Battle Armor of the Week - Grenadier

[Savage Coyote]

People tend to get down on APC deployment of slow Battle Armor a lot, which confuses me as I've not had that experience.

Vehicles and BA are both one level high, so they are under cover behind most terrain features. With fast enough APCs, VTOLs are my preference, you can drop units out of LOS to create great areas of denial.

This.  Doesn't matter the weight of the BA; if you can forward deploy them in turns 2 or 3 (or 4 depending on map sizes/terrain) you have created those denial areas.  I've had a lot of success doing this with VTOL's (and hovers.)  If you can time it with your forces to concentrate fire to cover for the BA (or have faster 'mechs that can catch up and/or provide better targets for the enemy) you can have some truly interesting results!

[Weirdo]

So rather than mimic the Clans and pit them directly alone head to head with mechs, AFFS doctrine seems to use them to provide heavy firepower to infantry when they run into heavy enemy combat units.  Which is an interesting take on the concept.  I suppose numbers and support logistic issues keep them from going to rifleman PBIs and offloading the heavy weapons solely to suits.  OTOH replacing a company or battalion's heavy weapon platoon/company with battle armor would make the heavy hitters more survivable, and capable of carrying more firepower and ammo.

This POV would mean they AFFS are more willing to sacrifice some speed for firepower and/or protection.  While some higher than leg infantry speed is good, it is wasted if your primary duties are tied to a slower unit.

The FWL's Phalanx indicates they've gone for a similar approach, as the fluff says it is meant for exactly that kind of deployment.

On the tabletop, I've found that mixing BA with foot troops to be a very tough combination, particularly with my Marians. A Century each of Ravagers and Royal Guardsmen has proven to be a very tough nut to crack, and absolutely murderous to anything that enters their range. Given the fancy toys the AFFS can give their troops, a Davion-style take on the same could be absolutely lethal.

[Hellraiser]

Or the AFFS doesn't see BA as 'micro-mechs' but rather 'super heavy infantry'.  It fits with their deployment in RCTs as stated in FM:FS of shooting for each RCT infantry regiment to eventually have at least a company of BA attached to it.  That is in terms of firepower if not manpower a fourth battalion to each regiment.

So rather than mimic the Clans and pit them directly alone head to head with mechs, AFFS doctrine seems to use them to provide heavy firepower to infantry when they run into heavy enemy combat units. 

They do have independent battalions IIRC that replace a full infantry regiment in some RCTs too.
I'd imagine they get some separate missions away from the leg groups.  But over all yes, its another part of the Suns combined arms support brigades for the RCTs.

[Nikas_Zekeval]

They do have independent battalions IIRC that replace a full infantry regiment in some RCTs too.
I'd imagine they get some separate missions away from the leg groups.  But over all yes, its another part of the Suns combined arms support brigades for the RCTs.

Which is why I specified each RCT infantry regiment getting a company of BA the minimum goal.  Also in cases of full BA Battalions they replace infantry regiments.  I supose in cases of full BA battalions they likely replaced the jump infantry regiment.

From what I know the original mix was two leg infantry regiments, two mechanized/vehicle mounted reigments and one jump regiment.  Around the 4th Succession War the FS started trying to shift the two leg regiments to mechanized, but never fully managed the transition.  Probably the same deal with BA in Commonwealth, then later FedSun's service.  A long term organizational goal, never quite achived due to events and budget.

[Davion_Boy_74]

Hmm. How did this slip through?

Right. RS:3145 NTNU gives us a new Grenadier variant and two new Hunter-Killer variants.

The Grenadier loads a Heavy Flamer onto both the body and arm Modular Weapon Mounts giving it two 4 point flamers reaching out to 4 hexes. The main point here is killing infantry I guess. The big problem is that there is plenty of infantry that reaches beyond 4 hexes and ignores stealth armour and runs faster than 2MP.

The first Hunter-Killer variant loads a C3 unit into (I assume) the body mount and a Heavy Recoilless Rifle on the arm mount. 3 damage at 7 hexes isn't bad... C3 is always good. I am not sure about a 2MP suit as a spotter though. In general this suit seems like a sacrificial play as its own firepower is so compromised. I sort of hope you can still use C3 without the spotter needing LOS. That rule seems to come in and out of favour. Otherwise this suit is going to get hammered.

The second Hunter-Killer variant carries a Magshot and a Small VSP Laser. The SVSP leaves me cold. Seems a lot of effort to get that 5 damage at two hexes. An ERSL is probably better. The Magshot needs no introduction. Again I am not really sold here. I guess it is the inability of the suit to settle at a range and work it. 2 points at 9 hexes, 5 points at 4 hexes, 8 at 2 hexes. The problem being it is hard to get a 2MP suit in to 2 hexes.

Sorry I've left this so long to ask, Should the Grenadier in RS:3145 NTNU, get a "write up" on the New Techs, New Upgrades page(s) along with the other Battle Armor ?, besides the new Record Sheets ?, if so then this should be mentioned as Errata ?.

Thanks.

Dave.

[jymset]

Sorry I've left this so long to ask, Should the Grenadier in RS:3145 NTNU, get a "write up" on the New Techs, New Upgrades page(s) along with the other Battle Armor ?, besides the new Record Sheets ?, if so then this should be mentioned as Errata ?.

Thanks.

Dave.

Nope, the "new" Grenadiers simply feature different weapon configurations on their dual modular weapon mounts. The chassis wasn't modified at all. As such, they fall under the same category as OmniMechs, which were covered by a simple sentence in the introduction of NTNU.

[Davion_Boy_74]

jymset, Thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding  :-[ for me  O0.

Dave.