/Armor TOE. But it does not specify platform other than a 36 Unit Battalion. To me this implies Vehicles because they are considred part of the Armor Brigade with a designation of AB. Does anyonw know if thier are any cannon RCT's that use an artillery regiments?

Nebfer · « **Reply #48 on:** 08 February 2011, 21:48:43 »

Well quite often the artillery unit is not listed,
also to muddle the waters Artillery Groups are labeled as AG
Armored Grenadiers are also labeled as AG... (both are in the vehicle section)

The 42nd Avalon Hussars has a full artillery regiment, though it's not clear which unit is the regiment.
The 2nd Chrisholm has the 1st Crisholm Heavy Artillery (HAY code) -no indication if its a Regiment, Group or a Battalion
The 1st Ceti Hussars has an artillery Group with 2 battalions.
The 3rd Ceti Hussars has 3 battalions, effectively a full regiment.
The 1st Crucis Lancers has a full Artillery regiment (but it seems to be not listed, or a typo)
The 4th Crucis Lancers has effectively 2 battalions (a double strength battalion)
The 8th Crucis Lancers has two battalions
The 2nd Davion Guards has the 740th "Heavy" Artillery (HAY code) with 4 battalions

Interestingly the Davion assault guards seems to have it's artillery listed with the infantry, not the more typical armor units.

It seems that about 20% of front line RCTs has 2 or more battalions of artillery.

Jackmc · « **Reply #49 on:** 08 February 2011, 23:03:26 »

Quote from: Nebfer on 08 February 2011, 21:48:43

It seems that about 20% of front line RCTs has 2 or more battalions of artillery.

Makes senes, the only truely uniform thing about the canonical RCT's is thier lack of uniformity.

-Jackmc

deathfrombeyond · « **Reply #50 on:** 08 February 2011, 23:22:25 »

Quote from: Nebfer on 08 February 2011, 21:48:43

It seems that about 20% of front line RCTs has 2 or more battalions of artillery.

Which means that the "average" RCT won't have 200+ artillery vehicles.

Devens · « **Reply #51 on:** 08 February 2011, 23:47:10 »

Quote from: deathfrombeyond on 08 February 2011, 23:22:25

Which means that the "average" RCT won't have 200+ artillery vehicles.

Nope the average has 36.

Jackmc · « **Reply #52 on:** 09 February 2011, 00:56:08 »

Quote from: deathfrombeyond on 08 February 2011, 23:22:25

Which means that the "average" RCT won't have 200+ artillery vehicles.

lol, nope, but you can be sure that if any ever fielded a 4X4 AB, they'd rock your world, no and's if's or but's.

-Jackmc

deathfrombeyond · « **Reply #53 on:** 09 February 2011, 01:15:04 »

Quote from: Jackmc on 09 February 2011, 00:56:08

lol, nope, but you can be sure that if any ever fielded a 4X4 AB, they'd rock your world, no and's if's or but's.

-Jackmc

And if any opposing regiment had their own WarShip Fleet as orbital fire support, said Davion artillery wouldn't ever have a chance.

Jackmc · « **Reply #54 on:** 09 February 2011, 02:11:10 »

Quote from: deathfrombeyond on 09 February 2011, 01:15:04

And if any opposing regiment had their own WarShip Fleet as orbital fire support, said Davion artillery wouldn't ever have a chance.

It's a shame that your observation wasn't as germain as it was obvious.

-Jackmc

deathfrombeyond · « **Reply #55 on:** 09 February 2011, 02:48:31 »

Quote from: Jackmc on 09 February 2011, 02:11:10

It's a shame that your observation wasn't as germain as it was obvious.

-Jackmc

Likewise.

It's a shame that my point was missed. Pity that.

Jackmc · « **Reply #56 on:** 09 February 2011, 03:23:14 »

Quote from: deathfrombeyond on 09 February 2011, 02:48:31

It's a shame that my point was missed. Pity that.

What point? It's not like they'd be parked in parade formation at a lager. We're talking about dispersed spa's that are shooting on the move and thus no more vulnerable to Orbital Bombardment than any other ground vee.

-Jackmc

Gracus · « **Reply #57 on:** 09 February 2011, 06:49:30 »

Oh, look. I didn't know we had two church ladies on the forum.

Hellraiser · « **Reply #58 on:** 09 February 2011, 12:39:34 »

Quote from: Nebfer on 08 February 2011, 21:48:43

The 2nd Chrisholm has the 1st Crisholm Heavy Artillery (HAY code) -no indication if its a Regiment, Group or a Battalion

As of HD:SB - The 1st Chisholm RCT has almost twice the normal # of artillery pieces.
That is however in 3025 and its the 1st not 2nd....but I thought I'd toss that out there that they had nearly a full extra battalion.
The 2nd Chisholm was only a Mech Regiment w/ extra Fighters back then, not a full RCT.

RedMarauder · « **Reply #59 on:** 09 February 2011, 14:43:59 »

Quote from: markhall on 02 February 2011, 08:52:17

So I'm not a big user of Artillery.
Been on the recieving end Plenty of times. And respect it as one should.
But I've seldom added it to my forces.

But with the Formation of the LCT and their Light combat teams.
I figure I should get better informed.
So what are the regular used arty pieces on the Fed Suns Roster.

I'm figuring that
Thors,Long Toms will still be common.
Chapperals are sold all over.

Maybe the Demolisher which replaces the guns for arrow IV's

But beyond that I can't think of many units with it.
I doubt we'd have the O-Bakemono.

You really should be. You'll get quite a bit of mileage out of them in bigger games.

Hellraiser · « **Reply #60 on:** 11 February 2011, 12:27:56 »

So, exactly what is the Armor formation tier per the FM:FS ?

No command lances from what I'm reading but if anyone would be kind enough to give the full chart it would be much appreciated.

FedSunsBorn · « **Reply #61 on:** 11 February 2011, 21:18:08 »

I am not entirely sure if this is what you want but here goes. This is the Armor Organization table on pg. 23 of the FM:FS

Element Component vehicles Combat strength

Platoon 4 vehicles 4 vehicles

Company 3 platoons 12 vehicles

Battalion 3 companies 36 vehicles

Reinforced
Battalion 3-4 companies + 40-52 vehicles
1 command platoon

Regiment 3 battalions 108 vehicles

Reinforced
Regiment 3-4 Batts. + 1 CC 120-132 vehicles

Hellraiser · « **Reply #62 on:** 11 February 2011, 23:55:51 »

Yes, thank you, that is exactly what I was looking for.

Okay, sooo... odd.

Battalions DON'T use command platoons, but Reinforced Battalions do ?

Jackmc · « **Reply #63 on:** 12 February 2011, 00:18:11 »

yep that's what makes it reenforced.

-Jackmc

Hellraiser · « **Reply #64 on:** 12 February 2011, 00:58:35 »

Quote from: Jackmc on 12 February 2011, 00:18:11

yep that's what makes it reenforced.

-Jackmc

Yeah, an extra company is "re-enforced", a command lance only, seems, odd.

Jackmc · « **Reply #65 on:** 12 February 2011, 11:53:15 »

yeah, it took me several read throughs to wrap my brain around that one. And it makes you have to look at the unti stregnth estimates in a whole new light once you realize that most of those reenforced units you read about are way understrength when compared to any other realm's reenforced elements.

-Jackmc

FedSunsBorn · « **Reply #66 on:** 12 February 2011, 12:25:29 »

Quote from: Hellraiser on 11 February 2011, 23:55:51

Yes, thank you, that is exactly what I was looking for.

Okay, sooo... odd.

Battalions DON'T use command platoons, but Reinforced Battalions do ?

Your welcome. O0

Unfortunately, the FM:FS does not seem to have any more info on the attachment of command platoons or their reasoning behind assigning them to only certain formations. I think I remember FM:Mercs having something about certain units experimenting with independent command units or somesuch so perhaps the FS is experimenting as well.

Jackmc · « **Reply #67 on:** 12 February 2011, 12:41:03 »

The thing to remember about the AFFS is that there's almost no uniform adherenc to the standard TO&E. Even units from the same organization, such as the Guards, have radically different TO&E's.

-Jackmc