Organizing a Armor Company/Battalion

[Colt Ward]

This could be any armor unit, I just want to use a few hovertanks that I recently had the opportunity to play with for the example case.

Would you consolidate armor by models or spread capabilities for force multipliers?  The FedSuns by 3067 has Musketeers, Fulcrums, Fulcrum IIs, Drillsons, Condors, and LTV-4 Hovertank for heavy hovertank formations.  All have varying degrees of weapons and electronics that can support missions.

My example is this . . .

1st Hypothetical Hovertank Company
Command Lance
Fulcrum (CO tank)
3 Drillsons/Condors/Musketeers

Second Lance
Fulcrum (CO tank)
3 Drillsons/Condors/Musketeers

Third Lance
Condor (Upg Laser)
3 Drillsons/Condors/Musketeers

Or would it be better to make the companies or at least lances all the same model?

So you get a company of 12 Fulcrums so that all 12 tanks have ECM, TAG along with similar weapons profiles . . . or is it better for tactical doctrine to have FREX that one ECM suite to cover the lance and the TAG ability spread across more small formations?

Not asking for spelled out formations, just do you want to spread the specials around or have them consolidated in a single unit.

[worktroll]

As a personal preference, I tend to field platoons all of the same chassis. Not always the same model (eg. Bulldog LRMs & lasers, in pairs). I just feel this is a 'flavour' differentiator against 'Mech lances.

There's one big argument for doing otherwise - C3 (and/or C3I). There are too many C3 Master vehicles without a good C3 Slave variant. It would be useful to have an entire C3 platoon, and not to be linking to units in other platoons/lances.

One last note - Alpha Strike requires vehicles to be the same unit in pairs to get benefits of formation bonuses. This means nothing in BT, I realise, but may reflect an intrinsic tendency.

W.

[Ruger]

Im with WT here. I prefer at least pairs if not full platoons or companies of the same tank, if not the same model.

Ruger

[worktroll]

For the larger formations, I'll tend to have a purpose. So a support company might be two platoons of fire support, and either a platoon of scouts, or a platoon of bodyguards. A battle company might be two of battle tanks, and one of fire support. A general purpose company would be one of scouts, one battle tanks, one fire support.

Scouts of necessity tend to be much faster than the other units, but I'd make sure support units have a chance to keep up with the ones they're supporting. Bodyguards need to be either a bit faster, or turreted, or ideally both, and with lashings of damage potential to deter closers, as much as hitting them.

What era & faction are you looking at? For example, you could do a general use recon company - platoons of Pegasii, Scimitars, and Drillsons, mimicking the scout, battle tank, and fire support roles.

[Daryk]

As Worktroll alluded to, movement rate is the most important factor.  Lances should all have identical movement rates (companies ideally).  As long as that applies, spreading the specials is indeed the best strategy.

[Kidd]

I'm with the homogenous platoon crowd, to the point of demanding the exact same model. That's just me. (It has the advantage of simplifying Accountantech logistics.)

Hence I always think in multiples of 4 when I build a battalion-sized unit. That also cuts down my headache to deciding 9-10 models of tank. Then I want 2-3 companies of "line" tanks to provide the main manoeuvre elements, plus 1 company of fire support and maybe another lance/company of HQ/ISR enablers. I want at least the manoeuvre elements to have the same movement speeds.

So 2 companies of (12 each) tanks will be "battle" tanks of 2 types but the same speed, supported by 1 company of tanks either faster or slower - the basic 2 up 1 back format. Fire support company will be employed in lances, so maybe 2 lances of LRM tanks and 1 of any type, maybe a close combat or fast raider. HQ lance/company will have the CO's and XO's ride, recon types (to be detached to support the manoeuvre companies) and attrition replacements.

So I can quickly come up with:

1857th Federation Tank Battalion (Reinforced)

1st Company - 12 Musketeers
Marduk Artists' Yeomanry Company - 12 LTV-4s
2nd Company - 12 Drillsons
3rd Company - 8 Condor Upgrades, 4 Saladin
HQ Company - 4 Condor Upgrades (HQ), 4 Fulcrum, 4 Pegasus 3058

Unit profile: The 1857th Federation tank battalion is a tank unit attached to the 2nd Robinson Rangers RCT's tank brigade during the Fedcom Civil War. It includes a company of volunteers taken from the Marduk Militia, which operates ancient LTV-4s and some captured DCMS Saladins. Fulcrum and Pegasus tanks provide battalion recon assets.

[Daryk]

I prefer my AC/20s one to a platoon, but the Saladin/Saracen/Scimitar trinity can provide the same movement in spades...

[Iron Grenadier]

Players in the merc game I run prefer to use a Fulcrum, Plainsman Scout and two Drillsons. Seems to work pretty good for them.

Actually I posted that almost a year ago now -
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61532.0


Due to some additional losses by the end of that contract mentioned they have added some Lightning hovertanks, filling in for some Drillsons, along with a pair of Beagle's.

[Sartris]

I usually field in two pairs of two. It’s more a product of how vees are packaged than any sound tactical planning. Some of the lance types in CampOps actually require pairs to be considered a valid formation for the bonus

[Colt Ward]

My post was more about a BTU doctrinal approach rather than a easy of getting minis or simplification-

Is it better to have a homogeneous company of the same design or to increase the combat capability of as many units as possible mix tanks that have ECM/BAP/AMS/TAG/NARC launchers together in a single company?  Is it worth the noted logistical complications to have increased capability in more companies by selecting different designs to mix together?

But to be clear I am not talking about mixing hovers, tracks and wheels in the same company.

[Sartris]

BTU logisticians are actually very skilled conjurists as far as I can tell. Mechs are allowed to exist as they do in a muddled state so why not vehicles? As far as I can tell no one has to worry about having an impossible mix of spare parts on a scale smaller than the star league.

Imagine running the shop for a c* level iii

[Natasha Kerensky]

Match your organization to the size of games you play to maximize the benefits at that scale.

If you’re playing lance-sized engagements, then mix different combat vehicle models within the same lance.

If you’re playing company-sized or larger engagements, then each lance can consist of a single model.

[SCC]

Is it better to have a homogeneous company of the same design or to increase the combat capability of as many units as possible mix tanks that have ECM/BAP/AMS/TAG/NARC launchers together in a single company?  Is it worth the noted logistical complications to have increased capability in more companies by selecting different designs to mix together?

If having multiple different units like you suggest actually offered an advantage it might be worth it, but if your doing it just for the sake of doing it, don't. A tank anti-air demi-lance of a Bulldog (AC), a Partisan, and a MHI Defense AA Tank, doesn't offer any advantages over a lance comprised of just one of those models.

BTU logisticians are actually very skilled conjurists as far as I can tell. Mechs are allowed to exist as they do in a muddled state so why not vehicles? As far as I can tell no one has to worry about having an impossible mix of spare parts on a scale smaller than the star league.

Imagine running the shop for a c* level iii

No, BT just uses generic parts,

(And if a unit has the “Non-Standard Parts” quirk (see p. 198, SO), it does not even get to share spare parts with units of its own type, only the same model.)

[Sartris]

everything is abstracted or handwaved to justify not forcing homogeneous unit selection for a game that encourages the use of a very broad selection of units. that rule - for the game - exists to avoid some very horrible AccountantTech that most people do not want nor the devs want to develop (praise jesus). autocannon classes don't even share common bore sizes. those parts, by necessity of not being able to morph themselves, are not purely generic and standard. thus techs certainly must be taught practical magic. it's never mentioned because no one sees it as unusual. 

[SCC]

Sartris, I can see why you might say that, but the generic parts things clearly isn't a game abstraction just to make AccountTech easier, it seems to be the way things are in-universe otherwise we wouldn't get so many units.

[mbear]

I usually field in two pairs of two. It’s more a product of how vees are packaged than any sound tactical planning. Some of the lance types in CampOps actually require pairs to be considered a valid formation for the bonus

Isn't a pair of vehicles also a Clan Point?

Using identical vehicles in pairs (at least) strikes me as a good idea for the same reason that aerospace fighters operate in pairs: Mutual support. Hmm. Maybe I can apply some aerotech tactics to hover or WiGE vehicles. Need to look into that.

[Sartris]

yup... though memory fails if the two vehicles in a point have to be identical.

[Kidd]

My post was more about a BTU doctrinal approach rather than a easy of getting minis or simplification-

In-universe whole battalions of the same vehicle are normal

Is it better to have a homogeneous company of the same design or to increase the combat capability of as many units as possible mix tanks that have ECM/BAP/AMS/TAG/NARC launchers together in a single company?

As in the real world, too many of the latter dilute the firepower of the company and is more expensive to produce and maintain. Have as many as you need, more if the enemy uses C3 extensively, less if they don't.

Is it worth the noted logistical complications to have increased capability in more companies by selecting different designs to mix together?

Again, form would follow function; and as with basic Lance design you want to achieve a critical mass - no point having e.g a Lance comprising 1 Tufana, 1 JES III, 1 JES I, 1 Main Gauche, right?

The relationship between TAG and LRM for example, you have to estimate you will lose the TAGger so the damage you inflict has to pay for that; so you had better put enough LRMs in the air to make the sacrifice worth it, so you need a given number of tubes to TAG ratio... I presume we all know this...

[Sartris]

Sartris, I can see why you might say that, but the generic parts things clearly isn't a game abstraction just to make AccountTech easier, it seems to be the way things are in-universe otherwise we wouldn't get so many units.

the universe isn't organic - everything is an abstraction or fiat so the ""reality"" was imposed on the universe, at least in part, to make accounting livable and sell more books.

the number of units really isn't the issue - there are a lot of armored vehicles in the real world, too. but in an organic universe, the abstracted BAR 10 armor, engine efficiency, weapon strength, etc wouldn't be universally good across the timeline. units would largely be retired, scuttled, phased out, or passed along to minor powers as technology improved. I think we all understand that the medium lasers mounted on primitive mackies in 2439 would not be at the level of the ones mounted on the stalker II in 3137. you would also see a standardized formation composition (at least outside of ~2850-3050) to cut down on headaches.

it leads to another question - if all the parts are standard and interchangeable, why spend money on developing so many types of units in the first place? you've got a mr. potatohead 30 tonner that can be configured on the factory floor any way you want it, why have such a variety? why aren't all mechs omnis after 3060? TROs.

[Colt Ward]

Again, form would follow function; and as with basic Lance design you want to achieve a critical mass - no point having e.g a Lance comprising 1 Tufana, 1 JES III, 1 JES I, 1 Main Gauche, right?

Fast hover, slow hover, 3/5 wheeled, 4/6 tracked . . . not what I was suggesting.  I suggested a lance comprised of 45-50 ton 9/14 & 10/15 hovertanks with primarily direct fire weapons to avoid that strawman.  The choice was between having a company of 12 Fulcrums, which have ECM & TAG, and a company of say 12 Drillsons, which have no support options, vs taking the production of Fulcrums and mixing a few into each company across the FedSuns TO&E for heavy hovertank companies.  Fulcrum companies, because of their cost and capability, would go to more of the elite formations (A) while Drillsons, Condors and Musketeers might go to more of the lower rated formations (B, C and some Ds).  Would the AFFS (or any other House military) be better off as a doctrinal point to mix in models that had specials like ECM/BAP/TAG/C3s/AMS/NARC so that each company would be able to respond to more conditions?  A company of Fulcrums is going to wreck a Drac company full of C3 or at least a lance network while a company of Drillsons is going to have to deal against the advantages the C3 brings without ECM.

With the Fulcrums & TAG, its about spreading out the ability to have on hand a TAG'er for LRM heavy designs, A4 launchers, or tube with Copperhead.  Spreading around TAG'ing units gives more units better/easier support options when needed (instead of calling in a general artillery support, you can use guided rounds to deliver pain) rather than having to shift the more specialized armor companies to where you expect to use such assets.  And we know the enemy does not always cooperate with those plans.

What does spreading around tanks with specials into formations with like designs do strategically?  Production in BTU is pretty fixed, its not a matter of 'well, we will build only Fulcrums- Condors, Musketeers, Drillsons, and the rest of the heavy hovers get retired!' but how you allocate the finite production to equip & deploy your hovertank formations.  Does that mean equipment-wise your elite formations may not be equipped with exclusively the best stuff, but your more marginally equipped formations get a bit better in the equipment department.  Basically lowering the crest and raising the valley in the quality variation.

[Kidd]

to avoid that strawman.

Apologies, I simply meant a Lance comprising a Narcer, an LRM carrier, a suicide sled, and a sniper - might work for Mech lance battles, but as tanks, unlikely to achieve anything due to aforesaid lack of critical mass

The choice was between having a company of 12 Fulcrums, which have ECM & TAG, and a company of say 12 Drillsons, which have no support options, vs taking the production of Fulcrums and mixing a few into each company across the FedSuns TO&E for heavy hovertank companies.

Oh. That changes things - the question here is now somewhat more strategic in nature, though of course dictated by tactical considerations.

Would the AFFS (or any other House military) be better off as a doctrinal point to mix in models that had specials like ECM/BAP/TAG/C3s/AMS/NARC so that each company would be able to respond to more conditions?

To take the example of ECM vs C3; you will need at least 1 interdictor at company level (vs a company network); 2 is better as a redundancy is available; 4 would assuredly play merry hell with the enemy. But having a full company of 12 Fulcrums vs a single C3-equipped company is probably wanton extravagance.

Other types of equipment would depend on their use. For example, with AMS, having less than a full company would be unlikely to affect the battle outcome significantly, while arguably one doesn't need more than two spotters per artillery company.

Does that mean equipment-wise your elite formations may not be equipped with exclusively the best stuff, but your more marginally equipped formations get a bit better in the equipment department.  Basically lowering the crest and raising the valley in the quality variation.

It's a pretty standard "limited factor" scenario, options would look like this:

Option 1 - all formations have basic capability or small number of force enablers

Option 2 - the army has 3 tiers of capability; Type A formations are very capable, Type B have basic capability, Type C have none

Option 3 - the "all or nothing" approach; the army only has Type A and Type C formations

Usually Option 2 is chosen, though some examples of Option 3 exist (usually when there can be only 2 tiers of capability anyway, or Type B is not cost-effective)

What the combination exactly is of Type A, B and C, would depend on strategic considerations.

Organisationally, the less of the force enablers a commander has, the higher up they would be distributed:

Type A, 4 ECM per company - each company might have 4 Fulcrums substituted or attached in

Type B, 2 per company - a battalion commander might be given 6 Fulcrums and told to be careful with them

Type C, "none" - a regiment commander might "acquire" one, two, or none through back channels. As such he ought to keep them very wisely in his back pocket.

[Force of Nature]

I have done companies of AFV's in multiple ways.

With six pairs of vehicles. (Camo Armored company)
With three lances of four vehicles. (Kursk Camo Armored company)
With all 12 vehicles the same, but each lance of four painted differently. (Rommel_Patton Company)

Make your companies as you want. I could care less about faction specific setups. With so many battles, there is bound to be former enemy equipment being used in friendly forces.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

yup... though memory fails if the two vehicles in a point have to be identical.

I don't recall ever seeing anything saying that in any officially produced books.

[Sartris]

it's just the battle lance that requires vehicles to be paired

If the Battle Lance consists of combat vehicles, there must be at least two matched pairs of heavy units.

[Col Toda]

Offensively I like 16 mechs and 8 combat Vehicles . 3 pairs of hovertanks . 1 Recon unit  : 1 Battle Armor carrier .

Defensively 16 Combat Vehicles 8 Mechs . Same
6 or  7 pairs  of vehicles and 2 -4 single ones . 

For no other reason than Stacking and movement profile pairs work very well.