There can be some changes for infantry?

[paladin2019]

Shrapnel #9 cranked lasers WAY up.  Sniper Rifles got similar treatment in #1, but regular rifles haven't yet.

Has AToW been errated to that standard? Has TW or TM?

[Charistoph]

It's pretty fundamental when you're talking ballistics: mass of projectile, mass of propellant, total energy.  If we take the Btech machine gun, which has the same range restrictions, we are still looking at 2.5kg of munitions per point of damage or over five full clips on the auto-rifle.

Speed contributes more to energy than mass (E=MS²).  Mass is just easier to guarantee. 

The 4/4/ rifle is itself a problem when the laser rifle is also 4/4. It is a paradigm shift in the setting's conception of infantry weapons (from "It mostly resembles the M-1[sic] rifle of the late 20th century." to objectively better than a laser rifle rifle at its effective ranges), one that becomes confusing in the supporting contextual work. It was a bad idea when it was dropped with MW3e and it is a bad idea now.

Which is interesting since Total War basically switched the Ballistic and Energy Rifle Damage stats, but Lasers still have longer range.  Though, I suppose the "Laser" was more a Support Small Laser than Laser Rifles.

[Daryk]

Has AToW been errated to that standard? Has TW or TM?

Shrapnel is entirely "bolt on" canon at this point...

[paladin2019]

Which is interesting since Total War basically switched the Ballistic and Energy Rifle Damage stats, but Lasers still have longer range.  Though, I suppose the "Laser" was more a Support Small Laser than Laser Rifles.

At the BT scale, the two weapon types used to be identical; they were just "rifles." Basically, they had TW energy damage and ballistic range. And yes, the old laser platoons were carrying semi-portable lasers for their troopers/2 damage.

Shrapnel is entirely "bolt on" canon at this point...

The team has had more than 18 months to update the rules and haven't done it.

[Cannonshop]

something to keep knocking around in your head, is that ballistics is pretty much settled science at this point (2024 CE), the major 'innovations' have been in weapons construction, but the principles for firearms really haven't changed significantly since around 1887 (the advent of the smokeless powder cartridge breech loader).  Refinements like self-loading were perfected by the 1940s, with no real innovations since the 1950s, beyond what we're building the things out of and ergonomic features.

Lasers, on the other hand, are still a technology in its infancy, and not up to the performance of modern firearms as a weapon.

Which fits in some ways.  It took a long time (from 1100 AD or thereabouts for the first 'Hand gonne') for firearms to eclipse the thousands of years of development into the Bow, Longbow, or centuries of development into the Crossbow.

Longbowmen had a higher rate of fire and longer effective range than troops with Muskets until well into the 18th century.  The value of firearms was in their relative ease of use in mass formations, psychological impact on the battlefield, and so on.

This suggests that the 'parity' some of you are complaining about wrt Lasers is actually well within the realm of the ordinary-that is, that the development of reliable man-killing lasers that are easy to maintain and reliable may have just taken that long, particularly regarding development of portable power supplies with enough endurance per kilogram to be competitive with cased firearm ammunition.

I mean, if your 30 round magazine weighs under a pound, and your thirty shot Laser battery weighs twenty pounds?  That eliminates a lot of the advantages of the Laser right there.   Getting the power-packs compact and reliable enough to replace bullets takes time, and logistical redevelopment and space, as well as doctrinal changes, since a laser does its damage in ways completely different from a bullet.

beam attenuation can also be a problem-if your laser death beam dumps all its energy into, say, some random leaves that got in the way, for example, those leaves might suffer an energy catastrophe, but it's about as good as tip fused explosive bullets in heavy woods (an experiment that did NOT go well for the army that tried it.)  likewise for other issues including certain chemical vapors in smoke,  rain effects, beam attenuation and even local magnetic fields.
 
(or whatever psueudoscientific explanation you can come up with for why anyone would be issuing guns when they can buy Lasers!!)

Ballistic Firearms have pretty much reached the late stage of development already.  Experiments like Caseless have come up a few times, with predictable issues, errors, and defects.  Duplex cartridges, composite cases, variant methods of propellant and ignition variances have all reached the market, some did better than others, but the fundamental function hasn't really changed since the Lebel, or at the very most recent sea-change, the Armalite.

but the development field in the real world is wide open with the laser and other directed energy platforms (particle beams, for example).

[Daryk]

Don't underestimate the impact of composite cases... it's pretty dramatic in terms of weight.

[Charistoph]

Ballistic Firearms have pretty much reached the late stage of development already.  Experiments like Caseless have come up a few times, with predictable issues, errors, and defects.  Duplex cartridges, composite cases, variant methods of propellant and ignition variances have all reached the market, some did better than others, but the fundamental function hasn't really changed since the Lebel, or at the very most recent sea-change, the Armalite.

but the development field in the real world is wide open with the laser and other directed energy platforms (particle beams, for example).

You know, that sounds rather familiar.  There were people who were arguing that the patent office should close because everything that can be invented has been invented in 1899.  There have been more patents in the last 50 years than in the rest of the history of the US.

New materials (like whatever Standard Armor is made of) can allow for higher pressures in the barrel.  Higher pressures mean for higher muzzle velocities and denser bullets.  Easier access to denser materials can either mean for more energy delivered in the shot or more access to explosive rounds.

So while we have probably reached the pinnacle of explosively-powered ballistics for small arms at this time, we have no idea of what new things can be found once we solve fusion power and FTL.  Either because of the needs of those disciplines or what we find when we arrive at new stars.

This isn't to dismiss how far we could go with either magnetic ballistics or energy-based weapons, though.  As you've said, we are still in our infancy in those departments.  Just don't count more classic options out in a belief that we have reached a stopping point.

[Daryk]

Exactly! :)

[Lance Leader]

Even so, compare 19th/early 20th century ballistic weapons to modern ones.  We get better effects with lighter ammo already.

  So auto-cannons use use 19th century technology but auto-rifles use modern/sci-fi tech?  We are comparing like-to-like, not jumping around the centuries.  Why would all of those technologies not be applied to the auto-cannon?

  If you scale up an auto-rifle by a factor of 1,000 to make it a 4 ton auto-canon firing 16 kg rounds (1,000 times bigger than a typical rifle round), in each of those shells you have 1,000 times the propellant (think energy), 1,000 times the projectile mass (or payload for that matter), and yes 1,000 times the kinetic energy and 1,000 the momentum.  For example an 30-06 rifle fires 9.72 gram bullet at 853 mps, the 76mm M1 tank gun shoots a 5.84 kg projectile at 823 mps, and the 16 inch mark 7 of an Iowa Battleship shoots 1,225kg shell at 762 mps.  If you scale up the mass of the round (propellant and projectile) you scale up its energy proportionally.

Speed contributes more to energy than mass (E=MS²).  Mass is just easier to guarantee. 

You missed the word propellant in my quote.  I'm talking about scaling up the whole round not just the bullet.

[Charistoph]

You missed the word propellant in my quote.  I'm talking about scaling up the whole round not just the bullet.

Mass of propellant doesn't necessarily translate to higher speed.  The mass of black powder used in muskets is far greater than the propellant used in 0.223, but the 0.223 has more energy thanks to a higher muzzle velocity.  Part of that is because the propellant in 0.223 burns more regular, but also that the 0.223 is also rifled, which provides more consistent pressure and transfer of energy to the bullet than the smooth-bore musket.

[Cannonshop]

You know, that sounds rather familiar.  There were people who were arguing that the patent office should close because everything that can be invented has been invented in 1899.  There have been more patents in the last 50 years than in the rest of the history of the US.

New materials (like whatever Standard Armor is made of) can allow for higher pressures in the barrel.  Higher pressures mean for higher muzzle velocities and denser bullets.  Easier access to denser materials can either mean for more energy delivered in the shot or more access to explosive rounds.

So while we have probably reached the pinnacle of explosively-powered ballistics for small arms at this time, we have no idea of what new things can be found once we solve fusion power and FTL.  Either because of the needs of those disciplines or what we find when we arrive at new stars.

This isn't to dismiss how far we could go with either magnetic ballistics or energy-based weapons, though.  As you've said, we are still in our infancy in those departments.  Just don't count more classic options out in a belief that we have reached a stopping point.

I was actually just comparing relative development curves-notice I mention the difference in effectiveness between the "Hand Gonne" of the 11th century with Longbow, and how long it actually TOOK for firearms to out-perform what amounts to a leaf-spring with a string, firing what amounts to a long dart?

Yeah, it took a while.  The Bow remained a viable military asset well past the Renaissance, and it took centuries for firearms to decisively outperform variations of ye olde bow-and-arrow.

A similar curve can be projected for Lasers, as in they may only be beginning to outperform ballistics by the late 26th or 27th centuries, but not so fast that they decisively have by the 31st or 32nd.

essentially making them, i the time period we're imagining, 'peer' in capability (much like bowmen vs. Arquebusiers in the 14th century).

The tech being less matured than firearms, which have had millenia of development by the time-period of Battletech, in which they have been practical beyond being lab toys and fiction writer's imaginings.

[Charistoph]

A similar curve can be projected for Lasers, as in they may only be beginning to outperform ballistics by the late 26th or 27th centuries, but not so fast that they decisively have by the 31st or 32nd.

Except they haven't, even by the 32nd Century standards, at least in Heavy Arms.  It still takes 2 to out perform a ballistic.  The most powerful Ballistic in Heavy Arms reaches up to 25 Damage, while the best energy weapon can only do as much as a standard Gauss Rifle.  Sure there's a way to boost a PPC, but that limits its firing quite notably.

Small Arms may be different, as I don't keep up with the smaller scale RPG books, but right now in Total Warfare, energy rifles do half the Damage while only slightly increasing the range, and I think that was more for balance reasons than anything else.

The tech being less matured than firearms, which have had millenia of development by the time-period of Battletech, in which they have been practical beyond being lab toys and fiction writer's imaginings.

Part of the problem is that the capacities of learning the scientific principles to be applied to firearms and energy weapons really aren't that much different in age, maybe a couple centuries in difference.  We've only managed to properly apply mathematics to firearm construction within the last century or so.  Before then it was mostly trial and error.  With Energy weapons, we have been trying to apply math to it right a way.  So I don't think we'd see such a large difference in development time.  The biggest problems with energy weapon development is the problem we have now, material and power portability.  And developments in the those can translate to ballistics as well.

Still, I'm not opposed to differences, so long as they are meaningful and balanced to a point.  A bit hard to do with Classic Infantry since their abilities are generally so small on an individual basis, and even a small change can balloon out when considering an entire platoon.

[Lance Leader]

Mass of propellant doesn't necessarily translate to higher speed.  The mass of black powder used in muskets is far greater than the propellant used in 0.223, but the 0.223 has more energy thanks to a higher muzzle velocity.  Part of that is because the propellant in 0.223 burns more regular, but also that the 0.223 is also rifled, which provides more consistent pressure and transfer of energy to the bullet than the smooth-bore musket.

  Yes, and if you used play-dough you would get significantly less velocity.  We are talking about scaling not changing the chemical composition of the propellant.  Miniaturize your 0.223 by half to a 0.177 and you're getting half the KE/Momentum out of it.

Note: Edited for math mistake.

[Charistoph]

  Yes, and if you used play-dough you would get significantly less velocity.  We are talking about scaling not changing the chemical composition of the propellant.  Miniaturize your 0.223 by half to a 0.177 and you're getting half the KE/Momentum out of it.

Note: Edited for math mistake.

Even then, some propellant works fine at certain masses, and less-effective for others.  Then there are the materials and quality the barrel is made of and how much pressure it can handle as well.  Then there is rifling (which is only effective up to a certain calibre).

In other words, there is more that goes in to making a gun more or less effective than size of bullet and size cartridge.

[Lance Leader]

Even then, some propellant works fine at certain masses, and less-effective for others.  Then there are the materials and quality the barrel is made of and how much pressure it can handle as well.  Then there is rifling (which is only effective up to a certain calibre).

In other words, there is more that goes in to making a gun more or less effective than size of bullet and size cartridge.

  Agreed, but round size/mass is a pretty good order of magnitude predictor of how much energy a round is going to deliver so long as you're working with fundamentally similar technologies. For example, just using caliber alone, without considering anything else, I would predict a 120mm gun to deliver in the neighborhood 10,000 times the energy of 5.56mm one while in reality the 120mm Reinmetal (using sabot) delivers about 6,500 times the KE of the 5.56×45mm NATO.  Which is a long way of saying that small arms rifle rounds seem a little too small to be ablating off mech scale armor.

[Daryk]

Then you're in agreement with the rules.  A single shot from a 4/4 rifle will round down to zero.

[paladin2019]

Small Arms may be different, as I don't keep up with the smaller scale RPG books, but right now in Total Warfare, energy rifles do half the Damage while only slightly increasing the range, and I think that was more for balance reasons than anything else.

An energy rifle has twice the range of a ballistic rifle. It deals less damage for exactly the same reason a LRM 5 has half the damage rating of a LRM 10; it only shoots on shot instead of multiple ones. And that's too much fiddliness for the mech scale of BT.

[RifleMech]

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 cool! 

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.

I wasn't calling you out nor was I presenting suggestions on fixes. Only things I would like to have seen fixed.

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 didn't say there was but things do break down when going between games. You can't even build RPG infantry with TM. And last I looked ground units still had shorter ranges in space compared to aerospace units. There's also the weapon ranges for VTOLs compared to Aerospace in an atmosphere.

I already explained, "why not".  So quickly you forget or just don't bother to read. 

I also explained why. Using 2 points per SRM would let them do more damage even with limited ammo.

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.

Try it again. I didn't say TW Generic Infantry which add another layer of problems as the as the damage per missile varies. 24 SRM infantry do 1.5 per missile. 30 SRM infantry do 1.875 per missile. 8 infantry do .5 per missile.

I did say if each SRM did 2 points of damage. (2 SRMs per squad x 4 squads = 8 missiles at 2 points each = 16 damage x 5 turns = 80 damage.) I also said SRM, not 2 shot SRM which would double the damage down as they're firing 2 SRMs at a time instead of 1. You'll note that half 1.14 is .57, which is what a single SRM does. Currently, 2 SRMs per squad x 4 squads = 4.56 (5) damage. If 2 shot SRM launchers are used the platoon would do 9.12 damage per turn. Compare that to 32 points of damage at 2 points per missile with 16 missiles being fired. Even with limited ammo, that's a huge difference in capabilities and hardly a nerf.

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.

And yet infantry used to track ammo for SRMs and MGs, and they used to do full power. And then there's damages and ranges for BA and CI in the RPG. Depending on the ammo, infantry weapons are more powerful than BA rounds and have better range. Why are infantry weapons better in one game and worse in another?

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.

I didn't say they could switch ammo. I'm saying they don't have to carry a half a ton around before they can have a different type of ammo. Presumably, the platoon is armed with either averaged "standard" round or infernos for that game. I'm asking why can't each squad have a different ammo type? Or if ammo is tracked, why not say how many of what type they're carrying? We can do that for other units using the Fractional Accounting Rules.

And again, if that were true, that only MGs, Flamers, and Infernos are Anti-Infantry Weapons, why are there Fragmentation SRMs for TW and Anti-Personnel SRMs for the RPG? And if having different effects for Infantry Ordnance would be a problem, why isn't it for Vehicle Scale Ammo? Why should Infantry NARC Missiles operate differently from Standard NARC Missiles? Why should Guided Mortar rounds operate differently from other Guided rounds? Infantry Air Burst rounds be different from other Air Burst? And how about range? If SRMs had a range of 9, they would out range MGs and Flamers.

Other way around.  You use TW with CO.

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.

You start with TW then add other books to it.

Tanks don't come with quarters. Neither do jeeps or dune buggies. And sure, they could just haul everything in a cargo trailer but most of the troops would be still be on the ground instead of a bunk. At least those trailers and tents have rules for TW and TO. 

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.

How the bubbles and how many get marked off have changed. They used to take full damage from  weapons with each point of damage marking off 1 infantry bubble. Now they do a fraction of that.

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.

Its better than a non canon source.

Which means that the standard Infantry SRM is lighter than what is normally used by Vehicles.

SRM Launcher (Standard, Two-Shot) 30.0 kg / 20 kg (2)
SRM Launcher (Heavy) 20.0 kg / 18 kg
SRM Launcher (Light) 10.0 kg / 9 kg (2)

The first weight is for the launcher. The second is for ammo. Please note that the Standard, Two-Shot launcher's ammo has 2 rounds weighing 20 kg. That means each missile weighs 10 kg. The same as the vehicle scale SRM.

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.

I didn't say BA fired like conventional infantry. I said there were sources that say that BA and Infantry weapons were the same. If the source material says the weapons are the same, the damage and range should be the same. That they aren't is immersion breaking. Infantry in BattleDroids did damage in 2 points.

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.

It isn't just the RPG that isn't consistent with TW. Generic Infantry is inconsistent with those in TechManual. Aerospace is inconsistent with ground units.

And I've given you the actual stats used in Battletech since CityTech which demonstrate that it is the RPG elements which are off.

TechManual says otherwise. Look at the damage for support weapons compared to standard weapons. Based on the weight of the 18kg HSRM, it should do about 1.03 damage compared to the Standard 10kg SRMs (.57x2-1.14). And that's still very light compared to the Auto-Rifle's .52 damage. Support weapons should do more damage.

If they weren't heavy, why can't they move and fire if they are carrying two of them?

Not moving and firing is using two applies to all support weapons. That includes grenades. The Heavy SRM is Heavy because the missile weighs 18kg compared to the Standard 10kg SRM and the 4kg Light SRM.

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.

You've used MML in multiple discussions with me.

That CGL uses it doesn't make it canon. It's still an independently made product.

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).

I have no idea what MML says. Not that it's canon anyway. Where in Total Warfare does it mark differences between 1 or 2 SRM launcher per squad and between light, heavy and 2shot SRM teams? Quotes with Page numbers please.

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.

That modifier is a TechManual Rule. Show me where it says that in Total Warfare.

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.

The TW Infantry's damage may be high but it also has to deal with all armor types regardless of BAR level.

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).

How far a unit can move and shoot are pretty important in a pickup game. So is how much damage a unit can do and take, as well as how much weight they take up as cargo.

That's not a camping trailer.  That's a mobile office.  They even call it a MHQ in the title of the page.

The bunk and sink make it a bit more than just a mobile office.

[Daryk]

The radios and map board make it a Mobile HQ.

[RifleMech]

That is a yes, squads/platoons of nothing but AK style rifles should only be good against other squads/platoons with similar weapons.   

edit:
See, when I thought of Rifle Platoons under CityTech through pre-Tech Manual Total Warfare, I figured they were talking about something like the .50 cal ant-material (sniper) rifle or some sort of equivalent that required more than one person to operate.  It was called a 'Rifle Platoon' because that was the support/squad weapon the formation was fielding.

I wouldn't go as far as removing rifle armed infantry. There are other unit types besides infantry that they can go up against. They do need to be able to shoot up lightly armored vehicles. I'd put limits on what they could damage, like AK-47s do 0 damage against BAR-6 and up. Although, giving them a chance at a lucky hit to damage higher BAR armor would be okay. After all, they still have to be effective against BA which has BAR 10 armor.

This is where multiple attacks would be good. While the support weapons teams are shooting at the Mech/Tank, the rest of the platoon is providing cover fire by firing at other enemy Infantry and Light vehicles.

The radios and map board make it a Mobile HQ.

Yes, and the bunk and sink add living quarters on top of that. Although if we were to try for a BT version, it would either be a lot heavier with 3 tons of com equipment and 5 tons of steerage quarters or be a small vehicle with a couple of field communicators, an advanced field kit, and some cargo space for rations and extra clothes.

[Daryk]

Full up steerage quarters would have a head.  A bunk and a sink is bay quality quarters.  For a single person, that should run around 170 kgs (you get 30 racks for 5 tons).

[paladin2019]

I wouldn't go as far as removing rifle armed infantry. There are other unit types besides infantry that they can go up against. They do need to be able to shoot up lightly armored vehicles. I'd put limits on what they could damage, like AK-47s do 0 damage against BAR-6 and up. Although, giving them a chance at a lucky hit to damage higher BAR armor would be okay. After all, they still have to be effective against BA which has BAR 10 armor.

Note that even a single burst from a rifle has a 1/18 chance of dealing a single point of damage to a mech in MW1e, 1/8 in MW2e.

[Charistoph]

I didn't say there was but things do break down when going between games. You can't even build RPG infantry with TM. And last I looked ground units still had shorter ranges in space compared to aerospace units. There's also the weapon ranges for VTOLs compared to Aerospace in an atmosphere.

Which sounds like the RPG causing the inconsistency here, not TM or TW.

I also explained why. Using 2 points per SRM would let them do more damage even with limited ammo.

That depends on how much Ammo you give them.  If, say, each Squad can only carry 2 shots, then unless you've only ever gotten 2 Shots off from a squad of ConvInf, then they would actually be doing less.

Try it again. I didn't say TW Generic Infantry which add another layer of problems as the as the damage per missile varies. 24 SRM infantry do 1.5 per missile. 30 SRM infantry do 1.875 per missile. 8 infantry do .5 per missile.

Try what again?  Your follow up sentence is making a claim I didn't say, and is poorly written.

You're assuming each infantryman carrying a missile launcher.  Yet, that's not how they are set up.  Which is how your numbers are off.  My calculations were based on the 24 man Platoon being made up of 4 Squads.  Each Squad carries 2 Launchers, and I even provided the math for you.

I did say if each SRM did 2 points of damage. (2 SRMs per squad x 4 squads = 8 missiles at 2 points each = 16 damage x 5 turns = 80 damage.) I also said SRM, not 2 shot SRM which would double the damage down as they're firing 2 SRMs at a time instead of 1. You'll note that half 1.14 is .57, which is what a single SRM does. Currently, 2 SRMs per squad x 4 squads = 4.56 (5) damage. If 2 shot SRM launchers are used the platoon would do 9.12 damage per turn. Compare that to 32 points of damage at 2 points per missile with 16 missiles being fired. Even with limited ammo, that's a huge difference in capabilities and hardly a nerf.

The nerf is that you are front-loading your Damage and after its gone, the DPS of the unit goes down drastically.  I've explained this several times at this point, but you keep ignoring it.

And yet infantry used to track ammo for SRMs and MGs, and they used to do full power. And then there's damages and ranges for BA and CI in the RPG. Depending on the ammo, infantry weapons are more powerful than BA rounds and have better range. Why are infantry weapons better in one game and worse in another?

Infantry tracking Ammo was gone in CityTech, which is when Infantry Platoons were introduced to Battletech.  They've been gone since.  And right now, all things considered, it's a better way to track it unless you can give me a good reason to nerf Infantrymen in this manner.

And again, if you have problems with the difference between RPG and TT, then the origin is with the RPG as its rules came out later.

I didn't say they could switch ammo. I'm saying they don't have to carry a half a ton around before they can have a different type of ammo. Presumably, the platoon is armed with either averaged "standard" round or infernos for that game. I'm asking why can't each squad have a different ammo type? Or if ammo is tracked, why not say how many of what type they're carrying? We can do that for other units using the Fractional Accounting Rules.

They don't need to carry a ton of ammo...

"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." - Riflemech, 21 Feburary 2024, 18:58:27  in the very passage I quoted that you are responding to.  I'm sick of you saying one thing and then denying you have ever said it.

The point of my statement is that they don't have the option to choose Ammo from a stockpile, and they only carry enough of the Ammo they have chosen.  If you switch to tracking Ammo, you will effectively nerf Infantry by forcing them to rely on their Rifles after they run out. 

And again, if that were true, that only MGs, Flamers, and Infernos are Anti-Infantry Weapons, why are there Fragmentation SRMs for TW and Anti-Personnel SRMs for the RPG? And if having different effects for Infantry Ordnance would be a problem, why isn't it for Vehicle Scale Ammo? Why should Infantry NARC Missiles operate differently from Standard NARC Missiles? Why should Guided Mortar rounds operate differently from other Guided rounds? Infantry Air Burst rounds be different from other Air Burst? And how about range? If SRMs had a range of 9, they would out range MGs and Flamers.

You're going the wrong direction with this (that "only" MGs, Flamers, and Flamers), as usual, and asking questions I've already answered.

The reason a player chooses an SRM Infantry Platoon is because they want to poke Armor hard or carry Infernos.  Can you provide any evidence that it is anything else?

But I think this demonstrates more that Infantry SRMs are not Vehicle SRMs more than anything else.

As for the RPG questions, I've answered that several times and you have ignored it every single time.

You start with TW then add other books to it.

Campaign Operations is a different order of book.  I can use Alpha Strike with Campaign Operations.  In fact, our local campaign does it quite regularly, usually 2 in each contract series.  I never have to touch TW on those days, and neither does the GM.

Tanks don't come with quarters. Neither do jeeps or dune buggies. And sure, they could just haul everything in a cargo trailer but most of the troops would be still be on the ground instead of a bunk. At least those trailers and tents have rules for TW and TO. 

I didn't say tanks, jeeps, or dune buggies come with quarters.  That's a rather non-sequitur statement or an outright lie to say I suggested such a thing.

When you're in the field, most soldiers never see a bunk.  That's because a bunk is heavy and bulky.  And that's were your pop-up trailer would be.  Instead of a cargo truck carrying a tank platoon's camp gear and more, adding on a cargo trailer if needed, you want each tank pulling a pop-up trailer that might just barely fit the crew with no other supplies?

If there are rules for trailers in TW, then you can just mock them up, right?  Why do you need rules for something not even the most paid-for-rank Lyran unit commander would have?  It's not something that really affects TW gameplay other than providing a target for the enemy to shoot or capture and laugh at.

How the bubbles and how many get marked off have changed. They used to take full damage from  weapons with each point of damage marking off 1 infantry bubble. Now they do a fraction of that.

How the bubbles have been marked off has not changed.  For each amount of Damage the ConvInf unit receives you mark off from highest number to lowest.

What has changed is how we calculate how much Damage the ConvInf unit has received.

These are different concepts that your statement is conflating.

Its better than a non canon source.

Oh, was that a dig at me using MML as a quick resource and that you haven't properly disproven the accuracy of the conclusion, just complained about the source?

Look, you've given sources, and they've been bunk because you were assuming the rules to be other than what they say.  Hence the purpose of quote requests.

SRM Launcher (Standard, Two-Shot) 30.0 kg / 20 kg (2)
SRM Launcher (Heavy) 20.0 kg / 18 kg
SRM Launcher (Light) 10.0 kg / 9 kg (2)

Ignoring data for RPG concepts.

I didn't say BA fired like conventional infantry. I said there were sources that say that BA and Infantry weapons were the same. If the source material says the weapons are the same, the damage and range should be the same. That they aren't is immersion breaking. Infantry in BattleDroids did damage in 2 points.

If they were the same, then they would act the same.  They don't act the same, so the data says that they aren't the same.

It isn't just the RPG that isn't consistent with TW. Generic Infantry is inconsistent with those in TechManual. Aerospace is inconsistent with ground units.

Aerospace operates from a different perspective.  How far a 0.50cal bullet can go is a lot better when it starts firing 2 miles up rather than 2 feet.

TechManual says otherwise. Look at the damage for support weapons compared to standard weapons. Based on the weight of the 18kg HSRM, it should do about 1.03 damage compared to the Standard 10kg SRMs (.57x2-1.14). And that's still very light compared to the Auto-Rifle's .52 damage. Support weapons should do more damage.

You are conflating two concepts that weren't meant to be conflated.  Currently all of a ConvInf's unit Damage is a mix of both Rifle and Support Weapon, and looking at individual stats that are based on something else entirely.  An SRM Platoon doesn't have 24 men all with 2-shot SRM launchers, yet you're acting as if they are by presenting data like this.

Not moving and firing is using two applies to all support weapons. That includes grenades. The Heavy SRM is Heavy because the missile weighs 18kg compared to the Standard 10kg SRM and the 4kg Light SRM.

And if you're carrying 2 Heavy SRMs, you aren't moving and shooting with it, either.  This is a rather non-sequitur statement.

You've used MML in multiple discussions with me.

Again, you are confusing me with someone else.  I rarely use MML as a source in these types of discussions.  When I do, it is for speed of access and why I state it as a reference. 

All you've done is argue where the data came from, not what the data actually says all to avoid and ignore the important thing, is what I said wrong?

That CGL uses it doesn't make it canon. It's still an independently made product.

That it is independently made doesn't mean much when they use it to make official canon materials.

I have no idea what MML says. Not that it's canon anyway. Where in Total Warfare does it mark differences between 1 or 2 SRM launcher per squad and between light, heavy and 2shot SRM teams? Quotes with Page numbers please.

Non-sequitur statement.  I didn't reference MML in the quote you were answering.  What I said actually can be found in the TechManual, or did you not look that up first?

That modifier is a TechManual Rule. Show me where it says that in Total Warfare.

Show me where that unit is in Total Warfare first.

The TW Infantry's damage may be high but it also has to deal with all armor types regardless of BAR level.

No argument from me.  In fact, that was a point I made earlier in response to someone who wants all Rifles to do no Damage at all to Armor.  Remember this is a value that has changed since the early days as well.  CityTech (through Master Rules) Rifle Infantry could do, at best, half the Damage that Total Warfare Rifle Infantry can do.

How far a unit can move and shoot are pretty important in a pickup game. So is how much damage a unit can do and take, as well as how much weight they take up as cargo.

And if that equipment has no bearing in TechManual construction or other Total Warfare gameplay?

The bunk and sink make it a bit more than just a mobile office.

I've seen many offices with sinks.  I've known a few that have cots and couches one could sleep on.  Even with that, the primary purpose of this was to be a mobile headquarters, just like the offices I've worked in were to be offices, and not an apartment.

Not to mention, this has an engine, so is not a trailer.

[AlphaMirage]

So I think what is continually getting lost but what Cannonshop mentioned is what are infantry supposed to be? We are arguing about rather silly little things such as technology. Obviously the tech of the 31st century will be more advanced and on par with its contemporaries but AP weapons should be suffering some damage penalties against BAR 10 armor like say half if not quarter damage. Which in my example might mean a max of 4.5 damage per ballistic rifle platoon at basically point blank, not a terrible showing but hardly enough to swing a fight.

I am perfectly fine with a simplification of ConvInf to Armored Infantry, I'd even say that the weapons that Armored Infantry use would be crew served at the Conv Foot Inf level and probably mounted on Motorized/Mechanized equivalents. That gets rid of a lot of the TW level nonsense and fractional damage while retaining conversion potential.

That then gives Armored Infantry the advantage of armor and firepower if not mobility as well although that might be beaten by Moto/MechInf as you're looking at a squad of 4 battle armor carrying the equivalent of a platoon of ConvInf Anti-Armor firepower (as long as they haven't expended their missiles). Ammo could be tracked the same way although I'd actually give the ConvInf an edge in this metric (say 4-6 shots of support weapon) as they have ammo bearers as opposed to built in magazines. MechInf or MotoInf equivalents are basically small support vehicles so take mech scale standard damage (and have the same divisor against AP damage) but can haul field guns and MLRS (I'd say MotoInf take a mobility penalty however) in order to deal it in return with half ammo loads compared to regular combat vehicles for balance and the same set-up/pack-up turn penalty.

Anti-Personnel Weapons should be reduced to some small group (Ballistic, Laser, Gyrojet/Missile) with varying tradeoffs in theme with the larger equivalents. Squad AP damage for Ballistic is more powerful (1d6 AP, 1/2/3) but heavier and shorter range than Laser (1d6/2AP, 2/4/6) which is still outranged by Gyrojet at a reduced AP grade (1d6/3 AP Min 2, 3/7/9) while being heavier than lasers. These AP weapons can also be carried by Battle Armor (with equivalent damage per suit) and would be the principal weapons of Jump or other specialist (VTOL, SCUBA, etc...) infantry along with limited short range explosives (ala the Pop-Up Mine). Increasing armor would reduce mobility like it presently does (move or shoot and forbidden on Jump/Specialist) but would give you the same half damage divisor against AP damage modes from AP and heavier weapons.

Melee damage I don't think needs to be modeled at the TW map level but might be important for CQB score during boarding actions or building storming. I'd say extreme close range weapons such as flamers would be rolled into this score as well.

I am also of the opinion that Squad Level deployment is the way to go with a 10-man limit on the unit size. This limits some of the abuses that might be present while still allowing for a platoon (of 3-5 Squads which would also be the stacking limit per hex) with varying weapon loads. This would have all the same advantages of squad deployment (+2 To-Hit) while also being easily purchased with spare BV on part with maybe a suit or two of Battle Armor.

[Cavgunner]

AlphaMirage, I think you're making some good points. In general I agree that a squad should be the basic tactical unit. Having played systems like Renegade Legion and Heavy Gear, that's a power curve that seems to work well.

Unfortunately I think the problems with infantry are indicative of a larger problem, which is that the infantry rules, while they are presently BETTER than they were, still suck. And that's because Battletech needed a full rules overhaul by the 90's and never got it. It still needs it, but if such a thing happened the grognards would probably revolt.

Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but any time one tries to pull off anything more complex than a lance-on-lance game, the system's deficiencies become increasingly evident.

[RifleMech]

Full up steerage quarters would have a head.  A bunk and a sink is bay quality quarters.  For a single person, that should run around 170 kgs (you get 30 racks for 5 tons).

With 6 racks in the camper, each would weigh 83.33kg but I'd be okay with 170 kg per bunk.

Note that even a single burst from a rifle has a 1/18 chance of dealing a single point of damage to a mech in MW1e, 1/8 in MW2e.

I do remember they had a chance at damage and I'd be okay with that coming back for armored targets. Against other units they can do full damage.

So I think what is continually getting lost but what Cannonshop mentioned is what are infantry supposed to be? We are arguing about rather silly little things such as technology. Obviously the tech of the 31st century will be more advanced and on par with its contemporaries but AP weapons should be suffering some damage penalties against BAR 10 armor like say half if not quarter damage. Which in my example might mean a max of 4.5 damage per ballistic rifle platoon at basically point blank, not a terrible showing but hardly enough to swing a fight.

I don't believe technology will always be more advanced. Not all planets are at the same level of advancement. Those that aren't make do with what they can build or with what they can buy.

[paladin2019]

I do remember they had a chance at damage and I'd be okay with that coming back for armored targets. Against other units they can do full damage.

This is one of my annoyances with MGs in general. You can't use them like a lead hose to clean dirt off your buddy since they can effectively damage your buddy.

[Lance Leader]

Then you're in agreement with the rules.  A single shot from a 4/4 rifle will round down to zero.

  Yeah, but I'm thinking you are going to need in the neighborhood of 1,000 or so to do a point of mech scale damage.  The size difference between an auto-rifle round and an auto-canon is massive, on the order of 1,000+ to 1 (like 76mm vs 7.6mm).  Basically to damage mech/vehicular scale armor infantry should have to lug around things like 10kg SRM missiles or at the low end something like a 2kg VLAW, anything in a small or arms range should really be useless against armor that can survive hits from auto-canon caliber ammunition. 

  Plus, it would make for more interesting infantry combat requiring you to have a mix of anti-armor and anti-infantry equipped troops.  If you bring only SRM teams they should be at a massive disadvantage against an opponent who has brought a screen of rifle equipped soldiers kitted out for annihilating other infantry.

[Charistoph]

So I think what is continually getting lost but what Cannonshop mentioned is what are infantry supposed to be?

That is a good point.  However, in a lot of cases, that's going to depend on several different factors, but mostly that will be what are they equipped with?  Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should see Juggernaut Infantry, but almost all of them are listed as "Ambusher", "Scout", or even "None".  Only the Field Gunner Artillery units have a different role.

Obviously the tech of the 31st century will be more advanced and on par with its contemporaries but AP weapons should be suffering some damage penalties against BAR 10 armor like say half if not quarter damage. Which in my example might mean a max of 4.5 damage per ballistic rifle platoon at basically point blank, not a terrible showing but hardly enough to swing a fight.

I think doing 5 max Damage against Armor for 30 ConvInf might be too low, but it also depends on how many Rifles that Platoon might be carrying as well.  I could see 4-5 if they are also carrying a maximum Squad Support Weapon load. 

Still, another thing to consider is that a full Squad of 10 Riflemen you are basically suggesting that they only 1 Damage, if they do any Damage at all.  That seems poor and will relegate Rifle Squads to almost non-existance aside from campaign speed bumps.

I am perfectly fine with a simplification of ConvInf to Armored Infantry, I'd even say that the weapons that Armored Infantry use would be crew served at the Conv Foot Inf level and probably mounted on Motorized/Mechanized equivalents. That gets rid of a lot of the TW level nonsense and fractional damage while retaining conversion potential.

What do you mean by "Armored Infantry"?  Are you speaking of ConvInf with extra Armor or do you mean Battle Armor?  Both exist, so it would be important to make sure we're understanding each other before responding on these concepts.

TAnti-Personnel Weapons should be reduced to some small group (Ballistic, Laser, Gyrojet/Missile) with varying tradeoffs in theme with the larger equivalents. Squad AP damage for Ballistic is more powerful (1d6 AP, 1/2/3) but heavier and shorter range than Laser (1d6/2AP, 2/4/6) which is still outranged by Gyrojet at a reduced AP grade (1d6/3 AP Min 2, 3/7/9) while being heavier than lasers. These AP weapons can also be carried by Battle Armor (with equivalent damage per suit) and would be the principal weapons of Jump or other specialist (VTOL, SCUBA, etc...) infantry along with limited short range explosives (ala the Pop-Up Mine). Increasing armor would reduce mobility like it presently does (move or shoot and forbidden on Jump/Specialist) but would give you the same half damage divisor against AP damage modes from AP and heavier weapons.

As a note, it might be wise to note "Anti-Personnel" (AP) Damage as "Anti-Infantry" (AI) for clarity.  For one, this is how Burst-Fire weapons are noted in the charts.  For a second, it prevents it from being confused with "Armor-Piercing" notations.

Also, Elementals, as well as a fair number of other Battle Armor models, are noted as carrying small arms which is patterned off of ConvInf Rifle fire.  It's just not used in Total Warfare's scale because the number it provides is rather low, even against ConvInf units.

Melee damage I don't think needs to be modeled at the TW map level but might be important for CQB score during boarding actions or building storming. I'd say extreme close range weapons such as flamers would be rolled into this score as well.

"Need" is often a strong word bandied about when someone wants it to an extreme level.  However, I will say it could be nice to have a "Melee" value that can be used with ConvInf, but that primarily focuses on being AI Damage.  Anything that might be able to actually damage Armor (such as vibroswords someone previously mentioned) would be equipment used for Anti-Mech/Vehicle Attacks, as well as be used against Battle Armor.

I am also of the opinion that Squad Level deployment is the way to go with a 10-man limit on the unit size. This limits some of the abuses that might be present while still allowing for a platoon (of 3-5 Squads which would also be the stacking limit per hex) with varying weapon loads. This would have all the same advantages of squad deployment (+2 To-Hit) while also being easily purchased with spare BV on part with maybe a suit or two of Battle Armor.

So the Platoon basically becomes the Stacking Limit for Infantry?  Would this allow friendly Combat Vehicles and Mechs to stack with them, too?


Also one other thing I forgot to consider till now, and I haven't seen anyone else mention it, the ability for ConvInf to perform Leg and Swarm Attacks require a large group to handle it at this time, thus being a necessity to organize as a Platoon for such events.

While the Gray Death stories would have you believe that a single unenhanced, but quite heroic, person can Leg a Mech on their own, currently even the most filled Squad here puts a mod on that Attack to a +5 or +7 for Leg Attacks, and Swarm Attacks simply just aren't possible.

While I don't doubt the effectiveness of Anti-Mech Attacks is best served by having a lot of people being involved, I think this is something that needs to be addressed, particularly if Squad Deployment is to be the Standard we're shooting for.

First off, I think this base modification based on size would need to go away with Squad Deployment being a Standard.  The amount of Damage that it provides should be the reason to bring more people.  For example, 1 Squad doing a Leg Attack will do 1 Damage base, provided they don't have any extra equipment for the job.  If you want to do more, either bring Battle Armor with Claws for the job, proper explosives, the vibroswords someone mentioned, or just simply more Squads to do the job.

On the other side of things, I think having the anti-Swarm modifiers by having Battle Armor riding is a good idea, and where ConvInf wants/needs the numbers of a Platoon to handle the situation.

One last thought, there should to be an option to perform the equivalent of a "Leg Attack" against Vehicles.  At present the only option is to Swarm.  I think in this case, it could even be set up as one of two different types.  Either the Squad/Platoon is trying to disable the Vehicle with a Crit, or disable the Vehicle's Motive system to make it vulnerable.  One might need to be harder than another for balancing purposes, but that's something that can be done with testing and review.

[paladin2019]

A "sticky bomb" or, more likely, a satchel charge in the tracks could easily have its own special hit location table for the attack. All anti-mech infantry would be carrying this equipment (and thus have the capability for an AM>8).