BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
BattleTech Player Boards => Fan Designs and Rules => Battle Armor => Topic started by: Mostro Joe on 16 February 2024, 12:54:40
-
I know that many of you are really not interested in how non-mechs units work. And it's fine, Battletech is battlemech game after all.
But I really like the combined arms aspect and, many years ago, I remember that with a friend of mine we had some games using only non-mechs units, and we had a lot of fun!
I've read in a recent interview by Ray Arrastia and Aaron Cahall that we can see a new iteration of the Battletech manuals, coming to an end to the "Total Warfare edition" (if I have well understood obviously).
I wanted to know if there are some ideas to clean a little the infantry rules, because again in that interview I've seen that in future we can see a different way to play Aerotech, for an exemple.
In particular, there are two aspects that I think can be addressed.
I think that the mechanized infantry concept introduced with Total Warfare is totally wrong and problematic. I mean that TW says that these units work in close conjunction with vehicles that they use to move around the battlefield. I think this creates problems, because it doubles with the motorized infantry concept that we have seen from the Citytech times. And creates problems even because in the TROs we see a lot of vehicles that can be used by infantry to move on the battlefield: APCs in particular, but not only them.
It is weird to think to these sort of "matrioska infantry" units, where they jump on jeeps or trucks (or worst of all "intrinsec APCs of IFVs"!!), and then again on APCs or Maxims! Also, it seems that mechanized infantry can go up and down building without any problem.
In some TROs there is also a lot of confusion how these "vehicles" should appear": they are hover bikes, VTOL packs or some sort of trucked sleds, it depends by the TRO and the illustration. It is very chaotic and I think this kind of infantry should be soon or later entirely removed from the rules.
Instead, given the light appearance of the vehicles, I think that it can rewritten the motorized infantry section. I mean, motorized infantry can be motorized (tracked) infantry, or motorized (VTOL) infantry and so on. It can still use the concept of infantry that moves around using very light vehicles. But IFVs should be separated vehicles that have their unit sheet, like the Maxim to make an easy exemple.
The other problem is the construction rules. In the techmanual there is huge array of weapons that can equip infantry, but it seems really a waste of space given the Battletech scale. I mean, yes we can think a bout a police squad armed just with pistols, but why have so many pistol models? I think that in the Battletech scale to make a difference between different assault rifles and pistols have little sense. In a "6mm scale" we can think about rifle infantry without having to really care about the exact rifle model they are using, on that scale there is no need for that. And the same can be said for SMGs and pistols. Support weapons can be different obviously.
And talking about support weapons, I found really strange to see that melee weapons can be chosen for that role.
Again, why there are grenades statistics? In a Battletech scale, it has little sense to have statistics for grenades (there are statistics for minigrenades!). I think their use should be automatically accounted for when infantries fight in the same hex, because they are a close combat device after all! I don't know, give the infantry an augmented firepower at 0 range, give it a bonus to hit, I don't know how to implement the use of grenades in game terms, but I think that a simple game mechanic is a clean idea and resolve the presence of grenades in the filed. And the same can be said for melee weapons! It is really needed a statistic for a knive of for a club on this gaming scale? For a shuriken, for a tomahawk??? Not even wargames in a 25/28mm scale are so nitpicky about the exact melee weapons used, why Battletech?
I think that to address some special equipment (like the use of microgrenades or neural whips) it is sufficient use some special ability written specifically for infantries, and just when it is really needed. Or for some flavour effect (taking into account katanas for Kuritan troops just to make an exemple). Et voila.
Sorry for the lenght of the post, if you arrived until there, thanks for your patience :cheesy:
-
I think of Mechanized Infantry as the first attempt at abstracted infantry/vehicle pairing while keeping it at Mech Scale. I do think there needs to be a better name and clarity however as real world parlance would make Foot infantry 'mounted' in APCs/IFVs 'Mechanized.'
MechInf take Standard Damage as vehicles and should be able to use the heaviest of infantry weapons (with Tracked MechInf basically Panzer 1 or 2s and Tankettes). I however definitely think they should be treated as light vehicles with all the restrictions of their larger counterparts and the only type to utilize field guns or MLRS (Field Missile Launchers with all the same rules, so you can have a mobile mortar team) although I would only give these weapons a half ton of ammo for balance purposes with the dedicated combat vehicles.
Frankly they should be the poor man's Armored Infantry, equally fragile, with less firepower but superior mobility (and no motive checks) in open terrain while Armored Infantry is better up close or in broken terrain where they can break LOS. This gives them a distinct role and character.
Motorized I like as is except you shouldn't be able to carry a field gun behind a motorcycle or use support weapons, I would make them move 5 (6 on roads) however instead of 3 because Jump is just better at that speed and Wheeled MechInf move 4 (5 on roads) already. This would give them an outrider/scouting role for other assets or as objective grabbers. Jump I think is good as is.
That said I also don't like the lighter end of vehicles so I feel <10 should be built using support vehicle rules or as Infantry squads. The only thing stopping that is the Savanna Master Mafia. There is just to much madness going on with the movement profiles that low on the scale.
Speaking of Squads though I think the base deployment should be the Squad rather than the Platoon and that most of the additional rules in TacOps for Infantry (scaling walls, digging in, etc...) should be normal.
-
That said I also don't like the lighter end of vehicles so I feel <10 should be built using support vehicle rules or as Infantry squads. The only thing stopping that is the Savanna Master Mafia. There is just to much madness going on with the movement profiles that low on the scale.
I absolutely agree with you here. And I think that <10 vehicles could stay in a hex in a number of four.
To use the support vehicles rules for light vehicles can be a way to create really interesting motorized infantry units. No mechanized, I mean really motorized.
-
So dont want to go into fan rules here.
Infantry, as I understand, are the most changed set of unit rules in battletech. From the simple and fantastic squads in battletroops and jeeps for mech/motorized, to citytech, BMR, and now total warfare, infantry have gotten more amd more and more complicated.
Further, after total warfare they switched infantry again, and made infantry based off the RPG a time of war infantry weapons. So a total warfare flamer team isn't a thing in tech manual. The conversion for infantry to mech damage is also flatly incorrect--a micro/infantry grenade, even a dozen of them in a burst, do 0 damage to a mech in ATOW...but because of the creative math in the RPG companion an underslug grenade launcher somehow ADDS damage done to mechs, despite the grenade doing 0 damage in the RPG. So this led to ANOTHER change, a damage cap on personal weapons because the RPG + conversion leads to such silly and broken infantry units.
So we have seen 3 different stat blocks for infantry even within total warfare. The current implementation of tracking each pistol at the battlemech scale, which started with techmanual, is just awful--it also means being tied to the RPG instead of being tied to battlemechs, in the battletech game. An infantry missile, because of weird conversion rules, does almost no damage especially compared to a rifle, compared to mech and battle armor where missiles act like missiles and the unit has a finite number of them. Even battledroids infantry had SRMs with ammo.
Seeing as we have two battletech RPGs now, the 'next' total warfare could gladly do away with lots of the bad infantry things we have now. Its more then fair to say a total warfare style book could have infantry written to work specifically at the battlemech scale, instead of giving us RPG weapons like platoons armed with pistols, which have no function at the battlemech total warfare scale. And because infantry is the most changed units, I would love the new book to take another try at infantry honestly designed for the battlemech scale.
-
Even battledroids infantry had SRMs with ammo.
I think that's a concept that should be reintroduced.
Seeing as we have two battletech RPGs now, the 'next' total warfare could gladly do away with lots of the bad infantry things we have now. Its more then fair to say a total warfare style book could have infantry written to work specifically at the battlemech scale, instead of giving us RPG weapons like platoons armed with pistols, which have no function at the battlemech total warfare scale. And because infantry is the most changed units, I would love the new book to take another try at infantry honestly designed for the battlemech scale.
I agree. As I said there's no need to talk about minutiae when we consider the scale Battletech is played. A rifle platoon should be a rifle platoon, there's no need to talk about the exact brand of the rifle employed. I've seen historical wargames in a bigger scale that have absolutely no need to diversify from a M-16 or an AK-74, assault rifles are just assault rifles for gaming purpouses.
Not only it's crazy to write an entire page to have different data for tomahawks, axes, nunchakus and so on (how can a staff be so different from a club or a bo on a Battletech scale???), but if you think, medium lasers are just medium lasers, no matter if they are Martell branded or not! So the weapons mounted on Battlemechs, the kings of the battlefield and of the game, have no differences (a large laser is a large laser) but the brand of the laser rifle used by the foot soldier makes a difference? Nonsense!
-
I do think Infantry and Aerospace need work but the end of Total Warfare? :huh:
When it comes to Infantry, I think they're too abstracted, especially Motorized/Mechanized Infantry. They should be the vehicle version of Battle Armor. They're treated as Vehicles in AToW, they should be in Total Warfare too.
Infantry should also have more than one attack. Melee weapons shouldn't be added to ranged attacks to hit multiple hexes away.
I don't mind the different weapons. They do need to be consistent within and between games though. What AToW calls Ordnance Weapons are the biggest offenders. And all ammo types should be available and without averaging. The damage may not change in TW but the effects should be different.
-
I do think Infantry and Aerospace need work but the end of Total Warfare? :huh:
So it's hinted in the interview I've read on sarna.net.
It is said "the thing coming up is the new Total Warfare—and we’re not gonna call it that, but I’ve shorthanded it that way." And again "We can bring order to chaos. We can create a core line that makes sense; that’s fewer books, that still has the same content for the most part, but makes sense. A single book that Total Warfare once was when there was no BattleMech Manual, when there were not as many other core books".
Obviously I don't know if this will be effectively a real thing. Or what shape will have anyway.
-
We have to remember that Total War came out 20 years ago, originally under FanPro as part of the Classic BattleTech 20th Anniversary revival. It's the longest-running BattleTech rules set, but it's getting very long in the tooth now. It's a product of a different time and could really use a facelift and reorganization, especially with the Universe book coming out.
-
I do think Infantry and Aerospace need work but the end of Total Warfare? :huh:
Considering a reformat desperately needs to be done on the lines of The Battlemech Manual as well as the age of the original document, it does need to be replaced. The longest running version of the rules before that was technically The Master Rules, and that's because FASA was gone and 'MechClix didn't touch it.
With that reformat, it won't line up with any version of Total Warfare before it, and so confuse some players when new documentation comes out. The alternative is having The Battlemech Manual become the central focus and a "Combined Arms Manual" and similar start coming out to address specific rules for units like Infantry and Vehicles.
When it comes to Infantry, I think they're too abstracted, especially Motorized/Mechanized Infantry. They should be the vehicle version of Battle Armor. They're treated as Vehicles in AToW, they should be in Total Warfare too.
Infantry should also have more than one attack. Melee weapons shouldn't be added to ranged attacks to hit multiple hexes away.
I don't mind the different weapons. They do need to be consistent within and between games though. What AToW calls Ordnance Weapons are the biggest offenders. And all ammo types should be available and without averaging. The damage may not change in TW but the effects should be different.
While I agree that Motorized and Mechanized Infantry aren't done well, I disagree that Total Warfare needs to kowtow to the RPG. Battletech came first and should be the dominant perspective. Not to mention, Battletech is so far pulled out from the RPG perspectives that any regular guy can literally be taken out by anything if they aren't in Battle Armor.
Having a Physical Attack to work against other Infantry is a good idea, though.
-
So it's hinted in the interview I've read on sarna.net.
It is said "the thing coming up is the new Total Warfare—and we’re not gonna call it that, but I’ve shorthanded it that way." And again "We can bring order to chaos. We can create a core line that makes sense; that’s fewer books, that still has the same content for the most part, but makes sense. A single book that Total Warfare once was when there was no BattleMech Manual, when there were not as many other core books".
Obviously I don't know if this will be effectively a real thing. Or what shape will have anyway.
Thanks. I hadn't read that. I don't know how they'll have fewer books without making them bigger.
Considering a reformat desperately needs to be done on the lines of The Battlemech Manual as well as the age of the original document, it does need to be replaced. The longest running version of the rules before that was technically The Master Rules, and that's because FASA was gone and 'MechClix didn't touch it.
With that reformat, it won't line up with any version of Total Warfare before it, and so confuse some players when new documentation comes out. The alternative is having The Battlemech Manual become the central focus and a "Combined Arms Manual" and similar start coming out to address specific rules for units like Infantry and Vehicles.
I do agree that the layout could be a lot better.
While I agree that Motorized and Mechanized Infantry aren't done well, I disagree that Total Warfare needs to kowtow to the RPG. Battletech came first and should be the dominant perspective. Not to mention, Battletech is so far pulled out from the RPG perspectives that any regular guy can literally be taken out by anything if they aren't in Battle Armor.
I don't mean that the BG should kowtow to the RPG but one should be reflective of the other. If they don't it makes it difficult to believe they're in the same universe. For example, a 10kg SRM should be a 10kg SRM regardless of what fires it. Right now there's 3 different stats for the same 10kg SRM. And the ammo types shouldn't be averaged. Anti-Personnel rounds should have different effects from Anti-Vehicle rounds.
I get that some things, like the Pop-up Trailer, aren't going to have much of an effect in a pickup game but I should still be able to use it in a TW campaign.
Having a Physical Attack to work against other Infantry is a good idea, though.
Thanks, although it shouldn't be limited to just infantry. A platoon of Vibro-Sword armed Infantry could use their melee weapons against a tank.
presuming they live to get that close.
-
Honestly-I've been waiting for a new set of official rules to replace my old books.
My edition of TW is the 1st one. If I print out all the errata for that I have to carry a stack
of papers almost as thick as the OG hard copy itself.
As for the infantry question-IMHO- they need to publish a chart of canon infantry platoons
available for each era including their BV costs and other relevant in game info.
Some overall standard that's easy to grab and go and accepted by the community. IN a core rule book.
If anybody wants to mod it-they can mod it, but a standard unit selection for something as low
level as infantry should be a no brainer.
Right now most players I know grab something off Mega-Mek.
I don't want to read an Encyclopedia to make my own for a pick up game when they're just crunchies.
Some standard platoons in print from an official source would be great.
-
I don't mean that the BG should kowtow to the RPG but one should be reflective of the other. If they don't it makes it difficult to believe they're in the same universe. For example, a 10kg SRM should be a 10kg SRM regardless of what fires it. Right now there's 3 different stats for the same 10kg SRM. And the ammo types shouldn't be averaged. Anti-Personnel rounds should have different effects from Anti-Vehicle rounds.
It came across that way. As it is, there are a LOT of things that are notably abstracted from the Infantry level that just don't need to be replicated because the differences are just too finicky and variable.
Though this is getting in to Fan Rules territory, having different types of Missile Launchers is a good idea from one perspective, standard SRMs reduce Infantry's Movement. Having a Lighter set that does lower Damage, but allows for regular Movement would be nice. Much the same as the difference between Ballistic and Laser Rifles in Damage are, just with a different trade off.
However, having an AI Infantry Missile just doesn't make sense (aside from the dual-purpose Inferno). The primary purpose of Missiles IS anti-Armor, after all.
I get that some things, like the Pop-up Trailer, aren't going to have much of an effect in a pickup game but I should still be able to use it in a TW campaign.
You're going to need to provide some reasoning for that, I think. If you're just talking about its existence to it can be shot at like a Support Truck, I guess, but it doesn't have even that purpose, then why?
Thanks, although it shouldn't be limited to just infantry. A platoon of Vibro-Sword armed Infantry could use their melee weapons against a tank.
presuming they live to get that close.
I would rather address it as a means for Infantry to do an equivalent of a 'Leg Attack' on a Vehicle, rather than Swarm being the only option. In those cases, the Vibro-Sword would be allowed to use it for this purpose instead of Satchel Charges.
As for the infantry question-IMHO- they need to publish a chart of canon infantry platoons
available for each era including their BV costs and other relevant in game info.
Some overall standard that's easy to grab and go and accepted by the community. IN a core rule book.
If anybody wants to mod it-they can mod it, but a standard unit selection for something as low
level as infantry should be a no brainer.
Right now most players I know grab something off Mega-Mek.
I don't want to read an Encyclopedia to make my own for a pick up game when they're just crunchies.
Some standard platoons in print from an official source would be great.
Since a couple TROs carry Infantry (and I haven't purchased any Record Sheet packs), I'm rather surprised that they don't already exist in the Record Sheet Packs. This should be something easily addressed.
-
I thought Total Warfare had stock infantry options. The chaos came with TechManual.
That aside, I wholeheartedly agree that there should be a change. But, I'm more one for narrative consistency. And, the issue I had with Total Warfare in large part was the removal of that consistency to make all units playable in the game at all times. It breaks my immersion when Mechs are supposed to be this amazing thing, but can be taken down by a similarly armed tank or amorphous stat blob of hit points that is standard infantry. And, it was made worse by forcing armored units to have to move into engagement range where infantry can strike back to use the weapon best suited for that role because of errata enforcements.
It makes such fantastic machines such as Mechs, and even tanks, laughable when what might be a group of unarmored irregulars can take them out at all. And, Total Warfare makes no distinction between front line troops or poorly equipped weekend warriors. Again, that only comes into play with TechManual and potentially units in the TRos.
That doesn't sit right with me.
It was many moons ago when somebody on these boards (not me) suggested that there should be about three levels of play when it comes to the personal individual character. Roleplaying - Infantry Combat - Armored Combat. (We could go so far as to add Capital Ship and maybe planetary strategy levels, too.) The RPG should handle situations that don't involve combat. That's what you need all those other skills and traits for. An Infantry Combat game, like a refined Battle Troops can be used on its own or for RPG combat when all else has failed on the RPG front and bullets are about to fly. And when armor gets involved in the form of Mechs and Tanks, you moved to the Game of Armored Combat.
I personally have come to agree with that. Which is one of the reasons you hear me pining for a Revised BattleTroops. It could be done with A Time of War combat rules if you give players stock infantry builds to pick from for each faction. I would prefer something a little different, using elements of a game of armored combat like the pilot damage chart from BattleMechs to link it to the armored game more readily.
BattleTech got off the ground not because of it's construction system and game rules specifically. It got off the ground because it had some pre-made Mechs to choose from at the start. The construction system allowed people to tweak existing designs or homebrew whole Mechs to their heart's content. New equipment from different eras expanded that, which gave the game much longer legs.
But, as it stands, when it comes to infantry, all we have is Total Warfare, or A Time of War. Total Warfare is too ambiguous to give players something to latch onto for a mental visual.
A Time of War has the problem of requiring players to go straight to the 'construction rules' to make PCs and NPCs. That's a pretty daunting task to just get started in playing a game or two. What if you just want to do a simple platoon-on-platoon fight?
So, from a meta perspective, I've gone back to looking at BattleTroops rules when it comes to the armored combat scale. The SRMs acted like SRMs on BattleMechs and Tanks. The Machine Guns acted like Machine Guns on BattleMechs and Tanks. And, that was the only things that Infantry had to use against armored units. On the flip side, they were also glass cannons, able to be taken out pretty easily. That fits the lore of the setting much better than what we have now.
Now, the idea of a single point of damage wiping out an entire squad was a bit much, regardless of where that point of damage came from. But, if we just change the fluff behind what's happening, it could simply be the attack took out one or more Squad Weapons. That's something that feels right. It also means the rest of the squad is potentially still present and active. They just don't have the teeth to hurt armored units. But, they could still hurt other squads. Or, they could go to ground and regroup after the battle's said and done. I wouldn't mind having that bit of detail as an option.
For one, it makes sense that in an advanced enough future like BattleTech, a computerized targeting system should be able to pick out the threat in a squad and snipe it with ease. Infantry are not good at keeping up a scramble at all times, even for a full minute, let alone two or more. They're more inclined, or should be, to seek cover and fire from behind it. That makes a Squad Weapon easy pickings once it's been used.
Heck, I wouldn't mind different scales of equipment and training getting different styles of performance. I've toyed with and have seen other people look into deploying standard infantry platoons like Battle Armor squads. That could be something for proper front-line trained and equipped forces.
But, in the end, I want consistency. I saw what the rules looked like when the goal was to make Everything Playable in a board game. It breaks the reality for the setting for me. Mechs are special for a reason beyond psychological, in-universe. Instead of looking for a counter technology or tactic to overcome the Hegemony's new toy by the Great Houses, they all adopted the technology, instead. Armored Warfare changed with the BattleMech.
That means, to me, infantry shouldn't be readily playable on the Game of Armored Combat Map. They should be very niche and have very specialized roles. And, if you try to use them in ways they shouldn't be, Like the UrbanMech, they'll get ripped apart. They're narrative pieces, objective holders and takers, something that should make a game interesting. Not something that should break the immersion.
For them to really shine, Infantry should be played on a different scale, like a dedicated infantry combat game, or RPG combat level. (Same with Space ships, while I'm at it. But that's a different discussion.)
So, that has been my hope and dream for a change to infantry. Question is, will I be forced to do it at my own table?
We shall see.
-
Yeah, I have the same issues with the infantry rules. I general stick to generic TW foot and jump platoons and ignore mechanized and motorized infantry types as I find them just a little too abstracted. If I want to bring transports I just bring transports for my foot/jump platoons.
I find the Tech-Manual custom infantry rules too open for min/maxing and non-sensical for my taste. Too easy to combine a high damage short range weapon with a high range secondary weapon for a best off all worlds combination, like a mixed auto-rifle and laser-rifle squad that basically get the damage of auto-rifles and the range of laser-rifles.
I won't go into too much detail here but I have made some house-rules for infantry that work for me but I have never had an opportunity to put them to use in a game against an opponent. To sum up the main changes are that, small vehicles can be assembled into platoons that function nearly identically to battle armor squads, and infantry weapons BAR ratings from ATOW dictate what they can and can't damage so that you can't auto-rifle a BAR 10 tank or mech to death and need something like SRM launcher to even damage heavy armored units.
-
Following with with interest this thread, Everyone is giving a lot of advice thanks.
I can say again that, in a new iteration of the infantry rules, there should not be that Rpg mad level of details if you want to play on a Battletech scale.
Please, try to remember that in many other infantry-centric wargames, there is absolutely no need to specify the exact kind of weapon every soldier is using. A colt 1911 is just a pistol. A Thompson M1A1 is just a SMG and so on. The important thing are the tactical choices and the ability of troops in using their tools. There is absolutely no need to create statistics for the needle weapons, the spray guns or the exact kind or staff or club that are used on a Battletech scale (that is the 6mm, or Microarmor or 1/285 scale, call it how you want). That's even more true if you think that the weapons used by the protagonists of this game, the Battlemechs, are no different one from the other. A medium laser is a medium laser, no matter the brand.
Sometimes special rules can be used for some special kind of troops (in other wargames Gurkhas are better in close combat for an exemple, or WWII Americans have a special bonus because they use the Garands, but the base mechanics do not change). But they should be "special" cases, precisely.
And again, the use of vehicles should not be computed abstractly in an infantry unit, or there could be strange results, when constructing custom infantry units above all.
If we have distinct APCs of IFVs in the game (like the hover APC, the Heavy Tracked APC or the Maxim) they should stay that: separate. There are rules to imbark/disembark units, so why mess with everything using the odd mechanized units concept?
-
...{A}nd infantry weapons BAR ratings from ATOW dictate what they can and can't damage so that you can't auto-rifle a BAR 10 tank or mech to death and need something like SRM launcher to even damage heavy armored units.
That was an optional rule when they first introduced support vehicles in Combat Equipment back under FanPro. Too bad they didn't run with it.
-
The first time I ran Mechwarrior, RPG, was to an Aliens, style game. Since everyone was infantry and attached to an APC, infantry was a lot stronger in combat; infantry was broken-down into squads and each squad had an SRM-2, MG, or a small-laser (SRM, MG or Laser squad), that worked just like they do in Battletech, and I ignored the rules in TRO: 3026. I forgot how we did damage, but it wasn't that bad and more survival than just crossing out each man.
-
It came across that way. As it is, there are a LOT of things that are notably abstracted from the Infantry level that just don't need to be replicated because the differences are just too finicky and variable.
If it did I apologize. That was not my intent. I do know that the RPG has things that don't need to be replicate at TW level, like clothing. But things that could be replicated should be.
Though this is getting in to Fan Rules territory, having different types of Missile Launchers is a good idea from one perspective, standard SRMs reduce Infantry's Movement. Having a Lighter set that does lower Damage, but allows for regular Movement would be nice. Much the same as the difference between Ballistic and Laser Rifles in Damage are, just with a different trade off.
There are Light and Heavy SRMs only they do the same damage .58 per missile as the 2 shot SRM launcher. The only reason it does 1.14 damage is because it's firing 2 missiles. the Light SRM I can understand as its 9kg to the SRM's 10kg but the Heavy is 18kg. It should do a lot more damage than the other Infantry SRMs but it doesn't.
However, having an AI Infantry Missile just doesn't make sense (aside from the dual-purpose Inferno). The primary purpose of Missiles IS anti-Armor, after all.
If that were the case why do vehicle SRMs have Fragmentation or other rounds? Not all Vehicle SRMs are intended to kill Mechs and Tanks. Why should infantry SRMs?
Besides Anti-Personnel and Anti-Vehicle, AToW also has FASCAM, Flares, Flash, Gas, High-Explosive, Inferno, NARC, Smoke, Stun. Those also apply to Recoilless Rifles and Mortars which also have Air-Burst and Guided rounds. AToW Companion also has Flash-Bang and Training Ordnance but all but Inferno are averaged together in TW. The problem with that is they all have different effects but we don't get them in TW.
And that's just Ordnance Weapons. Other weapons also have additional ammo types but we're not given the option of using them in TW.
You're going to need to provide some reasoning for that, I think. If you're just talking about its existence to it can be shot at like a Support Truck, I guess, but it doesn't have even that purpose, then why?
How much extra space would they take on transports? How would they effect stacking limits? What are the effects on moral levels in campaigns? Can campers be use by other units like support trucks or tanks to give crews a safer place to sleep out in the field? I'd love to be able to equip a long range mechanized sensor infantry platoon with them but right now it isn't legal in TW. I can give them field guns but not campers.
I would rather address it as a means for Infantry to do an equivalent of a 'Leg Attack' on a Vehicle, rather than Swarm being the only option. In those cases, the Vibro-Sword would be allowed to use it for this purpose instead of Satchel Charges.
Sounds good to me.
\
-
If it did I apologize. That was not my intent. I do know that the RPG has things that don't need to be replicate at TW level, like clothing. But things that could be replicated should be.
So long as it is worth being represented on the TW field. If the similarities with another thing are small or relegated to RP/scenario moments, that's more for the field of TacOps than regular TW/TM work.
If that were the case why do vehicle SRMs have Fragmentation or other rounds? Not all Vehicle SRMs are intended to kill Mechs and Tanks. Why should infantry SRMs?
Infantry don't have Ammo Bays to work with. You have several of the platoon carrying the Ammo for the Support Weapon guys.
Besides Anti-Personnel and Anti-Vehicle, AToW also has FASCAM, Flares, Flash, Gas, High-Explosive, Inferno, NARC, Smoke, Stun. Those also apply to Recoilless Rifles and Mortars which also have Air-Burst and Guided rounds. AToW Companion also has Flash-Bang and Training Ordnance but all but Inferno are averaged together in TW. The problem with that is they all have different effects but we don't get them in TW.
And that's just Ordnance Weapons. Other weapons also have additional ammo types but we're not given the option of using them in TW.
Don't forget the basic rifles the guys not running around with the Missiles would be using in that frame of reference, too.
Still, One should consider all the aspects of what you're saying and that Infantry unit will only be using ONE type of that Ammo. Carrying TacOps options may be fine if there are actual practical uses that would be used on a grand battlefield. Something that would only useful in BattleTroops/ATOW because it doesn't scale properly isn't worth bringing up.
How much extra space would they take on transports? How would they effect stacking limits? What are the effects on moral levels in campaigns? Can campers be use by other units like support trucks or tanks to give crews a safer place to sleep out in the field? I'd love to be able to equip a long range mechanized sensor infantry platoon with them but right now it isn't legal in TW. I can give them field guns but not campers.
All you're doing is talking about what is missing, but not WHY it needs to be represented. How many pop-up campers are actually used in militaries today? That's the thing to consider. Why would they be using this instead of the MHQ or a field tent? That's what you're missing in your reasoning. Answer those questions and maybe you'll have the answer why they aren't presently shown in Battletech. If you want to represent something, there are rules for hauling trailers, and just find out how much weighs IRL and create it.
-
As for the infantry question-IMHO- they need to publish a chart of canon infantry platoons
available for each era including their BV costs and other relevant in game info.
Some overall standard that's easy to grab and go and accepted by the community. IN a core rule book.
If anybody wants to mod it-they can mod it, but a standard unit selection for something as low
level as infantry should be a no brainer.
Right now most players I know grab something off Mega-Mek.
I don't want to read an Encyclopedia to make my own for a pick up game when they're just crunchies.
Some standard platoons in print from an official source would be great.
There's generic platoons listed in TW. That they don't match up with those in TM is frustrating but they are there. There's also some specific platoons in TRO:3085 and TRO:3085S and various sourcebooks. More would always be welcome though.
I thought Total Warfare had stock infantry options. The chaos came with TechManual.
That aside, I wholeheartedly agree that there should be a change. But, I'm more one for narrative consistency. And, the issue I had with Total Warfare in large part was the removal of that consistency to make all units playable in the game at all times. It breaks my immersion when Mechs are supposed to be this amazing thing, but can be taken down by a similarly armed tank or amorphous stat blob of hit points that is standard infantry. And, it was made worse by forcing armored units to have to move into engagement range where infantry can strike back to use the weapon best suited for that role because of errata enforcements.
(snip)
I agree there needs to be better consistency with Infantry and Aerospace. I don't have a problem with infantry being playable in TW or being able to take out mechs. Infantry have had that ability since Battledroids. We also see it in the novels and in real life. To take it away would break constituency and immersion. I'm not saying Infantry should be the most powerful unit on the field. I think how they take damage in TW isn't right but they should be playable.
I find the Tech-Manual custom infantry rules too open for min/maxing and non-sensical for my taste. Too easy to combine a high damage short range weapon with a high range secondary weapon for a best off all worlds combination, like a mixed auto-rifle and laser-rifle squad that basically get the damage of auto-rifles and the range of laser-rifles.
That would be another reason for giving infantry more than one attack. If a weapon isn't in range it's damage shouldn't be included.
I won't go into too much detail here but I have made some house-rules for infantry that work for me but I have never had an opportunity to put them to use in a game against an opponent. To sum up the main changes are that, small vehicles can be assembled into platoons that function nearly identically to battle armor squads, and infantry weapons BAR ratings from ATOW dictate what they can and can't damage so that you can't auto-rifle a BAR 10 tank or mech to death and need something like SRM launcher to even damage heavy armored units.
That is how I think motorized/mechanized infantry should be assembled and function, like Battle Armor. I'm okay with auto-rifles damaging the tank though. Outside a very lucky shot, they'd need a lot to death a BAR 10 tank or mech. Small vehicles are limited to 5 items and their weapons don't get added together the way infantry weapons do. They only do damage if they hit and those doing .49 damage or less round to 0 damage. I think rounding up .5 up and what little armor protection they get for the cost of adding together weapons damage is a fair trade.
Following with with interest this thread, Everyone is giving a lot of advice thanks.
I can say again that, in a new iteration of the infantry rules, there should not be that Rpg mad level of details if you want to play on a Battletech scale.
Please, try to remember that in many other infantry-centric wargames, there is absolutely no need to specify the exact kind of weapon every soldier is using. A colt 1911 is just a pistol. A Thompson M1A1 is just a SMG and so on. The important thing are the tactical choices and the ability of troops in using their tools. There is absolutely no need to create statistics for the needle weapons, the spray guns or the exact kind or staff or club that are used on a Battletech scale (that is the 6mm, or Microarmor or 1/285 scale, call it how you want). That's even more true if you think that the weapons used by the protagonists of this game, the Battlemechs, are no different one from the other. A medium laser is a medium laser, no matter the brand.
Sometimes special rules can be used for some special kind of troops (in other wargames Gurkhas are better in close combat for an exemple, or WWII Americans have a special bonus because they use the Garands, but the base mechanics do not change). But they should be "special" cases, precisely.
Not all pistols are the same though. That's why we have the list in TM. So we can get specific. If we want generic infantry we have those in TW.
And again, the use of vehicles should not be computed abstractly in an infantry unit, or there could be strange results, when constructing custom infantry units above all.
If we have distinct APCs of IFVs in the game (like the hover APC, the Heavy Tracked APC or the Maxim) they should stay that: separate. There are rules to imbark/disembark units, so why mess with everything using the odd mechanized units concept?
I agree. Motorized/Mechanized Infantry should be treated like the vehicle version of Battle Armor. But if a vehicle can carry multiple BA up to 2 tons, why not the same number of same weight vehicles? I'm not saying a Maxim should carry several 5 ton half tracks but I can see it carrying a platoon of motorcycles.
-
I do want to point out, the idea of a camper for LRRP is cool for an RPG, but on the field of battletech that kind of equipment, as well as what kind of batteries the soldier is using and who makes their rifle, are NOT in scope with the rest of the battletech game. These things might be important for soldiers, but just like mechs dont track fuel/range (its somewhere listed as 650km right?) we shouldn't be tracking it for infantry. I love the example "if it doesn't matter who makes that mech defining AC10/medium laser, then it REALLY shouldn't matter who makes that insignificant infantry rifle." But OH boy did they decide it matters who makes that infantry rifle for infantry in battletech... look at the stupid damage the shrapnel guns do when converted compared to other sniper rifles.
Infantry damage divisors are also not in scope with the battletech game where damage and armor pips are otherwise universal. 28 strong platoons huddled together are not in scope for the RPG game by the same token, you cant run 28 soldiers in the RPG reasonably. Its VERY debatable that 28 soldiers in a hex is reasonable at all for battletech too without tracking them by squad.
Battle armor, with bubbles of health, hit locations, and mech equivalent weapons with ammo ARE in the scope of the rest of the battletech game. Infantry COULD function very similar, using the same heavy weapons BA does, with the same pips and squads and hit locations. They would track ammo too, and without a separate damage divisor system a medium laser on a mech would continue to be a medium laser, totally consistent with every other unit type. The fact that infantry have such a radical departure from every other unit type in terms of damage, heck even aerospace uses bubbles, does make infantry stick out like a sore thumb. And this damage divisor was new to Total Warfare. Id rather see armored infantry have armor bubbles... If infantry squads are intended to take multiple medium lasers to kill, they can just have more bubbles of health, like everything else in the game.
As for ammo types... again if infantry operated at the level mechs do, well they'd have 5 or whatever SRM shots, and just like battle armor they could load alternate munitions. Instead, infantry have infinite ammo, and the support guns give range to the rifles but do less damage, oh unless you only take 1 in which the rifles set the range of the SRMs, because no good reason?... The techmanual approach to infantry and their weapons is just a big departure from how all other units work, including total warfare generic squads which peacefully left the question unanswered because the minutiae of small arms doesnt matter on the mech scale.
As a final bit, if infantry is supposed to be 100-200 BV, then a 100 BV rifle platoon needs to be 1/10th as complex as a hunchback. If infantry are more then 1/10th complex then a Hunchback, then at the mech scale we play the game infantry are DRAGGING the game down. Side arms, digging in, morale rules, damage divisors, ect, its important to keep focus on the scale of play here. If lots of complex rules are what people want for infantry, thats fine, but then infantry needs to be 500+ BV, more then equal to a light mech in cost, so the decision on the actual game board is between a unit of infantry or a mech. Right now, its 15 units of infantry for 1 average 3025 heavy mech... thats just not in scope with the scale and timeframe of a game of battletech. Now, a BATTLE TROOPS style game can go nuts, have fun with all the crazy complex things infantry can do, as that game is scaled to infantry.
-
So long as it is worth being represented on the TW field. If the similarities with another thing are small or relegated to RP/scenario moments, that's more for the field of TacOps than regular TW/TM work.
Being available for TacOps would be fine. Right now though, they're not.
Infantry don't have Ammo Bays to work with. You have several of the platoon carrying the Ammo for the Support Weapon guys.
Don't forget the basic rifles the guys not running around with the Missiles would be using in that frame of reference, too.
Still, One should consider all the aspects of what you're saying and that Infantry unit will only be using ONE type of that Ammo. Carrying TacOps options may be fine if there are actual practical uses that would be used on a grand battlefield. Something that would only useful in BattleTroops/ATOW because it doesn't scale properly isn't worth bringing up.
So?
I think all those ammo types are all practical depending on the game being played. Even if they're not useful they should still be available for accounttech. And while a platoon may only use one type of ammo - Squad rules should allow more than one type though. - there can be more than one platoon on the field.
All you're doing is talking about what is missing, but not WHY it needs to be represented. How many pop-up campers are actually used in militaries today? That's the thing to consider. Why would they be using this instead of the MHQ or a field tent? That's what you're missing in your reasoning. Answer those questions and maybe you'll have the answer why they aren't presently shown in Battletech. If you want to represent something, there are rules for hauling trailers, and just find out how much weighs IRL and create it.
Which MHQs have quarters? We don't have rules for adding field tents to platoons but we should. And if we can equip our platoons with tents why not give campers to motorized/mechanized platoons? I'd certainly equip a couple platoons with them, especially if the platoon is supposed to be in the field for a few days or in hostile environments.
I do want to point out, the idea of a camper for LRRP is cool for an RPG, but on the field of battletech that kind of equipment, as well as what kind of batteries the soldier is using and who makes their rifle, are NOT in scope with the rest of the battletech game. These things might be important for soldiers, but just like mechs dont track fuel/range (its somewhere listed as 650km right?) we shouldn't be tracking it for infantry. I love the example "if it doesn't matter who makes that mech defining AC10/medium laser, then it REALLY shouldn't matter who makes that insignificant infantry rifle." But OH boy did they decide it matters who makes that infantry rifle for infantry in battletech... look at the stupid damage the shrapnel guns do when converted compared to other sniper rifles.
I think of campers like Collapsible Command Modules. They don't really do anything for most pick-up games but we have rules to build mechs with them and deploy them. Only we don't have board game rules for campers. Just RPG rules.
Infantry damage divisors are also not in scope with the battletech game where damage and armor pips are otherwise universal. 28 strong platoons huddled together are not in scope for the RPG game by the same token, you cant run 28 soldiers in the RPG reasonably. Its VERY debatable that 28 soldiers in a hex is reasonable at all for battletech too without tracking them by squad.
Each trooper is a bubble of health for the platoon. How those bubbles get marked off has changed over the years though. The older weapon hit kills that many troopers may have been too much one way but 1/10 damage goes too far the other. And the mechanized infantry damage is worse.
Battle armor, with bubbles of health, hit locations, and mech equivalent weapons with ammo ARE in the scope of the rest of the battletech game. Infantry COULD function very similar, using the same heavy weapons BA does, with the same pips and squads and hit locations. They would track ammo too, and without a separate damage divisor system a medium laser on a mech would continue to be a medium laser, totally consistent with every other unit type. The fact that infantry have such a radical departure from every other unit type in terms of damage, heck even aerospace uses bubbles, does make infantry stick out like a sore thumb. And this damage divisor was new to Total Warfare. Id rather see armored infantry have armor bubbles... If infantry squads are intended to take multiple medium lasers to kill, they can just have more bubbles of health, like everything else in the game.
(snip)
And that's an issue I have. SRMs and many other support weapons are supposed to be mech equivalent weapons. The rules just haven't been consistent about it. It's been a constant, "They are. They're not." since Battledroids. And that's just with the board game. We get the same problem in the RPG as well as conflicts between it and the BG. It's immersion breaking to have the same weapon function differently depending on what uses it and in what game. If it's a 10kg SRM, it's a 10kg SRM.
Also Infantry really need more than one attack. Swords shouldn't hit at 7 hexes because a rifle does so. Weapons shouldn't be used unless the target is in range. Tracking ammo for at least support weapons shouldn't be problem. And the damage divisor is a problem. I can see why they thought the old Infantry take full damage was too much but the divisor goes too far in the other direction.
As a final bit, if infantry is supposed to be 100-200 BV, then a 100 BV rifle platoon needs to be 1/10th as complex as a hunchback. If infantry are more then 1/10th complex then a Hunchback, then at the mech scale we play the game infantry are DRAGGING the game down. Side arms, digging in, morale rules, damage divisors, ect, its important to keep focus on the scale of play here. If lots of complex rules are what people want for infantry, thats fine, but then infantry needs to be 500+ BV, more then equal to a light mech in cost, so the decision on the actual game board is between a unit of infantry or a mech. Right now, its 15 units of infantry for 1 average 3025 heavy mech... thats just not in scope with the scale and timeframe of a game of battletech. Now, a BATTLE TROOPS style game can go nuts, have fun with all the crazy complex things infantry can do, as that game is scaled to infantry.
I can't talk about BV but if I wanted to do 15 units of infantry vs 1 3025 heavy mech I should be able to under TW rules. I shouldn't need a second or third set of rules to play that out. The others may let me get more detailed, all the way down to individual troopers but I should be able to do squad and platoon level action TW and TO should work. Right now, they have some details missing.
-
Being available for TacOps would be fine. Right now though, they're not.
Still, it's starting to get in to Fan Design in order to implement them.
So?
I think all those ammo types are all practical depending on the game being played. Even if they're not useful they should still be available for accounttech. And while a platoon may only use one type of ammo - Squad rules should allow more than one type though. - there can be more than one platoon on the field.
You ask, "So?", but you're not thinking the aspect through. Part of it is, how much do you want to track Ammo expenditures for a PBI unit? Even if we are looking at just Squad Rules, once they are unified, it becomes more difficult to track without completely changing the PBI chart to be more reflective of Battle Armor sheets. Not a bad idea, but still Fan Design realm.
You say there are available in ATOW, then ATOW provides the Accounttech for those options. If they aren't a reasonably deployable option on a Battletech Map, there is no reason for Total Warfare-level Accounttech to consider it.
Which MHQs have quarters? We don't have rules for adding field tents to platoons but we should. And if we can equip our platoons with tents why not give campers to motorized/mechanized platoons? I'd certainly equip a couple platoons with them, especially if the platoon is supposed to be in the field for a few days or in hostile environments.
MHQs have an officer's office which has a cot available for sleeping in.
I think of campers like Collapsible Command Modules. They don't really do anything for most pick-up games but we have rules to build mechs with them and deploy them. Only we don't have board game rules for campers. Just RPG rules.
So leave them in AToW where other things that don't translate well go.
Each trooper is a bubble of health for the platoon. How those bubbles get marked off has changed over the years though. The older weapon hit kills that many troopers may have been too much one way but 1/10 damage goes too far the other. And the mechanized infantry damage is worse.
Not true. You're conflating quantity of removal with methods of notation. PBI platoons have always been a stretch of men across a line, which is how those bubbles get marked off.
A change of method would be like having 5 lines of 10 available on a sheet, 1 line for each potential Squad, and 10 possible for each potential size of a Squad. You roll for which Squad you initially Hit and then it adjust remaining to the next Squad available (maybe?).
And that's an issue I have. SRMs and many other support weapons are supposed to be mech equivalent weapons. The rules just haven't been consistent about it. It's been a constant, "They are. They're not." since Battledroids. And that's just with the board game. We get the same problem in the RPG as well as conflicts between it and the BG. It's immersion breaking to have the same weapon function differently depending on what uses it and in what game. If it's a 10kg SRM, it's a 10kg SRM.
I'm going to need a quote on that. As far as I can determine, they've NEVER been the same. PBI Missiles have always been shorter ranged. They also need to be lighter as each normal SRM tube basically costed half a ton. That's a LOT of people to devote to just lifting one. While the abstraction of the Ammo may suggest to some that a Heavy SRM used in Vehicles, 'Mechs, and Aerospace are 10kg, that is VERY heavy for a person to carry across a battlefield.
-
There was a vigorous discussion (in fan rules) about potential infantry rules here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=83219.msg1975250#msg1975250[url=http://here)
-
. . .Battletech is battlemech game after all.
Battletech does have a universe that involves people, not mechs. If people are the focus of the game, I'm going to focus on them despite any rules, really.
-
Each trooper is a bubble of health for the platoon. How those bubbles get marked off has changed over the years though. The older weapon hit kills that many troopers may have been too much one way but 1/10 damage goes too far the other. And the mechanized infantry damage is worse.
Yup. And you're asking about all the different ammo types. I hope you realize that the alternate ammo types are there to bring back the full weapon damage against infantry in a limited fashion. It's purely a rules for rules sake effect. Which, to me, shows a regression in technology when you look at the meta.
It's not just with infantry. The biggest, easiest example is with terrain.
Recall that in the oldest rules, you just had to target a woods hex with weapons that weren't on a restricted list, and a hit would knock it down a class, no question. Nominally it was any weapon that didn't do 5 or more points of damage. Why the AC/5 was on the restricted list is beyond me. You could ALSO accidentally clear woods hexes as well as accidentally set them on fire. In the optional rules for that era, it took 40 points of damage to crater a hex. That's moving 900 square meters of earth 6 meters deep.
Move to the BMR period. Now all weapons can potentially clear woods, but it's not guaranteed. You had to roll for it even on a successful hit, and roll equal or under the weapon's damage to knock a woods hex down a class. Much more difficult to do for light damage weapons. Some were guarantees.
Aside from anything that BattleTroops shared with BattleTech and CityTech, BT 2nd ed and on had much the same in common with the BMR when it came to attacking and damaging infantry.
Then comes Total Warfare. Not only do some weapons get their damage cut against infantry, but against terrain, as well. It takes 50 points of damage to take a Heavy Woods to Light, and 40 to reduce Light Woods to rubble.
Drastic difference in performance.
I could actually envision the right technology mission-killing a set number of dudes rather mechanically and still be able to use the same weapon to do an equivalent of trackable damage to armored units. Could be the targeting software combined with the firing platform. In the case of munitions, it could be something in their design that might be programmable on the fly. We are talking 500 years into the future here at a minimum along with whatever discoveries may come with prolonged activity in vacuum as well as better access to rare metals and other minerals that are in short supply on Earth.
So, when I see that you have to have specific munition types to get an effect that was once automatic in a prior version of the game, I ask: Doesn't it feel like a tech downgrade?
And I would have been fine with that. Infantry still have some minor conceptual issues, but it would have felt minor.
I would have been fine with it if TW hadn't been retconned to be how Everything in BattleTech functions for all periods of history in the Inner Sphere. But, that's what happened. I'm sorry, but when you spoiled me on the good stuff, why do you think I would be satisfied with this low-end crap as the new norm? I was expecting to at least have the option to run the older style game effects as a tech option. But, if I want that, I'm currently forced to do it on my own at my own table.
Color me not surprised when I learn that they had taken the 'game rules for a tournament board game's sake' approach, with little consideration for story and setting consistency during the transition from BMR to Total Warfare.
And, that's why I personally want to see a return to the glass-jawed infantry. Sure, give them teeth and a little extra reach. They sure certainly can't move worth squat if they're not motorized/mechanized. But, your weekend warrior and glorified police grunt (IE Militia, rebels, or local lord's retainer) probably shouldn't have access to ultra-high tech bullets for his rifle. Only certain squad weapons should be capable of doing damage at the BattleTech Armored Combat level. That's SRMs, maybe LRMs, lasers of the small class, and minigun style machine guns. (You know, the kind that can drop eleven pounds - 5 kg - of bullets down-range in a pull of the trigger.) Anything less should only be good at hurting squishies.
But, again, there's no hiding the squad weapon. There's no ducking and weaving and firing from the hip with the squad weapon. Not in a way that will keep a guy from getting pegged by something fired with mechanical, computerized precision. Actually, I would cede that it's possible with the right equipment and training. But, do you think a paranoid System Lord House Ruler would let just anyone have that stuff?
So, yeah. I want to see front line elite infantry to be exceptionally rare to the point you should not expect to field them in anything more than a company at a time. Everyone else should be a glass-jawed unit which is readily defanged with a single hit from any armored unit. I'm open to the option of them still being able to run around and deal with other infantry if I or the situation, or the faction doctrine, allows.
Basically, give me BattleSquad, or give me Infantry Pogs. Maybe both. This strange version of what was introduced in City Tech just doesn't work for me anymore.
Heck, the current infantry aren't even interesting. You can't crit them like you could any other armored unit. At least with Battle Armor, you get the random opportunity to knock the troopers off in detail, or risk the chance that you'll sand blast the entire squad before they start dropping off quickly. Standard Infantry don't even have that.
-
Problem sources:
APCs: These 10 ton machines really feel like they were built in the squad-based rules paradigm of BattleDroids but were suddenly "rewritten" when CityTech dropped the year prior to their publication in TRO:3026. Rewritten in this case means that the troop compartments were simply rewritten to say 7 men instead of 9. That's the feel at least. But this also leads us to...
Infantry Unit Size. Back to BattleDroids, its included appendix for infantry tells us that infantry of the 31st Century are fielded in the same contemporary 9-man squads present at the game's writing. The squad is the basic unit of deployment in this ruleset. This makes sense for a lot of reasons in the BT scale, not the least is that a 15m radius is a criminally negligent dispersion for a platoon leader to keep his formation. CityTech perhaps wanted to bulk up to platoons in hexes to give infantry some resiliency (a squad is killed by any hit from a mech scale weapon), but the cognitive dissonance is deafening. It also makes the default APC of BT this (a combat vehicle with a huge bay)
(https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/resizer/G1t0Dl-BZOxK-SWt3DDnJnweodY=/1024x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/NR7ZPMVVFBDA3JQZCBXGDO3JME.jpg)
rather than this (one optimized for being organic to the unit)
(https://cdnph.upi.com/svc/sv/i/7391401380168/2014/1/14013813554313/BAE-Systems-in-competition-for-replacement-of-M113-armored-vehicles.jpg).
This "necessitates" the mechanized infantry type when simply making the basic formation a squad, like a BA squad or a 'mech would solve the problem.
Next
Infantry Damage. Prior to MW3e, infantry damage was simple. The unit had an expected density of special weapons and the damage a platoon dealt was [troopers/x, round up]. X was based on the special weapon types it carried; 4 for rifles, 3 for MGs and flamers, and 2 for SRMs and small lasers configured as crew served weapons. No cluster rolling, no fractional damages added up and divided. Roll to hit, check the rolls, and apply damage in 5-point clusters. Even before 3e, laser rifles were all-around better weapons than (ballistic assault) rifles but the difference wasn't factored in as a difference at the mech scale. MW3e changed this basic paradigm and TM exacerbates it by adding a line item for every variation on x-rifles ever published. Enough! It's just complexity for complexity's sake. It doesn't help that neither TW nor TM give us the assumed weapon mixes for non-rifled units so TM cannot replicate the non-rifle damage tables for the units in TW.
Solution:
- Basic unit of deployment for infantry is the squad. Give the squad the same dispersed formation rule as BA squads. Class foot squads as up to 1T to allow APCs to transport them and otherwise give transports an X squads limit in addition to the weight limits of their bays (usually one per door, but things like Karnovs will need more specificity). While you can stack troops like cordwood, they won't be very combat effective where you need them let alone be able to dismount effectively if you try to pack 28 men in the volume required for 4 IS Standard suits. Do not allow stacking in excess of the normal 2 friendly units; infantry should not be that close.
- Remove the mechanized infantry type. Reverting to squads eliminates the need in the ruleset for the type.
- Revert to basic troopers/x for infantry damage. If "more granularity" is desired, put it in an advanced rules compilation, not the standard construction rules document. When such rules are promulgated, define exactly what the squad's weapons density is and ensure the construction rules can match that.
- Reconsider MW3's complete reimagining of infantry weapons. There is a reason to want lasers instead of ballistics and it's more than just range.
- Update BattleTroops for more granular infantry action. Working at infantry scale where this level of detail for infantry should reside, not mech scale play. When looking down at the individual trooper level, we can more sensibly account for how much better are Zeus heavy rifles vs. blazers, etc. We have more control over how many heavy weapons are on the battlefield and where and how they are best employed.
-
Solution:
- Basic unit of deployment for infantry is the squad. Give the squad the same dispersed formation rule as BA squads. Class foot squads as up to 1T to allow APCs to transport them and otherwise give transports an X squads limit in addition to the weight limits of their bays (usually one per door, but things like Karnovs will need more specificity). While you can stack troops like cordwood, they won't be very combat effective where you need them let alone be able to dismount effectively if you try to pack 28 men in the volume required for 4 IS Standard suits. Do not allow stacking in excess of the normal 2 friendly units; infantry should not be that close.
I agree. Battletech is not napoleonic. And the squads should be of 9 men. I don't know if it's useful or logic to make some "flavour" variants here. And for flavour variants I mean Davion rifle squad and Kurita rifle squad, for an exemple. But perhaps, at this scale, there should not be differences.
- Remove the mechanized infantry type. Reverting to squads eliminates the need in the ruleset for the type.
I absolutely agree again. If there is the need to create infantry that moves with very light vehicles, like hover sleds, it is possible to elaborate on the concept of motorized units. There is even the jump troops concept in the game yet, so why not thinkin about others. For an exemple there's the funny idea of the beast mounted advanced infantry unit, that I like.
- Update BattleTroops for more granular infantry action. Working at infantry scale where this level of detail for infantry should reside, not mech scale play. When looking down at the individual trooper level, we can more sensibly account for how much better are Zeus heavy rifles vs. blazers, etc. We have more control over how many heavy weapons are on the battlefield and where and how they are best employed.
The so-nicknamed at the time "Battletroops 2", the squad combat chapter we see in AToW, has never been a thing for what I can see and what I can know. I found it very difficlut to use it, expecially for casual games. When I tried, years ago, to simulate more in detail Infantry operations, we used a very good 90s british system that today is freely downloadable. I don't say its name because I don't rememebr if it's againt the forum policy. But the point is, it had a very gritty nature that very well simultaed the battletech atmosphere.
Today I would really like to see a "real" Battletroops 2 volume. I know that many Battletech players don't care anyway.
But if we have a Battletech Manual, in future there could be a Manual for non-mech operations, the MechCommander Handbook for campaigns (I really hope they can finally produce a solid ruleset there) and finally a Battletroops manual.
Who knows.
-
I disagree on the removal of Mechanized Troops, they are good abstractions for Man/Machine teams. Merge them with the basic APCs, give them the best infantry support weapons on those vehicles instead of regular machine guns. They already possess the ability to tow other weapons like artillery, while remaining standard scale for damage like Battle Armor.
Just add a dismount option that lets them (and motorized/jump troops) exit their vehicles and become foot rifle squads instead. This lets them dig in, load cargo, take an objective, storm a structure, man a field gun, or take cover in woods. No need for two units on the field to do that task. I've never actually deployed a basic APC when I could take Mechanized Infantry instead and I do a lot of combined arms.
-
There waa nothing realistic about the old infantry rules that allowed a single 200mm Gauss Slug to richocet around a forest & kill 15 men. I greatly prefer Total Warfare's method for tracking infantry damage.
If there's any change I'd like to see, it'd be giving conventional infantry two damage values - one for anti-personnel & another for anti-armor. This would elimonate some of the absurdity of things like auto-rifles adding significant anti-armor firepower & would also provide a nice reason to field things like squad MGs or flamers instead of SRMs or lasers.
-
If there's any change I'd like to see, it'd be giving conventional infantry two damage values - one for anti-personnel & another for anti-armor. This would elimonate some of the absurdity of things like auto-rifles adding significant anti-armor firepower & would also provide a nice reason to field things like squad MGs or flamers instead of SRMs or lasers.
That's another good idea. Infantry can deliver a damage against non-armored units and another damage to targets that have military grade armors.
-
**MOD NOTICE**
As this conversation has drifted into the realm of fan rules, I have moved it to the Fan Rules section to keep everything aboveboard.
Thanks very much,
AB
-
This "necessitates" the mechanized infantry type when simply making the basic formation a squad, like a BA squad or a 'mech would solve the problem.
Totally disagree. There is absolutely zero reason that justifies the Mechanized Infantry unit type as it currently exists. That Platoons became the default does not necessitate an "organic" transporting method when one can still use Squad Deployment (even if it is an "advanced" rule) to answer this concept.
Even worse is that the "standard" APC line still is far too heavy to justify this concept. At best, the Mechanized Infantry represents Technicals, Jeeps, Hummers or equivalent. Yet, the Support Vehicle concept is better at representing those, even if improperly, simply by fact of having a Flanking Speed. The base Tracked APC has a 100% improvement on Speed over the Mechanized Infantry (Tracked), and that's not even considering the option to Flank, or the Armor to protect the Infantry inside.
Solution:
- Basic unit of deployment for infantry is the squad. Give the squad the same dispersed formation rule as BA squads. Class foot squads as up to 1T to allow APCs to transport them and otherwise give transports an X squads limit in addition to the weight limits of their bays (usually one per door, but things like Karnovs will need more specificity). While you can stack troops like cordwood, they won't be very combat effective where you need them let alone be able to dismount effectively if you try to pack 28 men in the volume required for 4 IS Standard suits. Do not allow stacking in excess of the normal 2 friendly units; infantry should not be that close.
I partially agree, and partially disagree.
I think using Squads as the base platform of constructing and playing a ConvInf unit is great and should be the way forward. As I mentioned earlier to Riflemech, having 6 lines of Squads up to 10 each as the stock Record Sheet to be manipulated is the best method. Different Squads could also be set up such that Squad 1-2 bring HE SRMs, Squad 3 brings Infernos, and Squad 4 brings Flashbang SRMs.
I disagree that the Squads should be a limiting factor for Stacking. I think Platoons are a sufficient maximum. However, in order for 2+ Squads to act like one they must be from the same Platoon and (possibly) lose that Dispersed Squad bonus once too many are gathered in that method, but in return, they gain a bonus to Damage due to concentrated fire.
- Remove the mechanized infantry type. Reverting to squads eliminates the need in the ruleset for the type.
While I disagree with you on why they exist, I do not disagree with you that this needs to be removed as a unit type. The concept of what they want Mechanized Infantry should be should be like a Support Vehicle Squad that is the equivalent of Battle Armor for Combat Vehicles. Allowing them to be able to Transport Infantry Squads, too, should be an option as well to represent some guys joining a group of Technicals, Hummers, or whatever.
- Revert to basic troopers/x for infantry damage. If "more granularity" is desired, put it in an advanced rules compilation, not the standard construction rules document. When such rules are promulgated, define exactly what the squad's weapons density is and ensure the construction rules can match that.
It should be part of the standard construction rules if it is to exist at all. I'm fine with a 2 SRM Squad with 5 Rifles doing X Damage at Y range while getting a little more plinkage at Danger Close ranges.
- Reconsider MW3's complete reimagining of infantry weapons. There is a reason to want lasers instead of ballistics and it's more than just range.
Not everyone is in depth on what MW3 (I assume you mean the RPG and not the PC game, right?) has in presenting Infantry Weapons, so you probably need to bring out more.
However, if the difference between 2 different Rifles is negligible in Total Warfare's scale, there is no reason to bring it up in The Tech Manual. RPG games like AToW or more gamified BattleTroops are fine as they are closer to the Infantryman in question.
- Update BattleTroops for more granular infantry action. Working at infantry scale where this level of detail for infantry should reside, not mech scale play. When looking down at the individual trooper level, we can more sensibly account for how much better are Zeus heavy rifles vs. blazers, etc. We have more control over how many heavy weapons are on the battlefield and where and how they are best employed.
I would like to see BattleTroops get an update and made more in line with current designs. The closest I've seen is the fan project "Infantry Strike" someone posted their games of a while ago. They had promise, but they completely screwed anything NOT Infantry by having them keep their Alpha Strike Stats with zero changes in effectiveness in Infantry Weapons. As an example, a Satyr Protomech should be a monstrous terror to any individual Elemental or PBI, but with only one Structure, anything could take it out.
I agree. Battletech is not napoleonic. And the squads should be of 9 men. I don't know if it's useful or logic to make some "flavour" variants here. And for flavour variants I mean Davion rifle squad and Kurita rifle squad, for an exemple. But perhaps, at this scale, there should not be differences.
You can have squads of 9 men, and there are groups already set up as flavor variants, too. I don't know why they went with a base 28 when they started years ago, but they also operate in a much different environment than we do today. As it is Squads of 9 would (currently) only allow 3 Squads of a Platoon in the hex as one cohesive Platoon.
If there's any change I'd like to see, it'd be giving conventional infantry two damage values - one for anti-personnel & another for anti-armor. This would elimonate some of the absurdity of things like auto-rifles adding significant anti-armor firepower & would also provide a nice reason to field things like squad MGs or flamers instead of SRMs or lasers.
Add in a Melee stat and if it works for Anti-Mech, and I think you have something here. I think going based off a Squad Construction method would actually make this a bit easier to track.
A couple other side notes:
Motorized Infantry is both too slow and should have a more motive type options. It's a sad thing to think that a motorcyle couldn't outrun an Atlas on flat ground. If anything converting them in to being considered Light Cavalry isn't a bad idea, either.
Something to field what hole losing Mechanized Infantry might create should just be (for all intents and purposes) just Heavy Motorized Infantry or Heavy Cavalry. They should be slower than Motorized Infantry, and can be tougher against ConvInf and Burst-Fire weapons, things like that. That's even assuming that this hole gets filled at all. Just giving them Armor would probably cover most of that.
Some Special Abilities should be considered to be added or adjusted to include other types. For example, the Heavy and Light Horse should work with Motorized Infantry (and Mechanized Infantry for as long as they continue). There should be Abilities to address mounting and/or dismounting Transports, that sort of thing.
-
I disagree that the Squads should be a limiting factor for Stacking. I think Platoons are a sufficient maximum. However, in order for 2+ Squads to act like one they must be from the same Platoon and (possibly) lose that Dispersed Squad bonus once too many are gathered in that method, but in return, they gain a bonus to Damage due to concentrated fire.
The bottom line is that a 15m radius is about right for a squad and useful enough for how the board is set up. More is simply too many, too close for modern warfare.
Not everyone is in depth on what MW3 (I assume you mean the RPG and not the PC game, right?) has in presenting Infantry Weapons, so you probably need to bring out more.
Pre MW3e, a laser rifle does 4d6+2 damage per shot. A rifle does 3d6 damage per shot, with a shot defined as a 4-round burst. (And SMG also has the same damage profile as well as the option to fire 10 "shots" to make an area effect attack.) In these systems, MW1e ignores these damage dice when attacking mechs, instead making a check on 2d6 to see if a single point of damage is dealt. For a rifle, this is on a 2 or 12, for a laser rifle, it's 2, 11, or 12, doubling the chances of dealing damage. In MW2e, the damage dice are rolled normally with each 6 or full 6 points of constant damage equaling half a point of damage to a mech. Thus, a rifle might deal 1 point of damage while a laser rifle has an easier chance of this as well as a minuscule chance of dealing 2 points of damage.
MW3e makes the change to the current AToW stats for the weapons, where both deal 4 damage with 4 AP per shot and then the modifier for burst fire is laid over that for ballistic rifles. Where before the laser was the objectively better weapon all around (and you pay for it), post MW3e the ballistic rifle is objectively better in most scenarios.
-
The bottom line is that a 15m radius is about right for a squad and useful enough for how the board is set up. More is simply too many, too close for modern warfare.
For a Squad to minimize being hit and avoiding collateral damage, I agree. However, there are times where concentrating firepower is more desired. After all, there's only so much 5-10 dudes are going to be capable of carrying, even if they are unarmored Elementals. Going back to CityTech, you're only looking at 2-4 for a Squad of 7, and only slightly better for a Squad of 9 or 10. With TW, we're looking at 2-4 with a Squad of Seven, and still only a little bit more for 9 or 10.
So, Battletech ISN'T Modern Warfare. We don't have to deal with mechanical kaiju on a regular basis or tanks that can outgun an Abrams, but weigh in half as much, and the tanks that DO weigh in at Abrams weight can take on a whole Abrams Company.
Pre MW3e, a laser rifle does 4d6+2 damage per shot. A rifle does 3d6 damage per shot, with a shot defined as a 4-round burst. (And SMG also has the same damage profile as well as the option to fire 10 "shots" to make an area effect attack.) In these systems, MW1e ignores these damage dice when attacking mechs, instead making a check on 2d6 to see if a single point of damage is dealt. For a rifle, this is on a 2 or 12, for a laser rifle, it's 2, 11, or 12, doubling the chances of dealing damage. In MW2e, the damage dice are rolled normally with each 6 or full 6 points of constant damage equaling half a point of damage to a mech. Thus, a rifle might deal 1 point of damage while a laser rifle has an easier chance of this as well as a minuscule chance of dealing 2 points of damage.
MW3e makes the change to the current AToW stats for the weapons, where both deal 4 damage with 4 AP per shot and then the modifier for burst fire is laid over that for ballistic rifles. Where before the laser was the objectively better weapon all around (and you pay for it), post MW3e the ballistic rifle is objectively better in most scenarios.
Simply saying that you want Laser Rifles to be superior would address this, but you're trying to push RPG fiat on to the Classic considerations where it's pulled out. The RPG side has enough variation that one can include singletons out of the norm, but wouldn't really be normal for up to 30 guys to be carrying around.
So what would you be willing for Infantry to give up so that Laser Rifles are superior to Ballistic Rifles in Classic? BV isn't high enough for ConvInf to make that much of a difference. Having a little more Range can be quite nice, particularly for Foot who generally can't choose the Range to their targets. It also seems like the Ballistic Rifle is meant to be the standard to go by, as you generally have to go to Support Weapons (which slow the unit down) to add in any more firepower.
-
Since this has been helpfully moved to the Fan Rules section, I don't have to worry about a warning here... >:)
Battletech is a system that has the potential (since we're not there yet) to work from the mano-a-mano level to interstellar empires clashing with each other. The sina qua non for that to happen is procedural rules to move from one scale to the other. Total Warfare is the closest we've come yet, and I think we can get closer. Don't sweat the wide variety of AToW scale weapons: abstract them procedurally for pure Nirvana!
With respect to infantry mobility specifically, I agree that "mechanized" should be eliminated entirely. "Mechanized" is simply foot infantry embarked in actual "combat vehicles". Motorized should cover the "micro" vehicles that improve mobility, and that should totally include exoskeletons (which it doesn't right now). I also think Motorized should have tactical and operational movement modes: a dirt bike won't go as far from a standing start than it will from a position where it's already at full throttle. The "Poor Performance" trait for vehicles starts to get at this aspect.
-
There waa nothing realistic about the old infantry rules that allowed a single 200mm Gauss Slug to richocet around a forest & kill 15 men. I greatly prefer Total Warfare's method for tracking infantry damage.
Amen. Whatever happens, let's not go back to that. In general, I like the place that infantry sit in at the moment, particularly where combat is concerned.
If I had a wishlist, it would be for two things. First, I'd like an infantry unit's anti-vehicular firepower to come primarily from its heavy weapons, not its small arms, and I'd like those heavy weapons to generally be equivalent to mech-scale weaponry. Second, I'd like to remove the strange dissonance of having abstracted "mechanized" and "motorized" infantry while also having "mechanized" foot infantry that ride in vehicles.*
*And oh by the way, you can technically re-create the very small vehicles that the abstracted units are using with the Support Vehicle rules, and doing so gives you a vehicle that is superior in every way.
*And don't forget, the abstracted mechanized and motorized infantry can also ride in vehicles (with certain restrictions).
Sigh. After a while one just looks at this babushka doll nonsense going on with infantry and it's like... wtf?
-
So, Battletech ISN'T Modern Warfare.
Then bunching up infantry is even less tactically useful. The dangers of that are even more pronounced.
Simply saying that you want Laser Rifles to be superior would address this, but you're trying to push RPG fiat on to the Classic considerations where it's pulled out.
The "RPG fiat" of 1999's MW3e directly drove the differentiation in BT of energy and ballistic weapons in TW. Prior to this, rifles were rifles for infantry. I don't want laser rifles to be better at mech scale, I don't want the extra complication of two different types of rifles.
-
Then bunching up infantry is even less tactically useful. The dangers of that are even more pronounced.
It depends on why you are bunching up. If you are bunching up because you always have to be bunched up, yeah it's less-effective. If you are bunching up to concentrate firepower, it's more effective.
The "RPG fiat" of 1999's MW3e directly drove the differentiation in BT of energy and ballistic weapons in TW. Prior to this, rifles were rifles for infantry. I don't want laser rifles to be better at mech scale, I don't want the extra complication of two different types of rifles.
Sorry, it was coming out as something different from what you're saying.
However, I do like there is an option for Riflemen who want to have a little more range. The balance to that, like with many things, is reduced Damage. It probably doesn't have to be so severe as LRMs aren't even punished like this, and the range improvement isn't good enough to justify the Damage nerf, but reduced Damage for Range is a common gaming consideration.
-
Since this is in the fan section, I doubt anything will come of it now. I rather liked it in the general section where maybe TPTB would it it and perhaps impliment some changes.
For my 2c fan rule wise, if I ever run infantry on my terms, it will be with the battle armor rules. Motorized infantry is quad battle armor, and we have jump/foot battle armor representing squads. A quad BA squad with 5 MP, 5 total health and a recoilless rifle or machine gun or SRM launcher, functions exactly how I want a toyota hilux squad or hummer squad to operate. I'd throw some weight/movement stuff in, but yeah, making infantry heavier then battle armor, but yeah.
And for squads/platoons, well i love that trooper 1 is the heavy weapon team in battlearmor, which works perfect for actual rifle squads/platoons, where they often have 1 support weapon. The dedicated weapons teams, like real life, would each get a weapon.
Ruleswise, a 7 strong team with 2/2/2/1 pips of health does a great job of showing why you dont bunch up, while a 7/7/7/7 health full platoon brings more weight to the party. A gauss that hits a team cleanly, whether its 2 guys in a foxhole or 7, obliterates that team, but BA dont have damage crossover, so that is the big boon for spreading infantry out.
The idea that a gauss rifle only deals 2 damage when 28 soldiers are bunched up doesnt make physics sense. We know how heavy a gauss is, we know it's very fast, and kinetic energy is explosive when its fast and hits the ground. That gauss coming near you might kill you just from the pressure and heat of it passing by. A gauss slug has UNBELIEVABLE energy. To say infantry get a damage divisor versus gauss rounds greatly underestimates its energy I think... I'd love someone to prove me wrong here, and show its cool to be within 5 meters of a gauss shell hitting and be totally fine.
-
The idea that a gauss rifle only deals 2 damage when 28 soldiers are bunched up doesnt make physics sense. We know how heavy a gauss is, we know it's very fast, and kinetic energy is explosive when its fast and hits the ground. That gauss coming near you might kill you just from the pressure and heat of it passing by. A gauss slug has UNBELIEVABLE energy. To say infantry get a damage divisor versus gauss rounds greatly underestimates its energy I think... I'd love someone to prove me wrong here, and show its cool to be within 5 meters of a gauss shell hitting and be totally fine.
Remember that is 2 guys when they are in cover. If they are out in the open it's 4, so basically it goes through one guy per Squad. Nor is it like that a Gauss Slug is actually explosive. It might shrapnel out, but that's relatively minor when compared to HE rounds.
-
Still, it's starting to get in to Fan Design in order to implement them.
For some infantry we have to. There's no transport bays for Field Gun Infantry, Field Artillery Infantry and Beast Mounted Infantry.
You ask, "So?", but you're not thinking the aspect through. Part of it is, how much do you want to track Ammo expenditures for a PBI unit? Even if we are looking at just Squad Rules, once they are unified, it becomes more difficult to track without completely changing the PBI chart to be more reflective of Battle Armor sheets. Not a bad idea, but still Fan Design realm.
Battledroids gave ammo for SRMs and Machine Guns. I don't know why we can't track them and other support weapons now. And if infantry are going to be changed, this would be a good time to change the record sheets as well.
You say there are available in ATOW, then ATOW provides the Accounttech for those options. If they aren't a reasonably deployable option on a Battletech Map, there is no reason for Total Warfare-level Accounttech to consider it.
Not so. We have rules for tracking training but the board game doesn't allow us to use training rounds. That's kind of a problem. We also track ammo as cargo. And why wouldn't the infantry ammo types be usable in Total Warfare? Depending on the game of course. If mechs and tanks can have Fragmentation rounds why can't infantry have anti-personnel rounds? If I have a game in a city with rioters, why can't I have my infantry use rubber bullets while playing Total Warfare? Or when using more advanced rules from TacOps?
MHQs have an officer's office which has a cot available for sleeping in.
Fluff wise? That'd depend on the MHQ. Rule wise, nope.
So leave them in AToW where other things that don't translate well go.
The Collapsible Command Modules.didn't get left out. If there's room for a Mech to carry and deploy a collapsible building why can't Mechanized/Motorized Infantry tow a trailer? Granted I think those infantry should be using vehicles but question is still valid. Why can't there be a very light trailer that could be used as quarters that vehicles can tow and drop off?
Not true. You're conflating quantity of removal with methods of notation. PBI platoons have always been a stretch of men across a line, which is how those bubbles get marked off.
It's the same as armor on a tank. So much damage, so many bubbles get marked off.
A change of method would be like having 5 lines of 10 available on a sheet, 1 line for each potential Squad, and 10 possible for each potential size of a Squad. You roll for which Squad you initially Hit and then it adjust remaining to the next Squad available (maybe?).
I'm going to need a quote on that. As far as I can determine, they've NEVER been the same. PBI Missiles have always been shorter ranged. They also need to be lighter as each normal SRM tube basically costed half a ton. That's a LOT of people to devote to just lifting one. While the abstraction of the Ammo may suggest to some that a Heavy SRM used in Vehicles, 'Mechs, and Aerospace are 10kg, that is VERY heavy for a person to carry across a battlefield.
Besides Battledroids? MechWarrior 3 says the Heavy SRM Launcher fires the same ammunition and vehicles and mechs and that each missile weighs 10 kg. Combat Equipment has a table having the SRM (and other support weapons) being the same as BA weapons and they use the same SRMs as vehicles and mechs. TRO:3026 gives the SRM shorter range but it still does the same damage. And then there's AToW. The infantry standard SRM and BA SRMs are both Ordnance E. BA SRMs do 6X/12S damage up to 270 meters. The Infantry Standard SRM Anti-Vehicle round does 8X/12A with a range of 740 meters. I'm not great with AToW but to me it looks like the infantry Standard SRM is better than the BA but in TW it's the opposite. And that's just the SRMs. There's other mentions about other BA weapons being the same as infantry weapons and are only heavy do to mounting brackets and feed mechanisms. So why isn't that reflected in TW?
The tube also has aiming gear that tie into targeting systems. The Infantry gear isn't going to be as powerful so I can understand them having an increased modifier based on distance. That shouldn't mean an infantry SRM shouldn't hit at 9 hexes. Just that it's harder to do so.
-
Yup. And you're asking about all the different ammo types. I hope you realize that the alternate ammo types are there to bring back the full weapon damage against infantry in a limited fashion. It's purely a rules for rules sake effect. Which, to me, shows a regression in technology when you look at the meta.
(snip)
The thing about regression of technology is that there has been a lot of that. Even if it isn't caused by war technology is still lost. It happens all the time now. Why shouldn't it in the future when people's concern's are keeping a colony going? They may have weapons for hunting but military hardware isn't going to be on their minds until pirates start showing up. Then they'll be reinventing things because no one there currently knows how to build them. Also not everyone is going to be a the same tech level. It'd be immersion breaking if all worlds were at the same tech level.
As for damage, I do think TW takes the way infantry take damage to the other extreme. There should be a middle ground. Maybe a Gauss round will hit multiple troopers or maybe it'll just hit one.
I also think the quality of the infantry should vary and they can. We have ratings for how good/experienced the troops are and a variety of equipment to give them. We can have a wealthy militia with the latest equipment but be totally inexperienced and experienced mercs using ancient weapons.
I'm of mixed feelings about how infantry weapons do damage in TW. On the one hand a hand gun shouldn't damage a tank but having a damage chart per armors BAR level would be a lot. I did like the older rules were non-support weapons had a chance to do damage against tanks and mechs but it wasn't a sure thing. To me it's like the rounds damaging a view port or going through a vent to hit a heat sink or breaking a light. Things like that.
-
Remember that is 2 guys when they are in cover. If they are out in the open it's 4, so basically it goes through one guy per Squad. Nor is it like that a Gauss Slug is actually explosive. It might shrapnel out, but that's relatively minor when compared to HE rounds.
I heard somewhere that you get a solid object of to at least 3km per second, it will do its weight in TNT explosion on impact. So, you aim at the ground, you're delivering an artillery blast with that hit. Even better if that crater happened to have stuff to turn into shrapnel.
Since this is in the fan section, I doubt anything will come of it now. I rather liked it in the general section where maybe TPTB would it it and perhaps impliment some changes.
For my 2c fan rule wise, if I ever run infantry on my terms, it will be with the battle armor rules. Motorized infantry is quad battle armor, and we have jump/foot battle armor representing squads. A quad BA squad with 5 MP, 5 total health and a recoilless rifle or machine gun or SRM launcher, functions exactly how I want a toyota hilux squad or hummer squad to operate. I'd throw some weight/movement stuff in, but yeah, making infantry heavier then battle armor, but yeah.
And for squads/platoons, well i love that trooper 1 is the heavy weapon team in battlearmor, which works perfect for actual rifle squads/platoons, where they often have 1 support weapon. The dedicated weapons teams, like real life, would each get a weapon.
Ruleswise, a 7 strong team with 2/2/2/1 pips of health does a great job of showing why you dont bunch up, while a 7/7/7/7 health full platoon brings more weight to the party. A gauss that hits a team cleanly, whether its 2 guys in a foxhole or 7, obliterates that team, but BA dont have damage crossover, so that is the big boon for spreading infantry out.
The idea that a gauss rifle only deals 2 damage when 28 soldiers are bunched up doesnt make physics sense. We know how heavy a gauss is, we know it's very fast, and kinetic energy is explosive when its fast and hits the ground. That gauss coming near you might kill you just from the pressure and heat of it passing by. A gauss slug has UNBELIEVABLE energy. To say infantry get a damage divisor versus gauss rounds greatly underestimates its energy I think... I'd love someone to prove me wrong here, and show its cool to be within 5 meters of a gauss shell hitting and be totally fine.
I like this!
Although I'm tempted to go with a 2/1/1/1/1/1 set-up with most squads that have a team-based squad weapon*. That way, the squad is better dispersed, and the damage can be rolled on a d6 BA squad sheet.
And, for any additional Squad Weapons in the squad you would combine two ones into a two. So a squad with two squad weapons would be 2/2/1/1/1. A squad with three squad weapons would be what you suggested.
I'd probably rule that the squad weapon teams get a special marker on the sheet, but could be placed in any slot in the squad. As long as it's clear. That way, a two-weapon squad might be arrayed as thus:
1. 2 (SW)
2. 1
3. 1
4. 2 (SW)
5. 1
6. -
*= I'm gonna start calling the 'support weapon' a squad weapon based on the definition of a SAW, or Squad Automatic Weapon.
In the past, I've looked at rolling a critical chance check to take out the squad weapon when a platoon or squad took a hit.
And, I had even gotten to the point where I was looking at just saying that any unit could target the squad weapon directly. Even with an Aliens-style support harness, a large anti-armor squad weapon is easy to pick out. And, killing the weapon wouldn't eliminate everyone in the squad. It would just mean that they had one less weapon to use to attack armored units. Very similar in a lot of ways to the BattleDroids rules, but with a simple fluff concept change.
I may mix in a bit of all three to show different levels of training and equipment. I elaborate in another post below.
Regarding damage dealt by infantry:
I have no problem with Squad weapons doing vehicle scale damage at the listed vehicle scale ranges. None whatsoever. It makes sense.
The infantry rifles, on the other hand, I do have a problem with. Especially if they can do it in perpetuity. I might be okay with one or two shots of a specialized ammo mag or special charge clip designed for the purpose, but that should be a rarity that doesn't get handed out very much, up there with anti-Mech training. (Damage-wise, I'd probably limit that to 1 per trooper, and rolled on the cluster table for the number of troopers to see how many actually hit. But, again, one or two shots tops.)
-
The thing about regression of technology is that there has been a lot of that. Even if it isn't caused by war technology is still lost. It happens all the time now. Why shouldn't it in the future when people's concern's are keeping a colony going? They may have weapons for hunting but military hardware isn't going to be on their minds until pirates start showing up. Then they'll be reinventing things because no one there currently knows how to build them. Also not everyone is going to be a the same tech level. It'd be immersion breaking if all worlds were at the same tech level.
As I said, I would have been okay with that if they had at least allowed for the option to use the old style rules as a form of Tech/alternate ammunition. But, they didn't. I have to do that at my own table because they retconned the Mech performance forwards and backwards to all BT ages.
And, it's one of the reasons I want to see a mix of glass-jawed infantry and specialist anti-armor infantry that are deployed in small numbers. Glass-jawed squads would have a single squad weapon like an SRM Launcher which can get picked off, mission-killing the squad on the game board of a Game of Armored Combat, with an optional rule to let the survivors run around shooting at other infantry if one so desires. The elite anti-armor squads would be deployed like a BA unit, whether it's as a single squad or as a full platoon. They would most likely have the fullest compliment of anti-armor squad weapons allowed and could also potentially have heavy armor to give them some extra longevity.
This is why I asked for Infantry Pogs or Battle Squad or both.
Battle Squad, so named since somebody coined that down in the general fan rules and proposed the same idea, is treating conventional infantry like BA squads on BA squad record sheets.
Infantry Pogs is an idea I came up with making for the smallest record sheet possible inspired by MW:DA Artillery Pogs. A quarter-sized pog could fit on a standard hex map and have enough room for the few things glass-jawed infantry squad would require. Gunnnery and weapons stats. That's all. And maybe some specialist skill for a scenario objective. I'd even go so far as to make it two-sided, so if you want to continue to use the squad in an anti-infantry capacity, you flip it over to its AnInf side once the squad weapon has been eliminated or ran out of ammo.
-
For some infantry we have to. There's no transport bays for Field Gun Infantry, Field Artillery Infantry and Beast Mounted Infantry.
Battledroids gave ammo for SRMs and Machine Guns. I don't know why we can't track them and other support weapons now. And if infantry are going to be changed, this would be a good time to change the record sheets as well.
Keep perspective. When I posted that, this thread was still in General. It wasn't a disagreement with the concept, just that bringing up the idea is Fan Design territory.
Field Gun infantry aren't a unit type, they are another unit type with specialized equipment. You do have a point about Beast-Mounted Infantry, which may be addressed here now that it has moved.
I disagree that Ammo should be tracked (outside of Field Guns) for ConvInf as they are a dedicated weapon system. Sure it would be possible with a redesign matching Battle Armor, but I don't agree with the practicality as the unit (be it Squad or Platoon) is designed around such Support (aka Secondary) Weapons as an identifying feature, nor are they as strong as what a Battle Armor unit carries.
Having Platoons being designed around Squads would offer an opportunity for each individual Squad to be carrying different Ammo or even different Support Weapons. This is a solution that doesn't bog things down too much minutiae.
Not so. We have rules for tracking training but the board game doesn't allow us to use training rounds. That's kind of a problem. We also track ammo as cargo. And why wouldn't the infantry ammo types be usable in Total Warfare? Depending on the game of course. If mechs and tanks can have Fragmentation rounds why can't infantry have anti-personnel rounds? If I have a game in a city with rioters, why can't I have my infantry use rubber bullets while playing Total Warfare? Or when using more advanced rules from TacOps?
You brought them up as being AToW, but now you're saying that they aren't? Which is it?
Infantry DO have anti-personnel rounds in their Primary Weapons. Of course, this was more about do they have a place in certain areas. As it is, even Infantry are just considered "casualties" when you mark them off, and it is other resources which declares them "dead" afterward. Training/Riot Rounds are no different other than anything else other than they aren't actually dead afterward.
Fluff wise? That'd depend on the MHQ. Rule wise, nope.
There are also no rules for the Foot Rifleman's sleeping bag. If it doesn't need to be actively represented on the board, then it can be abstracted away.
The Collapsible Command Modules.didn't get left out. If there's room for a Mech to carry and deploy a collapsible building why can't Mechanized/Motorized Infantry tow a trailer? Granted I think those infantry should be using vehicles but question is still valid. Why can't there be a very light trailer that could be used as quarters that vehicles can tow and drop off?
Because the Command Modules have an impact in scenarios and missions. Sleeping bags do not. Nor have you properly provided a case other than "I wanna have a camper trailer", while providing no military equivalent of such.
It's the same as armor on a tank. So much damage, so many bubbles get marked off.
Missing the point of the statement, as usual. This method of marking damage has not changed through the years because the Infantry Record Sheet hasn't really seen much change throughout the years. How much of Damage gets applied has changed, but not the marking itself. You can't even distinguish between individual Squads without having a separate sheet for each one.
Besides Battledroids? MechWarrior 3 says the Heavy SRM Launcher fires the same ammunition and vehicles and mechs and that each missile weighs 10 kg. Combat Equipment has a table having the SRM (and other support weapons) being the same as BA weapons and they use the same SRMs as vehicles and mechs. TRO:3026 gives the SRM shorter range but it still does the same damage. And then there's AToW. The infantry standard SRM and BA SRMs are both Ordnance E. BA SRMs do 6X/12S damage up to 270 meters. The Infantry Standard SRM Anti-Vehicle round does 8X/12A with a range of 740 meters. I'm not great with AToW but to me it looks like the infantry Standard SRM is better than the BA but in TW it's the opposite. And that's just the SRMs. There's other mentions about other BA weapons being the same as infantry weapons and are only heavy do to mounting brackets and feed mechanisms. So why isn't that reflected in TW?
The tube also has aiming gear that tie into targeting systems. The Infantry gear isn't going to be as powerful so I can understand them having an increased modifier based on distance. That shouldn't mean an infantry SRM shouldn't hit at 9 hexes. Just that it's harder to do so.
Just examples, no quotes.
TRO: 3026 doesn't support your statement. It doesn't carry the SRM support weapon or describe it. It has the LAWs, and Heavy SRM, which is just described as "a more powerful version of the smaller weapon used by infantry units." (pg 122).
Meanwhile, I could do damage in a 1 point Cluster with an Infantry SRM, and not within Rifle Range, since at least CityTech. Now, you can still have SRMs, but not as many so not slowing the unit down, representing a Light SRM team, and those are still effectively doing only 1 Damage.
It sounds more like your problem is more with AtoW than with Total Warfare's infantry rules.
I heard somewhere that you get a solid object of to at least 3km per second, it will do its weight in TNT explosion on impact. So, you aim at the ground, you're delivering an artillery blast with that hit. Even better if that crater happened to have stuff to turn into shrapnel.
It's the base energy equation, energy = mass * speed2. Even then, the only difference between a Gauss slug and an old school cannon round used in ACW and older is elevation of the gun, size of the ball, and muzzle velocity. As I said, it might shrapnel out on a hit, but that doesn't compare well when compared to proper High Explosive rounds.
Although I'm tempted to go with a 2/1/1/1/1/1 set-up with most squads that have a team-based squad weapon*. That way, the squad is better dispersed, and the damage can be rolled on a d6 BA squad sheet.
And, for any additional Squad Weapons in the squad you would combine two ones into a two. So a squad with two squad weapons would be 2/2/1/1/1. A squad with three squad weapons would be what you suggested.
I'd probably rule that the squad weapon teams get a special marker on the sheet, but could be placed in any slot in the squad. As long as it's clear. That way, a two-weapon squad might be arrayed as thus:
1. 2 (SW)
2. 1
3. 1
4. 2 (SW)
5. 1
6. -
Easily workable, I think, and similar to what I had in mind what I presented building Platoons by the Squad concept. However, I do think that most Support Weapons in the Squad (baring more advanced gear), so in most cases the last two guys to die will be carrying the Support Weapons, unless Officers are the last?
*= I'm gonna start calling the 'support weapon' a squad weapon based on the definition of a SAW, or Squad Automatic Weapon.
Or SRM, or LRM, or Flamer, you know any of those Secondary/Support Weapons listed for Infantry right now.
In the past, I've looked at rolling a critical chance check to take out the squad weapon when a platoon or squad took a hit.
And, I had even gotten to the point where I was looking at just saying that any unit could target the squad weapon directly. Even with an Aliens-style support harness, a large anti-armor squad weapon is easy to pick out. And, killing the weapon wouldn't eliminate everyone in the squad. It would just mean that they had one less weapon to use to attack armored units. Very similar in a lot of ways to the BattleDroids rules, but with a simple fluff concept change.
I may mix in a bit of all three to show different levels of training and equipment. I elaborate in another post below.
Or it could just be another dude picking up the Support Weapon to take it over, so shooting Joe 4 doesn't mean anything in the long run because Joe 2 picked it up.
Still, a Crit Hit MIGHT be looking at the Support Weapon being too damaged to be recovered and fired so useless for Joe 2 to pick up Joe 4's BFG.
Regarding damage dealt by infantry:
I have no problem with Squad weapons doing vehicle scale damage at the listed vehicle scale ranges. None whatsoever. It makes sense.
The infantry rifles, on the other hand, I do have a problem with. Especially if they can do it in perpetuity. I might be okay with one or two shots of a specialized ammo mag or special charge clip designed for the purpose, but that should be a rarity that doesn't get handed out very much, up there with anti-Mech training. (Damage-wise, I'd probably limit that to 1 per trooper, and rolled on the cluster table for the number of troopers to see how many actually hit. But, again, one or two shots tops.)
I look at it this way, it's a trade off in the type of Armor being used. In order to make the Ammo from Rifle Cannons (and I suppose old missiles like Mavericks) the Armor became ablative to hamper their abilities to out-right penetrate. The trade off was that if enough Rifles hit one of those panels, it would pop off, and nothing really changed that till Hardened (and even then, just required more hits to accomplish the same task).
Still, if a Squad had 3 types of Damage rating in Support, Rifle, and Melee, I'd largely be fine with it. I think the Ballistic Rifle Damage is a bit excessive as it is when it matches SRM Damage in all but Range. But I guess they thought if Rifle Damage was so nerfed (look at Energy), nobody would bother taking them on to the field at all baring story scenarios.
-
I may mix in a bit of all three to show different levels of training and equipment. I elaborate in another post below.
So, right now, this is for my own table, but this is how I think I'd handle conventional infantry with the BA sheet to satisfy my tastes.
The biggest thing is that I have a full head-canon that looks at the fact that there's an immobile modifier, among many other things to explain why ranges are the way they are, and why Mechs and other armored vehicles take damage to seemingly random damage locations. I believe in an inherent defensive mobility factor that I can't see regular people pulling off. As such, I'm not keen on mandatorily requiring that all attacks be rolled randomly at all times.
Targeting a BattleSquad Conventional Infantry Unit
For the most part targeting should work as for targeting a Battle Armor squad with some following exceptions:
If a BattleSquad or platoon is caught out in the open, any unit may target one or more Squad Weapons teams without having to roll randomly on the squad sheet to see which trooper/team is hit. If declared a squad weapon team so targeted does not get the +1 modifier for squad dispersion. Any additional targeted squad weapon team by the same attacker is treated as a secondary target, and gets the secondary target modifier.
Special note on Platoon deployment: If a team hit on a Platoon 'squad sheet' isn't completely wiped out from the damage, the targeted squad weapon is lost as part of the attack.
- - -
Damage to Platoon-deployed Conventional Infantry
If a team on a platoon isn't eliminated from an attack, Roll a critical hit chance to see if one or more squad weapons have been damaged by the attack, apply a modifier based on the amount of damage the team has sustained.
(I'm also thinking there should probably be a minimum 'crew' requirement if a single platoon squad has two or more squad weapons.)
- - -
Damage from Machine Guns and Other Anti-Infantry Weapons
Each point of damage from a Machine gun is rolled on the squad sheet separately, once the amount of damage has been determined. Any shots applied to a dead trooper or blank slot stick for the attack, and don't get rerolled.
- - -
I'm also looking at Armor kit having some effect on range for the anti-infantry weapons mounted on Armored Combat units and carried by conventional infantry forces. (That includes the rifle issued to each trooper in a squad/platoon.)
They should get some kind of boost for any kit that isn't full body coverage. I'm thinking full body coverage imparts the standard ground ranges we see in the Game of Armored Combat. And, then Heavy Armor imparts a crit check with modifiers based on damage versus cover, especially for platoon deployments in addition to a damage divisor.
- - -
Troop Loyalty could also play a part in whether a squad that looses its last squad weapon sticks around to fight or is removed from the board as they depart the battle.
- - -
Using this version of BattleSquad assumes that each trooper also has some sort of ECM kit, complete with laser blinder devices to aid in taking advantage of cover on my part. Otherwise, the squad weapon is easy pickings, even in cover.
-
Still, if a Squad had 3 types of Damage rating in Support, Rifle, and Melee, I'd largely be fine with it. I think the Ballistic Rifle Damage is a bit excessive as it is when it matches SRM Damage in all but Range. But I guess they thought if Rifle Damage was so nerfed (look at Energy), nobody would bother taking them on to the field at all baring story scenarios.
That is something I actually want. Should have made that clear from the start.
The rifle and melee would be solely from one infantry squad against another. I could see special accommodations for specially equipped rifles with, say, underslung grenade launchers, or a specially charged clip or setting for a laser rifle. Again, limited supply so a very small ammo count.
-
The rifle and melee would be solely from one infantry squad against another. I could see special accommodations for specially equipped rifles with, say, underslung grenade launchers, or a specially charged clip or setting for a laser rifle. Again, limited supply so a very small ammo count.
But we're back to Rifle Infantry not being taken at all except to be fodder for everyone but other Infantry. In order to be effective they MUST take a Support Weapon of some kind. That would probably mean a restructuring of how such units are represented, such as the removal of all "default" Rifle units in Total Warfare.
-
Edit: Slight restructure in order of thought.
But we're back to Rifle Infantry not being taken at all except to be fodder for everyone but other Infantry. In order to be effective they MUST take a Support Weapon of some kind. That would probably mean a restructuring of how such units are represented, such as the removal of all "default" Rifle units in Total Warfare.
Absolutely. One of the reasons I advocate for a Revised BattleTroops.
See, Before Tech Manual came out, I had always envisioned that the different classes of Platoon were doing damage based on their squad weapon. It was still a little weird that they weren't doing damage equal to their Mech and Vehicle versions when it came to Flamers or Lasers or MGs when you look at how a platoon took damage, but I could mostly ignore that.
Then Tech Manual came out, and cast that all into a new light, and it soured me to Infantry as depicted in Total Warfare.
I look at it this way, it's a trade off in the type of Armor being used. In order to make the Ammo from Rifle Cannons (and I suppose old missiles like Mavericks) the Armor became ablative to hamper their abilities to out-right penetrate. The trade off was that if enough Rifles hit one of those panels, it would pop off, and nothing really changed that till Hardened (and even then, just required more hits to accomplish the same task).
So, novels trump sourcebooks, right? Wasn't it stated in a Gray Death Novel that his Marauder's GM Whirlwind cannon fired off a 10-round burst? And wasn't it a 120mm cannon? For a moment, let's assume it took all 10 rounds to do a full 5 points of damage. (I have reason to believe that's the case. I've come to conclude, especially in light of how the Rotary Autocannon groups damage in solid 5- or 2- point clusters depending on the type, and not something weird like with LRMs, that the cannon rounds have built-in homing capacity. Combine that with the excessive recoil compensation built into the guns weight, and viola! Solid damage grouping from a rapid-fire gun with consistency.) With that assumption, each shot in the burst is only doing 1/2 a point of damage. With 20 Bursts per ton of ammo, that's potentially 50kg per burst, or 5 kg a single shot.
According to sarna on the Auto-Rifle (https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Auto-Rifle), if I'm reading it right, a 30-round clip is only 480 grams, or .48 kg. (I'm assuming the rifle, itself, weighs the listed 4 kg. If I'm wrong, by all means correct me on this.)
Granted, there are range differences. The soft target range for a single round from the Auto-Rifle is between 13 and 14 BT hexes. Against Armor, it's only out to 60, if I recall right, maybe 90. Depending on if you bring in AT ranges, the AC round could go out to 18 BT hexes, 12 BT maps in atmosphere, or either 216 km (AT2) or 117,000 km (AT1) in vacuum. (Let's disregard AT1 ranges for now. :tongue:)
Even with that range performance in consideration the amount of damage being equivalent by weight doesn't add up. Especially when it's a human that has to brace and land all or a large portion of the shots on target in a presumably tight grouping. But, if my assumption about the AC round is correct in its application of damage, any stray shot would negate the damage inflicted down to zero.
You see where I'm coming from, now?
Also, look up the equivalency chart Sarna listed for the different BAR ratings. BAR 10 is listed as Rock. I'm guessing stuff as hard as granite or diamond. See if anyone has done emptied a 30-round clip of 5.56 NATO into a granite boulder and let me know what kind of damage was inflicted. It's probably not much and/or not very deep.
It's the base energy equation, energy = mass * speed2. Even then, the only difference between a Gauss slug and an old school cannon round used in ACW and older is elevation of the gun, size of the ball, and muzzle velocity. As I said, it might shrapnel out on a hit, but that doesn't compare well when compared to proper High Explosive rounds.
Yeah, but a gauss round is most likely going muuuuuch faster than 3m per second. or 3km per second. Assuming the same style of Gauss on a mech or tank is the one which can be used by Aero Units, then a Gauss has an Aero range of Long which is 20 hexes. That's either 10 km on the ground, or 360 km in space. I'm not going to concern myself with how drag effects things, and focus on the space range. In either instance, it takes all of a second or two to change orientation and present an oblique armor face and turn a sure, damaging hit into 0 points of damage sustained. Anything longer than that, and the velocities at which spacecraft are moving at out in space means a simple change in direction will put your fighter out of the transit line of your gauss round once its fired. So, in space, the shot needs to arrive on target inside 2 seconds, in my opinion, to even score damage. Let's be generous and say two.
So, the Gauss round is moving at a minimum muzzle velocity of 180 km a second. The round is nominally 125 kg. Do the energy math on that, then let me know what kind of explosive impact that would have with just the ground under a soldier's feet.
There's a reason that even small meteors which hit the ground leave massive craters.
-
Edit: Slight restructure in order of thought.
Absolutely. One of the reasons I advocate for a Revised BattleTroops.
See, Before Tech Manual came out, I had always envisioned that the different classes of Platoon were doing damage based on their squad weapon. It was still a little weird that they weren't doing damage equal to their Mech and Vehicle versions when it came to Flamers or Lasers or MGs when you look at how a platoon took damage, but I could mostly ignore that.
Then Tech Manual came out, and cast that all into a new light, and it soured me to Infantry as depicted in Total Warfare.
So, novels trump sourcebooks, right? Wasn't it stated in a Gray Death Novel that his Marauder's GM Whirlwind cannon fired off a 10-round burst? And wasn't it a 120mm cannon? For a moment, let's assume it took all 10 rounds to do a full 5 points of damage. (I have reason to believe that's the case. I've come to conclude, especially in light of how the Rotary Autocannon groups damage in solid 5- or 2- point clusters depending on the type, and not something weird like with LRMs, that the cannon rounds have built-in homing capacity. Combine that with the excessive recoil compensation built into the guns weight, and viola! Solid damage grouping from a rapid-fire gun with consistency.) With that assumption, each shot in the burst is only doing 1/2 a point of damage. With 20 Bursts per ton of ammo, that's potentially 50kg per burst, or 5 kg a single shot.
According to sarna on the Auto-Rifle (https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Auto-Rifle), if I'm reading it right, a 30-round clip is only 480 grams, or .48 kg. (I'm assuming the rifle, itself, weighs the listed 4 kg. If I'm wrong, by all means correct me on this.)
Granted, there are range differences. The soft target range for a single round from the Auto-Rifle is between 13 and 14 BT hexes. Against Armor, it's only out to 60, if I recall right, maybe 90. Depending on if you bring in AT ranges, the AC round could go out to 18 BT hexes, 12 BT maps in atmosphere, or either 216 km (AT2) or 117,000 km (AT1) in vacuum. (Let's disregard AT1 ranges for now. :tongue:)
Even with that range performance in consideration the amount of damage being equivalent by weight doesn't add up. Especially when it's a human that has to brace and land all or a large portion of the shots on target in a presumably tight grouping. But, if my assumption about the AC round is correct in its application of damage, any stray shot would negate the damage inflicted down to zero.
You see where I'm coming from, now?
Also, look up the equivalency chart Sarna listed for the different BAR ratings. BAR 10 is listed as Rock. I'm guessing stuff as hard as granite or diamond. See if anyone has done emptied a 30-round clip of 5.56 NATO into a granite boulder and let me know what kind of damage was inflicted. It's probably not much and/or not very deep.
Yeah, but a gauss round is most likely going muuuuuch faster than 3m per second. or 3km per second. Assuming the same style of Gauss on a mech or tank is the one which can be used by Aero Units, then a Gauss has an Aero range of Long which is 20 hexes. That's either 10 km on the ground, or 360 km in space. I'm not going to concern myself with how drag effects things, and focus on the space range. In either instance, it takes all of a second or two to change orientation and present an oblique armor face and turn a sure, damaging hit into 0 points of damage sustained. Anything longer than that, and the velocities at which spacecraft are moving at out in space means a simple change in direction will put your fighter out of the transit line of your gauss round once its fired. So, in space, the shot needs to arrive on target inside 2 seconds, in my opinion, to even score damage. Let's be generous and say two.
So, the Gauss round is moving at a minimum muzzle velocity of 180 km a second. The round is nominally 125 kg. Do the energy math on that, then let me know what kind of explosive impact that would have with just the ground under a soldier's feet.
There's a reason that even small meteors which hit the ground leave massive craters.
Simplify!! there's a rabbit hole here. (robot screaming 'caution!!")
See, there's a LOT of problems with the abstraction that is infantry in Battletech, like the 'averaging' of ranges to the point that a platoon of pistols and long bows can do damage at absurd ranges to armored opponents.
or, how a .50 caliber vehicle mount machine-gun has the same effective range against naked men in the open, that it has of penetrationg/ablating armor on a main battle tank.
which is about 90 meters at BEST.
-
I think the Support Machine Gun is the 0.50 cal equivalent, so figure 180 meter Long range if using TW scale rules. It has longer ranges at AToW scale, of course.
-
Absolutely. One of the reasons I advocate for a Revised BattleTroops.
Which is fine, but rather non-sequitur to what you were quoting, and really should be its own topic because it just encompasses so much.
See, Before Tech Manual came out, I had always envisioned that the different classes of Platoon were doing damage based on their squad weapon. It was still a little weird that they weren't doing damage equal to their Mech and Vehicle versions when it came to Flamers or Lasers or MGs when you look at how a platoon took damage, but I could mostly ignore that.
Then Tech Manual came out, and cast that all into a new light, and it soured me to Infantry as depicted in Total Warfare.
So was that a, "Yes I want to see Rifle Squads/Platoons disappear because they will be useless against anything that isn't Infantry.", or were you referencing something else?
If you were referencing something else, I think going back to CityTech or Battledroids would be a step backward, but a few things could be worked out. Yet, I still think there are some wonky numbers going on the SRM numbers which just don't fly, be it CityTech or Total Warfare, those being the odd numbers that show up every few steps in troop size at the full range of the Support weapon.
Going to a Squad-based construction and general operation concept could work in what I think you're saying (but you weren't very clear), but I still think that the individual Support Weapons would probably still be a little bit weaker for one main reason, and that's mobility and range.
Let's say weren't not going to address how Support Weapons are added to the group, so that the difference between constructing the TW SRM Platoon now would only be different in how it sets up on a Record Sheet. You're still dealing with lighter versions of these weapons when compared to Vehicles and Mechs because a Squad isn't going to lift a 500KG Machine Gun. A single SRM added in to a Squad doesn't affect its mobility, but adding 2 does. It could also be looked at as adding 2 Light SRMs or 1 Heavy SRM (which counts as 2), but it amounts to the same thing at the end of the road. But as the Support Weapon count goes up, the Rifle count goes down (Support Weapons are HEAVY).
Currently, 28 men of 4 Squads of 7 putting out a potential 14 Damage on the SRM chart (both CityTech and Total Warfare use this number), means about 1/2 Damage per person. With Tech Manual Accounting that means 8 SRM 2-shots doing less than 8 SRM hits from a Combat Vechicle or Mech. The Squad size works in CityTech, doing 4 Damage, but in Total Warfare we're down to 3, largely because they took the 1 person Damage to 0 and just adjusted the line down.
However, if we're looking at a full SRM-8 for a Platoon, or an SRM-2 for a Squad, that could theoretically work. It actually coincides a little better with how everything works now.
So, novels trump sourcebooks, right?
That's the opposite to what I said or what I was suggesting. I was going by how the Armor works in game and providing a story-version to justify it. Sourcebooks guiding the novelization.
According to sarna on the Auto-Rifle (https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Auto-Rifle), if I'm reading it right, a 30-round clip is only 480 grams, or .48 kg. (I'm assuming the rifle, itself, weighs the listed 4 kg. If I'm wrong, by all means correct me on this.)
That's a big assumption in thinking that the standard light arm would go up in weight over 1000 years. Currently the AK-74 and M-4 weigh in gross at 3.5kg (give or take). The trend has been to go with lighter, but faster, rounds where possible. Of course, if one is expected to deal with ablative armor, having very fast heavy rounds would be more desirable.
Granted, there are range differences. The soft target range for a single round from the Auto-Rifle is between 13 and 14 BT hexes. Against Armor, it's only out to 60, if I recall right, maybe 90. Depending on if you bring in AT ranges, the AC round could go out to 18 BT hexes, 12 BT maps in atmosphere, or either 216 km (AT2) or 117,000 km (AT1) in vacuum. (Let's disregard AT1 ranges for now. :tongue:)
Even with that range performance in consideration the amount of damage being equivalent by weight doesn't add up. Especially when it's a human that has to brace and land all or a large portion of the shots on target in a presumably tight grouping. But, if my assumption about the AC round is correct in its application of damage, any stray shot would negate the damage inflicted down to zero.
You see where I'm coming from, now?
Not really, no. You spouted a lot of stats and then ask if I see where you're coming from. You didn't really point a direction where you wanted to go with these stats.
Also, look up the equivalency chart Sarna listed for the different BAR ratings. BAR 10 is listed as Rock. I'm guessing stuff as hard as granite or diamond. See if anyone has done emptied a 30-round clip of 5.56 NATO into a granite boulder and let me know what kind of damage was inflicted. It's probably not much and/or not very deep.
Probably not. However, the point isn't to destroy a rock, but to dislodge it from other rocks. Rocks do bounce if they are light enough or hit with enough force. And while these maybe 62.5kg rocks we're dealing with on average, I only have to move it enough so the connections to the rest of the Armor no longer work.
Yeah, but a gauss round is most likely going muuuuuch faster than 3m per second. or 3km per second. Assuming the same style of Gauss on a mech or tank is the one which can be used by Aero Units, then a Gauss has an Aero range of Long which is 20 hexes. That's either 10 km on the ground, or 360 km in space. I'm not going to concern myself with how drag effects things, and focus on the space range. In either instance, it takes all of a second or two to change orientation and present an oblique armor face and turn a sure, damaging hit into 0 points of damage sustained. Anything longer than that, and the velocities at which spacecraft are moving at out in space means a simple change in direction will put your fighter out of the transit line of your gauss round once its fired. So, in space, the shot needs to arrive on target inside 2 seconds, in my opinion, to even score damage. Let's be generous and say two.
So, the Gauss round is moving at a minimum muzzle velocity of 180 km a second. The round is nominally 125 kg. Do the energy math on that, then let me know what kind of explosive impact that would have with just the ground under a soldier's feet.
There's a reason that even small meteors which hit the ground leave massive craters.
You're greatly inflating the numbers with your estimations. Even Mach 8 is only about 2.7km/sec, depending on air pressure, and I haven't heard of the Gauss Rifle shot going faster. Try this here (https://www.calculateme.com/speed/mach/to-meters-per-second/8).
The funny thing about shooting ballistics in space, it's going to take a LOT to slow it down. Effectively its range is "till it hits something". What the Range is for is when you can effectively predict where a target can be in the time it takes the round to travel. While the 2 second idea is nice, that's still no guarantee as its more about predicting where the shot will hit and make it easier to hit a dodging target. However, physics being the jerk it is, dodging in space isn't easy as it requires thrust-alone overcoming momentum to accomplish its task.
-
As I said, I would have been okay with that if they had at least allowed for the option to use the old style rules as a form of Tech/alternate ammunition. But, they didn't. I have to do that at my own table because they retconned the Mech performance forwards and backwards to all BT ages.
(snip)
I'm not sure if I remember age based ammo or not. I want to say there was a rule for using mothballed ammo but I have no idea where that would be. I suppose there should be a modifier for old ammo if there isn't but I think most ammo in BT would be newish.
I think we can do glass-jawed and elite special forces infantry ourselves. Like I said, we have rules for rankings, moral, and lots of specializations. We also have rules for squad deployment, so we could improvise a mixed platoon of good and bad infantry.
Keep perspective. When I posted that, this thread was still in General. It wasn't a disagreement with the concept, just that bringing up the idea is Fan Design territory.
Field Gun infantry aren't a unit type, they are another unit type with specialized equipment. You do have a point about Beast-Mounted Infantry, which may be addressed here now that it has moved.
I was hoping we'd stay out of the Fan Rules Forum but that doesn't mean we can't mention problems with the current rules.
I did ask about Beast Mounted Infantry but I still don't have an answer. And while Field Gun and Field Artillery Infantry may be a specialized versions of Motorized/Mechanized Infantry but unless those bays are made by Time Lords I can't see them fitting in an infantry bay or compartment. Maybe it does work that way but breaks immersion for me.
I disagree that Ammo should be tracked (outside of Field Guns) for ConvInf as they are a dedicated weapon system. Sure it would be possible with a redesign matching Battle Armor, but I don't agree with the practicality as the unit (be it Squad or Platoon) is designed around such Support (aka Secondary) Weapons as an identifying feature, nor are they as strong as what a Battle Armor unit carries.
Having Platoons being designed around Squads would offer an opportunity for each individual Squad to be carrying different Ammo or even different Support Weapons. This is a solution that doesn't bog things down too much minutiae.
I can see Support Weapons Ammo being tracked. Saying how many rounds they have shouldn't be a problem since that was done in BattleDroids. Counting standard regular infantry weapons may be too much but it shouldn't be for support weapons.
You brought them up as being AToW, but now you're saying that they aren't? Which is it?
They are in AToW and AToW Companion but outside of inferno rounds, alternative infantry rounds not available in TW even though TW does have very similar alternative ammo, like Fragmentation. I think that's a problem. We don't average all the Mech ammo types together. Why should we do that for Infantry?
Infantry DO have anti-personnel rounds in their Primary Weapons. Of course, this was more about do they have a place in certain areas. As it is, even Infantry are just considered "casualties" when you mark them off, and it is other resources which declares them "dead" afterward. Training/Riot Rounds are no different other than anything else other than they aren't actually dead afterward.
That's true. A mission kill is a mission kill. However, by not allowing us to use Training/Riot Rounds it throws off the budget when conducting campaigns.
There are also no rules for the Foot Rifleman's sleeping bag. If it doesn't need to be actively represented on the board, then it can be abstracted away.
Because the Command Modules have an impact in scenarios and missions. Sleeping bags do not. Nor have you properly provided a case other than "I wanna have a camper trailer", while providing no military equivalent of such.
In that case, I agree. However, somethings should be represented on the board. I can see a quirk for the commander having a bunk in the MHQ. Camper trailers though shouldn't be so abstracted. How comfy the troops sleep is an RPG thing. Stacking limits, speed, and how they're transported in a Bay/Compartment are not. And we do have Tents in TacOps. Why not the campers?
Missing the point of the statement, as usual. This method of marking damage has not changed through the years because the Infantry Record Sheet hasn't really seen much change throughout the years. How much of Damage gets applied has changed, but not the marking itself. You can't even distinguish between individual Squads without having a separate sheet for each one.
That's what I said.
Just examples, no quotes.
TRO: 3026 doesn't support your statement. It doesn't carry the SRM support weapon or describe it. It has the LAWs, and Heavy SRM, which is just described as "a more powerful version of the smaller weapon used by infantry units." (pg 122).
(sigh)
MW3 page 137
SRM Launcher: The heavy SRM launcher fires the same ammunition as vehicle and 'Mech-class SRM launchers. It is very encumbering, and each missile weighs in at 10 kilograms, virtually requiring soldiers to set it up in an emplacement and have a vehicle close at hand to haul its ammunition.
Combat Equipment page 110
RPG Support Weapon Conversion Table.
I'm not going to post the whole thing but it does have RPG Infantry SRMs being equivalent to Battletech SRMs.
I did say that TRO:3026 has shorter range. The TRO has the SRM damage being in Mechwarrior. MW1 and 2 has 1 point of damage. MW3 says they're they same as Vehicle scale and on page 143 MW3 also has the BA SRM-2 being equal to the SRM Launcher. I posted what AToW says about them. So it depends on which set of rules you go by and that's for standard rounds. There's infernos. There's rule books having infantry and vehicle/mech infernos doing the same heat. And no I'm not going to try to post exact quotes. Reading the print has screwed up my vision enough already.
Meanwhile, I could do damage in a 1 point Cluster with an Infantry SRM, and not within Rifle Range, since at least CityTech. Now, you can still have SRMs, but not as many so not slowing the unit down, representing a Light SRM team, and those are still effectively doing only 1 Damage.
If lighter Light SRMs don't slow the platoon down, and heavier Heavy SRMs do, shouldn't the even heavier 2-shot (standard) SRM be either move or shoot? And shouldn't the L-SRM do a tiny bit less damage than a Standard SRM and the H-SRM do twice as much damage as the L-SRM and nearly twice as much as the Standard SRM?
It sounds more like your problem is more with AtoW than with Total Warfare's infantry rules.
I certainly have a problem with the inconsistency. It isn't just the weapons, which I think are a big problem. It's the Infantry themselves. As was mentioned earlier, the same vehicles TW infantry are fluffed and shown to use have vastly better performance in AToW. So do the AToW infantry pages 339-340. The High-Budget Trooper has a Bayonet, Pulse Laser Rifle, Laser Pistol, 6x Grenade (3 different types). That's more than weapons than we're allowed per trooper even with TO's Disposable Weapons. Why can't we build infantry with multiple weapons and then use the ones best suited at the time?
-
If I had a wishlist, it would be for two things. First, I'd like an infantry unit's anti-vehicular firepower to come primarily from its heavy weapons, not its small arms, and I'd like those heavy weapons to generally be equivalent to mech-scale weaponry.
One thing that would facilitate this are the Battle Armor weapons in the Techmanual. A lot of them have a 1 to 1 parity with their conventional infantry equivalents in terms of ammunition weight (SRM, LRM, Recoiless Rifles, Mortars, etc.). Of course the weapons themselves are much heavier in their BA versions but this could be explained as being because you need to factor in the weight of structure and armor needed to accommodate the volume of the weapon in the battle armor suit in addition to weight of loading mechanisms and actuators.
So you have a 7 man squad with 2x 30kg Corean LRM launchers as their support weapons that act identically to their BA equivalent, (I'm thinking two 3 man fire teams with a squad leader) or the 30kg Standard SRM launcher as identical to a BA SRM 2. The squad can either fire its auto-rifles, which are deadly against infantry but useless against heavy armor or its crew served missile launchers. The only thing I would add is for the SRM launcher is that they should realistically be able to carry only enough reloads for 3 shots total (2x 10kg missile per crew in a 3 man team). Your LRM squad could act as a LRM2 for 6 turns of fire and your SMR squad would act as an SRM4 for 3 turns before exhausting its ammo.
-
I was hoping we'd stay out of the Fan Rules Forum but that doesn't mean we can't mention problems with the current rules.
It's the bringing of suggestions to those changes which puts it in Fan Rules territory, hence my statement.
I did ask about Beast Mounted Infantry but I still don't have an answer. And while Field Gun and Field Artillery Infantry may be a specialized versions of Motorized/Mechanized Infantry but unless those bays are made by Time Lords I can't see them fitting in an infantry bay or compartment. Maybe it does work that way but breaks immersion for me.
There's a lot of things that are possibly immersion-breaking, such as the range of weapons. If the weight of a Transport Bay on a ship that you aren't going to be using in a tactical sense is immersion breaking, maybe this is the wrong game to be addressing.
I can see Support Weapons Ammo being tracked. Saying how many rounds they have shouldn't be a problem since that was done in BattleDroids. Counting standard regular infantry weapons may be too much but it shouldn't be for support weapons.
The problem is the, "Why, after all this time, should we?" It would, potentially, leave them completely unarmed after a few shots. And if we track Missiles, why not track Machine Gun rounds of fire, Flamer fuel, battery power for energy and gauss weapons, etc? Effectively speaking, this would largely be a nerf to Infantry on a Total Warfare scale.
They are in AToW and AToW Companion but outside of inferno rounds, alternative infantry rounds not available in TW even though TW does have very similar alternative ammo, like Fragmentation. I think that's a problem. We don't average all the Mech ammo types together. Why should we do that for Infantry?
Because Infantry groups are smaller and not carrying around a literal ton of ammunition (except Field Gunners, of course). And as I said earlier, if they have a definable purpose in Total Warfare they should be included. As it is, SRM ConvInf are set up for Anti-Armor in Total Warfare because that's the reason you get SRM ConvInf, to shoot Armor.
That's true. A mission kill is a mission kill. However, by not allowing us to use Training/Riot Rounds it throws off the budget when conducting campaigns.
Which is a Campaign Operations and AToW concern.
In that case, I agree. However, somethings should be represented on the board. I can see a quirk for the commander having a bunk in the MHQ. Camper trailers though shouldn't be so abstracted. How comfy the troops sleep is an RPG thing. Stacking limits, speed, and how they're transported in a Bay/Compartment are not. And we do have Tents in TacOps. Why not the campers?
Again, for the fourth or fifth time, can you demonstrate a military actually using campers?
That's what I said.
Not so...
Each trooper is a bubble of health for the platoon....
"Each trooper is a bubble of health for the platoon. How those bubbles get marked off has changed over the years though. The older weapon hit kills that many troopers may have been too much one way but 1/10 damage goes too far the other. And the mechanized infantry damage is worse. " - Riflemech
You presented to different concepts but conflated them as the same thing.
(sigh)
Sigh all you want, but when someone asks for a quote a vague reference doesn't really help. Even worse when one of your references turns out to say the opposite.
MW3 page 137
Combat Equipment page 110
RPG Support Weapon Conversion Table.
I'm not going to post the whole thing but it does have RPG Infantry SRMs being equivalent to Battletech SRMs.
I did say that TRO:3026 has shorter range. The TRO has the SRM damage being in Mechwarrior. MW1 and 2 has 1 point of damage. MW3 says they're they same as Vehicle scale and on page 143 MW3 also has the BA SRM-2 being equal to the SRM Launcher. I posted what AToW says about them. So it depends on which set of rules you go by and that's for standard rounds. There's infernos. There's rule books having infantry and vehicle/mech infernos doing the same heat. And no I'm not going to try to post exact quotes. Reading the print has screwed up my vision enough already.
Yet, the TRO one is talking about the HEAVY SRM launcher, and that being heavier than the standard one that Infantry normally get.
The BA SRM being equal is a red herring because it has never operated other than an SRM-2 carried by a Vehicle or Mech.
And yet, within all that time, there are capacities of odd numbers of damage. That's not a standard SRM at all. By virtue of experience and capacity, they ARE lighter as it takes 2 per Squad to almost equal a normal SRM. To top it all off, Tech Manual doesn't say these are the 'Mech/Vehicle equivalent any more.
If lighter Light SRMs don't slow the platoon down, and heavier Heavy SRMs do, shouldn't the even heavier 2-shot (standard) SRM be either move or shoot? And shouldn't the L-SRM do a tiny bit less damage than a Standard SRM and the H-SRM do twice as much damage as the L-SRM and nearly twice as much as the Standard SRM?
Technically speaking, the "Light" SRM team is just one that picked up a one shot SRM as its Support Weapon while the standard (aka Heavy) SRM team in Total Warfare (and thus previous versions) carries either two one shot SRMs or a single 2-shot SRM as its Support Weapon.
And yes, that standard does have a Move or Shoot capacity with Foot ConvInf while also slowing down the others by 1 MP, and does about twice as much damage as the "Light" SRM team. Unfortunately, the "Light" SRM team's about as effective as a Ballistic Rifle Platoon, going by MML's calculation.
I certainly have a problem with the inconsistency. It isn't just the weapons, which I think are a big problem. It's the Infantry themselves. As was mentioned earlier, the same vehicles TW infantry are fluffed and shown to use have vastly better performance in AToW. So do the AToW infantry pages 339-340. The High-Budget Trooper has a Bayonet, Pulse Laser Rifle, Laser Pistol, 6x Grenade (3 different types). That's more than weapons than we're allowed per trooper even with TO's Disposable Weapons. Why can't we build infantry with multiple weapons and then use the ones best suited at the time?
AToW and TW do operate at different levels, though. This is getting back to the sleeping bag example all too quickly. Detail for one level of game play does not necessarily need to translate to the same level of detail at a level farther pulled out. And since AToW is newer, it should be reflecting more of the standards that Classic sets for general concepts. One offs for an individual are one thing, but that doesn't always translate to a group of 25 to 30.
Still, I have heard what you and others have said, and proposed something regarding that above.
-
I think the Support Machine Gun is the 0.50 cal equivalent, so figure 180 meter Long range if using TW scale rules. It has longer ranges at AToW scale, of course.
Do you remember what the effective range of an M240B is? or an M2? (real world ranges)?
It's a bit more than 180 meters, that's getting down below the effective range of an M4 carbine.
which is kind of the point-applying realism to Battletech is a bad idea that leads to some truly mind-blowing weirdness that the game can't really scale around successfully. Applying realistic ballistic effects has the same problem. (your AC/20 has an effective long range of 360 Meters, at 30 meters per hex, using long range. That's inferior to a 12 pounder napoleon fueled by black powder firing a round ball.)
Trying to insert more realism increases the mechanical complexity of the game, when you increase that mechanical complexity, it has to trade off for some benefit and appeal. By necessity, you're reducing the attraction for new players, and shedding more casual players.
The abstraction with infantry serves a defined purpose.
-
FWIW, I noticed some chatter about weapons density. Here are some platoon ORBAT charts from BattleTroops. "Enjoy"
-
Do you remember what the effective range of an M240B is? or an M2? (real world ranges)?
To illustrate the argument, 800+m and ~1800m, respectively. And BT gives us 180m effective range first against 'mech armor (which can be accepted), then in toto (which....) Also, take the Bulldog as an example. It has a 20mm rotary autocannon, basically an M61 Vulcan type weapon, as its bow machine gun.
And this illustrates the point. BT weapon ranges are game stats for menaingful differences in games played on a series of 17x22" boards. Real world range equivalencies would arguably result in line of sight ranges as we have in Pireme Publishing's Hammer's Slammers game.
-
One thing that would facilitate this are the Battle Armor weapons in the Techmanual. A lot of them have a 1 to 1 parity with their conventional infantry equivalents in terms of ammunition weight (SRM, LRM, Recoiless Rifles, Mortars, etc.). Of course the weapons themselves are much heavier in their BA versions but this could be explained as being because you need to factor in the weight of structure and armor needed to accommodate the volume of the weapon in the battle armor suit in addition to weight of loading mechanisms and actuators.
There is fluff stating that BA versions are heavier do to mounting brackets and such. There's even some fluff about Infantry weapons being equivalent to Mech/Vehicle versions. I've pointed out some instances for SRM but there's other like TRO:3026 page 108
The Support Machine Gun is similar in design to the machine guns used on 'Mechs. In general, most Sp-MGs are a smaller caliber than their 'Mech equivalents, but have a higher rate of fire.
and the table on page 127 gives the support machine gun the same range and damage as Mech versions. So lots of smaller rounds can be just as damaging to ablative armor as fewer larger rounds.
And the weight for Recoilless Rifle is odd. The weight for the Infantry version is per round. The BA version is per 20 rounds. They're not firing bursts so the Infantry version should do more damage. And then there's the AToW damage. The BA version does 6X/12S. The Anti-Vehicle Infantry round does 8X/12A. The infantry support weapons should be a lot more damaging than they are.
It's the bringing of suggestions to those changes which puts it in Fan Rules territory, hence my statement.
Which I had been trying to avoid when this thread was in the other forum.
There's a lot of things that are possibly immersion-breaking, such as the range of weapons. If the weight of a Transport Bay on a ship that you aren't going to be using in a tactical sense is immersion breaking, maybe this is the wrong game to be addressing.
Agreed the range is an issue. However, TW has all the ranges shortened so it's consistent. At least until you get to Aerospace and the RPG. Then it doesn't make sense. Just like it doesn't make much sense to have an issue with 6 tons of infantry and vehicles to be ride inside a tank but it's okay if they're towing and additional 30 tons of cannon and ammo.
The problem is the, "Why, after all this time, should we?" It would, potentially, leave them completely unarmed after a few shots. And if we track Missiles, why not track Machine Gun rounds of fire, Flamer fuel, battery power for energy and gauss weapons, etc? Effectively speaking, this would largely be a nerf to Infantry on a Total Warfare scale.
I said I'd be okay with it, not that we had to. And why not? It's tracked in AToW. Missile rounds are tracked by BA. I also think that having support weapons be far more effective balances out the nerf. With 2 SRMs per squad doing 2 points of damage each, the platoon could do up to 16 points of damage out to 9 hexes per turn with SRMs alone. If they have 5 rounds that's up to 80 points of damage. Currently, we have the same number of SRMs doing 4.32 damage out to 6 hexes per turn. 20 points of damage after 5 turns. I think having limited ammo for 4 times the damage and increased range is a fair trade.
Because Infantry groups are smaller and not carrying around a literal ton of ammunition (except Field Gunners, of course). And as I said earlier, if they have a definable purpose in Total Warfare they should be included. As it is, SRM ConvInf are set up for Anti-Armor in Total Warfare because that's the reason you get SRM ConvInf, to shoot Armor.
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. Why can't they have the option between anti-vehicle and anti-personnel? And if the only reason to have SRMs is to shoot armor, why do we have alternative ammunition? And Infantry don't have to be exclusively anti-armor. Infantry could fire smoke rounds, anti-personnel rounds, or other types of ammo instead of taking up tonnage in a Mech or Tank.
Which is a Campaign Operations and AToW concern.
And you can use Campaign Operations with TW.
Again, for the fourth or fifth time, can you demonstrate a military actually using campers?
Can you actually demonstrate a military actually using BattleMechs? That's various reasons for a military to use campers. Troopers would be better rested than those sleeping on the ground They'd make a good temporary base, that is more mobile than a tent city. They're more environmentally secure than a standard tent. No need to bring a food truck as rations and cooking facilities are included.
Not so..."Each trooper is a bubble of health for the platoon. How those bubbles get marked off has changed over the years though. The older weapon hit kills that many troopers may have been too much one way but 1/10 damage goes too far the other. And the mechanized infantry damage is worse. " - Riflemech
You presented to different concepts but conflated them as the same thing.
A bubble is still a bubble. It's how many bubbles get marked off that changed.
Sigh all you want, but when someone asks for a quote a vague reference doesn't really help. Even worse when one of your references turns out to say the opposite.
I did say where to find them.
Yet, the TRO one is talking about the HEAVY SRM launcher, and that being heavier than the standard one that Infantry normally get.
And the Heavy SRM and it's ammo are the same weight as the 2 shot SRM.
The BA SRM being equal is a red herring because it has never operated other than an SRM-2 carried by a Vehicle or Mech.
Actually it isn't since there are sources that have Infantry and BA SRMs being the same. It also shows how inconsistent the universe is by having different damages for TW and AToW.
And yet, within all that time, there are capacities of odd numbers of damage. That's not a standard SRM at all. By virtue of experience and capacity, they ARE lighter as it takes 2 per Squad to almost equal a normal SRM. To top it all off, Tech Manual doesn't say these are the 'Mech/Vehicle equivalent any more.
I've said where they were and even quoted sources for you. Also note the "any more" in your statement. That means at one point, they did. Reducing the damages badly nerfed support weapons in TW. Even rounding up the infantry SRM only does 1 point of damage to all BAR Armor levels in TW. In AToW, the SRMs are more effective against lower BAR levels. I get the need for some abstraction, and that that will reduce weapons damage in TW some but it shouldn't reduce them to being pointless. Why use many of the support weapons when we have rifles doing more damage at the same range or greater? If support weapons are supposed to be the anti-vehicle weapons why are they worse than primary weapons?
Technically speaking, the "Light" SRM team is just one that picked up a one shot SRM as its Support Weapon while the standard (aka Heavy) SRM team in Total Warfare (and thus previous versions) carries either two one shot SRMs or a single 2-shot SRM as its Support Weapon.
Um...no. They're not heavy because the squad gets to carry two of them.
And yes, that standard does have a Move or Shoot capacity with Foot ConvInf while also slowing down the others by 1 MP, and does about twice as much damage as the "Light" SRM team. Unfortunately, the "Light" SRM team's about as effective as a Ballistic Rifle Platoon, going by MML's calculation.
Why do you keep using MML as a source? Last I heard it wasn't canon. TW page 216 has the ballistic rifle platoon moving and shooting with the same number of troopers doing the same or more damage than the SRM Platoon. The SRM platoon either move or shoot and has greater range.
TM though SRM infantry can move and shoot as long as they only have 1 SRM per squad. I don't know why there being only one would let the trooper carrying it move faster. And then there's the weapons. Since the nerfing of Primary weapons are limited to .60 damage. That is still more damage than the .57 infantry SRMs do. (And I include the 2 shot launcher as it does 1.14 which is .57 for each of it's 2 missiles.) Some primary weapons also have as good a range or better than many support weapons. It makes me wonder why use those support weapons outside of flavor.
AToW and TW do operate at different levels, though. This is getting back to the sleeping bag example all too quickly. Detail for one level of game play does not necessarily need to translate to the same level of detail at a level farther pulled out. And since AToW is newer, it should be reflecting more of the standards that Classic sets for general concepts. One offs for an individual are one thing, but that doesn't always translate to a group of 25 to 30.
Still, I have heard what you and others have said, and proposed something regarding that above.
Agreed. There are some things in AToW that don't translate or aren't needed in TW. What type of swimwear my scuba infantry wear doesn't matter. Infantry having multiple weapons to choose from should matter. Infantry vehicles providing greater damage, speed, and armor protection should matter. AToW items that can be used in construction, take weight, effect speed, or can limit stacking should matter.
-
Again, for the fourth or fifth time, can you demonstrate a military actually using campers?
At what scale? Because Patton. This is a replica of the actual artifact in the Patton Museum of Military Leadership at Fort Knox. (http://pattonthirdarmy.com/pattons-mobile-headquarters-3rd-army-hq-in-europe/) I doubt he was alone in this.
(We will ignore NG units and unofficial modifications to their CUCVs.)
Addendum: It's always Patton :rolleyes:
-
Which I had been trying to avoid when this thread was in the other forum.
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.
Agreed the range is an issue. However, TW has all the ranges shortened so it's consistent. At least until you get to Aerospace and the RPG. Then it doesn't make sense. Just like it doesn't make much sense to have an issue with 6 tons of infantry and vehicles to be ride inside a tank but it's okay if they're towing and additional 30 tons of cannon and ammo.
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 said I'd be okay with it, not that we had to. And why not? It's tracked in AToW. Missile rounds are tracked by BA. I also think that having support weapons be far more effective balances out the nerf. With 2 SRMs per squad doing 2 points of damage each, the platoon could do up to 16 points of damage out to 9 hexes per turn with SRMs alone. If they have 5 rounds that's up to 80 points of damage. Currently, we have the same number of SRMs doing 4.32 damage out to 6 hexes per turn. 20 points of damage after 5 turns. I think having limited ammo for 4 times the damage and increased range is a fair trade.
I already explained, "why not". So quickly you forget or just don't bother to read.
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.
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.
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. Why can't they have the option between anti-vehicle and anti-personnel? And if the only reason to have SRMs is to shoot armor, why do we have alternative ammunition? And Infantry don't have to be exclusively anti-armor. Infantry could fire smoke rounds, anti-personnel rounds, or other types of ammo instead of taking up tonnage in a Mech or Tank.
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.
And you can use Campaign Operations with TW.
Other way around. You use TW with CO.
Can you actually demonstrate a military actually using BattleMechs? That's various reasons for a military to use campers. Troopers would be better rested than those sleeping on the ground They'd make a good temporary base, that is more mobile than a tent city. They're more environmentally secure than a standard tent. No need to bring a food truck as rations and cooking facilities are included.
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.
A bubble is still a bubble. It's how many bubbles get marked off that changed.
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.
I did say where to find them.
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.
And the Heavy SRM and it's ammo are the same weight as the 2 shot SRM.
Which means that the standard Infantry SRM is lighter than what is normally used by Vehicles.
Actually it isn't since there are sources that have Infantry and BA SRMs being the same. It also shows how inconsistent the universe is by having different damages for TW and AToW.
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.
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.
I've said where they were and even quoted sources for you. Also note the "any more" in your statement. That means at one point, they did. Reducing the damages badly nerfed support weapons in TW. Even rounding up the infantry SRM only does 1 point of damage to all BAR Armor levels in TW. In AToW, the SRMs are more effective against lower BAR levels. I get the need for some abstraction, and that that will reduce weapons damage in TW some but it shouldn't reduce them to being pointless. Why use many of the support weapons when we have rifles doing more damage at the same range or greater? If support weapons are supposed to be the anti-vehicle weapons why are they worse than primary weapons?
And I've given you the actual stats used in Battletech since CityTech which demonstrate that it is the RPG elements which are off.
Um...no. They're not heavy because the squad gets to carry two of them.
If they weren't heavy, why can't they move and fire if they are carrying two of them?
Why do you keep using MML as a source? Last I heard it wasn't canon. TW page 216 has the ballistic rifle platoon moving and shooting with the same number of troopers doing the same or more damage than the SRM Platoon. The SRM platoon either move or shoot and has greater range.
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.
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).
TM though SRM infantry can move and shoot as long as they only have 1 SRM per squad. I don't know why there being only one would let the trooper carrying it move faster. And then there's the weapons. Since the nerfing of Primary weapons are limited to .60 damage. That is still more damage than the .57 infantry SRMs do. (And I include the 2 shot launcher as it does 1.14 which is .57 for each of it's 2 missiles.) Some primary weapons also have as good a range or better than many support weapons. It makes me wonder why use those support weapons outside of flavor.
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.
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.
Agreed. There are some things in AToW that don't translate or aren't needed in TW. What type of swimwear my scuba infantry wear doesn't matter. Infantry having multiple weapons to choose from should matter. Infantry vehicles providing greater damage, speed, and armor protection should matter. AToW items that can be used in construction, take weight, effect speed, or can limit stacking should matter.
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).
At what scale? Because Patton. This is a replica of the actual artifact in the Patton Museum of Military Leadership at Fort Knox. (http://pattonthirdarmy.com/pattons-mobile-headquarters-3rd-army-hq-in-europe/) I doubt he was alone in this.
(We will ignore NG units and unofficial modifications to their CUCVs.)
Addendum: It's always Patton :rolleyes:
That's not a camping trailer. That's a mobile office. They even call it a MHQ in the title of the page.
-
At what scale? Because Patton. This is a replica of the actual artifact in the Patton Museum of Military Leadership at Fort Knox. (http://pattonthirdarmy.com/pattons-mobile-headquarters-3rd-army-hq-in-europe/) I doubt he was alone in this.
(We will ignore NG units and unofficial modifications to their CUCVs.)
Addendum: It's always Patton :rolleyes:
That was a fascinating read that almost made me late for work this morning! :)
-
Just an observation, but the passive-aggressive pedantry really needs to be taken down a notch before some mod notices that there is a slap-fight going on in here.
-
So was that a, "Yes I want to see Rifle Squads/Platoons disappear because they will be useless against anything that isn't Infantry.", or were you referencing something else?
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.
-
Not really, no. You spouted a lot of stats and then ask if I see where you're coming from. You didn't really point a direction where you wanted to go with these stats.
Okay. This was simply to point out the difference between a simple AC/5 versus the auto rifle that got made the main default rifle for platoons in TechManaul:
So, novels trump sourcebooks, right? Wasn't it stated in a Gray Death Novel that his Marauder's GM Whirlwind cannon fired off a 10-round burst? And wasn't it a 120mm cannon? For a moment, let's assume it took all 10 rounds to do a full 5 points of damage. (I have reason to believe that's the case. I've come to conclude, especially in light of how the Rotary Autocannon groups damage in solid 5- or 2- point clusters depending on the type, and not something weird like with LRMs, that the cannon rounds have built-in homing capacity. Combine that with the excessive recoil compensation built into the guns weight, and viola! Solid damage grouping from a rapid-fire gun with consistency.) With that assumption, each shot in the burst is only doing 1/2 a point of damage. With 20 Bursts per ton of ammo, that's potentially 50kg per burst, or 5 kg a single shot.
According to sarna on the Auto-Rifle (https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Auto-Rifle), if I'm reading it right, a 30-round clip is only 480 grams, or .48 kg. (I'm assuming the rifle, itself, weighs the listed 4 kg. If I'm wrong, by all means correct me on this.)
Granted, there are range differences. The soft target range for a single round from the Auto-Rifle is between 13 and 14 BT hexes. Against Armor, it's only out to 60, if I recall right, maybe 90. Depending on if you bring in AT ranges, the AC round could go out to 18 BT hexes, 12 BT maps in atmosphere, or either 216 km (AT2) or 117,000 km (AT1) in vacuum. (Let's disregard AT1 ranges for now. :tongue:)
Even with that range performance in consideration the amount of damage being equivalent by weight doesn't add up. Especially when it's a human that has to brace and land all or a large portion of the shots on target in a presumably tight grouping. But, if my assumption about the AC round is correct in its application of damage, any stray shot would negate the damage inflicted down to zero.
You see where I'm coming from, now?
Also, look up the equivalency chart Sarna listed for the different BAR ratings. BAR 10 is listed as Rock. I'm guessing stuff as hard as granite or diamond. See if anyone has done emptied a 30-round clip of 5.56 NATO into a granite boulder and let me know what kind of damage was inflicted. It's probably not much and/or not very deep.
That's all it was, a simple attempt to show throw weight, and the fact that all of .5 kg of reload for a rifle is getting the same 1/2 point of damage as a single AC/5 bullet from a GM Whirlwind.
I put it out there as an explanation behind why I don't think simple AK- or M16-style rifles should be doing damage to mech armor at all. And, that Rifle Platoons as a group of guys with nothing more than AK- or M16-style rifles shouldn't be on the Game of Armored Combat game board unless you want them to hunt down other infantry.
-
And, to clarify, this:
Yeah, but a gauss round is most likely going muuuuuch faster than 3m per second. or 3km per second. Assuming the same style of Gauss on a mech or tank is the one which can be used by Aero Units, then a Gauss has an Aero range of Long which is 20 hexes. That's either 10 km on the ground, or 360 km in space. I'm not going to concern myself with how drag effects things, and focus on the space range. In either instance, it takes all of a second or two to change orientation and present an oblique armor face and turn a sure, damaging hit into 0 points of damage sustained. Anything longer than that, and the velocities at which spacecraft are moving at out in space means a simple change in direction will put your fighter out of the transit line of your gauss round once its fired. So, in space, the shot needs to arrive on target inside 2 seconds, in my opinion, to even score damage. Let's be generous and say two.
So, the Gauss round is moving at a minimum muzzle velocity of 180 km a second. The round is nominally 125 kg. Do the energy math on that, then let me know what kind of explosive impact that would have with just the ground under a soldier's feet.
There's a reason that even small meteors which hit the ground leave massive craters.
This is to show how I believe a gauss round is capable of doing more than knocking out 4 guys with something like a ground impact.
So, this was addressing a point some other people had made earlier.
-
Okay, let's back up a second guys, and remind ourselves what the thread's supposed to be doing.
improving the game.
That's why we make House Rules-to improve the playing experience.
NOw, I think there's a strong argument for separating anti-armor damage, from anti-personnel damage, but I think it also needs to separate anti-armor RANGE from Anti-Personnel range.
Those two things are abstracted and amalgamated in the current, present, dating-back-to-battletroops rules with some heavy-lifting math involved.
I know this, I was on the playtest for Infantry Generation both in Companion (*the BMR(r) era prototype of the rules) and Total Warfare/Tech Manual.
We suggested things, that were rejected for ...reasons, including separating anti-armor, and anti-personnel damage and ranges.
But this, this is "House Rules Land", we can screw around with the rules to make something work differently here and it doesn't savage the whole universe.
My own little suggestion, then...
Calculate Antipersonnel damage as normal, this is the first row of boxes under your little box showing the trooper.
There is now a second row of stats, this represents your disposable weapons (VLAWs, rifle grenades, etc.) .
The third row is a series of repeating numbers counting down to zero. This is your anti-armor capability through weapons like Recoilless Rifles, or other heavy support weapons that can actually hurt a 'mech.
On the side of the sheet, there are three ranges. Range 1, is your antipersonnel range and it's the combination of your support weapon and infantry rifle/whatever primary weapons-the averaged out distance they reach to kill unarmored (as in not wrapped in 'mech grade armor) opponents.
Block 2 is the range of your disposable, one-shot weapons, with an ammo counter for however many volleys you use before you run out.
Block 3 is the anti-armor range of your anti-armor support weapons. It's going to be shorter than block 1. I'd say for efficiency's sake, a machine gun platoon's anti-armor range maxes at 3 here, but in anti-personnel use, it maxes at 12 to 18.
There, now you've got three values to calculate, but you don't need nearly as much complicated math to do it, and it's in a simple-ish, easily taught layout that doesn't make people go "but a .50 caliber browning can shoot into the THOUSANDS of meters, why does it fall out of the sky at 90?"
This also addresses Daemion's objection to something like an AK, AR, or Garand doing damage to Battletech starslab-simply put, it doesn't, and it doesn't pretend that it does.
for example: Rifle Platoon with Machine Gun support weapons:
28/27/26/25/24/22/s/21/20/19/18/17/16/15/s/14/12/11/10/9/8/s/7/6/5/4/3/2/1 Infantry damage (damage against soft targets) Range=12
10/10/10/10/10/10/10/s/8/8/8/8/8/8/8/8/s/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/s/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/s/2/0 Anti-armor damage (Support weapon damage) Range =3
Single-use disposable weapons: 3 per soldier, damage 1 point each (limpet grenade), Range 0 to 1 hexes, roll on cluster table.
There, that looks nice and simple, doesn't it? you're using the same table as an LRM or a swarm attack for the disposable weapons, we can set different values for different weapons, trading quantity for individual damage or range, but it's not averaged into a single stat.
Note: I went with full squads for the support weapons despite them only needing 2 or three people, because somoene's likely to pick one up if the crew is dead and it still works. at the 'tag end' support weapon fire drops to zero, because one guy probably isn't going to be able to move, shoot, and reload it.
this will, of course, require adjustment, this is merely an hypothetical exercise, but note the difference in range and effectiveness-anti-infantry weapons reach out against light infantry a lot further than they do against something like a Suit or 'mech, and only the support weapons count for doing anti'mech or antitank (or anti suit) damage.
-
If you were referencing something else, I think going back to CityTech or Battledroids would be a step backward, but a few things could be worked out. Yet, I still think there are some wonky numbers going on the SRM numbers which just don't fly, be it CityTech or Total Warfare, those being the odd numbers that show up every few steps in troop size at the full range of the Support weapon.
Going to a Squad-based construction and general operation concept could work in what I think you're saying (but you weren't very clear), but I still think that the individual Support Weapons would probably still be a little bit weaker for one main reason, and that's mobility and range.
Let's say weren't not going to address how Support Weapons are added to the group, so that the difference between constructing the TW SRM Platoon now would only be different in how it sets up on a Record Sheet. You're still dealing with lighter versions of these weapons when compared to Vehicles and Mechs because a Squad isn't going to lift a 500KG Machine Gun. A single SRM added in to a Squad doesn't affect its mobility, but adding 2 does. It could also be looked at as adding 2 Light SRMs or 1 Heavy SRM (which counts as 2), but it amounts to the same thing at the end of the road. But as the Support Weapon count goes up, the Rifle count goes down (Support Weapons are HEAVY).
Currently, 28 men of 4 Squads of 7 putting out a potential 14 Damage on the SRM chart (both CityTech and Total Warfare use this number), means about 1/2 Damage per person. With Tech Manual Accounting that means 8 SRM 2-shots doing less than 8 SRM hits from a Combat Vechicle or Mech. The Squad size works in CityTech, doing 4 Damage, but in Total Warfare we're down to 3, largely because they took the 1 person Damage to 0 and just adjusted the line down.
However, if we're looking at a full SRM-8 for a Platoon, or an SRM-2 for a Squad, that could theoretically work. It actually coincides a little better with how everything works now.
Yeah. SRMs and LRMs really should be full range.
And, I strongly advocate squad-based operation.
And, a full platoon should be capable of full SRM 8 damage.
As to mobility, it would very much be an issue for infantry, which is why they're almost better as objective pieces or something to deploy as a form of trap like mines in a city environment.
Remember that BattleTech operates at 10-second turns. So, unless it's been stated somewhere that gyro-stabilized support harnesses are standard issue even for militia, or some sort of exo-skeleton, they would have to either set up and park, or pack up and move. Only with some sort of exoskeleton/harness would I be okay with them running around at a 7-mile-an-hour run and still be able to pop off accurate shots.
Aside from the harness, that's how infantry squad weapons function in the real world today, if I recall. In fact, I imagine things function probably a little slower, depending on the weapon and crew familiarity/training.
When I say 'objective pieces', I'm talking about deploying to take or man an installation, or clear out a building and find an object of interest, and hold onto it. These kind of troop formations would be carried in transports and disembark at the particular objective point if they're trying to take it, or start at the objective and hold or operate it until the game is over, or they're no longer able to do so.
This could be like having a crew to man a gun tower, or control station that allows an array of gun emplacements to function. It could also be a squad/platoon of simple Antipersonnel specialized Squads in transports that a side will have to guard and reach said control tower or gun emplacement and fight against the control crew to take it without destroying it outright. Or airdropping such a platoon onto a gate control tower to open a door in an otherwise impervious defensive wall.
THIS is what infantry should bring to the Game of Armored Combat, in my opinion. But, just how much detail is pertinent is really a matter of taste.
-
a little addendum to the idea I just posted: HOW DAMAGE WORKS...
Infantry vs. Infantry: Roll 2D6 per squad to hit, on a successful hit, roll on the relevant cluster table, by squad.
Infantry vs. Armor: Roll 2D6 per Squad to hit, on a successful hit, roll on the relevant cluster table once for the Platoon (or per squad when running individual squads, or when platoon size is larger than the cluster table.)
Apply point-value for support weapons in 1 point increments, except SRMs, which apply two point increments to armor (since they use the same ammunition that 'mech mounted SRM missiles do)
Round up for support weapons that do fractional damage to armor, but are still rated as support weapons per Battlearmor stats.
-
Now, does my suggestion add a shit ton of extra rolling and rules? yes, yes it does.
Is it necessarily better?
Jury's out. the idea was rejected before so...probably not.
But the basic idea is that a man-killing rifle will likely kill a man in the era it's current to, who is wearing whatever is considered non-specialist general issue military gear. (Helmets, Plate Carriers, etc.)
Otherwise, they'd be issuing hotter rifles.
But!! this does not mean it's going to pierce 27th century or newer heavy vehicle armors, any more than your M-16 (or M-14) is going to punch through the Chobham on an Abrams tank.
for that, you need something bigger, and hotter, and probably crew-served or single-shot and disposable.
Perfect Marksmanship is not common among Soldiers. Having a 'fudge factor' where your squad or platoon engage the enemy squad, and hit a few of their guys? likely. pulling off a full-on team-wipe? less likely with rifles and rifle-scale hardware.
the support weapons help out a lot there, depending on what they are, and I overlooked a lot of existing options that would have to be accounted for...
but the basic idea, is that your riflemen don't need to be standing in each other's boots to hit one another.
Basic firing order would be:
Joe's got a 28 man rifle/recoilless platoon.
Steve, also has a 28 man rifle/recoilless platoon.
Joe's got a Hetzer and Steve has an Urbie.
Each platoon has four tries to hit each other, or the vehicles, or to divide fire between them.
Joe gets the firing turn first. He designates 3 squads to engaging Steve's urbanmech, with the fourth squad engaging Steve's infantrymen that are covering the urbie's advance.
Joe rolls 2d6 for each squad engaging the Urbie, and squads 1 and 3 hit, squad 2 misses. He checks the handy-dandy table, and rolls 2d6 on the LRM-15 column, with a re-roll for crit on 12. (two squads hit, one missed). Damage is applied in 1 point increments to Steve's urbanmech.
Joe's fourth squad is engaging Steve's infantry platoon, They roll 2D6, and get an 11. So, he rolls on the 7 table, and rolls 3. Steve checks three men off his platoon's roster as wounded or dead.
Steve concentrated his WHOLE platoon on Joe's infantry, to clear them out before they can get close enough to his valuable Urbanmech to use their disposable weapons. He rolls four times to hit, needs (gunnery) plus (terrain) since range is short-ish. 4, 6, 11, 7. three hits, he can now roll cluster table on Joe's infantry platoon using the MRM-30 table. He hits with an average of fifteen. JOe has to mark off fifteen of his PBI on his sheet, losing roughly half his support weapons and half of his disposable one-shot weapons.
if either of them had taken Machineguns...well, the damage would be a lot higher on average vs. infantry for either of them, but they both wanted something more 'punchy' to throw at the armored vehicles than machine guns (meaning more range because getting closer is scary.)
The Machinegun secondary weapon on Joe's Hetzer engages next, firing at Steve's stronger infantry platoon, it hits at Long, and joe rolls 2D6, removing 11 of Steve's infantry and two of his support weapons, at range 9 (anti-Infantry range vs. anti-armor range). He eats the plus one so he can fire his AC/20 at Steve's Urbanmech, (long range, 4 gunnery, needs 9 (splitting targets), rolls 9) check for crit per normal, critical hit, left leg. Steve returns fire with his Urbie, hits at medium (between 10 and 5), smacks the HETZER in the motive system (motive crit), and splinters te frontal armor.
Hetzer is now immobile.
and so on...
-
My own little suggestion, then...
Calculate Antipersonnel damage as normal, this is the first row of boxes under your little box showing the trooper.
There is now a second row of stats, this represents your disposable weapons (VLAWs, rifle grenades, etc.) .
The third row is a series of repeating numbers counting down to zero. This is your anti-armor capability through weapons like Recoilless Rifles, or other heavy support weapons that can actually hurt a 'mech.
On the side of the sheet, there are three ranges. Range 1, is your antipersonnel range and it's the combination of your support weapon and infantry rifle/whatever primary weapons-the averaged out distance they reach to kill unarmored (as in not wrapped in 'mech grade armor) opponents.
Block 2 is the range of your disposable, one-shot weapons, with an ammo counter for however many volleys you use before you run out.
Block 3 is the anti-armor range of your anti-armor support weapons. It's going to be shorter than block 1. I'd say for efficiency's sake, a machine gun platoon's anti-armor range maxes at 3 here, but in anti-personnel use, it maxes at 12 to 18.
There, now you've got three values to calculate, but you don't need nearly as much complicated math to do it, and it's in a simple-ish, easily taught layout that doesn't make people go "but a .50 caliber browning can shoot into the THOUSANDS of meters, why does it fall out of the sky at 90?"
This also addresses Daemion's objection to something like an AK, AR, or Garand doing damage to Battletech starslab-simply put, it doesn't, and it doesn't pretend that it does.
for example: Rifle Platoon with Machine Gun support weapons:
28/27/26/25/24/22/s/21/20/19/18/17/16/15/s/14/12/11/10/9/8/s/7/6/5/4/3/2/1 Infantry damage (damage against soft targets) Range=12
10/10/10/10/10/10/10/s/8/8/8/8/8/8/8/8/s/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/s/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/s/2/0 Anti-armor damage (Support weapon damage) Range =3
Single-use disposable weapons: 3 per soldier, damage 1 point each (limpet grenade), Range 0 to 1 hexes, roll on cluster table.
There, that looks nice and simple, doesn't it? you're using the same table as an LRM or a swarm attack for the disposable weapons, we can set different values for different weapons, trading quantity for individual damage or range, but it's not averaged into a single stat.
Note: I went with full squads for the support weapons despite them only needing 2 or three people, because somoene's likely to pick one up if the crew is dead and it still works. at the 'tag end' support weapon fire drops to zero, because one guy probably isn't going to be able to move, shoot, and reload it.
this will, of course, require adjustment, this is merely an hypothetical exercise, but note the difference in range and effectiveness-anti-infantry weapons reach out against light infantry a lot further than they do against something like a Suit or 'mech, and only the support weapons count for doing anti'mech or antitank (or anti suit) damage.
Eh. If we're going to improve the game, I'd rather separate support weapons from the anti-personnel rifles/pistols a squad or platoon are fielding. The performance characteristics will be, in some instances, just too different.
This is why I'm actually looking at using the BA squad sheet as a base for individual squads. Already did it with Platoons a long time ago. The only thing I've yet to hammer down is how much damage the rifles should be doing, especially if cover is involved. A lot of firefights in the real world don't resolve inside 10 seconds unless one or both sides are out in the open, assuming the targets don't hit the dirt when under fire.
I've already taken to looking at AToW ranges for the different basic weapons for the Anti-personnel ranges for a lot of infantry weapons and even the Mech/vehilce/BA antipersonnel weapons. It's been made, might as well use it.
But, damage is still a matter of body count, more or less. Once a squad hits the dirt and starts firing back at a squad that has them under fire, wiping them out inside 10 seconds is going to be a matter of shear luck. As in, it shouldn't be happening that soon. Ordinance and Flame might be quite capable, but that's not what I'm looking at in this case.
In the past, I have looked at using the cluster chart to resolve anti-personnel damage against infantry squads/platoons while still looking at the body meter style infantry stats. Modify it with range and terrain modifiers the same way AMS effects missile results on the table. It becomes easier if you remove the idea of a to-hit roll, and just go straight to figuring out how many troops got hit. When you have lots of guys taking the shot, trying to group them all into one gunnery value flies in the face of how almost every other weapon is fired. (Aside: That's right! I'm okay with the idea of rolling each of 4, 5, or 6 attacks for a Battle Armor squad. Multiple sets of dice make that a simple task.) When you you think about it, someone is going to get lucky with at least one bullet sometime. When it comes to dudes shooting at other dudes, that's all you need to take out just one dude.
I have also looked at using the critical hit chance table as the basis. I may be revisiting this with a look at weapon versus armor and cover and range.
In a means of acknowledging the number of rifles a squad carries, I had used the number of 'free rifles' not dedicated to firing the support weapon as the base value crit check chance value, then added a d6 roll to find the final table result. But, this was a damage result, which followed a to-hit roll, and thus a successful hit would score one point of damage, and the crit result would be how many additional points of damage the squad did on top of that.
However, with the idea of deploying a squad on a BA record sheet, now we have the added bonus of accidentally applying shots to gaps in the group, which is something I kind like.
-
Eh. If we're going to improve the game, I'd rather separate support weapons from the anti-personnel rifles/pistols a squad or platoon are fielding. The performance characteristics will be, in some instances, just too different.
This is why I'm actually looking at using the BA squad sheet as a base for individual squads. Already did it with Platoons a long time ago. The only thing I've yet to hammer down is how much damage the rifles should be doing, especially if cover is involved. A lot of firefights in the real world don't resolve inside 10 seconds unless one or both sides are out in the open, assuming the targets don't hit the dirt when under fire.
I've already taken to looking at AToW ranges for the different basic weapons for the Anti-personnel ranges for a lot of infantry weapons and even the Mech/vehilce/BA antipersonnel weapons. It's been made, might as well use it.
But, damage is still a matter of body count, more or less. Once a squad hits the dirt and starts firing back at a squad that has them under fire, wiping them out inside 10 seconds is going to be a matter of shear luck. As in, it shouldn't be happening that soon. Ordinance and Flame might be quite capable, but that's not what I'm looking at in this case.
In the past, I have looked at using the cluster chart to resolve anti-personnel damage against infantry squads/platoons while still looking at the body meter style infantry stats. Modify it with range and terrain modifiers the same way AMS effects missile results on the table. It becomes easier if you remove the idea of a to-hit roll, and just go straight to figuring out how many troops got hit. When you have lots of guys taking the shot, trying to group them all into one gunnery value flies in the face of how almost every other weapon is fired. (Aside: That's right! I'm okay with the idea of rolling each of 4, 5, or 6 attacks for a Battle Armor squad. Multiple sets of dice make that a simple task.) When you you think about it, someone is going to get lucky with at least one bullet sometime. When it comes to dudes shooting at other dudes, that's all you need to take out just one dude.
I have also looked at using the critical hit chance table as the basis. I may be revisiting this with a look at weapon versus armor and cover and range.
In a means of acknowledging the number of rifles a squad carries, I had used the number of 'free rifles' not dedicated to firing the support weapon as the base value crit check chance value, then added a d6 roll to find the final table result. But, this was a damage result, which followed a to-hit roll, and thus a successful hit would score one point of damage, and the crit result would be how many additional points of damage the squad did on top of that.
However, with the idea of deploying a squad on a BA record sheet, now we have the added bonus of accidentally applying shots to gaps in the group, which is something I kind like.
Like I said, my idea isn't perfect, it's not necessarily even good...it's just 'an' idea, yours sounds pretty good to me.
-
I've said it before (in thread long instances, some locked), but a 4AP/4BD rifle is NOT an AK-47 or M-4/16. It's a rifle with literally centuries of improvements, some of which we haven't even imagined yet. And BAR 10 ablative armor is NOT however many millimeters of Rolled Homogeneous high-quality steel. It may be bog-standard in the 31st century, but it's not comparable to anything we have right now. I have no problem with a full burst from such a weapon properly aimed (i.e., a successful to hit roll) causing a single point of damage to a 'mech with BAR 10 armor. And the current infantry rules REDUCE the damage from that level, so I have no problem with that either. Where I draw the line is an arbitrary zero damage determination. Anything that gets to zero should get there procedurally, and the AToW Companion gives us a formula that does exactly that. Is the threshold for zero "kind of" low? Some would argue that. I don't.
-
As for a Rifle versus Trooper Armor performance -
Daryk, if you're still following this thread, what is a good common armor profile form AToW? And, what is the general AP value most commonly seen across typical rifles?
Is it something like 4, in both cases?
The reason I'm asking is because I'm thinking of using that as a set of opposing modifiers whether to the cluster table or crit chance table.
And, if we use that as our THAC0, no real stat application would be necessary until we get into particularly weaker weapons or armor or stronger armor or weapons.
-
Just a refresher why I would prefer squad- over platoon-deployment.
Edit: This is what it looks like to have one and two platoons in a hex next to a Mech. I've even allowed for some spillover in the two-platoon deployment.
-
That's 40k-style squad-cohesion levels of dispersion, right there.
And, that's why I'm in agreement with whomever showed platoons on a BA sheet deployed as
1. 0000000
2. 0000000
3. 0000000
4. 0000000
5. -
6. -
Whereas, It would be easier to see a squad dispersed a little better, so that you CAN justify a gauss round only taking out a single guy. But (ho-boy!) is that guy earning the title of bologna mist cloud x.
-
Generic Flak armor and the Periphery/General jacket both have a Ballistic value of 5. By definition, every actual infantry unit ever has at least a total of 5 BAR across all four values, or it would take yet another doubling of damage (i.e., Divisor 1, vice zero, which doubles damage).
Only armor on your torso counts at the TW level (so those awesome helmet values do you no good). At the squad/platoon level you total the armor values on the torso and divide by 10, rounding normally, to yield the Armor Divisor. So 5 total gets you to Divisor 1, and 15 gets you to Divisor 2. It's possible to get to Divisor 3, but it's not easy, much less cheap. If anyone has figured out how to get to Divisor 4 without actual Power/Battle Armor, I'd be interested to hear!
-
I've said it before (in thread long instances, some locked), but a 4AP/4BD rifle is NOT an AK-47 or M-4/16. It's a rifle with literally centuries of improvements, some of which we haven't even imagined yet. And BAR 10 ablative armor is NOT however many millimeters of Rolled Homogeneous high-quality steel. It may be bog-standard in the 31st century, but it's not comparable to anything we have right now. I have no problem with a full burst from such a weapon properly aimed (i.e., a successful to hit roll) causing a single point of damage to a 'mech with BAR 10 armor. And the current infantry rules REDUCE the damage from that level, so I have no problem with that either. Where I draw the line is an arbitrary zero damage determination. Anything that gets to zero should get there procedurally, and the AToW Companion gives us a formula that does exactly that. Is the threshold for zero "kind of" low? Some would argue that. I don't.
Yeah. I'd rather a divisor than a subtractor. (Rifle Cannons, I'm looking at you...)
But, the AToW to TW conversion is assuming the whole clip(?) is being used, doesn't it? But, that's in an anti-armor role. When it comes to mano-a-mano firefights, that isn't a requirement, so the Tech Manual values suck as a determinant for Anti-personnel damage values. Which is why I'm looking at anti-personnel damage values being better based on 'free rifles' available/left in a squad for that kind of damage, and not using the damage modifiers from TW as a hard stat, even though all that work has been done.
-
Half a clip for a bog-standard Auto-Rifle. A third if you use the "Extended Capacity" mod in the Companion. TW turns are twice as long as AToW turns, generally assuming a move action for one AToW turn, and shooting for the other.
-
Generic Flak armor and the Periphery/General jacket both have a Ballistic value of 5. By definition, every actual infantry unit ever has at least a total of 5 BAR across all four values, or it would take yet another doubling of damage (i.e., Divisor 1, vice zero, which doubles damage).
Only armor on your torso counts at the TW level (so those awesome helmet values do you no good). At the squad/platoon level you total the armor values on the torso and divide by 10, rounding normally, to yield the Armor Divisor. So 5 total gets you to Divisor 1, and 15 gets you to Divisor 2. It's possible to get to Divisor 3, but it's not easy, much less cheap. If anyone has figured out how to get to Divisor 4 without actual Power/Battle Armor, I'd be interested to hear!
Okay. Not what I was thinking/hoping.
Because, here was what I was thinking:
Let's go with my squad rolling on the critical hit chance table to determine how much AnInf damage it has inflicted on another squad:
Assume 1) A to-hit roll is required to inflict even one point of damage.
Assume 2) A successful hit does 1 point of damage plus an additional amount of damage based on a modified critical hit chance check as follows:
The roll is based on the number of 'free rifles' that the squad has available. So, if we have a squad with a support weapon crew of 2, out of a 7-man squad, that leaves 5 free rifles for an AnInf attack. To that value, add
- the rifle's damage stat.
- the result of a d6 roll.
From that value subtract
- Terrain modifier of the occupied terrain(*).
- The armor value of the squad.
The final value is then compared to the critical hit chance chart. Use the expanded critical hit chance chart from TacOps(?) or Maximum Tech. The number of crits scored is the additional number of troopers taken out in the attack.
I was kinda hoping to have a THAC0 style set of stats for the stock rifle and armor where they effectively cancel each other out. And, if they did that, then a conversion for Armored Combat would be stock troops with rifle damage of 0 and armor of 0, with some exceptions showing a -x or +x for either rifle or armor.
However! Now that I think about it, we could use the armor divisor concept as the armor modifier, instead. And, then give stock 4BD rifles a simple +1.
(*) = I'm tempted to remove the to-hit step when resolving infantry firing on other infantry, or firing on infantry in general. And, if I do, then all range and terrain modifiers would be subtracted from the final value.
And! Looking back at some of my different levels of armor applied as a base for the crit value, we could look at using the AToW armor value as the base miss value for the crit chance chart. So, if the stock value for armor is 5, then a successful crit will start at a 6+, and a Margin of Success of every two (MoS/2 rounding up) would add an additional target trooper hit.
-
I've said it before (in thread long instances, some locked), but a 4AP/4BD rifle is NOT an AK-47 or M-4/16.
I was just using a modern 20th/21st century example. Of which we have physical analogues in the BTu in the 31st century, btw. I believe the TK assault rifle looks like an AK. Don't quote me on that, but I recall seeing some art for Infantry gear, and I saw think I recall seeing that rifle or an M-16 picture in one of the RPG books or house source books.
-
There's on thing I've been wanting to implement something as a tactic against foot infantry that we don't get to see in BT - pinning.
When a squad comes under fire, they should generally be trained to hit the dirt or find cover and keep close to the ground. This would hamper their movement over 100 feet pretty heftily.
But, if there's one thing that I don't see high end tanks or BattleMechs doing, or even Battle Armor, it is laying down sustained fire to keep heads down. However, that's something that infantry CAN do, whether from the back of a half-track or from behind trees or a broken wall.
This I might take to the general fan-rules.
-
That is a yes, squads/platoons of nothing but AK style rifles should only be good against other squads/platoons with similar weapons.
I'm going to disagree here, mostly because of the nature of Battletech Armor and continuous advancement of the basic small arm. However, I do think that the Anti-Armor capacity of the Rifle should be notably reduced from what it is now, but their Anti-Infantry capacity is far more effective.
Going in to a memory hole to look up this information, from CityTech through BMR(r), Rifle Infantry only did about 1 Damage per for 4 Riflemen, rounded up. Effectively speaking, a 7 man Squad could do no more than 2 Damage to Armor, and 7 Damage for the full 28-man Platoon. Honestly, I think this is a better option than what currently exists, and still allows basic Rifle Squads/Platoons to do more than just die when a unit that is nothing but Armor rolls in. As a side note, this should not trigger Vehicle Motive Crits or TACs, and even take reduced Chances on Structure Crits.
However, it's Damage to ConvInf is a different story. How much Damage should a Sqaud or Platoon actually do to another Squad or Platoon? Is the current Rifle Damage do to other ConvInf proper? Should it apply to Battle Armor as well?
NOw, I think there's a strong argument for separating anti-armor damage, from anti-personnel damage, but I think it also needs to separate anti-armor RANGE from Anti-Personnel range.
Honestly, I thought that was rather inferred, as there is no way to properly separate Damage without separating the Range. However, considering that the Tech Manual already does the opposite, it's probably a good thing to bring up.
On the side of the sheet, there are three ranges. Range 1, is your antipersonnel range and it's the combination of your support weapon and infantry rifle/whatever primary weapons-the averaged out distance they reach to kill unarmored (as in not wrapped in 'mech grade armor) opponents.
Block 2 is the range of your disposable, one-shot weapons, with an ammo counter for however many volleys you use before you run out.
Block 3 is the anti-armor range of your anti-armor support weapons. It's going to be shorter than block 1. I'd say for efficiency's sake, a machine gun platoon's anti-armor range maxes at 3 here, but in anti-personnel use, it maxes at 12 to 18.
I think swapping Block 2 and Block 3 is a better idea. Consider that the standard build of an Infantry unit in a Total Warfare equivalent doesn't carry things in Block 2, but most carry Block 3. And unless you're going to increase the AP range of MGs for Vehicles and 'Mechs, I don't think it would be a good thing to have a different range there.
Yeah. SRMs and LRMs really should be full range.
I'm going to disagree here, mostly because Infantry just don't have the sensor suite that Vehicles and 'Mechs have to guide the missiles over that range.
...Only with some sort of exoskeleton/harness would I be okay with them running around at a 7-mile-an-hour run and still be able to pop off accurate shots.
Aside from the harness, that's how infantry squad weapons function in the real world today, if I recall. In fact, I imagine things function probably a little slower, depending on the weapon and crew familiarity/training.
A lot of support weapons do need some time to set up in our day mostly because we don't have gyro-stabilized harnesses to carry a Javelin or M-2 HMG. Still, if it became normal, it would return Infantry mobility back to what it was prior to Total Warfare. I would not be against this concept, as I don't understand why this needed to be done. It's not like Infantry were really outrunning anybody.
There's on thing I've been wanting to implement something as a tactic against foot infantry that we don't get to see in BT - pinning.
When a squad comes under fire, they should generally be trained to hit the dirt or find cover and keep close to the ground. This would hamper their movement over 100 feet pretty heftily.
But, if there's one thing that I don't see high end tanks or BattleMechs doing, or even Battle Armor, it is laying down sustained fire to keep heads down. However, that's something that infantry CAN do, whether from the back of a half-track or from behind trees or a broken wall.
This I might take to the general fan-rules.
This is an interesting idea. The question is how to implement it. Do you set it up as the nature of a certain type of fire, or is it an action performed with a set of certain weapons? Probably limit it to Rifles and Burst-Fire weapons.
-
I've said it before (in thread long instances, some locked), but a 4AP/4BD rifle is NOT an AK-47 or M-4/16. It's a rifle with literally centuries of improvements, some of which we haven't even imagined yet. And BAR 10 ablative armor is NOT however many millimeters of Rolled Homogeneous high-quality steel. It may be bog-standard in the 31st century, but it's not comparable to anything we have right now. I have no problem with a full burst from such a weapon properly aimed (i.e., a successful to hit roll) causing a single point of damage to a 'mech with BAR 10 armor. And the current infantry rules REDUCE the damage from that level, so I have no problem with that either. Where I draw the line is an arbitrary zero damage determination. Anything that gets to zero should get there procedurally, and the AToW Companion gives us a formula that does exactly that. Is the threshold for zero "kind of" low? Some would argue that. I don't.
The issue I have with that is that an auto-rifle is orders of magnitude smaller than an auto-cannon. One ton of auto-canon ammunition gets you 100 dmg, or you get 1 point of damage per 10kg of AC ammo. A full clip of auto-rifle ammo is .48kg so you are going to need a minimum of 21 auto-rifle clips to do one point of mech scale damage. To be internally consistent it should take 3 squads emptying their rifles on full automatic for a full 10 second turn with every bullet hitting to do one point of mech scale damage.
-
Mass isn't everything, and no Autocannon is limited to a 3-hex range (4 using Extreme Range).
-
Mass isn't everything, and no Autocannon is limited to a 3-hex range (4 using Extreme Range).
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.
-
Even so, compare 19th/early 20th century ballistic weapons to modern ones. We get better effects with lighter ammo already.
-
I've said it before (in thread long instances, some locked), but a 4AP/4BD rifle is NOT an AK-47 or M-4/16. It's a rifle with literally centuries of improvements, some of which we haven't even imagined yet. And BAR 10 ablative armor is NOT however many millimeters of Rolled Homogeneous high-quality steel. It may be bog-standard in the 31st century, but it's not comparable to anything we have right now. I have no problem with a full burst from such a weapon properly aimed (i.e., a successful to hit roll) causing a single point of damage to a 'mech with BAR 10 armor. And the current infantry rules REDUCE the damage from that level, so I have no problem with that either. Where I draw the line is an arbitrary zero damage determination. Anything that gets to zero should get there procedurally, and the AToW Companion gives us a formula that does exactly that. Is the threshold for zero "kind of" low? Some would argue that. I don't.
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.
-
Shrapnel #9 cranked lasers WAY up. Sniper Rifles got similar treatment in #1, but regular rifles haven't yet.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Has AToW been errated to that standard? Has TW or TM?
Shrapnel is entirely "bolt on" canon at this point...
-
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.
-
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).
-
Don't underestimate the impact of composite cases... it's pretty dramatic in terms of weight.
-
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.
-
Exactly! :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Then you're in agreement with the rules. A single shot from a 4/4 rifle will round down to zero.
-
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.
-
At what scale? Because Patton. This is a replica of the actual artifact in the Patton Museum of Military Leadership at Fort Knox. (http://pattonthirdarmy.com/pattons-mobile-headquarters-3rd-army-hq-in-europe/) I doubt he was alone in this.
(We will ignore NG units and unofficial modifications to their CUCVs.)
Addendum: It's always Patton :rolleyes:
That's cool! :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. :rolleyes:
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.
-
The radios and map board make it a Mobile HQ.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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. :rolleyes:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
I like that paladin, another interesting add might be that Jump Infantry can deploy these devices on the Punch table while everyone else must do it at the leg (or equal level) giving them a unique ability for which they sacrifice raw damage (by not being capable of using support weapons) for precision. I'd also say MechInf of all types should probably not have an anti personnel rifle attack unless they dismount due to having heavier and inside vehicles.
I always thought Leg and Swarm attacks by ConvInf were pretty ambitious, rarely used, and poorly implemented. Making an infantry squad basically a minefield works well and gives Battle Armor (although again it's just infantry with armor and should not be though of as a separate thing) a special purpose, Swarmers capable of using battle claws to climb onto and rip vehicle armor.
The mines/charges could easily be a regular (melee) attack against vehicles. I think that the infantry should come in two configurations, the charges should probably occupy the same attack slot as support weapons however for those units incapable of carrying them. Motorized infantry with charges could be nasty ambushers. I would say all the standard stacking with friendly forces rules apply beyond platoon limits.
-
Which sounds like the RPG causing the inconsistency here, not TM or TW.
TW and TM have conflicts of their own.
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.
Even with 2 shots the 2 point per SRM infantry platoon would be capable of more damage than the .57 damage per SRM infantry do now. 32 points of damage will have a greater effect on a target than 9.12 damage.
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.
You brought up TW Infantry. Where in TW does it say how many launchers are carried per squad? Quotes from a canon source please. Like this one.
Total Warfare page 142.
Attacks by SRM Infantry: An SRM infantry platoon that hits its target does so with a number of inferno missiles equal to its Damage Value after rolling on the Cluster Hits Table, divided by 2 (round fractions down).
So with a 24 troopers platoon, and all hit, that's a total of 6 inferno missiles fired. That's 1 launcher per squad, not 2.
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.
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.
Yes, damage is being front-loaded. However, when you consider that it'd take several turns for current infantry to do the same damage, turns those infantry are being shot at. It's worth it. Also, it isn't just Infantry that would benefit but also BA and Small Support Vehicles. Those units also use Infantry Weapons and they do count ammo.
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.
A SRM Platoon with 8 2-shot SRM Launchers would fire 16 missiles. At 2 points of damage per missile the platoon could do up to 32 points of damage per turn as long as their ammo holds out. Currently the same platoon only does 9.12 damage. Even if you include 20 other weapons doing .60 each, that only comes up to 21.12 damage. And if we're including those weapons, the 2 point SRM platoon would also have their damage go up to 44 points. I'd consider the extra damage well worth limited ammunition. And again, infantry aren't the only ones to use those weapons.
"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.
Quote from: RifleMech on 21 February 2024, 19:19:04
They are in AToW and AToW Companion but outside of inferno rounds, alternative infantry rounds not available in TW even though TW does have very similar alternative ammo, like Fragmentation. I think that's a problem. We don't average all the Mech ammo types together. Why should we do that for Infantry?
Because Infantry groups are smaller and not carrying around a literal ton of ammunition (except Field Gunners, of course). And as I said earlier, if they have a definable purpose in Total Warfare they should be included. As it is, SRM ConvInf are set up for Anti-Armor in Total Warfare because that's the reason you get SRM ConvInf, to shoot Armor.
According to you're post, Infantry don't get to use alternative ammo unless they carry .5 tons of ammo. Only the presence of Inferno Ammo proves that statement wrong. They can choose between standard and inferno ammo. And as you say, there's nothing in TW about how Infantry determine what kind of ammo they use. Between that and the lack of tracking one could argue they do carry both types of ammo with them.
You're going the wrong direction with this (that "only" MGs, Flamers, and Flamers), as usual, and asking questions I've already answered.
Actually, you have not.
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?
Not so. SRM damage is equal to or less than other infantry platoons. They take SRMs for Infernos and their greater range. So SRM Infantry Platoons do not poke Armor hard. For SRM Infantry Platoons to poke Armor hard, they would need to do more damage.
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.
And yet we have sources that say they are. We also have sources that make infantry missiles more powerful than BA missiles.
And you haven't. You keep saying that SRMs are anti-armor weapons. Yet we have SRM ammo for infantry and armor that clearly isn't anti-armor. So that statement is false. The conflict is that Infantry don't get to use those ammo types on the Table Top.
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.
You still start with another book before getting to Campaign Operations.
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?
You said.
You take campers in the military because they are more mobile and resilient than tanks? How odd.
I take campers because Tanks, Jeeps and Dune buggies don't have quarters.
Sure you could use a truck to carry things but you're adding to the number of personnel. Trailers will go where their tractors go. AToW's Pop-up Camper sleeps 6 and can be expanded to sleep 10. That's enough for most vehicles. They also come with supplies including an Advance Field Kit. Unless only 1 trooper gets the inflatable mattress, I think it should be 1 kit per trooper.
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.
Not exactly. Advanced Field Kits aren't available in TW. The best you could do is a trailer with cargo space. Why wouldn't a Lyran commander use one if they could? And thank you for providing additional reasons for using them in TW.
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.
That's what I've been saying.
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.
I don't need to properly disprove a source that isn't canon. Just because it is a quick resource doesn't make it canon. If it isn't canon it isn't canon. I however have provided canon sources, even quotes, which you continue to ignore because they don't fit your narrative.
Ignoring data for RPG concepts.
You're ignoring stats from TechManual, not the RPG.
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.
And yet we've had data that said they were the same.
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.
In space, how far does a .50cal bullet go when fired by a Mech compared to a ASF? How far does a .50cal bullet go when fired by a VTOL flying at 10 Elevations (60 meters) compared to an ASF flying at Altitude 1 (1-50 meters)?
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.
I'd ask for a canon source but you refuse to give them.
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 aren't moving and shooting while carrying two of any support weapons. And carrying a single Heavy SRM doesn't make it a Light. It's still a Heavy SRM and its a Heavy because it's heavier than the other SRMs.
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?
You are the one using MML as a reference are you not? And speed of access doesn't make MML canon any more than it does Sarna. They're not even formerly canon. As such, they don't count.
That it is independently made doesn't mean much when they use it to make official canon materials.
That it isn't official or canon does.
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?
Yet you have been using MML as a reference. Why is it okay for you to use it but not for me to not know what it says? You were also referencing Total Warfare Generic Infantry not TM Infantry. They are different platoons.
Show me where that unit is in Total Warfare first.
And you're deflecting. The Infantry in TW are different from those built using TM. TW doesn't differentiate between 1 or 2 support weapons. They either shoot or scoot. The 1 support weapon move and shoot, 2 Support Weapons shoot or scoot rule only applies to units built using TM.
And if that equipment has no bearing in TechManual construction or other Total Warfare gameplay?
If there's no bearing on the table top they'd stay in the RPG.
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.
Then they're not just offices.
Trailers can have engines. They don't have drive systems.
-
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.
That makes sense since they would damage your buddy if the dirt wasn't there. Personally, I think if cleaning were needed you should be able to take the risk. If successful your buddy is clean without damage. If not, you damage your buddy.
-
That makes sense since they would damage your buddy if the dirt wasn't there. Personally, I think if cleaning were needed you should be able to take the risk. If successful your buddy is clean without damage. If not, you damage your buddy.
It annoys me because it's how you've protected your wingman for over 80 years. Your tank's MGs aren't going to do more than maybe scratch his paint while just the ricochets are an extreme hazard to anyone assaulting them.
-
TW and TM have conflicts of their own.
Most of which, I'm sure, are more in your imaginings and improper parsing of terms and data than in the rules considering you've had a horrible time parsing my words and even forgetting your own.
Even with 2 shots the 2 point per SRM infantry platoon would be capable of more damage than the .57 damage per SRM infantry do now. 32 points of damage will have a greater effect on a target than 9.12 damage.
Now you go comparing the ability of a Squad versus a Platoon. That's disingenuous.
Even more so when I'm able to get 12 Damage, currently, at a consistent rate over the course of every turn that the unit survives.
Meanwhile, as usual, you miss the point of what you respond to.
You brought up TW Infantry. Where in TW does it say how many launchers are carried per squad? Quotes from a canon source please. Like this one.
Total Warfare page 142.
So with a 24 troopers platoon, and all hit, that's a total of 6 inferno missiles fired. That's 1 launcher per squad, not 2.
How is that Total Warfare 'toon created? How many Squads? Because it sounds like that's a 3 Squad Platoon of 8 instead of the canon 4 Squads of 6 per Platoon, if they were using Vehicle SRMs.
Proper quotes from a canon source please.
Yes, damage is being front-loaded. However, when you consider that it'd take several turns for current infantry to do the same damage, turns those infantry are being shot at. It's worth it. Also, it isn't just Infantry that would benefit but also BA and Small Support Vehicles. Those units also use Infantry Weapons and they do count ammo.
I was just in a scenario where 3/4 Platoons (2 Field Guns, 2 Motorized SRM) were able to maneuver and fire for the majority of the game. That's because we had Objectives to secure and anyone securing it was out of range of those Platoons. Not to mention all the numerous times I'm dealing with Infantry in urban landscapes so being able to apply Flamer to them directly is completely impossible, so they got off a LOT of shots.
So, again, is it your desire to nerf Infantry to basically be 2 shot Charlies and then run for the hills because they ran out of Ammo and their Rifles aren't worth jack from that point?
A SRM Platoon with 8 2-shot SRM Launchers would fire 16 missiles. At 2 points of damage per missile the platoon could do up to 32 points of damage per turn as long as their ammo holds out. Currently the same platoon only does 9.12 damage. Even if you include 20 other weapons doing .60 each, that only comes up to 21.12 damage. And if we're including those weapons, the 2 point SRM platoon would also have their damage go up to 44 points. I'd consider the extra damage well worth limited ammunition. And again, infantry aren't the only ones to use those weapons.
To which the data shows, and quite consistently shows, that Infantry SRMs are not Vehicle SRMs.
So again, I guess the RPG needs to reduce its stats so they coincide with the original, as they are the ones causing discrepancies and inconsistencies, not Total Warfare.
According to you're post, Infantry don't get to use alternative ammo unless they carry .5 tons of ammo. Only the presence of Inferno Ammo proves that statement wrong. They can choose between standard and inferno ammo. And as you say, there's nothing in TW about how Infantry determine what kind of ammo they use. Between that and the lack of tracking one could argue they do carry both types of ammo with them.
Ah, now, another deflection of yours to avoid answering my questions or to put a different spin on to what I said.
I didn't say they Infantry don't get to use alternative Ammo unless they carry 0.5 tons of Ammo, that value never showed up in that quote, and you're making assumptions behind my meaning.
The reason they don't is because TPTB decided they don't. Now, unless you can provide a proper TW reasoning for any of them (which you haven't as yet other than 'flavor from the RPG'), why should we here?
Actually, you have not.
Actually, I have. Almost every single time you've brought up AToW or RPG concepts, I have responded with either they are out of sync, or you need to prove that they are needed in a TW atmosphere. Which this answer just demonstrates all the more that you've ignored these responses.
Not so. SRM damage is equal to or less than other infantry platoons. They take SRMs for Infernos and their greater range. So SRM Infantry Platoons do not poke Armor hard. For SRM Infantry Platoons to poke Armor hard, they would need to do more damage.
It's a lot easier to poke Armor when you're not in the Range of the most common Burst-Fire Weapons, right?
And you're being rather dismissive of their Damage when it's among the higher tiers of Support Weapons immediately available in Total Warfare. It certainly beats out Energy Rifles, and beat out Ballistic Rifles till Total Warfare came out. If you toss in Infernos, they do even more Damage thanks to the Inferno*3 Damage they do helping them stay out of enemy Rifle range.
Meanwhile, with those same Damage Values, I knocked out an Adder pilot as well as its Gyro. Scatter Damage at small point values can be rather mean.
And yet we have sources that say they are. We also have sources that make infantry missiles more powerful than BA missiles.
And the first sources in Total Warfare and Tech Manual saying they are not based on the provided values. So again, your sources are out of sync with the game.
And you haven't. You keep saying that SRMs are anti-armor weapons. Yet we have SRM ammo for infantry and armor that clearly isn't anti-armor. So that statement is false. The conflict is that Infantry don't get to use those ammo types on the Table Top.
Yes, I have. I repeated it above, and I will repeat it again for you: Almost every single time you've brought up AToW or RPG concepts, I have responded with either they are out of sync, or you need to prove that they are needed in a TW atmosphere. Which this answer just demonstrates all the more that you've ignored these responses.
MGs and Flamers are also better at killing Infantry than standard HE SRMs thanks to that little +1D6 Damage they get. So if I want an Infantry unit trying to stop other Infantry units, I'll put one of them in the way. If I want an Infantry unit to poke Armor half-way successfully, they get the standard HE SRMs to reduce the amount of fire they take back (or LRMs, even). If I want an Infantry unit to be generalist, I go SRM Inferno so they can barbecue other ConvInf at range, Heat up a 'Mech, or vaporize sections of a Protomech or individual Battle Armor squaddies.
You still start with another book before getting to Campaign Operations.
In terms of collection, yes, because I'm usually not the one running games I'm just getting in to.
In terms of organizing a campaign, no. The book I'd start with is Campaign Operations to organize everyone for the campaign. It's only when that is organized that we pull out Total Warfare, Alpha Strike: Commander's Edition, or either Interstellar Operations.
You said.
I take campers because Tanks, Jeeps and Dune buggies don't have quarters.
Yeah, you missed the mark on that one by a mile. Another demonstration that you don't follow threads of conversation very well, or at least go back and check to make sure you have context.
I asked, "can you demonstrate a military actually using campers?"
Your response was, "Can you actually demonstrate a military actually using BattleMechs?" Thus you are equating campers to Battlemechs. The reason Battletech uses Battlemechs is due to their mobility and resilience when compared to Combat Vehicles.
Sure you could use a truck to carry things but you're adding to the number of personnel. Trailers will go where their tractors go. AToW's Pop-up Camper sleeps 6 and can be expanded to sleep 10. That's enough for most vehicles. They also come with supplies including an Advance Field Kit. Unless only 1 trooper gets the inflatable mattress, I think it should be 1 kit per trooper.
That personnel already exists. It's what provides the transport for the techs' gear as well as the smaller niceties of civilization. Meanwhile, which would you rather have, semi-comfy sleeping quarters, or Ammo for your 'Mech?
Not exactly. Advanced Field Kits aren't available in TW. The best you could do is a trailer with cargo space. Why wouldn't a Lyran commander use one if they could? And thank you for providing additional reasons for using them in TW.
I said it the first time you brought it up, so don't act like this is the first I said it. And you haven't provided any practical reason that a command tent or Mobile HQ wouldn't also supply.
That's what I've been saying.
I know you've been conflating concepts the whole time. That's what I've been pointing out about it.
Changing how ConvInf is marked off is if they are organized in to Squads and you have different means of differentiating Damage between them when they are together as a Platoon.
I don't need to properly disprove a source that isn't canon. Just because it is a quick resource doesn't make it canon. If it isn't canon it isn't canon. I however have provided canon sources, even quotes, which you continue to ignore because they don't fit your narrative.
That's deflection. You are trying to use the logical fallacy of appeal of authority (https://www.logicalfallacies.org/appeal-to-authority.html). Either the data is wrong or not. You haven't addressed the data.
Meanwhile, it's not my narrative when the data provided by CityTech, Compendium, Master Rules, Total Warfare, and Tech Manual are what you ignore.
If the data is wrong, provide me the right data.
You're ignoring stats from TechManual, not the RPG.
So you're saying that you cannot make any of the Platoons from Total Warfare with the exact same stats?
Meanwhile, you're the one who keeps pushing the RPG stats as if they were the original authoritative sources which operate on a different level of scale than Total Warfare does.
And yet we've had data that said they were the same.
No, you have "sources" which say the are the same, but they don't operate the same. Therefore since the scale Total Warfare operates at is the original, it is your RPG sources which need to be brought in to coordination.
I'd ask for a canon source but you refuse to give them.
Oh, don't act like I haven't given you canon source material before. I've called you on your crap by referencing said canon material.
Try the TechManual you claim to quote, page 152, Determining Final Damage Values that demonstrates that both Primary and Secondary weapons are added together for a final Damage value.
You aren't moving and shooting while carrying two of any support weapons. And carrying a single Heavy SRM doesn't make it a Light. It's still a Heavy SRM and its a Heavy because it's heavier than the other SRMs.
Missing and ignoring context again. The reason I said, "light" in quotations was not because of the weapon they were using, but because they were "lighter" on the secondary weapon they were using than the standard Platoon. I even explained this, but you ignored it in your crusade.
You are the one using MML as a reference are you not? And speed of access doesn't make MML canon any more than it does Sarna. They're not even formerly canon. As such, they don't count.
I've used it once this thread. You are the one who keeps harping on it.
Speed of access matters when doing a calculation, particularly if you are doing it for the first time.
Again, either the end result is correct, or it is not. If it is not, you can provide correction from a source you trust. That you haven't corrected it means that you know I'm right, you're just trying to get internet cookies by doing an appeal of authority (https://www.logicalfallacies.org/appeal-to-authority.html).
That it isn't official or canon does.
So, it's not canon if it is used to make canon materials? Do you actually sound out what you're saying before you say it?
Yet you have been using MML as a reference. Why is it okay for you to use it but not for me to not know what it says? You were also referencing Total Warfare Generic Infantry not TM Infantry. They are different platoons.
Again, I used it once in this thread for the calculations for an Infantry unit, not for anything else.
This is even worse than before because now you are ignoring the TechManual as if it was the MML, and implying that I said this was in MML. You didn't even bother reading what I said. Please don't do it again.
And you're deflecting.
Not as much as you're projecting, as you've deflected a lot more as well as lied about what I said.
The Infantry in TW are different from those built using TM. TW doesn't differentiate between 1 or 2 support weapons. They either shoot or scoot. The 1 support weapon move and shoot, 2 Support Weapons shoot or scoot rule only applies to units built using TM.
Show me where Total Warfare says they don't differentiate between 1 or 2 Support Weapons. After all, this is the expectation you've been asking of me for a while now, so that's why I'm reverting it back to you. If you can't support your statement properly or try to avoid it, you're being a hypocrite.
If there's no bearing on the table top they'd stay in the RPG.
And you've brought no case other than, "I wanna because this secondary source has 'em" while bringing no practical reason for them to be in TW.
Then they're not just offices.
Tell that to the managers when you try to take a nap in them over night.
Trailers can have engines. They don't have drive systems.
Which the linked vehicle had. It was literally a truck with an office put in to its cargo area, i.e. a Mobile HQ like it said at the top of the page.
-
You guys are starting to slap-fight again.
-
1) I like Alpha Strike's handling of infantry. They work like mechs but often have great durability per cost (FWL infantry platoons in 3035 have more durability against mech-scale weapons than most 35-45 ton battlemechs).
2) infantry absolutely should be in the game. I am only here, as a new player, because I enjoy the "realism" (well, verisimilitude) of the setting. Give a man a rock, tell him to kill a tank, and he can't. Give him a crowbar, though, and it's only a matter of time. Give him some dynamite from the late 1800s and he's downright hazardous to that tank in the right conditions. That's what Anti-Mech Training is.
3) Alpha Strike avoids some of the TW wonkiness in its abstractions but still makes infantry very distinct from other unit types. Being able to occupy buildings (and constructed fortifications, which can even be constructed in gameplay by engineers), take cover behind other units, or even just hit the deck really do differentiate them well.
-
It makes such fantastic machines such as Mechs, and even tanks, laughable when what might be a group of unarmored irregulars can take them out at all. And, Total Warfare makes no distinction between front line troops or poorly equipped weekend warriors. Again, that only comes into play with TechManual and potentially units in the TRos.
That doesn't sit right with me.
I'm on the same page with you as far as conventional infantry is concerned. Battletech seems to oscillate between mechs just being 31st century tanks to being one man (or one lance) planet conquering armies. The structure of setting works well to make the universe one where heavy armor would dominate the battlefield. The sheer amount of punishment a mech/tank can absorb really poses a challenge to anyone not able to bring the heavy guns. In the modern world one hit from a 16kg Javelin missile can knock out a 70 ton tank, in Battletech it usually takes about 1,000kg+ of munitions to do the same. That's a lot of munitions for a bunch of guys to have to lug around by hand and that's just what has to hit.
I feel that the generic platoons are pretty reasonably balanced under Total Warfare. Short range weapons combined with limited mobility means that infantry on their own can't really retaliate against a mech/armor force. A properly equipped lance of mechs can annihilate a regiment infantry in a couple of minutes time under Total Warfare without giving them a chance to fire back. Like you said though it isn't until you get to the Techmanual where you can min/max some absolutely insane infantry that things become a problem. Artillery still evaporates them in seconds but I nevertheless prefer to stick to the generics for balance purposes.
Of course infantry are still very useful as spotters, infiltrating buildings, and area denial. As well, lore wise, no matter how mismatched foot soldiers are in a field engagement you're still going to need a guy on the ground with a gun to actually occupy any territory, to go door to door, patrol the streets, to keep the populace under control and the factories running.
-
My interest in infantry is from a gameplay point of view, as mentioned in the past and elsewhere. And while the lore and game mechanics support the following
A properly equipped lance of mechs can annihilate a regiment infantry in a couple of minutes time under Total Warfare without giving them a chance to fire back.
Playing those few minutes in game is misery. Its 60 turns of patiently waiting for the longest range energy weapons to poke the infantry. If you close in, the infantry shred you thanks to being overturned and grossly undercosted. BV is a formula, and infantry mathematically pay too little. They pay per bubble 1.5 BV, but unlike the 1.5 BV structure on a mech infantry take no crits... its impossible to crit kill or mobility kill or weapon destroy an infantry unit. So right away, the discounted 1.5 BV per infantry bubble is wrong, and it should be 2.5 BV or more per bubble, like mech armor. Next, infantry take about 4x less (about 25%) damage across all weapon types, including the bonus damage from anti infantry. Because while a machine gun does 350% the damage, a laser does ~20% the damage when averaged with pulse and ER types. Infantry take double damage out of cover, so at a minimum infantry are at least 2x more survivable per pip. Thus, it should be 5 BV per pip minimum on infantry, but its only 1.5.
In mobility, infantry have no facing and dont have to turn. When plotting hex mobility, a 3 speed infantry can move into 36 hexes, and have full 360 LOS and no weak rear armor. A 2/3 speed mech can move into 11 hexes, and has limited arc and weak rear armor. This is more then 3x the offensive movement, with a defensive bonus as well. Yet they cost the same. Further, the mech or tank takes a +2 movement for running, 3 for jumping, and infantry ignore this. The fact that we can calculate their movement and accuracy bonus, and can produce correct offensive and defensive values for the large infantry advantages, but the infantry and battle armor get them for free regardless, is literally mathematically too good for the cost. Its also nonsense--infantry on the run will 100% be crap at shooting, so infantry ignoring the movement modifier is the exact opposite of reality. In reality, infantry on the move would pay DOUBLE at least for movement modifiers. Even infantry shooting out of a helicopter that is trying to stay still is incredibly hard... it takes specialists with a lot of training to do it. Infantry getting to move and shoot with no penalty is just a bad rule.
So this leaves us with having to spend those 60 turns shooting infantry from outside their range, because dealing with infantry inside their range is mathematically foolish and gameplay wise comically drawn out. Even with flamers, infantry are disproportionately damaging, as while that Firestarter can kill platoons of infantry, its risky each time, and the infantry always get to shoot back, and have 10 platoons per firestarter by cost. Its just a chore, and the smart move of using the 2 medium lasers on the firestarter to kill the 10 platoons safely, if the platoons are out of cover, and the firestarter hits every single shot (using magic i guess?) means 70 gameplay turns... 12 minutes in game, and 10 hours in real life.
So regardless of peoples feelings on this or that, the gameplay portion of how infantry are handled is just terrible with that damage divisor. We dont play 70 turn games of battletech where every shot hits and infantry have no cover. Infantry need to be played in a gameplay way that fits the real life flow of the game. And tac ops and tech manual and shrapnel with more armor, 7x range infantry rifles, and gobs of special rules just slow down things even further. Its a terrible mess on the gameboard, even with only 1 or 2 units. Especially if they are spotting for other unit with indirect weapons, forcing you to have to shoot infantry in cover at range where the AI weapons dont reach, the durability and ultra low cost are just terrible for gameplay. Heck, you can never find hidden infantry even with a beagle probe, so they get crazy better with hidden units rule, as they get to make point blank attacks with almost no drawback. Which causes the opponent to have to move at a crawl to root out hidden units so they dont walk into an ambush, which makes the game versus infantry TAKE EVEN LONGER lol.
EDIT: the TL;DR, infantry are massively undercosted, and encourage the worst, slowest gameplay to deal with them, unless you leroy jenkings into the infantry and get crushed. Its possible to make an infantry platoon a REAL unit, with better range on the SRMs, secondary AI attacks, squad tracking, ect, and make them much more expensive. Thus, you get more useful infantry, and single infantry platoons have a base cost the same as the smallest light mechs like a stinger. This way, a basic rifle platoon is comparable to a stinger battlemech in terms of time to play and complexity and cost, and a force of 4 infantry units is about the same as a light lance or light vehicle platoon, keeping parity and gameplay similiar. As it is now, you get 4-6 platoons of infantry per stinger, and its the grindiest least interactive game you can imagine.
-
My interest in infantry is from a gameplay point of view, as mentioned in the past and elsewhere. And while the lore and game mechanics support the following
...
Playing those few minutes in game is misery. Its 60 turns of patiently waiting for the longest range energy weapons to poke the infantry.
Your biggest problem in this analysis is that you are not using a properly equipped lance of mechs if you are using the longest ranged energy weapons to destroy infantry.
PPCs and ER Large Lasers aren't proper equipment to take out Infantry. Artillery is the best thing to take out Infantry, period. Following that up is Plasma Cannons then Plasma Rifles. Fragmentation LRMs are also good at clearing out Infantry. Even at the most basic level, Inferno SRMs devastate Conventional Infantry. A Lance of Commandos whose Ammo is not but Inferno could do the job.
The only thing that changes this concept is Urban terrain. Too which, PPCS and ER Large Lasers will be effective because you'll be able to destroy the Buildings they are in. If they don't get out before it collapses, then they're toast. And that's not even considering Fire rules and just burning the building out from underneath them.
If you close in, the infantry shred you thanks to being overturned and grossly undercosted. BV is a formula, and infantry mathematically pay too little. They pay per bubble 1.5 BV, but unlike the 1.5 BV structure on a mech infantry take no crits... its impossible to crit kill or mobility kill or weapon destroy an infantry unit. So right away, the discounted 1.5 BV per infantry bubble is wrong, and it should be 2.5 BV or more per bubble, like mech armor. Next, infantry take about 4x less (about 25%) damage across all weapon types, including the bonus damage from anti infantry. Because while a machine gun does 350% the damage, a laser does ~20% the damage when averaged with pulse and ER types. Infantry take double damage out of cover, so at a minimum infantry are at least 2x more survivable per pip. Thus, it should be 5 BV per pip minimum on infantry, but its only 1.5.
Not across all weapon types. From Area of Effect weapons they take 2x the Damage from (divide by .5). This is why Artillery devastates them. No one takes more Damage from Infernos than Conventional Infantry. Not to mention, nobody else takes more Damage simply for being in a Clear Hex.
In mobility, infantry have no facing and dont have to turn.
They also move at the pace of an Assault Mech while providing less firepower than a Medium. At the slowest they are Move or Shoot. At their fastest they can match pace with a Running Marauder, but can't go in to Woods or Buildings. And those guys take twice the Damage from those scary PPCs and ER Large Lasers you were plinking with. There is a BA exception that the Horses made, but that's hardly the rule.
When plotting hex mobility, a 3 speed infantry can move into 36 hexes, and have full 360 LOS and no weak rear armor. A 2/3 speed mech can move into 11 hexes, and has limited arc and weak rear armor. This is more then 3x the offensive movement, with a defensive bonus as well. Yet they cost the same.
They can also be wiped out, or at least be in Forced Withdrawal status by a Flamer or SRM-6 with Infernos, to say nothing about what Plasma Cannons/Rifles and Artillery would do to them.
Further, the mech or tank takes a +2 movement for running, 3 for jumping, and infantry ignore this. The fact that we can calculate their movement and accuracy bonus, and can produce correct offensive and defensive values for the large infantry advantages, but the infantry and battle armor get them for free regardless, is literally mathematically too good for the cost. Its also nonsense--infantry on the run will 100% be crap at shooting, so infantry ignoring the movement modifier is the exact opposite of reality. In reality, infantry on the move would pay DOUBLE at least for movement modifiers. Even infantry shooting out of a helicopter that is trying to stay still is incredibly hard... it takes specialists with a lot of training to do it. Infantry getting to move and shoot with no penalty is just a bad rule.
Infantry moving at 3 MP are not running. They are either trained hoppers or driving very light vehicles that don't move at Flanking speeds. In the case of the ConvInf, they're also only carrying Rifles, at best, whose accurate range is 2. So, yeah, there are penalties. For Battle Armor, they're taking full Damage from the PPCs and Large Laser, and for the most mobile of those, they can't take many of those. The Ammo for their most powerful weapon is limited to 2 shots, or their range is the same as those Rifle ConvInf.
So regardless of peoples feelings on this or that, the gameplay portion of how infantry are handled is just terrible with that damage divisor.
Well, yeah, if you play against them poorly, and you've just said you do. That can be said of any unit in the game.
As it is now, you get 4-6 platoons of infantry per stinger, and its the grindiest least interactive game you can imagine.
A few good hits from that Stinger and each of those Platoons are running for momma unless they are in some good buildings.
Your playing against them poorly doesn't mean they are poorly costed. I could say the Locust is a crap unit if I only play them as a pugilist that doesn't outrun an Urbanmech.
-
Counterpoint to DevianID (*after the commercial message)
[cheesy music]
[announcer]: "Hey Bud Are you in the habit of experiencing long drawn out situations where your battlemech shredding icebox energy boats are stuck hanging at long range against a bunch of unarmored guys with hand held weapons?"
[dude on his couch-nods]
[announcer] "Have WE got a DEAL for YOU!!"
blah blah blah.
The problem isn't that infantry are under-costed, the problem is that players obsess over anti-mech performance, to the point of ignoring that other things may actually be in play, as a result, they come into a game, scenario, or even campaign with optimized duelling machines and run smack into some attrition player running mostly conventionals...and it becomes a problem, because sometimes that guy runs them well.
It's a player problem, and a Mindset problem, and it's not just infantry. when I was more active as a player, I caused more than one opponent to throw over the table and storm out, using 'junk' while he was using optimized clantech modified custom 'mech killers...that were optimized for killing 'mechs.
which is the whole point of even having infantry, or tanks, or helicopters, or aerofighters-if they played exactly like battlmechs, there's no reason to use them, or even to have them.
Savvy that?
Some weapons that grossly underperform (in theory) against 'mechs, are absolute annihilation to Infantry caught in the open.
That, in turn, is the point of having them.
but, to make use of that, you need to bother having them, instead of tossing them out for another Double Heat skin, X tons of armor, and an energy weapon that works with your Targeting computer.
MY apologies if this comes off as harsh, but the fact is I don't buy your argument, because I've had to teach other players how to annihilate conventional forces before-because they came into the game group focused only on min/maxing to kill 'mechs, and then got their butts kicked by guys who sometimes didn't even USE 'mechs.
and then proclaimed it wasn't 'fair'.
it's fair. there's a REASON some designs get what looks at first like sub-optimal weapons fits, they're not there to duel with Aidan Pryde, they're there to turn PBI into greasy smears and cripple tanks while dropping VTOLs.
use the right tool, and that is all.
-
A properly equipped lance of mechs can annihilate a regiment infantry in a couple of minutes time under Total Warfare without giving them a chance to fire back.
Against 1 Regiment, 3 Battalions, 9 Companies, 27 Platoons of infantry? PPC and Laser boats are not properly equipped lances. Battlemechs with Artillery Pieces, Artillery Cannons, Plasma Rifles, Plasma Cannons, ACs loaded with flechettes, frag LRMs, Airburst Mech Mortars, inferno SRMs. Those are your properly equipped Battlemechs to commit vast war crimes defeat an enemy Infantry regiment with.
-
**MOD NOTICE**
Please step back from the thread and take deep breath, guys. This conversation is creating a lot more friction than it ought to be.
-
Mod: Chill, dudes
Them: No, I must win
-
Mod: Chill, dudes
Them: No, I must win
Pretty much that.
Locking this for now. Will reopen later once people have had time to cool off.
-
Unlocked. The prior mod request still stands.
-
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.
And, the bow is still useful, even today, for silent hunting, and is usually preferred when dealing with animals in an urban environment. Which can also transfer the art of assassination. And, there's much to be said for the recurve set-up and the materials that can go into the bow. Not necessarily what I would take into a full-on fire-fight, though.
-
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.
This is what I actually want to see for BT.
But, I also think there should be some levels to infantry inclusion, kinda like how you could field artillery off-board or have the gun onboard, or have fighters doing attack runs in the middle of a battle without having to run an aero game on the low-alt map simultaneously, or you could run two concurrent games for the added realism.
Something you can fill in or add on if you desire, but isn't necessary if you don't want it.
That was my goal in bringing up different levels of Infantry. Some people may only want one and done infantry squads to set up as ad-hoc land-mines on a city map, but don't want to have to track them once the important weapon in the squad arsenal is targeted and eliminated. Once that SRM support weapon has been hit, you remove the infantry pog from the board and continue with the game.
Or you don't mind having such an interesting mix of specialized squads on the board. Some will be worthless agaisnt a Mech, but excellent at working through buildings and ruining the day of a squad solely dedicated to anti-armor fire with its dug-in gun nests with full-fledged SRM launchers. But, once you get to this point, what level of detail do you want to use? Maybe you want to track the state of a particular squad or platoon, and you break out the battle armor sheet, otherwise you are okay with just a life meter with a random chance to wipe the unit out.
-
Infantry need to be played in a gameplay way that fits the real life flow of the game.
I agree with this sentiment. However, one of the things that kinda helps with immersion is some sort of correlation with what can be witnessed in real life. While BattleTech Fights aren't as quick as typical modern armor engagements, shot for shot, they're still awful quick having a lance or company largely battered to ineffectiveness on both sides in a matter of a couple minutes.
(Modern armored combat, usually once someone has sight on you, it just takes getting the shot to land, and that's all of a few seconds. Then the matter of longer engagements that actually take many minutes to an hour is a matter of not being seen and tagging anything that comes into your sensor field or field of vision. Yes! I know there's more nuance to it than that, but I think I've made my point.)
Conventional Infantry firefights are a different matter. They're usually longer. So that 60-70 turns of trying to wipe out a platoon or company might be rather realistic.
And, to aid your point, that is why I would prefer that anti-armor attacks be with support weapons or specialty ammo in limited supply. Because, you shouldn't have to wipe out a platoon to the man in order to render them a non-combatant against your armored units. Either you wait until they run out of the pertinent ammo, or you snipe the gun that can do the damage.
Moving on:
Nor would a squad or platoon stick around that long to suffer being wiped out. This subject had come up many times in the past and someone pointed out that infantry are not machines, they're a mob. But, they're not strictly a mob, either. Each trooper is a full-on character with aspirations and dreams, one of which will most undoubtedly be to get out alive. Get back home so he can have some ice-cream.
We don't necessarily have to emulate that to RPG level details. I'm not exactly fond of morale rules, but it's still a consideration. It would set Infantry apart from armored units.
But, morale could be wrapped into the extra damage that's taken. You lost a few guys, and some others are gonna 'play dead', in an overly simplified parlance.
Idea: Troop loyalty level acts as a damage modifier if your doing the body count tracking?
-
I had at one point tried to make an infantry revamp heavily inspired by (practically lifted from) the Wargame series. Infantry squads had 1 Primary weapon and 2 secondary weapon slots (though these didn't need to be filled). Infantry weapons had a "hard target" and "soft target" value which differentiated not just damage but range too based on target type, with the former used against 'Mechs and such, and the latter used for infantry and light support vehicles. Primary weapons didn't track ammo (I couldn't be bothered), but secondaries did at the tradeoff of being more powerful and really defined the squad's role: Support MGs helped kill other squads, SRMs gave good anti-tank power, the AA weapons were reworked so that they... worked. I can't recall if I ever actually got to test them, though.
-
This is what I actually want to see for BT.
But, I also think there should be some levels to infantry inclusion, kinda like how you could field artillery off-board or have the gun onboard, or have fighters doing attack runs in the middle of a battle without having to run an aero game on the low-alt map simultaneously, or you could run two concurrent games for the added realism.
Something you can fill in or add on if you desire, but isn't necessary if you don't want it.
That was my goal in bringing up different levels of Infantry. Some people may only want one and done infantry squads to set up as ad-hoc land-mines on a city map, but don't want to have to track them once the important weapon in the squad arsenal is targeted and eliminated. Once that SRM support weapon has been hit, you remove the infantry pog from the board and continue with the game.
Or you don't mind having such an interesting mix of specialized squads on the board. Some will be worthless agaisnt a Mech, but excellent at working through buildings and ruining the day of a squad solely dedicated to anti-armor fire with its dug-in gun nests with full-fledged SRM launchers. But, once you get to this point, what level of detail do you want to use? Maybe you want to track the state of a particular squad or platoon, and you break out the battle armor sheet, otherwise you are okay with just a life meter with a random chance to wipe the unit out.
That sounds a lot like what the BSP Infantry do in the Open Beta. I haven't tested them because the provided cards are NOT printer-friendly, and I haven't taken time to make very basic replacements. However, they do operate a little bit like Alpha Strike, but still have some aspects of Classic.
For Damage, they do 5x2 (5 hits of 2 Damage each), which is a little lighter than what most Ballistic Rifle Platoons can do right now, but more than an Energy Rifle Platoon can do.
For toughness, they might actually be a little tougher, but that's pretty variable. Anything will cause a Destroy Check on them, but they can survive it if the opponent doesn't roll higher than a 6. However, this can be made easier for every 10 points of Damage. They do Degrade (that Destroy Check number gets smaller) faster from AI weapons.
Still, for regular units of ConvInf, I think that Rifle Platoons and Squads still should still be able to do Damage. Maybe, not as much as SRM-supported Platoons and Squads, but more than just sanding off paint jobs.
Moving on:
Nor would a squad or platoon stick around that long to suffer being wiped out. This subject had come up many times in the past and someone pointed out that infantry are not machines, they're a mob. But, they're not strictly a mob, either. Each trooper is a full-on character with aspirations and dreams, one of which will most undoubtedly be to get out alive. Get back home so he can have some ice-cream.
We don't necessarily have to emulate that to RPG level details. I'm not exactly fond of morale rules, but it's still a consideration. It would set Infantry apart from armored units.
But, morale could be wrapped into the extra damage that's taken. You lost a few guys, and some others are gonna 'play dead', in an overly simplified parlance.
Idea: Troop loyalty level acts as a damage modifier if your doing the body count tracking?
That's what the Crippling Damage rule in Forced Withdrawal (TW pg 258) is supposed to do. However, that's set at 75% losses for Conventional infantry and half or more of the Squad for Battle Armor (so 2 for Spheroid, and 3 for Clan and ComStar). Of course, in most cases I've seen most Infantry don't last long enough for them to actually withdraw.
-
Still, for regular units of ConvInf, I think that Rifle Platoons and Squads still should still be able to do Damage. Maybe, not as much as SRM-supported Platoons and Squads, but more than just sanding off paint jobs.
Well, this is where equipment ratings and training would come in. I would be okay with it if they have a limited amount of it, and don't do it in perpetuity. Maybe two shots. But, this would be specially equipped rifle platoons. (Same should go for satchel charges and anti-Mech infantry attacks.)
But, I personally think that those should be rare.
The most common platoon for anti-armor work should be equipped elsewise. Militia, and local royal retainer forces should probably only be rocking the SRM squad, protected by the rifle squad that has no effect on armor, but can laydown suppressive fire and do significant damage against other infantry.
-
Well, this is where equipment ratings and training would come in. I would be okay with it if they have a limited amount of it, and don't do it in perpetuity. Maybe two shots. But, this would be specially equipped rifle platoons. (Same should go for satchel charges and anti-Mech infantry attacks.)
But, I personally think that those should be rare.
The most common platoon for anti-armor work should be equipped elsewise. Militia, and local royal retainer forces should probably only be rocking the SRM squad, protected by the rifle squad that has no effect on armor, but can laydown suppressive fire and do significant damage against other infantry.
I'm going to have to disagree still. Honestly, I think the old Rifle and the current Energy Rifle are about right for what, or just a touch above, of what a Rifle Squad/Platoon should do against Armor. Right now, a Clan Energy Rifle Squad does 1 Damage, a 7 man Spheroid Squad is barely doing 2. A Point does 3x2+1, while a Platoon does 4x2. Other than Hit Locations and TACs, there isn't much to talk about, Damage-wise. And again, the reason I disagree is is mostly to keep Rifle Infantry from being completely useless if the opponent only brings Armored units on to the table. I'm sorry if you think I was advocating for Riflemen to be a terror.
I do agree that Rifle Damage against other ConvInf could look like what we see with the current Ballistic Rifle Damage scaling.
I agree that punching Armor should be elsewhere, and have said so. After all, that's why Missile Support Weapons are a classic case.
Suppressive Fire doesn't mean much unless Infantry is scary enough to bother suppressing in the first place. While Inferno-packing Infantry can be scary, if they only have 2 loads, that loses its bite. While Anti-Mech units Legging a Mech is scary, it doesn't mean much if only 2 dudes in a Platoon, or even a Squad are carrying them.
I guess what I'm saying is that while I don't see ConvInf as scary as some, I do respect them enough that I don't want to see them nerfed to uselessness. In order to do that they need to be able to do something.
-
I mean FASAnomics not withstanding support weapons are fairly inexpensive c-bill wise. Your biggest expense for an infantry unit is salary and consumables (on campaign) everything else is way less, should it be that way, eh.
In the other thread I proposed that all foot/jump/motorized squaddies carry two reloads but I think I'd rather a 40Kg encumbrance limit on their carry capacity for support weapons. Anything below 20Kg of weapons per squaddie is considered unencumbered which incentivizes machine gun platoons and limits Jump Troops appropriately. This limit can be spend as weapon crew themselves, making energy weapons even more crew intensive and slower to move around but once in place inexpensive to fire for a long time, or for carrying reloads. Mechanized Infantry however do not have any worry about that and can carry or use any support class weapon they wish in accordance with the regular rules making Laser Tankettes (and the Support PPC) pretty nasty.
-
I'm going to have to disagree still. Honestly, I think the old Rifle and the current Energy Rifle are about right for what, or just a touch above, of what a Rifle Squad/Platoon should do against Armor. Right now, a Clan Energy Rifle Squad does 1 Damage, a 7 man Spheroid Squad is barely doing 2. A Point does 3x2+1, while a Platoon does 4x2. Other than Hit Locations and TACs, there isn't much to talk about, Damage-wise. And again, the reason I disagree is is mostly to keep Rifle Infantry from being completely useless if the opponent only brings Armored units on to the table. I'm sorry if you think I was advocating for Riflemen to be a terror.
I do agree that Rifle Damage against other ConvInf could look like what we see with the current Ballistic Rifle Damage scaling.
I agree that punching Armor should be elsewhere, and have said so. After all, that's why Missile Support Weapons are a classic case.
Suppressive Fire doesn't mean much unless Infantry is scary enough to bother suppressing in the first place. While Inferno-packing Infantry can be scary, if they only have 2 loads, that loses its bite. While Anti-Mech units Legging a Mech is scary, it doesn't mean much if only 2 dudes in a Platoon, or even a Squad are carrying them.
I guess what I'm saying is that while I don't see ConvInf as scary as some, I do respect them enough that I don't want to see them nerfed to uselessness. In order to do that they need to be able to do something.
they DO do something, they soak up movement order so you can move your better units at a more opportune time in the movement phase. This is kind of the problem-there are at least half a dozen different 'factions' among players when it comes to the relationships between 'mech and non-'mech play, and one of the most influential of those factions doesn't really like the idea of battlearmor, never mind effective conventional infantry, interrupting their one-on-one 'mech duels.
one might say one of the major problems for problematic unit types (conventional infantry, aerospace, and artillery) is that there's not really a lot of thinking about what their roles should actually be.
Pre-Companion/Total Warfare, 'mechanized' infantry meant you loaded them up on a vehicle with transport capability and moved them around the board-on an APC or something similar. the actual 'type' was an artifact of one faction wanting it condensed into a single unit type in order to not be absolutely gutted during BV calculations by FSM. That faction also kind of views infantry as...well...an initiative sink that's cheap.
They're see-sawing with the player faction that wants all the units to be effective in some useful way beyond being an initiative sink.
so you get compromises.
-
I'm going to have to disagree still. Honestly, I think the old Rifle and the current Energy Rifle are about right for what, or just a touch above, of what a Rifle Squad/Platoon should do against Armor. Right now, a Clan Energy Rifle Squad does 1 Damage, a 7 man Spheroid Squad is barely doing 2. A Point does 3x2+1, while a Platoon does 4x2. Other than Hit Locations and TACs, there isn't much to talk about, Damage-wise. And again, the reason I disagree is is mostly to keep Rifle Infantry from being completely useless if the opponent only brings Armored units on to the table. I'm sorry if you think I was advocating for Riflemen to be a terror.
I do agree that Rifle Damage against other ConvInf could look like what we see with the current Ballistic Rifle Damage scaling.
I agree that punching Armor should be elsewhere, and have said so. After all, that's why Missile Support Weapons are a classic case.
Suppressive Fire doesn't mean much unless Infantry is scary enough to bother suppressing in the first place. While Inferno-packing Infantry can be scary, if they only have 2 loads, that loses its bite. While Anti-Mech units Legging a Mech is scary, it doesn't mean much if only 2 dudes in a Platoon, or even a Squad are carrying them.
I guess what I'm saying is that while I don't see ConvInf as scary as some, I do respect them enough that I don't want to see them nerfed to uselessness. In order to do that they need to be able to do something.
My common sense of the real world says 'Hell no, why we are bothered to allows that and makes something works that does not makes sense.'
But meanwhile, my common sense of the game balance and mechanism nods to the post and laugh off my other common sense.
Well, honestly, although it looks like to be not makes sense, but the world of the game have a ridiculous type of ground vehicle that dominates the combat on the surface - honestly, why battlemech could be exists, if we strictly follow the common sense of the reality?
So put any random reason to make it works in the world is not that unreasonable as long as it makes the game fun, at least. You know, battlemech already have ton of reasons like that, so why not for the other stuffs?
they DO do something, they soak up movement order so you can move your better units at a more opportune time in the movement phase. This is kind of the problem-there are at least half a dozen different 'factions' among players when it comes to the relationships between 'mech and non-'mech play, and one of the most influential of those factions doesn't really like the idea of battlearmor, never mind effective conventional infantry, interrupting their one-on-one 'mech duels.
one might say one of the major problems for problematic unit types (conventional infantry, aerospace, and artillery) is that there's not really a lot of thinking about what their roles should actually be.
Pre-Companion/Total Warfare, 'mechanized' infantry meant you loaded them up on a vehicle with transport capability and moved them around the board-on an APC or something similar. the actual 'type' was an artifact of one faction wanting it condensed into a single unit type in order to not be absolutely gutted during BV calculations by FSM. That faction also kind of views infantry as...well...an initiative sink that's cheap.
They're see-sawing with the player faction that wants all the units to be effective in some useful way beyond being an initiative sink.
so you get compromises.
Well, I do think that they could be distract the armors while only knocks the armor at best, but the unit that only exists for such thing would be not so fun mechanism to play.
For example, Infinity, that is a miniature game that covers a small sized skirmish between handful of number of unit, has the concept of 'cheerleader.' Each unit(aside some exceptions) all the models of a player generates a single order and put that on the order pool of the squad of the model at the start of the game, and the player can spend one order on the pool to activate a model on the squad, after then the player can spend one another order to choose any unit on the squad until the squad lacks an order.
The point is, even the most expensive big giant robot generates only a single order, while the cheap basic line trooper generates the very same a single order as well, and there is no limit of numbers of activation in each turn per each model - so as long as you have enough order in the pool of the squad, you can pick the same model and activates it again and again!
So that leads the role of 'cheerleader', that is the cheap regular troops that the only reason of existence is to live and generate the order to the order pool of the squad, nothing else, and by the orders they generates the squad can activates small amount of elite model repeatedly.
Well I do think that it could allows an another option to raid the enemy base on the skirmisher level of game, but put the soldiers not above the resource generator is somewhat flawed.
-
In the other thread I proposed that all foot/jump/motorized squaddies carry two reloads but I think I'd rather a 40Kg encumbrance limit on their carry capacity for support weapons. Anything below 20Kg of weapons per squaddie is considered unencumbered which incentivizes machine gun platoons and limits Jump Troops appropriately. This limit can be spend as weapon crew themselves, making energy weapons even more crew intensive and slower to move around but once in place inexpensive to fire for a long time, or for carrying reloads. Mechanized Infantry however do not have any worry about that and can carry or use any support class weapon they wish in accordance with the regular rules making Laser Tankettes (and the Support PPC) pretty nasty.
2 other things to consider on this.
1) If Rifles can't do anything to Armor, it makes Swarming completely useless for Rifle Infantry as it uses their weaponry to do Damage, and if you don't do Damage, you can't Crit.
2) Your consideration for the current Mechanized Infantry brings to mind the discussion from the last Infantry post, why not just use Support Vehicles instead, and allow them to just Squad up like Battle Armor?
they DO do something, they soak up movement order so you can move your better units at a more opportune time in the movement phase. This is kind of the problem-there are at least half a dozen different 'factions' among players when it comes to the relationships between 'mech and non-'mech play, and one of the most influential of those factions doesn't really like the idea of battlearmor, never mind effective conventional infantry, interrupting their one-on-one 'mech duels.
one might say one of the major problems for problematic unit types (conventional infantry, aerospace, and artillery) is that there's not really a lot of thinking about what their roles should actually be.
It sounds like some of those people have already decided what the role should be, and they're power-gamers to boot.
I personally like the idea of Infantry being used to better secure objectives. For example, an scenario I ran recently allows 'Mechs to control a point, but only Infantry could go in and actually USE the weaponry on the point, and thus were more effective at securing the point. When securing data, only Infantry can go in to the building to get it, that sort of thing.
My common sense of the real world says 'Hell no, why we are bothered to allows that and makes something works that does not makes sense.'
Um... what?
But meanwhile, my common sense of the game balance and mechanism nods to the post and laugh off my other common sense.
Well, honestly, although it looks like to be not makes sense, but the world of the game have a ridiculous type of ground vehicle that dominates the combat on the surface - honestly, why battlemech could be exists, if we strictly follow the common sense of the reality?
So put any random reason to make it works in the world is not that unreasonable as long as it makes the game fun, at least. You know, battlemech already have ton of reasons like that, so why not for the other stuffs?
I try to look at it from what the universe already considers "common sense". We're talking about Machine Guns, which bounce off heavy armor in our day, doing Damage to BT Heavy Armor in an ablative style.
If Battletech processed like WarMachine where the Damage inflicted was reduced by the Armor capacity of what was hit, I could easily see why Rifleman would only be there to take out Anti-Armor Infantry and doing nothing to anything with any notable Armor capacity. But it doesn't so.
-
I would actually rather all infantry (Jump, Motorized, Mechanized, Armored, and Foot) have harmonized construction rules akin to the way Battle Armor is presently built. The more unusual infantry types (VTOL mechanized, SCUBA, Engineers, Sneak Suits) are scattered about in multiple books. One would choose chassis and configuration of a Squad then add stuff until complete rather than balance them against vehicles, particularly support vehicles.
This makes their interactions more interesting and dynamic while allowing for a future BattleTroops scenario (as unlikely as such things would be). You could also have a back conversion to Destiny and AToW from these units for those people that are interested in an RPG in order to have an almost seamless transition between Map Fights and RPG Combat.
-
BT armor is well-established to be based on an ablation protection mechanic- it's practically required to make 'Mechs better than vehicles in the setting in straight fighting, otherwise Vees would be tougher than 'Mechs by being able to protect their locations with much thicker armor than 'Mechs can manage due to having fewer locations.
I strongly feel that the ablation armor mechanic should consistently be an ablation armor mechanic, and not shift to act as quasi-penetration whenever it's convenient. So even infantry-scale weapons like auto-rifles should deal some damage to armor when there's enough of them.
-
I'm all for seamless transitions between scales.
-
<Infinity references>
A fundamental problem is that BT is a board game built around simultaneous actions resolved sequentially within a fixed time vs a war game built around sequential actions (including interrupts) occurring and resolved sequentially in unfixed time. The Infinity orders system just wouldn't really work for BattleTech.
I would actually rather all infantry (Jump, Motorized, Mechanized, Armored, and Foot) have harmonized construction rules akin to the way Battle Armor is presently built. The more unusual infantry types (VTOL mechanized, SCUBA, Engineers, Sneak Suits) are scattered about in multiple books. One would choose chassis and configuration of a Squad then add stuff until complete rather than balance them against vehicles, particularly support vehicles.
I'm not concerned about scattering the options. In fact, I would greatly prefer baseline books to choose a baseline tech level/era and then have expansions for alternate era that, among other things, expand and provide rules for or contract the equipment available for combat systems. Oh, and dump the ill-defined mechanized infantry type, natch.
1) If Rifles can't do anything to Armor, it makes Swarming completely useless for Rifle Infantry as it uses their weaponry to do Damage, and if you don't do Damage, you can't Crit.
Swarm specifically check for crits in addition to determining normal damage. They would just never be in a position to make a second roll to determine critical hits.
-
The thing with a baseline Tech era books is that, is something that doesn't exist in the Battletech Universe. Its a big universe with lots of options within it. You'd need even more cross-referencing to making that work for rules based on scenarios. The only thing these have in common is 3025 Introtech.
Age of War Retrotech came back during the Dark Age and was for all intensive purposes still extant within the Periphery but not talked about.
Star League tech was never lost by the Clans so you can play Klondike and even throughout the Golden and Political Centuries with SLDF tech, the Clan Invasion and FedCom Civil War with SLDF Tech, and Republic Era with SLDF tech.
Clan tech is now widely available to all factions in the ilClan Era and was increasingly becoming so post-Nova Cat Abjuration and Great Refusal.
I could see Society, Fortress Republic, and Blake-Tech being in a single book but that's only because they are new and very niche.
It is better to bunch the rules of something into where they will be used.
Also having formal Battle Armor style building rules would define 'Mechanized' with, it and 'Motorized' basically be running in small support/personal vehicles (and that should be the difference, riding 'in' the vehicle rather than 'on' the vehicle) just in an easier to define template. I am however still for cutting out all <10 ton vehicles and just using a template that would be defined in Squad construction for objectives.
-
The thing with a baseline Tech era books is that, is something that doesn't exist in the Battletech Universe.
That's exactly how the game used to run. A core rulebook defined an core era and expansions added stuff for others. It was fine for the core rulebook to be set to the "current" time in 1990 (CI/3050), but with the now almost 400 year span of the game's timeline, that isn't a practical option when anything outside ilClan is inherently a restriction on (personal opinion: far too expansive to the point of ridiculous catalog of) tech allowed.
I have no desire to play a game where heavy medium snub-nosed micro pulse lasers (slight exaggeration for effect, natch) are the norm.
Regarding motorized and mechanized units, those are specific terms defining specific capabilities and liabilities that BT respects about as much as GEVs and WIGs. At least motorized makes some sense in "lack of a better term" sense.
-
I guess what I'm saying is that while I don't see ConvInf as scary as some, I do respect them enough that I don't want to see them nerfed to uselessness. In order to do that they need to be able to do something.
From the way I've seen infantry generally avoided like the plague in even my on local games without some sort of modification, I'm looking at that as a sign something needs to be done.
But, I'm not going to stop you from doing at your table what you want. So, we disagree. I'm gonna leave off that from now on.
I'm okay with fielding 'Rifle' Platoons if I'm free to imagine that the Rifles are Recoilless or 50 cal sniper rifle support weapons, and not just a mass of AKs.
But, now that I've been exposed to SRM squads from Battle Droids, and that fits the aesthetic I want for the majority of infantry, I'm going to find a way to use that in my own campaigns, with some tweaks. I am honestly done with Total Warfare Infantry and even CityTech-analogue Infantry except for special situations, and certainly will tweak them.
-
IME, the reason for that is more often because conventional infantry is not very interesting to either build or field, and often function only as initiative sinks and spotters, that just happens to have guns. For the people that feel that way (self included), functionally removing the "guns" part against like 95% of the assets people actually use would make the problem worse, not better.
-
I personally like the idea of Infantry being used to better secure objectives. For example, an scenario I ran recently allows 'Mechs to control a point, but only Infantry could go in and actually USE the weaponry on the point, and thus were more effective at securing the point. When securing data, only Infantry can go in to the building to get it, that sort of thing.
See, this is what I would generally want infantry for, too. And, if you use them for that, then why do you need them to be able to do damage to a Mech with their grunt rifles? Give them specific, in-game tasks that only they can accomplish. And, if they lose too many bodies or are lost entirely, you lose out on that ability.
And, one of the tasks that a type of infantry unit (like a rifle platoon as you seem to define rifles) would be to clear out an existing enemy infantry unit already occupying that objective. It could be done in a little Risk-style Mini-game as the regular BT game progresses turn-by-turn once the two units are in the same building/hex. Again, it depends on how much detail you want. (It could even be done in a BattleTroops reskin of BattleTech, where each Trooper has a mech-like stat sheet, and moves independently on a fully mapped out building with multiple floors, and the surrounding yard.)
BT armor is well-established to be based on an ablation protection mechanic- it's practically required to make 'Mechs better than vehicles in the setting in straight fighting, otherwise Vees would be tougher than 'Mechs by being able to protect their locations with much thicker armor than 'Mechs can manage due to having fewer locations.
I strongly feel that the ablation armor mechanic should consistently be an ablation armor mechanic, and not shift to act as quasi-penetration whenever it's convenient. So even infantry-scale weapons like auto-rifles should deal some damage to armor when there's enough of them.
Okay. Concept problem with purely ablative mechanic: How do you define a miss? How do lasers miss to begin with?
If your answer has anything to do with, well, the armor's magic, then, next problem: If the armor is what's making things 'miss', how do you justify that any 'open' armor location isn't free to be targeted without penalty?
There is an answer, and it's two-part. If you decide that it's because, once you look at the 'immobile target' modifier, and realize that there is one to begin with that combat units, especially Mechs are actively avoiding it, you're part way there. It still doesn't stop the fact that Lasers move at the speed of light and are next to impossible to dodge at what amount to 'Affix Bayonett' Ranges. And, some people have a hard time with 'Gundam' levels of dodgyness. (I'd point out that Gundams aren't really that dodgy, but that's a different discussion.)
The full answer that I've come to conclude is that the armor's still there. Damage is weakened integrity to the armor. Which I interpret as its got deflective qualities that allow it to function even when the record sheet shows all the dots of armor on a location filled in.
Dodgyness is one of the reasons we get random locations at all, and not boring core body shots all the time. But, it's also the Mech/Tank/Fighter control systems trying to use what's left of armor in any location, regardless of integrity, to still make something like lasers do next to no breaching damage. It's like looking at how Bullet-Proof Glass is pretty damn effective even after taking a lot of damage. (Watch Kentucky Ballistic's test of Bullet Proof Glass versus a 4-Bore. He brings in other guns, and it's very interesting.)
That's how it works for me. And, once I got to that point, I couldn't mentally justify a platoon being able to spray effectively enough to cause full points of damage with their AK-ish rifle weapons.
Now, should they be able to randomly generate crits? That's something I'd be willing to look at. Since I do look at Infantry Damage, and even modern anti-armor ballistic damage, as fractional, and not a hard additive (IE not strictly zero sum), I'd be open to the notion that some bullet, somewhere, might find that week spot and get in and maybe cause something to go wrong.
I've never agreed with the floating crit TAC rule, based on what I've laid out above. Mechs and tanks and BA are just THAT GOOD at presenting deflective faces to let it happen. (Actually, I've had an interesting experience shooting at differnet targets with a 22 rifle, and we found that when shooting at a bowling ball, any shot that didn't land dead-center would only chip off the plastic coating in very small chunks. A direct hit is the only shot that penetrated. That's what TACs are in my mind, a direct hit on the biggest, flattest surface, which isn't very often, by the rules.)
But, here's a thought for infantry that are that desperate that they feel the need to hose an armored target down with bullets that would otherwise do nothing:
They get one attack roll. Make it per squad if you're running that way. If they score a nat 12, instead of doing a full point of damage, they get a chance to roll for crit. They have to roll for location, and the location has to have already sustained full damage, IE zero armor points left. (If you feel that's too harsh, figure out what level of damage is acceptable to you, or come up with some sort of chance roll penalty based on armor points left.) If they hit a location that meets the criteria, they can roll a crit chance as if they had scored damage via a TAC.
It's a thought. Run with it if y'all like.
-
I have no desire to play a game where heavy medium snub-nosed micro pulse lasers (slight exaggeration for effect, natch) are the norm.
Despite there being quite a few weapons, I think something like 90% of the weapons actually used on battlemechs is only something like 50% of the catalogue. If we go by 90% of the vehicle designs that people actually use frequently, that probably goes down to something like 25% of the catalogue.
Somewhat tangential but weapon categories (ex: Laser, AC, LRM) tend to have size modifiers (ex: Large, /5, -15) and "adjective" modifiers (ex: Pulse, Ultra, Streak). We've never seen any weapons that had two size modifiers for some reason ("Medium", "Micro") and I think only one canon weapon has more than 1 Adjective modifiers (The Clan's ER Pulse; I haven't actually seen these in the wild, they're not good), the rest only have 1 if they have any at all, none have 3 ("Heavy", "Snub-Nose", "Pulse").
And before you ask, yes, I'm no fun at parties.
-
I would actually rather all infantry (Jump, Motorized, Mechanized, Armored, and Foot) have harmonized construction rules akin to the way Battle Armor is presently built. The more unusual infantry types (VTOL mechanized, SCUBA, Engineers, Sneak Suits) are scattered about in multiple books. One would choose chassis and configuration of a Squad then add stuff until complete rather than balance them against vehicles, particularly support vehicles.
The thing is, Mechanized Infantry, in many ways are competing with Support Vehicles on some levels. That's rather the whole point of why they were created. It's stupid, but it exists.
Swarm specifically check for crits in addition to determining normal damage. They would just never be in a position to make a second roll to determine critical hits.
Conventional Infantry do not get this Crit Chance (TW, p223, Swarm Attack Damage, Conventional Infantry, last sentence).
From the way I've seen infantry generally avoided like the plague in even my on local games without some sort of modification, I'm looking at that as a sign something needs to be done.
Were they avoiding Foot Rifle Infantry? I've never seen people avoid Foot Rifles like the plague. I've seen people be nervous around Battle Armor and Motorized/Mechanized SRM Infernos, as those can be a bit scary, I admit. Same with Field Gunners, for obvious reasons. But not Foot Rifles
See, this is what I would generally want infantry for, too. And, if you use them for that, then why do you need them to be able to do damage to a Mech with their grunt rifles? Give them specific, in-game tasks that only they can accomplish. And, if they lose too many bodies or are lost entirely, you lose out on that ability.
Because:
1) I don't always write the scenarios, so such options aren't always available. Useless units won't be taken there.
2) Infantry that fire off all their Support Ammo would just become Rifle Infantry.
3) Said now-Rifle Infantry may not be in position to work objectives because they were using their Support Ammo.
4) Sometimes enemy Armor is the Objective, and you weren't aware of it when you brought your Rifles, or the Objective changes in the middle of the game.
-
It only takes a couple of platoons of Rifle Infantry to ruin a bug 'mechs day...
-
Despite there being quite a few weapons, I think something like 90% of the weapons actually used on battlemechs is only something like 50% of the catalogue. If we go by 90% of the vehicle designs that people actually use frequently, that probably goes down to something like 25% of the catalogue.
Somewhat tangential but weapon categories (ex: Laser, AC, LRM) tend to have size modifiers (ex: Large, /5, -15) and "adjective" modifiers (ex: Pulse, Ultra, Streak). We've never seen any weapons that had two size modifiers for some reason ("Medium", "Micro") and I think only one canon weapon has more than 1 Adjective modifiers (The Clan's ER Pulse; I haven't actually seen these in the wild, they're not good), the rest only have 1 if they have any at all, none have 3 ("Heavy", "Snub-Nose", "Pulse").
And before you ask, yes, I'm no fun at parties.
"Heavy medium" is two size modifiers.
-
"Heavy medium" is two size modifiers.
"Heavy" in the context of lasers is an adjective modifier, the tradeoff is increased damage for reduced accuracy and more heat.
No, it doesn't make sense, especially when heavy/light gauss rifles exist, but then that's Battletech.
-
[snip]
It sounds like some of those people have already decided what the role should be, and they're power-gamers to boot.
[snip].
Well...duh. Most of the time, people arguing over game rules are at minimum inclined to be somewhat 'rules lawyerly' and OFTEN powergamers.
even the ones who insist they aren't.
Very rarely do you find someone who wants to do away with something that gives THEIR playing style an advantage. Hence, why asymmetric forces still load the bulk of movement to the back-end, instead of the front end, then the same players complain about 'initiative sinking' and agitate for FSM or other non-solutions.
Some of us admit we powergame. For a while in the early to mid 2000's I made a habit out of using 'trash' units to spank Clanner Kustoms, mostly by exploiting the hell out of prejudices and ideas formed by spending too much time in forums talking about how to be 'ultimate powerz'.
you know the type-they run Heavy or Assault, icebox all-energy pulse with T/C and elite pilots because they all think they're either Aidan Pryde or The Black Widow for being able to powergame the BV chart in the customization side.
IOW; Powergamers, trying to win the match before the first initiative is rolled.
Players (especially in games that permit custom units) Do that.
It's normal, it's even part of the reason we don't have WYSIWYG like Borehammer $40K.
Some players see 'weaker' units as initiative sinks. I've shocked the hell out of guys who assumed I was going to move my PBI's first when they insisted on 'stock book initiative'.
but here, too, it's playing style, most players are deeply risk-averse, you can pull wins out just by being willing to lose units to win objectives against those players.
but we're ALL Powergamers to an extent, you have to be to want to win.
-
So Battledroids, assuming we expand beyond the 2 types of infantry, had so much right for the scale we play, it just didnt scale up to make an infantry platoon a usable unit like a small mech would be.
Alpha strike makes infantry more like other units, or makes other units more like infantry. So no damage divisor, no weird infantry weapons, no double damage out of cover. Infantry in alpha strike is well liked, and a core part of that game. I am all for making infantry take damage like everything else, as is the case in alpha strike, and giving them an appropriate cost.
The 40k new Epic is also in the same scale as alpha strike. It uses squad penny sized bases as 1 health, and the platoon moves as a collection of squads. It is fantastic for the mech to infantry level gameplay, and would work fantastic in battletech for the same reason it works well in that game. Infantry get a save instead of tracking damage divisors and such, so you want to put infantry in cover in that game for the same reason you do in battletech. Infantry are important for going into the buildings and holding objectives.
Flames of war uses squads or platoons, and also has a save system instead of damage divisors and such. Each base of infantry is kinda handled like alpha strike handles things in terms of card/scale to tanks.
Dropzone commander uses bases of infantry squads that move together as a platoon. The troops have low armor and more health, and lose attacks with the squad (but not AT) weapon as they take damage. They are really important for going in buildings and terrain and getting the objectives, making infantry critical for the mission but not a really heavy damaging unit, except versus other infantry. Also, infantry isnt cheap, its a core part of the army for getting/holding objectives, but its also not what does the fighting versus heavy tanks and is focused on lighter targets and anti-infantry combat.
Again I want to point to breaking down btech infantry by the individual rifle as odd and incorrect, same as the crazy damage divisors by weapon types. Maybe you hate some of these other games, including alpha strike, but a big thing they do is not make infantry so different in scope/scale to the other units in the game. An infantry unit in battletech doesnt do any of these things. Its inclusion is disruptive to the other unit types, in terms of its low cost, time required to play, extra rules, ect. The fact that infantry and aerospace are often put together as behaving poorly in battletech illustrates how disruptive they are. Yet in alpha strike, where the infantry are simplified, infantry are very well liked, while aerospace is still poorly recieved.
Edit: In battletech and alpha strike, damage from a laser or ballistic matters for advanced armor, if playing with more advanced rules. Outside of this, laser/missile/ballistic damage is just damage on all the core units of the game, including battle armor. Infantry come in and mess with this core feature. Im not against reflective armor infantry doing the same thing as reflective armor battlemechs, but like reflective armor battlemechs thats an advanced equipment option. The base, core units should function per the core rules, and I think every unit in battletech, including air assets, does this EXCEPT for infantry. This isnt a 'cool thing to set infantry apart', its a disruption to the core mechanic.
-
To be clear, Flames of War and its alternate eras use fire team and weapon team bases. The dudes on the base are the number of dudes represented and are two or three bases per squad. So, even smaller formations than represented in BattleDroids.
Of course, they don't have to fight BattleDroids or deal with ablative armor, either. :wink:
-
If we were to expand the battledroids style infantry for more options, the basic battledroid squad is a 9 or whatever team with a single heavy weapon. So honestly, since battledroids doesnt have a close assault (antimech in battletech terms) or anti-infantry value, they really only care about the AT weapon and the '9 people' part is just fluff.
A more expanded version, still tracking 1 base as the 'infantry unit' would make the squad size variable. So 5 clan infantry, 6 comstar, 7 inner sphere, just for aesthetics, but a 3 strong Mgun team for example would be fine, cause the team is the part we track, not the individual soldier, at this scale. A platoon would be a collection of these, stacking 2 squads per hex cause thats a normal troop density, and moving together like protomechs.
Many of the above games use multiple bases per 'unit', with the base being 1 hit worth. I think a battle armor style record sheet, by squad instead of trooper, also would work--as long as the record keeping is comparable to the rest of the game and the infantry unit, however it ends up, is in the right scale to the rest of the units being played with.
-
Except for the troop density, this tracks. 15m radius is a bit close for multiple squads.
-
It only takes a couple of platoons of Rifle Infantry to ruin a bug 'mechs day...
Last time I saw it happen, it was 3, and the Phoenix Hawk went in largely unsupported, because he didn't expect them to be there.
Well...duh. Most of the time, people arguing over game rules are at minimum inclined to be somewhat 'rules lawyerly' and OFTEN powergamers.
The question was more, why should we listen to them when they are obviously doing that?
Even more of a question, how to address that while still being somewhat looking Balance's way?
but here, too, it's playing style, most players are deeply risk-averse, you can pull wins out just by being willing to lose units to win objectives against those players.
True enough. One of the standard objectives we have in our weekly games is an objective of having a unit in the opponent's Deployment Zone, gaining a point for it every End Phase they are there. That encourages fast, recon-style units (or even racers like the Fireball XF when the Tech Limit allows) to be included. I can forgo these relatively cheap units in exchange for firepower, but it might mean I end up losing the game.
-
At least battlemech is not so small like as warjacks, which is about 2.5 to 3.6 meter tall. The same armor system also applies to the colossal, which is as tall as a typical battlemech, but yeah, ultimately both system have totally different concept of armor value so it should be different. Also consider the guns of Warmachine&Hordes have almost the same power with the bows on the game, although the armor of warjacks shouldn't be durable than battlemech but the quality of infantry rifle is also entirely different as well.
And we know that laser rifle is not uncommon as the standard rifle of the conventional infantry in battletech universe.
Well ultimately I have mixed feeling for infantry squads against all armored assault. They should do at least something by concentrated rifle fire but they can also request for the artillery/indirect fire as well. Even if they cannot damage those armors at all by themselves that doesn't automatically concluded that they are useless against enemy armors nor they cannot contribute for the kill. Although there would be the infantry squads, consider the meta of the world they must be expected to face the enemy armor, so they must have some solutions as well, not only spamming the basic infantry squad and nothing else.
-
Except for the troop density, this tracks. 15m radius is a bit close for multiple squads.
Yeah, I honestly dont know what a realistic troop density should be, other then 'not 28 strong platoons in multiples in 1 hex' haha.
-
At least battlemech is not so small like as warjacks, which is about 2.5 to 3.6 meter tall. The same armor system also applies to the colossal, which is as tall as a typical battlemech, but yeah, ultimately both system have totally different concept of armor value so it should be different. Also consider the guns of Warmachine&Hordes have almost the same power with the bows on the game, although the armor of warjacks shouldn't be durable than battlemech but the quality of infantry rifle is also entirely different as well.
Funny you say that because a lot of those units also have the ability to combine their fire to make it more powerful. That's how I see Rifle ConvInf doing a lot of the Damage.
Of course, Warmachine is SteamPunk versus Battletech's FusionPunk, but it's not that far fetched to believe that the standard small arm would be able to do something that can't shrug off 0.50cal fire as easily as rain.
Well ultimately I have mixed feeling for infantry squads against all armored assault. They should do at least something by concentrated rifle fire but they can also request for the artillery/indirect fire as well. Even if they cannot damage those armors at all by themselves that doesn't automatically concluded that they are useless against enemy armors nor they cannot contribute for the kill. Although there would be the infantry squads, consider the meta of the world they must be expected to face the enemy armor, so they must have some solutions as well, not only spamming the basic infantry squad and nothing else.
Not everybody gets the good toys (i.e. cheap quartermaster, militia, or mob, etc). Not everybody was in a position to grab good toys before the Armor rolls in (i.e. guard duty, spontaneous riot, etc). Not everybody gets to be in a good position ('What do you mean that Dasher is now over there?').
And then there's the Limited Ammo concept a lot of people are talking about, and you fire off your 2-3 shots and then you're back to being just Rifles. From a game balance standpoint, either the Support Weapons don't track Ammo or the Rifles are a notable (though not significant) threat even at a Squad Level.
Of course in a pick-up game, the only reason to take Rifles right now is for the cheapest Objective grabbers you can get (though those require Transport) or pure Initiative Sinks. Even then, SRM or LRM Foot aren't that much different to field, and they have better range.
-
Yeah, I honestly dont know what a realistic troop density should be, other then 'not 28 strong platoons in multiples in 1 hex' haha.
Let's put it this a-way; in the 1990s when I was in the Army, fifteen meters was the distance between you, and the guys ahead of and behind you, so that one grenade hit doesn't get you both unless they're VERY lucky, fifteen meters was also the distance between your two-man fighting position, and mine.
Battletech's canon infantry density is positively Napoleonic by comparison.
-
That said, you will, by necessity, bunch up in complex terrain and that's one reason it's so dangerous. So being able to stack your squads does make sense, but the risks should be greater than the current platoon formations. Like targeting "the infantry" in a hex means you are targeting all the infantry in a hex and they all take the same damage.
To paraphrase a wretched movie, "Won't we hit our own men?"
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs, too."
-
On the other hand, gathering close to concentrate fire on quick command is how they should be able to the damage to Armor they do manage. At least, in theory based on the game's mechanics.
Interestingly, to reference back to Warmachine, in order for those Infantry units to use those Combined Attacks, they did have to be in formation with each other (and all have LOS to the target).
-
I'd be ok with changing the stacking rules to apply to squads instead of platoons, with a single platoon being able to concentrate in one hex (as a TERRIBLE idea).
-
I'd be ok with changing the stacking rules to apply to squads instead of platoons, with a single platoon being able to concentrate in one hex (as a TERRIBLE idea).
One of the things to consider about this is, if there is only 1 Squad in a Hex when a Flamer targets them, only those 5-10 people die screaming in pain and agony. If a full Platoon is in a hex, up to 24 do so. Even being 1 hex away from each other would be a Bad Idea so long as Artillery or any AoE Weapons with splash are in use.
However, there needs to be advantages to gathering as a Platoon. A ConvInf Platoon with no Anti-Mech training is dirt cheap, and a Squad even more so. That might translate in to the Cluster Chart vs Chances To-Hit. A Squad may be rolling on the 5-10 columns with Rifles, while a Platoon is rolling on the 25-30. With SRMs, if going to the normal Vehicle style, goes from Rolling on the 2 column with a Squad and going with up to the 8-10 column with the Platoon. Would that be sufficient a reason, or does there need to be a little bit more Damage from the Rifles to help out?
-
One of the things to consider about this is, if there is only 1 Squad in a Hex when a Flamer targets them, only those 5-10 people die screaming in pain and agony. If a full Platoon is in a hex, up to 24 do so. Even being 1 hex away from each other would be a Bad Idea so long as Artillery or any AoE Weapons with splash are in use.
However, there needs to be advantages to gathering as a Platoon. A ConvInf Platoon with no Anti-Mech training is dirt cheap, and a Squad even more so. That might translate in to the Cluster Chart vs Chances To-Hit. A Squad may be rolling on the 5-10 columns with Rifles, while a Platoon is rolling on the 25-30. With SRMs, if going to the normal Vehicle style, goes from Rolling on the 2 column with a Squad and going with up to the 8-10 column with the Platoon. Would that be sufficient a reason, or does there need to be a little bit more Damage from the Rifles to help out?
Mechanically, the advantage is simplified record-keeping. A big part of the over-all problem is that the development went in with a set of assumptions that were convenient for a throwaway, and we're talking a deep dive in this thread.
The other problem is how damage is DONE to infantry-which fits a napoleonic or even pre-napoleonic 'shoulder to shoulder' formation. This suggests where the initial developers got their ideas on Infantry implementation, and why a Platoon, as opposed to Squad, is the base element in the game.
Ideally an infantry revamp would follow some, but not all, the suggestions here, and be focused on establishing things like 'what are infantry actually useful for that you can't do with a 'mech?' and 'how would you actually use them in the environment portrayed in the setting?'
AKA the base rules need to reflect the common 'best practices' you can logically determine from how weapons and other units already interact.
This in turn would suggest that certain types of armament are simply valueless in mass combat such as swords, lances, and various forms of bow and arrow.
Yes, there are examples of all three I just mentioned IN THE GAME NOW.
at present, Battletech Platoons are pre-napoleonic. That's how damage is calculated, and movement, and why they compress into a thirty meter circle.
this would by necessity not reflect 'best practices' in an environment with machine guns, as demonstrated in the Great war of 1914-1918, which was the last war anyone thought that was a good idea.
BUT! there's a problem-infantry scale weapons do jack shit unless they're concentrating fire, when dealing with giant freaking robots.
This, in turn,suggests military planners will want to concentrate those infantry weapons.
well, how do we resolve this? As things stand PRESENTLY, you need those big, concentrated pre-napoleonic formations to damage a 'mech, but they're a death sentence for the guys you're using and frankly, armies that do that cease to be effective pretty quickly due to the industrial nature of mechanized warfare-the machine gunner doesn't care if you're billy badass, neither does the massive explosion. Veterancy is not useful for survival in mass formation, it at best lets your mass of men die 'with honour' instead of routing and fleeing when the machineguns start chattering.
-
well, how do we resolve this? As things stand PRESENTLY, you need those big, concentrated pre-napoleonic formations to damage a 'mech, but they're a death sentence for the guys you're using and frankly, armies that do that cease to be effective pretty quickly due to the industrial nature of mechanized warfare-the machine gunner doesn't care if you're billy badass, neither does the massive explosion. Veterancy is not useful for survival in mass formation, it at best lets your mass of men die 'with honour' instead of routing and fleeing when the machineguns start chattering.
There was a lot of real-world theory in there that doesn't really answer the gameplay question being presented. Theoretically, they have 500 more years fighting these mechanical kaiju than we do.
Technically, it's only a death sentence if they are working against units with said Machine Gun, and only in the field. If they are going against the long-range energy boats some like to spam, it's not so dangerous as a group (though, no one wants to be Private #28). Buildings also do wonders in ignoring Machine Gun fire. And even going with easy Squad deployment and Platoon separation/reformation, individual Squads are easily destroyed by the same.
Will uniting as a Platoon prove worth it considering how current the Cluster columns work, or do multiple smaller Clusters work better?
Will Squads be able to do anything on the table besides peel paint off of Armor and act as Initiative sinks with how their numbers would work out?
In regards to the Initiative Sink question/issue of Infantry? Running a mission in the local monthly campaign I just started, I balanced out my movement by making sure that Infantry and/or their APCs were moving as part of that Initiative step, but a 'Mech or Armor was moving as well. This could be a consideration in setting up a similar, official rule so that they aren't abused for Inititiative scumming.
One thought in regards to Squad Deployment, all the Squads of a Platoon should be required to move 'at the same time' the way that Protomech Points do. Also, individual Squads should cost more than buying them in bulk as a Platoon, to encourage them being purchased as such. Alternatively, they could just be like Protomechs, in that if you buy 4 Squads, they are automatically a single Platoon, even if they don't deploy and move together. That could be an additional method of combating Initiative scumming.
-
The other problem is how damage is DONE to infantry-which fits a napoleonic or even pre-napoleonic 'shoulder to shoulder' formation. This suggests where the initial developers got their ideas on Infantry implementation, and why a Platoon, as opposed to Squad, is the base element in the game.
It's more that the current version of infantry rules (platoon-centric units) is the revamp for CityTech rather than the previous open terrain appropriate rules from BattleDroids. What can make sense in a city fight, stacking to clear rooms, massing in hardpointed buildings, etc., is a very bad idea elsewhere.
-
A plain Rifle Squad of 5-10 troopers would do 3-5 points of damage (in two-point groups, so 1-3 groups). I think that's just fine.
-
Funny you say that because a lot of those units also have the ability to combine their fire to make it more powerful. That's how I see Rifle ConvInf doing a lot of the Damage.
Of course, Warmachine is SteamPunk versus Battletech's FusionPunk, but it's not that far fetched to believe that the standard small arm would be able to do something that can't shrug off 0.50cal fire as easily as rain.
Not everybody gets the good toys (i.e. cheap quartermaster, militia, or mob, etc). Not everybody was in a position to grab good toys before the Armor rolls in (i.e. guard duty, spontaneous riot, etc). Not everybody gets to be in a good position ('What do you mean that Dasher is now over there?').
And then there's the Limited Ammo concept a lot of people are talking about, and you fire off your 2-3 shots and then you're back to being just Rifles. From a game balance standpoint, either the Support Weapons don't track Ammo or the Rifles are a notable (though not significant) threat even at a Squad Level.
Of course in a pick-up game, the only reason to take Rifles right now is for the cheapest Objective grabbers you can get (though those require Transport) or pure Initiative Sinks. Even then, SRM or LRM Foot aren't that much different to field, and they have better range.
I do know the problem of models pool in miniature game. This is not a computer game and you need to buy, assemble and paint each of them to be battle ready. But since the game expects some armor as the opponent, it is unlikely that any force lacks even the faint capability to deal with armor. I do think that players are must not suffer any punishment for their taste in their unit formation, and the game must not allows to let a model dominates the meta by everyone must have a solution for that or guaranteed to lose a game. But lacking any anti armor solution on purpose is not the matter of taste, just intended to making the list weaker, for it's one of the obvious and well known threat that you should be aware of all the times.
Well, the important thing is a victory, so objective grabber is still a worthy and honorable role regardless. Killing stuffs is good but not the best, and is not important over victory(either tactical or strategical) - usually many of us will care for the ability to kill just because it's the most easiest and straightforward way to achieve that as well as good side effects such as reduced enemy strength, not because killing the enemy itself is a thing. It's a tool, not an ultimate goal. Although everyone needs to stick with this in order to do anything in battle.
-
I do know the problem of models pool in miniature game. This is not a computer game and you need to buy, assemble and paint each of them to be battle ready
I think you misunderstood my point. I was giving reasons why a Rifle Squad/Platoon would exist on the battlefield with a 'Mech, not why certain models would be deployed.
But since the game expects some armor as the opponent, it is unlikely that any force lacks even the faint capability to deal with armor. I do think that players are must not suffer any punishment for their taste in their unit formation, and the game must not allows to let a model dominates the meta by everyone must have a solution for that or guaranteed to lose a game. But lacking any anti armor solution on purpose is not the matter of taste, just intended to making the list weaker, for it's one of the obvious and well known threat that you should be aware of all the times.
I wasn't necessarily talking about a force lacking anti-armor, just a unit caught out in a situation where they don't have heavy anti-armor.
Well, the important thing is a victory, so objective grabber is still a worthy and honorable role regardless. Killing stuffs is good but not the best, and is not important over victory(either tactical or strategical) - usually many of us will care for the ability to kill just because it's the most easiest and straightforward way to achieve that as well as good side effects such as reduced enemy strength, not because killing the enemy itself is a thing. It's a tool, not an ultimate goal. Although everyone needs to stick with this in order to do anything in battle.
And sometimes you need to be able to knock Armor off the Objective, and your best anti-Armor is dealing with bigger/nastier Armor somewhere else. Of course, that's assuming that there are Objectives to capture.
-
I consider "heavy" anti-armor to be anything bigger than a MG, single SRM, or AC/2. Squads being able to pull off a two-point group of damage (or even more than one) doesn't strike me as "heavy".
-
I think you misunderstood my point. I was giving reasons why a Rifle Squad/Platoon would exist on the battlefield with a 'Mech, not why certain models would be deployed.
Sorry for that. To the point, I think that the general reason for using the infantry is that's the thing on the war through the history of humanity, as well as infantry is still a good garrison.
As the gaming purpose, yes as you said below the quoted part object grabber does have a meaning. With the cheaper point of course. Also they work as the denial troops as well, for they are not so good target for the anti mech weapons that the mechs and vehicles are mainly uses. Initiating anti-mech attack is almost nonesense but is still an option too - at least leg attack does have some possibility.
I wasn't necessarily talking about a force lacking anti-armor, just a unit caught out in a situation where they don't have heavy anti-armor.
And sometimes you need to be able to knock Armor off the Objective, and your best anti-Armor is dealing with bigger/nastier Armor somewhere else. Of course, that's assuming that there are Objectives to capture.
Well, no one have every single tools for every single possible situation, else is there anyone? Especially for the cheap infantry squad, which is expected to have poor tools by themselves. As a force versus a force each of them should be compatitive and must not one sided, but as each model versus model there could be rock/paper/scissors. Also as they face the enemy armor, meanwhile their expensive stuffs would be left uninterrupted by those armors, and as the game it is usually a good news.
Anyway, even if they had nothing to harm the enemy armor they can still requests for the artillery/indirect fire support, and as the cheap unit infatry squad would be very good at that for you can order them to spot instead of bring the expensive spotter. So they are not 'required' to harm the enemy armor by themselves either.
It is also true that allows their rifles to cause some damage to the armor hurts no one, though, for their pathetic range prevents to spamming them and obliterate the armor by mere infantry rifles.
-
Going back to the battletroops model, the squad had either an Mgun or a SRM2. We can add the rest of the usual suspects into this lineup, but its pretty common at least to define a squad by its weapon.
For role on the battlefield, im advocating that a unit of infantry wielding basic weapons like Mguns and SRM2s should be comparable to a Stinger or Wasp battlemech. More advanced infantry will be heavier, and more like bigger mechs. This isnt a fluff thing, this is just game balance thing so that infantry can be included in the game as an actual unit to replace a mech with, not a negligible cost initiative sink or spotter that is disproportionally eating into game time.
So, what would a collection of the most basic type look like, to equal the complexity of a simple cheap scout mech. Well, in terms of damage, you want about the same health. So this is about 80 for a stinger, reduced to about half that so 40 because its not possible to remove all 80 pips from a stinger without it dying before that. Borrowing from the battle armor squad method, 4 squads of 7 is 28 pips, and excess damage to a squad is lost, which puts a battle armor style 7 health squad in a team of 4 at roughly 36 pips, which is pretty close to the estimated amount of punishment a stinger can take. Overkill on a squad damage goes away, so sometimes that 28 infantry health will be much greater--if you deal 5 damage at a time with like medium lasers, for example, it takes 40 damage to kill 4x7 troops in a battle armor style.
I am a big fan of battle armor style squad deployment instead of the damage divisor, as the damage divisor chart isnt exactly friendly or timely to resolve, and rolling hit locations is a staple of battletech, so if we want infantry to be a real unit, it should act like other units and have a hit location.
For attacks, well 4 squads of infantry with 4 SRM2s feel like a good stand in for the damage a stinger or wasp can do. Like battle armor, i would make squad 1 the potential heavy squad, and give infantry different weapons. Battle armor with multiple weapons make multiple attacks, and it is very sensical that an Mgun platoon would have a heavy weapon assigned, so squad 1 might have an SRM2 or extra machine gun, or whatever else. Further, like battlearmor, 'small arms' should be a thing as a weapon, which not all infantry would have (not all infantry carry rifles). I also recommend future proofing the 'small arms' value of infantry from changing RPG editions. By calling the rifles/smgs/laser rifles/whatever just 'small arms', we can use nice generic stats instead of dealing with complex manufacturers of specific rifles, which isnt a thing for weapons in the battletech scale outside of infantry. A generic 'small arms' value acting as AI damage, 1d6 damage to infantry and 1 damage to mechs. So a rifle squad with no attached Mgun would deal 1-6 damage to infantry, while a Mgun squad would deal 2d6 from the mgun and 1d6 from their small arms. A mgun team with no small arms attack would be the same as how not all battle armor carry AP weapon mounts. A 3 man mgun team for example might just be armed with the mgun as a meaningful attack. This puts small arms at half as good as machine guns. This feels right to me. A machine gun is more powerful then the other 6 rifles in a squad, as far as I understand how guns work. It also means you can have '2 small arms' if you want to show that your advanced infantry carries more powerful small arms attacks. Instead of the 4? mauser flavors we have, with or without space blankets, we just track the end result.
I already advocate for each squad to move on its own 'penny base', stacking 2 per hex, but moving the platoon as a whole. Each weapon an infantry squad has is its own weapon, and while infantry is slower, the range would be measured just once, so the back bases of a platoon get to use the range bracket of the closest member as long as their weapon is in range. Its like c3, but with sergeants yelling instead of complicated computer networks. Goal is to make things simple without cramming 50+ soldiers into 1 hex. Moving individually in squads like protos gives infantry a big advantage for holding objectives without any need of extra rules. Spreading out is possible to reduce artillery collateral, because of course it is, but when you concentrate close together you get a range bonus for 'coordinated fire' without any extra rules.
So, if you have 3 out of 4 SRM2 squads in a platoon in range of an enemy, then when you make that platoons SRM attack, you would make one attack roll, at the best range, and roll on the SRM6 cluster chart cause 6 of the 8 SRMs in the platoon are in range. The last squad that is out of range 9 to the target is 'out of cohesion', aka it is so far away it doesnt shoot at the target when the order went out to the platoon cause it was out of range.
By doing it this way, we counter the infantry units lack of overall speed compared to a stinger, with improved presence. We still are activating only 1 unit when we move and shoot the 4 or however many squads in the platoon, so it isnt lots and lots of separate rolls. Also, because of all the improvements, the basic SRM2 platoon is the same cost as a 3-400 BV wasp, instead of being like 70 BV.
Antimech should be renamed CQC, cause its used for more then anti mech attacks, but also urban combat and tanks and such. It should work like melee works on a mech. A platoon making an anti-mech attack deals 4 (or more, like battle armor that spec for it) damage with the bonus effect crit. This is similar to how the 20 ton mech does 4 damage with a kick, with a PSR. Id rework the TNs to keep this inline with mech physicals, instead of infantry having very punishingly hard anti-mech attack numbers despite cqb being integral to a lot of infantry. Also, it would be a gear (like small arms) that you equip, similar to how not all battle armor can make AM attacks.
-
FYI on the "BatttleTroops model," there were some...ideas about weapon density. See my earlier post https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=84063.msg1992772#msg1992772
-
Well, no one have every single tools for every single possible situation, else is there anyone? Especially for the cheap infantry squad, which is expected to have poor tools by themselves. As a force versus a force each of them should be compatitive and must not one sided, but as each model versus model there could be rock/paper/scissors. Also as they face the enemy armor, meanwhile their expensive stuffs would be left uninterrupted by those armors, and as the game it is usually a good news.
I don't think rock/paper/scissors completely describes what should be going on, entirely. What has been proposed is that Rifle Infantry be largely useless against anything that isn't also Rifle Infantry. They are (currently) outgunned and/or out-ranged by any other type of Infantry, so they can't really compete there. While I don't think that Rifle Infantry should be the scariest thing on the planet, I think allowing for at least mosquito bites is a reasonable request.
Anyway, even if they had nothing to harm the enemy armor they can still requests for the artillery/indirect fire support, and as the cheap unit infatry squad would be very good at that for you can order them to spot instead of bring the expensive spotter. So they are not 'required' to harm the enemy armor by themselves either.
That assumes that they are in position to do so and that any of said IDF can be allocated to any mission they need to bypass.
It is also true that allows their rifles to cause some damage to the armor hurts no one, though, for their pathetic range prevents to spamming them and obliterate the armor by mere infantry rifles.
And that's all I'm really saying.
Antimech should be renamed CQC, cause its used for more then anti mech attacks, but also urban combat and tanks and such. It should work like melee works on a mech. A platoon making an anti-mech attack deals 4 (or more, like battle armor that spec for it) damage with the bonus effect crit. This is similar to how the 20 ton mech does 4 damage with a kick, with a PSR. Id rework the TNs to keep this inline with mech physicals, instead of infantry having very punishingly hard anti-mech attack numbers despite cqb being integral to a lot of infantry. Also, it would be a gear (like small arms) that you equip, similar to how not all battle armor can make AM attacks.
I don't think CQC is the right name. A unit armed with Swords, but no satchels, will be better at melee against other ConvInf, but useless against Armor. On the other hand, they shouldn't have 3 Skills, either. The other alternative is that they have Combat Skill (aka Gunnery) and Anti-Armor Skill (used for Swarm and Legging).
-
Here's part of the problem;
Infantry as a category of soldier covers a hell of a lot of ground. there's teh typical 11B infantry rifleman, the Sapper, the Scout, the airborne infantryman, the Naval Infantry (AKA Marine), Military police, Gendarmerie, Combat Engineering/fortification specialist, sniper...
and we're trying to manage them all with a gunnery stat and a statistical averaging.
Kinda like your Sword platoon versus guys with satchel charges-one of these, should certainly be better for bunker busting and taking out parked armor, the other should be able to chop beast mounted iforces into chum.
but they're not for the same things, yet the game STATS THEM as if they were. A Sword Platoon with longbows is doing their sword damage at range, because of how damage is averaged.
The problem is, to get representative stats, you practically need to give PBI their own 'book' of construction rules, and two to three different blocks of stats just to cover your bases, which makes them complicated. The more I remember all the 'fun' we had testing the current rules, the more I'm attracted to the idea of reconfiguring ALL the infantry off the Battlesuit ruiles instead, and dumping the abstract-average system for somehting...well...a little bit more rational.
-
Mosquito bites are all Rifle Infantry does now... not really seeing a reason to change the rules.
-
but they're not for the same things, yet the game STATS THEM as if they were. A Sword Platoon with longbows is doing their sword damage at range, because of how damage is averaged.
You're stating this as if I was advocating keeping it this way, while not really quoting anything I said saying to do that.
The problem is, to get representative stats, you practically need to give PBI their own 'book' of construction rules, and two to three different blocks of stats just to cover your bases, which makes them complicated. The more I remember all the 'fun' we had testing the current rules, the more I'm attracted to the idea of reconfiguring ALL the infantry off the Battlesuit ruiles instead, and dumping the abstract-average system for somehting...well...a little bit more rational.
They already do have their own 'book of construction' rules, in a way. Their construction rules currently do not match up with any other unit type.
I do not think having them be wholly united with Battle Armor is a good thing, unless that is the route that Mechanized Infantry heads in.
Separating the type of weaponry ConvInf use, akin to Battle Armor, is a largely a good thing.
Standardizing their weaponry such that one is not having to do several rounds of multiplication to figure it out would be nice, too (i.e. 1 Damage/# Troops or X Damage per Support Weapon).
Allowing Squad movement and fire ala Protomechs would be good, too, so long as they could unite to focus their firepower or provide density in a situation, and so long as Rifles can do SOME Damage, particularly if Limited Ammo is brought in to play.
I think that the Damage Divisor for Heavy Weapons is a good thing, if poorly implemented in an area or 2 (seriously, AoE divides by .5??? Why not just say *2? At least put a d*** zero on the front for 0.5 so the decimal doesn't get lost in a quick scan!). A PPC shouldn't just wipe out a Squad on a hit, after all.
Mosquito bites are all Rifle Infantry does now... not really seeing a reason to change the rules.
Basic TW Ballistic Rifles do the same damage as SRMs. A full Platoon is like being hit by an SRM-7.
-
And 7-trooper Squads are SRM-2.5s at best... still not seeing a downside.
-
And 7-trooper Squads are SRM-2.5s at best... still not seeing a downside.
Nope, that's 9-10 Trooper TW Squads, at the range of a Small Laser.
-
You're right, too busy posting elsewhere to focus... 7-trooper squads only get to 3.5 points of damage at most, so not even an SRM-2 (at the aforementioned Small Laser range). My point still stands though. Infantry as written are weak enough to not be unbalancing. As with everything, this problem is a people problem: how people use (or misuse) them.
-
You're right, too busy posting elsewhere to focus... 7-trooper squads only get to 3.5 points of damage at most, so not even an SRM-2 (at the aforementioned Small Laser range). My point still stands though. Infantry as written are weak enough to not be unbalancing. As with everything, this problem is a people problem: how people use (or misuse) them.
You mean like with PPCs and Large Lasers?
In a way, it's how the Rifle Damage processes that is probably the biggest danger. With a pair of Motorized Rifle Platoons I was able to TAC the Gyro of an Adder and knock out the Pilot purely due to the shear volume of Hits. As I mentioned earlier, too, our Campaign group got the Unit Leader knocked out and lost his Right Arm thanks to 3 Platoons hiding in some buildings.
Still, should Rifle Infantry be doing 1:1 with SRMs, even if they are at a shorter Range bracket?
-
Why not? Lucky hits happen. And since you have to sucker an enemy into 3 hex range, it's that much harder. With that short of a range, they're almost minefields.
-
Why not? Lucky hits happen. And since you have to sucker an enemy into 3 hex range, it's that much harder. With that short of a range, they're almost minefields.
Because they are Small Arms, and not heavier explosive rounds dedicated to punching Armor.
Still, there are a few who are saying that those Small Arms should do nothing but sandblasting paint.
-
And "modern" vehicular armor from the Mackie on is ablative rather disruptive. It's like layers upon layers of trauma plates, so even "mosquito bites" will erode it. But, baring lucky shots and specialty ammo that magically doesn't behave like anything else, all of the trauma plates have to be gotten through before anything bad happens. The alternative is to radically change the basic damage system to a bunch of damage thresholds that bounce any damage less than the threshold and more than being penetrations, much like Cyberpunk's SP system.
-
Or like Warmachine's Armor vs Power system.
Either way, that's well beyond the scope of this discussion as that affects way too much.
-
For 'small arms', what about my idea that a squads 'small arms' is 1 damage, 1d6 to infantry, and 1/2/3 range. Each 'rifle' squad would have 'small arms', and if the squad leader had a grenade launcher, then they would have a separate grenade launcher weapon or whatever secondary they have, the same ones battle armor use. Maybe clan 5 strong squads have better small arms with their mausers... well that squad would have 2 small arms weapons, cause they have heavier/more powerful small arms, plus a grenade launcher weapon for all the underslung grenade launchers. So they would do 2 damage with their small arms and on a separate attack roll damage with the grenade launchers, same as battle armor.
I like 'small arms' as 1/2/3 range 1 damage, because a light machine gun does the same damage at greater range. Since i was convinced that the light machine gun is the .50 cal on these boards, it seems totally fair that the combined firearms from a squad rifle is about the same, at worse range, then the squads light machine gun.
A secondary effect, battle armor would have a simple 'small arms' weapon too, instead of the AP mount with all the weird interactions that comes with, which requires cross referencing a rifle squad just to use their AP weapon.
-
As I understand it, clan CI likely wouldn't have the Mausers and such at the time of the invasion, they'd just have whatever castoffs the "third line, unarmored" elementals in the Black Keshik didn't want. It would only be when the clans realized they actually have to administer a resisting populace that CI would become a thing their planners and force managers meaningfully consider. And the Mauser 960 was always considered ridiculous to begin with. "Why is all this crap on my gun and not my web gear?" is only the starting point.
That said, I could get behind infantry weapons dealing X damage to mechs while having longer range and dealing Xd6 damage to other CI units. X would be a fixed function of X damage/Y troopers or part thereof depending on the standard (and defined) densities of various weapons.
-
A 20-round burst of 5AP/5BD (the Support Machine Gun) does a full point of damage by itself. I have no trouble with a 15-round burst of 4AP/4BD doing half a point.
For "small arms", the Vintage Assault Rifle is 2AP/3BD with a 10-round burst. That yields 0.17 per rifle, or a max of a single point of damage for a 7-trooper squad, and zero damage below three troopers (the Taurians can get up to two points per squad, but it drops to one point after the first two casualties). If that's closer to what you think infantry should be capable of, use those weapons.
-
I'm still of the view that the X anti-Armor Damage of Rifles should be directly related to the capacity of Support Weapons. What I mean is the more reliant on Ammo for Support Weapons Conventional Infantry are, the more Damage Rifles should do, as those will be the backup Weapons used when Ammo disappears.
A Squad of 7 Rifles doing 1 point of Armor might be fine if Support Weapons didn't have to reload their Ammo. However, a Squad of 5 might need to be able to do 2 if their Support Weapons only have 2-3 Shots before needing to retire and reload.
That reminds me of another thought, should the ratio of Support Weapons to Squad Size be affected or addressed? I understand some are heavier than others, but should there be any limit at all, or should they be purely based on the number of men in the group, akin to Field Gunners?
At present there is a maximum of 2 Support Weapons allowed per Squad, despite numerous Support Weapons only needing 1 Squaddie to Crew them. If you carry 2, you're slowed down by 1MP (if not Tracked) or 'Move or Shoot' (if Foot). That seems rather boring, as there could be whole platoons who are dedicated to carrying a brace of MGs, or SRMs. Naturally there would have to be trade-offs in such things, which is partly why I bring up the Crew ratio. SRMs might have to be changed from being crewed by 1 to 2, etc.
-
The Foot Cavalry SPA will solve some of those mobility issues.
-
In the actual RPG, a 20 round burst of 5/5 machine guns versus BAR 10 tactical armor needs to get to 10 total damage to round up to 1 damage to said BAR10 tactical armor, right? So +5 from MOS so its an 10/5 gun, that when reduced by 10 for BAR will do 5 damage, /10 BAR rounded normally so .5=1 damage still.
So you need to roll a +5 over the TN. You have a burst fire penalty -2, a required MOS of -5, but a +3 mech sized target penalty, so the net is roughly +4 MOS for the 5/5 machine gun to deal 1 damage rounding normally to a mech. Its a bit harder versus elementals, but elemental BAR isnt 10 across the board, making it easier to counter the size. The burst shots after +5 are pointless--slow controlled bursts are the way. Assuming 4 base gunnery and the +4 for MOS, you need 8s base to deal 1 damage. A 4/4 rifle needs +7 MOS to get the total damage+ap to 15. This brings the base to hit for a rifle 4, -7 MOS, -1 burst, +3 mech target, before movement/tmm. So in terms of damage, when the support machine gun has done 15 damage after 36 attacks, a rifle has done 10 damage. But versus a moving target with a +2 TMM, now after 15 attacks the support machine gun does 6 damage and the rifle does 3. So rifles, while effective at hitting stationary mechs while also remaining stationary, quickly are incapable of doing any damage to a moving target, or while they are on the move, while the support weapon can still do damage to a moving target or at longer range, due to not needing to hit such a tight, perfect shot to deal damage like a rifle does. With a base of 9 required for a 4 gunner to deal damage with a rifle, and a short range of 30 meters, rifles are not great anti-armor solutions in the RPG due to needing to ambush a target at practically point blank range for a tight burst to do anything. Put another way, 36 troops standing still shooting at a stationary target in the RPG would deal 10 damage to a mech. This is pretty close to the old rifle damage when you scale down from 36->28.
Also, a burst of 15 or 500 is pointless on rifles: past 8 total bullets the excess in the burst are wasteful in a rifle. Only well aimed short controlled bursts will damage parts of tactical armor, 1 bullet in the RPG bounces off and wild large bursts dont do much but waste extra ammo. I always thought this was realistic in the RPG.
Its my big beef with the conversion rules in companion. They are totally wrong compared to the actual RPG book which came before. Also, they let you shoot the gun and grenade launcher at the same time for the damage value with the same action in the companion, which is utter nonsense in the RPG. Also, in the RPG burst grenades dont do extra damage, but they do in the conversion. So even the actual BASE RPG doesnt agree with the values given by the compendium in the Tech Manual.
Edit: an example. Battle armor in the RPG for elementals is 10 points of tactical armor, BAR 8 vs B/E. So a rifle needs to deal 4 damage after subtracting the 8 BAR, so when divided by 8 you round up. So the recoil of -1 and battle armor size of +1 cancel, meaning you need 8s to hit an elemental for .5 rounded to 1 tactical damage, if the elemental stands still and you dont move. However, in the companion formula, you need 4's to hit the elemental for .52 damage with the rifle rounded to 1. That +4 bonus to hit the companion formula is giving rifles to hit is massive. I can believe a rifle at point blank range firing a burst into a targeted spot of an armored elemental will deal a point of damage with a lucky hit. But in the techmanual, the rifle does the same damage on 4s, cause of a made up conversion that isnt in the RPG and wasnt in previous versions of citytech. Its a big difference, making the auto rifle way deadlier/accurate.
Edit Edit: Also, infantry running around of course take a movement penalty in the RPG. Because moving and firing a rifle from the hip is less accurate. However, infantry take no penalty for moving in battletech. On top of the +4 or +5 bonus to accuracy for not needed a MOS to deal damage. So something like a jump rifle trooper is getting a net +8 bonus to hit in the conversion from the companion that is NOT found in the RPG, where the stats are supposedly coming from, to the battletech game, and with that much free accuracy its no wonder rifles are dealing too much damage to armor in battletech.
-
Sizes and receiving damage
Infantry should operate as squads as standard and platoons as optional. Pretty much the reverse we have now. That way if you want a platoon to do a lot of damage they risk taking a lot of damage in return because they're all bunched up. Damage taken should be rolled on the cluster chart. Sometimes a PPC will just hit one trooper and other times the whole squad. Damage doubles when foot, jump, and beast mounted operate as whole platoons.
Stacking
Change the stacking limits to 2 squads per hex unless operating as a platoon. This applies to BA as well. Then it's 1 platoon per hex. Mobs of Rioters can have 2 platoons per hex at double the already doubled damage.
Attacking
Infantry should have movement modifiers. There's always a chance they could trip, slip, or stumble while moving. Not moving should also make targeting easier.
Infantry should also have more than one attack. A support weapon could be firing at armor while the rest of the platoon is firing at infantry. Also a rifle with a bayonet, and grenade launcher would have 3 attacks. One for each weapon type. Damage for each is applied separately not added together. That way bayonets aren't hitting multiple hexes away.
Support weapons should do more damage or have better range or both. A grenade should have more damage than a bullet but less range. A 10kg SRM should have more damage and range. Otherwise, why have support weapons?
Alternative ammo, beyond Inferno, should be available. This is especially important as BA and Small SV also use these weapons. Sometimes you don't want to start a fire and sometimes you do want your ammo to be guided.
Other equipment should be available. A Tech platoon shouldn't carry support weapons because they're replaced by repair kits. Squads equipped with gyroscopic harnesses can reduce the number of crew that support weapons need, and so on. Other equipment, such as civilian com equipment, holotanks, and stasis pods, could be built into buildings or vehicles. And in some cases the equipment, or lack thereof, can help illustrate tech levels of the infantry. A low tech infantry platoon armed with bows isn't likely to have military communicators issued. Lack of equipment should have a penalty, like not being able to spot for artillery. Maybe even initiative modifers. Advanced equipment, such as a holotank, gives a bonus, no equipment gives a penalty.
And yes, sometimes there isn't any effect on the map but allowing their inclusion would help with accounting.
Motorized/Mechanized/Mounted infantry.
"Mounted" Infantry are infantry that ride to the battlefield in a vehicle (APC/IFV) but don't fight from inside them. While "Mounted" they are only passengers. "Motorized" and "Mechanized" infantry are crew for their vehicles the way Elementals are pilots for their Battle Armor.
Motorized/Mechanized Infantry vehicles should be built as small support vehicles (less than 5 tons). They operate like BA. The difference between them would be in weight and that Mechanized (2.001 tons +) can't be "Mounted" (ride in APCs).
Beast Mounted Infantry.
Can use Field Guns and Field Artillery but are still limited by the number of troopers per platoon. They also reduce MP by 1. When using Field Artillery, they can either move or fire. Some animals can also tow trailers which could allow the infantry to use support weapons when they normally couldn't, but at the cost of 1 MP.
Field Guns and Field Artillery
The weight of some weapons means that the infantry can't be built and function at the squad level.
I'd also add missiles and mortars to the list of available weapons. We have the 21 cm Nebelwerfer 42 Rocket Launcher and the 2B9 Vasilek Gunn-Mortar. I don't know why similar weapons wouldn't be available in the future. Besides, Field Artillery can use the Arrow IV. If a big missiles can be fired by infantry, why not small ones? As for energy weapon field guns, the support particle cannons are already pretty much field guns already so I can see larger ones but I would think they'd still need added tonnage for a power supply, maybe even heat sinks. That would put it a medium Laser Field Gun at 4.5-5 tons per cannon. Otherwise, we'll be spammed with 1 ton medium laser field guns.
Transport Bays.
Field Gun and Field Artillery use the Motorized/Mechanized Bays + the weight of their guns. Otherwise they're split and have to unload their guns as cargo.
For Beast Mounted Infantry, I'm thinking adding the weight of a Livestock Cargo Compartment to the weight of a Foot Infantry Bay.
Both mean customizing their transports but it shouldn't be too complicated.
-
The conversion formula used to derive the values in Tech Manual is on page 170 of the Companion.
-
Well, for modern rifles, it is pointless to expect those to do more than knocks against the armor even with concentrated fire. But with the laser rifles concentrated fire does have some meaning.
That said, concentrated fire isn't an easy job either, and even with this the end result is pathetic. We cannot ignore the fact that not every single CI of battletech world can expect a laser rifle at worst as well. I remember that someone assumed that the pathetic range of the infantry rifle on the game is because that's the range close enough to initiate concentrated fire against the enemy armors.
As the game mechanism and balance allowing that won't hurts anyone, though. But you do remember that shooting the mech directly by using the infantry rifle is the least choice you should consider, for it's almost waste of time. Only swarm attack would be even more foolish choice than that. If the infantry had more than one squad then the rifle attack would rise to the viable option, though, but it is only in effect when the enemy armor is walk into their 'killbox'.
Anyway, whatever they can cause some dent or not that's largely all the same and it's not the point. Cause 1~2 point per each unit doesn't change the fact that basic rifleman is useless at killing the enemy armor. Given the enough time you can destroy a hill or even a mountain only by a spoon. Although no one that reads this reply have enough time to do that.
-
Anyway, whatever they can cause some dent or not that's largely all the same and it's not the point. Cause 1~2 point per each unit doesn't change the fact that basic rifleman is useless at killing the enemy armor. Given the enough time you can destroy a hill or even a mountain only by a spoon. Although no one that reads this reply have enough time to do that.
You're making a lot of assumptions with that last sentence, by also ignoring that TAC's happen.
You're also ignoring that it would be a rare case that a full Squad or Platoon will all hit as well, much less all the same place. Infantry Cluster all their Attacks (aside from the lone Trooper). I don't think anyone has said that Infantry should stop doing that. Due to those TACs, it is quite possible for a Rifle unit to "take out Armor". It's a hard shot, don't get me wrong, but it is as possible as doing it with an AC/2. Probably more possible due to the nature of Clustering Attacks.
Sizes and receiving damage
Infantry should operate as squads as standard and platoons as optional. Pretty much the reverse we have now. That way if you want a platoon to do a lot of damage they risk taking a lot of damage in return because they're all bunched up. Damage taken should be rolled on the cluster chart. Sometimes a PPC will just hit one trooper and other times the whole squad. Damage doubles when foot, jump, and beast mounted operate as whole platoons.
How should that work, though? Defender rolls a D6 and divides the Damage from there, rounding up?
Transport Bays.
Field Gun and Field Artillery use the Motorized/Mechanized Bays + the weight of their guns. Otherwise they're split and have to unload their guns as cargo.
For Beast Mounted Infantry, I'm thinking adding the weight of a Livestock Cargo Compartment to the weight of a Foot Infantry Bay.
Both mean customizing their transports but it shouldn't be too complicated.
I think in the case of Field Gunners, the Field Guns/Artillery themselves would be part of the normal Cargo. This would make it impossible for such units to deploy quickly, but easily justified without modifying old units. As for Beast-mounted, same story, unless you want there to be Bays addressing this. The Beast-mounted would be the hardest as they are so varied in size and type.
-
How should that work, though? Defender rolls a D6 and divides the Damage from there, rounding up?
A PPC hits the Infantry Squad. As the PPC does 10 points of damage it rolls on the 10 column. A 4 is rolled resulting in 4 dead troopers. If the hit were against a Platoon the damage would double to 8.
I think in the case of Field Gunners, the Field Guns/Artillery themselves would be part of the normal Cargo. This would make it impossible for such units to deploy quickly, but easily justified without modifying old units. As for Beast-mounted, same story, unless you want there to be Bays addressing this. The Beast-mounted would be the hardest as they are so varied in size and type.
I would think separating troopers from their guns, animals, or even vehicles would be possible to transport them but like you said, it'd be impossible to deploy quickly.
With the variety of cargo types it shouldn't be too difficult to convert on type of bay to another. But fixed sized bays would make things a bit easier and allow them to deploy faster.
For Beast Mounted Infantry, there could be fixed sizes for the bays. A 71 ton Bay, 5 tons for Infantry plus 66 tons for animals would accommodate 21 Odessan Raxx's (2.4 tons each) or 7 Orcas (7.2 tons each). The Orcas would still be a problem though as need water which would make the bay heavier. 71 tons would work for Elephant Mounted Infantry though. Monstrous and larger animals would need larger bays.
For Field Guns/Artillery Infantry, a 65 ton bay should accommodate up to 30 troopers, their vehicles, and up to 30 tons of weapons plus ammo.
-
You're making a lot of assumptions with that last sentence, by also ignoring that TAC's happen.
You're also ignoring that it would be a rare case that a full Squad or Platoon will all hit as well, much less all the same place. Infantry Cluster all their Attacks (aside from the lone Trooper). I don't think anyone has said that Infantry should stop doing that. Due to those TACs, it is quite possible for a Rifle unit to "take out Armor". It's a hard shot, don't get me wrong, but it is as possible as doing it with an AC/2. Probably more possible due to the nature of Clustering Attacks
Well, it would be rare that a full squad could scores maximum hit, isn't? I didn't think that I sald something related with that, though. Also it only proves that it's largely useless against armor, because that explains the weak damage the infantry rifle could inflicts against the armor.
Well, yes it is almost impossible to hit the very same specific one point among the armor plate, if that's you mean. But with try something like that, laser rifles would have some chance to actually damaging the armor at least. Such troopers rarely hit the same location with perfect conjunction by the precision shot, but with very high rate of fire than normal anti tank gun, and with very close range, I'd say the chance is at least more than zero if the gun is laser rifle. Because, although the 'modern' armor plates of the armored unit must be consider the enemy laser rifle shots as well but that's still the energy weapon and every single hits shoots down the pure energy and could melt the surface, while the durable surface could endure some kinetic energy hits.
-
Well, it would be rare that a full squad could scores maximum hit, isn't?
No, no it isn't. It is, in fact, impossible for an energy rifle squad to not score its maximum damage. Ballistic rifles can only do so on a roll of 4 or less, 1 chance in 6.
-
Well, it would be rare that a full squad could scores maximum hit, isn't? I didn't think that I sald something related with that, though. Also it only proves that it's largely useless against armor, because that explains the weak damage the infantry rifle could inflicts against the armor.
About 1/12. Same for an SRM-6, or even a Platoon, really.
Still, "largely useless" is putting a spin on something that isn't in current reality, and you said "useless" earlier, which carries an absolute tone.
Well, yes it is almost impossible to hit the very same specific one point among the armor plate, if that's you mean. But with try something like that, laser rifles would have some chance to actually damaging the armor at least. Such troopers rarely hit the same location with perfect conjunction by the precision shot, but with very high rate of fire than normal anti tank gun, and with very close range, I'd say the chance is at least more than zero if the gun is laser rifle. Because, although the 'modern' armor plates of the armored unit must be consider the enemy laser rifle shots as well but that's still the energy weapon and every single hits shoots down the pure energy and could melt the surface, while the durable surface could endure some kinetic energy hits.
Why do you need to hit the exact same point? There's always frailties in Armor that can cause Bad Things to happen, even more so when it is designed to fall off in favor of allowing heavy penetrating hits.
No, no it isn't. It is, in fact, impossible for an energy rifle squad to not score its maximum damage. Ballistic rifles can only do so on a roll of 4 or less, 1 chance in 6.
I think you're talking a different game, because those numbers don't add up at all.
-
Energy rifle maximum damage is equal to or less than the minimum result on the cluster table for all unit sizes. For example, 6 troopers can deal a maximum of 6 damage and rolling a 2 on the cluster 6 column gives a result of, you guessed it, 2. Ballistic rifle maximum damage is less than or equal to the 5 result, but equal to or greater than the 4 result. The same 6 troopers deal a maximum of 3 damage, the 4 result on the cluster 6 column. 7 troopers have a maximum of 4 damage requiring a 5 on the cluster 7 column and from 9 troopers on, a 5 scores at least the maximum damage while a 4 scores less than.
-
Energy rifle maximum damage is equal to or less than the minimum result on the cluster table for all unit sizes. For example, 6 troopers can deal a maximum of 6 damage and rolling a 2 on the cluster 6 column gives a result of, you guessed it, 2. Ballistic rifle maximum damage is less than or equal to the 5 result, but equal to or greater than the 4 result. The same 6 troopers deal a maximum of 3 damage, the 4 result on the cluster 6 column. 7 troopers have a maximum of 4 damage requiring a 5 on the cluster 7 column and from 9 troopers on, a 5 scores at least the maximum damage while a 4 scores less than.
So you are playing a different game here.
How Conventional Infantry works is that the number you roll on the Cluster Chart is how many guys hit. So if you have 6 guys left, you roll on the Cluster Chart for 2, and get 2 people hitting, and you look up how how many 2 people hitting do, which is 1 Damage for all of the Standard TW Weapons (TW pg 215).
So in your first example, that's 2 people hitting out of 6. 6-7 Energy Rifles hitting will do 2 Damage, 2-5 hitting will do 1. So in order to do 2 Damage with 6 Energy Rifles, you need to roll a 11 or 12.
With Ballistic Rifles, they are 4 Damage at 7-8 people hitting, and 3 Damage at 5-6. So you need to roll 11 or 12 on the Cluster Chart for 7 guys to do 4 Damage.
In short, you're either playing a different game, or you're skipping a step.
-
If you hit, you roll on the cluster table of how many troopers you have active. The weapon(s) the unit is equipped with sets the maximum damage the cluster table can generate. That is the procedure outlined beginning on TW pg. 215
After making a successful attack, the controlling player cross-references the current number of active troopers in the unit to the appropriate column on the table (see p. 116); for example, a platoon with 19 surviving troopers would roll on the Cluster Hits Table using the 19 column.
-
The paragraph after that quote is what Charistoph is talking about: the rest of the procedure.
-
About 1/12. Same for an SRM-6, or even a Platoon, really.
Still, "largely useless" is putting a spin on something that isn't in current reality, and you said "useless" earlier, which carries an absolute tone.
I don't think that they are meaningful unless they have very, very large numbers in a tight formation, and that would be enough for using the word meaningless.
I did noted on the same reply that if you have so many of them with the formation which allows them to concentrate those unit's(about three or more platoons, maybe?) shots then they are actually quite effective against armor as well. Although that is only realized if the enemy is willingly walke into their killbox, which is not so easy condition to fulfill consider their pathetic movement and range.
Still, infantry(battle armor included) is virtually the living active minefield, so it could be useful sometime. But only for one unit, that is up to only a platoon, they are almost meaningless as the threat, or consider the size of the group they are more likely to have the bigger guns as the support anti-armor weapons.
Why do you need to hit the exact same point? There's always frailties in Armor that can cause Bad Things to happen, even more so when it is designed to fall off in favor of allowing heavy penetrating hits.
I think you're talking a different game, because those numbers don't add up at all.
Because that part was talk about the physics, not the game mechanism or rules at all, to says that for such situation damaging the armor by mere infantry rifle would be more than something stupid.
I was wonder that it was what you want to talk about, despite you did want to say that it is right to allows the rifles to cause the damage to the armor rather than against to on this topic, but I was confused and thought that it could be what you want to ask on the reply.
Sorry if I misunderstood that, but I was confused because you said it is rare that a full unit could score maximum hits and that's why I was confused - why who thinks that infantry should cause some damage to the armor does says that it is rare that they could hits the maximum rate?
-
The paragraph after that quote is what Charistoph is talking about: the rest of the procedure.
Yeah, which says to look at how many troopers are still in the platoon and that's how much damage they can do which sets the limit on the result you get from the cluster table.
-
Yeah, which says to look at how many troopers are still in the platoon and that's how much damage they can do which sets the limit on the result you get from the cluster table.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like people may be talking past each other and describing two different interpretations of Total Warfare's infantry damage resolution system. A specific example might help.
Assume we've got a group of 8 troopers who hit a 'Mech, and they are using weapons that do 0.25 damage each. We roll a 5 and consult the cluster table for a cluster size of 8. That gives us a 4.
Interpretation 1:
The 4 means the maximum damage the platoon can do is 4. However, 8 troopers * 0.25 damage per trooper is only 2 damage, so the platoon does 2 damage.
Interpretation 2:
The 4 means that 4 troopers hit. Since 4 troopers * 0.25 damage per trooper is 1 damage, the platoon does 1 damage.
Is that a fair summary?
-
If the table says the max damage is 4 and the cluster roll is greater than 4, the unit does 4. Otherwise, the unit does as much damage ans the cluster roll says.
-
The Cluster Table is only used to determine how many troopers hit. You then go to the record sheet and read how much damage that is.
-
Let me get this straight. You're telling me that the most insignificant units in the game have the most complex attack resolution mechanic. Is that correct? If that's the procedure, it clearly states infantry, regardless of skill, have trouble hitting the broad side of a barn...from the inside.
My response is not appropriate for this forum. Needless to say, my enthusiasm for fielding anything but observers is greatly diminished.
-
It's not that complex, and essentially unchanged since the inception of the game.
-
Pre-4e, it is a simple "X men in the unit deal Y damage on a hit, in 5 point clusters" where Y is fraction of X, rounded up. The unit has 9-12 rifles and hits, it deals 3 damage. If it is armed with SRMs, it deals 5 damage with 9-10 troopers or 6 damage with 11-12. There is no cluster roll, there is no extra math of determining the total damage (vs. mech weapons just being whole numbers), etc. of later versions of the game.
-
That's essentially what the record sheet gives you.
-
Most things:
- Attack success
- Cluster to generate hits
- Apply hits
Pre-4e CI:
- Attack success
- Apply damage
Current CI:
- Attack success
- Cluster to generate hits
- Check table to cross reference hits to damage
- Apply damage
-
"Apply hits" can be clusters of 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 or 20, depending on the weapon. Infantry clusters are always 2 (or the lone leftover 1, which also applies to plenty of other weapons).
-
Pre-4e, it is a simple "X men in the unit deal Y damage on a hit, in 5 point clusters" where Y is fraction of X, rounded up. The unit has 9-12 rifles and hits, it deals 3 damage. If it is armed with SRMs, it deals 5 damage with 9-10 troopers or 6 damage with 11-12. There is no cluster roll, there is no extra math of determining the total damage (vs. mech weapons just being whole numbers), etc. of later versions of the game.
And Laser and Rifle Damage has switched and how Infantry takes Damage is reduced. A few things have changed. There is a reason why there is so many columns in the cluster chart now.
Still, there is nothing saying that the number on the Cluster Chart is the amount of Damage you do. It makes the Chart rather sulfurous when you you roll on the 28 Cluster chart, but can only do 8 Damage.
Still, it does say you, "then cross-references the number of troopers that struck the target with the appropriate Maximum Weapon Damage Per Platoon Type column on the Generic Conventional Infantry Damage Table (see p. 216) to determine the actual damage dealt to the target; players can also find this information on the Generic Conventional Infantry record sheet."
Essentially, you're going backwards in your operations, by looking up the unit's Damage first and Clustering after that.
It's not much different from how Battle Armor operated back in Compendium days, just extended to Infantry in general. With the Small Lasers, you didn't do just 4 Damage, but 4 strikes of 3 Damage each.
I don't think that they are meaningful unless they have very, very large numbers in a tight formation, and that would be enough for using the word meaningless.
The capacity for 1 point of Damage to TAC in to 3 Crits or in to the head doesn't make it meaningless. However, it's not Heavy Gauss Rifle, for sure.
I did noted on the same reply that if you have so many of them with the formation which allows them to concentrate those unit's(about three or more platoons, maybe?) shots then they are actually quite effective against armor as well. Although that is only realized if the enemy is willingly walke into their killbox, which is not so easy condition to fulfill consider their pathetic movement and range.
For Foot, yeah their Movement is pretty much useless. It gets better with other Motive Types and LRMs have an appreciable range, though Rifles' range is quite piss-poor (and really should be considering MG's range).
Still, infantry(battle armor included) is virtually the living active minefield, so it could be useful sometime. But only for one unit, that is up to only a platoon, they are almost meaningless as the threat, or consider the size of the group they are more likely to have the bigger guns as the support anti-armor weapons.
I have seen them used quite effectively. It's even more annoying when you're in Buildings. I've even used them quite effectively. If nothing else, they are given a choice of, "devote fire to them so they don't become a problem", and, "ignore them until they're ripping out my legs and gyros and I can't fire back". It actually happened a bit in this last campaign. I had 4 Foot and 4 Mechanized on the field. And they were respected for the potential threat they could be, and they absorbed a lot of Adder fire (players brought 4 Adders).
Because that part was talk about the physics, not the game mechanism or rules at all, to says that for such situation damaging the armor by mere infantry rifle would be more than something stupid.
That's our physics, not BTPhysics. Still, when you were talking about a specific point, it sounds like you're talking about that square centimeter that everyone is expected to hit, when that's not entirely the case.
Sorry if I misunderstood that, but I was confused because you said it is rare that a full unit could score maximum hits and that's why I was confused - why who thinks that infantry should cause some damage to the armor does says that it is rare that they could hits the maximum rate?
Because, like any other Cluster-based Attack, it's about a 1/12 chance for all the Troops To Hit, and other than someone misunderstanding the rules above, no one has suggested changing Rifle fire to NOT be Clustered. Of course, for small Squads with low Damage, like Energy Rifle Clan Squads, they're max damage IS only 1 Point.
So, since they are Cluster-based, it's hard to get everyone to Hit. From there, since the Damage is further clustered out, the more you have causes the Damage to spread around the target. In fact, it could be that those Infantry Rifles that "missed" simply shot the wrong section so there wasn't enough energy applied to removing Armor there.
-
Still, there is nothing saying that the number on the Cluster Chart is the amount of Damage you do. It makes the Chart rather sulfurous when you you roll on the 28 Cluster chart, but can only do 8 Damage.
We've covered all this and moved on.
-
"Apply hits" can be clusters of 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 or 20, depending on the weapon. Infantry clusters are always 2 (or the lone leftover 1, which also applies to plenty of other weapons).
The weapon you're using already tells you how much damage you're dealing. Infantry weapons don't.
-
We've covered all this and moved on.
Really? Because you don't seem to have accepted that.
The weapon you're using already tells you how much damage you're dealing. Infantry weapons don't.
They kind of do, actually, when you look them up on the Record Sheet or the Generic Conventional Infantry Damage Table as you're instructed to, and the general rules for Conventional Infantry attacks instruct you to Cluster them as 2 point Attacks.
-
They kind of do, actually, when you look them up on the Record Sheet or the Generic Conventional Infantry Damage Table as you're instructed to, and the general rules for Conventional Infantry attacks instruct you to Cluster them as 2 point Attacks.
If I shoot with an LRM 20, what is my damage value? If I shoot with 16 ballistic rifle infantry, what is my damage value? One is variable, one isn't.
-
If you shoot with an LRM-20, you're doing 6, 9, 12, 16 or 20 in 5-point groups plus whatever is left over. If you're using bog-standard ballistic rifle infantry (i.e., they're using Auto-Rifles), you're doing 3, 4, 5, 7 or 8 in 2-point groups plus whatever is left over. It's the same number of permutations.
-
If I shoot with an LRM 20, what is my damage value? If I shoot with 16 ballistic rifle infantry, what is my damage value? One is variable, one isn't.
No, they are both variable, as you roll to see how many of each one hits, as Daryk points out.
The same would apply with a full Elemental Point firing their Small Lasers, with 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 connecting with their Small Lasers.
-
No, they are both variable, as you roll to see how many of each one hits, as Daryk points out.
The same would apply with a full Elemental Point firing their Small Lasers, with 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 connecting with their Small Lasers.
An LRM20 has a damage value of 20. That is the definition of a damage value. But it's fine. You're not reading what I writing. I'm out, you win.Really? Because you don't seem to have accepted that.
-
An LRM20 has a damage value of 20. That is the definition of a damage value. But it's fine. You're not reading what I writing. I'm out, you win.
No, you're not explaining yourself very well, or ignoring the rules, because the Damage Value of 16 Rifles is just as well known.
The potential damage value of an LRM-20 is 20, but that's only if all of them hit. Because they Cluster, that is only a guarantee in very specific situations (ex. right next to building, hitting Conventional with the right Ammo, etc). Otherwise, you're rolling on the Cluster and it's hitting with 6, 9, 12, 16 or 20 as Daryk pointed out.
-
The conversion formula used to derive the values in Tech Manual is on page 170 of the Companion
Yes, I know Daryk. But I laid out, all throughout my post, that in the actual RPG, the damage done to tactical armor doesnt come close to this. The conversion formula is junk... it doesnt follow the RPG rules, and spits out damage values that dont make sense for the RPG OR Battletech. It COULD have, but the damage a rifle does to an elemental in the RPG and the damage a rifle does to an elemental in total warfare with the conversion does not match. It adds lots of things that make rifles better and support weapons worse--from the RPG side of things!
A common issue raised by lots of people in this thread is the rifle versus support weapon damage mismatch. But this doesnt exist in the actual RPG--a missile is scary in the RPG, and a rifle less so, but with the conversion its .52 damage for a rifle and .57 for a heavy SRM shot. Its entirely the fault of the conversion formula found on page 170. That formula crushed support weapons the same time it buffed rifles, and in the actual RPG the weapons are being converted from, the rules dont do that!
A burst of microgrenades from a grenade launcher do nothing to tactical armor 10 in the RPG, but demolish infantry. Thats how the RPG was written. A burst of microgrenades as a support weapon--when put through the bogus formula in the companion--do tons of mech tactical armor damage, and no anti-infantry burst. The conversion is doing the literal opposite of what the RPG wants the gun to do, turning grenades from top tier anti-personnel weapons with almost zero tactical armor ablating in the RPG to class leading anti-mech damage with no bonus versus infantry.
Add to that the free movement with no attacker movement mod, also not a thing in the RPG. So we have a conversion formula that doesnt accurately convert the RPG weapons, and hit mods that dont AT ALL represent the RPG movement. So WHY are we using the RPG weapons? We aren't converting them right, and we aren't applying their modifiers right.
EDIT: Lets not forget, the conversion formula was updated. Now, a single shot from a sniper rifle personal weapon firing a slug kills 2-7 troops, but a single shot from an autocannon 5 kills 1 troop. Like, the conversion formula is just the worst, and brings out the worst issues with the current infantry system.
-
It looks to me like the Companion formula was an effort to preserve the OG damage values from Combat Operations (which it does in almost all cases). The nerfing of Support Weapons is almost entirely down to reload factor, and I've even proposed a way to impose that more logically on burst fire Standard Weapons. And I've also poked TPTB over the years about the mismatch between the formula and the RPG rules for damaging tactical armor. I can dig up the links if you like.
-
Sadly it sounds like the poking didnt go anywhere. Also, while changing personal weapons to cap at .6 damage was nice, its a bandaid on the formula because the formula produces personal weapons with too much damage when compared to the RPG source. And it adds burst to weapons that absolutely should not have burst.
-
The capacity for 1 point of Damage to TAC in to 3 Crits or in to the head doesn't make it meaningless. However, it's not Heavy Gauss Rifle, for sure.
First off, could you please ask what is TAC? I have checked the rulebook before and I did searched for that but I cannot found anything so it won't be an abbreviation on the game rules, though. Is it a 20 damage point threshold that mechs are required to roll for a piloting check or knocked down, or something else? Maybe the 'C' on that means cluster(table) for you did mentioned for the cluser table several times? Else is it related with the critical hits table?
For Foot, yeah their Movement is pretty much useless. It gets better with other Motive Types and LRMs have an appreciable range, though Rifles' range is quite piss-poor (and really should be considering MG's range).
I have seen them used quite effectively. It's even more annoying when you're in Buildings. I've even used them quite effectively. If nothing else, they are given a choice of, "devote fire to them so they don't become a problem", and, "ignore them until they're ripping out my legs and gyros and I can't fire back". It actually happened a bit in this last campaign. I had 4 Foot and 4 Mechanized on the field. And they were respected for the potential threat they could be, and they absorbed a lot of Adder fire (players brought 4 Adders).
And I will note that the infantry forces with such vehicle supports do get more chances to have the better support than mere infantry rifles, thus they don't be required to deal with the armors only by their rifles at best.
Sure there would be some corner cases, but you don't need to consider every single possible situation include various odds between each forces of the engagement.
Also worth mention that while infantry is fairly useless by their own, but the stock rifleman squad/platoon without any vehicles to ride will makes the gap by their ridiculously cheap points. They are unlikely to be attack the enemy actively, though.
That's our physics, not BTPhysics. Still, when you were talking about a specific point, it sounds like you're talking about that square centimeter that everyone is expected to hit, when that's not entirely the case.
Whatever worlds one is not what I cares for that when I wrote the reply; it would be applied whatever its ours or theirs, since they are described as humanity and the infantry squad they muster would be largely same as the infantry squad of our world, apart the quality of the rifles, and they will aim the rifle and shoots. That's all the same.
And I did said that it is impossible to do, at least on purpose. Even if they were the robot soldiers that is controlled by a single mind/program, it won't be an easy task.
Not to mention that, consider the damage of the rifles against armors on the game, they don't be requires every single troopers to be concentrate the attack at a single 1cm² point either, which was my point on the older reply.
Because, like any other Cluster-based Attack, it's about a 1/12 chance for all the Troops To Hit, and other than someone misunderstanding the rules above, no one has suggested changing Rifle fire to NOT be Clustered. Of course, for small Squads with low Damage, like Energy Rifle Clan Squads, they're max damage IS only 1 Point.
So, since they are Cluster-based, it's hard to get everyone to Hit. From there, since the Damage is further clustered out, the more you have causes the Damage to spread around the target. In fact, it could be that those Infantry Rifles that "missed" simply shot the wrong section so there wasn't enough energy applied to removing Armor there.
Yes it is hard to get everyone to hit, isn't? As I said already, although it wasn't point and wasn't about the game rules at all but you have confirmed that it's also the case on the game as well.
Then what's the problem, for that only defends my quote for the uselessness for the rifles against armor? Why you says that as if my opinion is not true, while only puts the reason that does nothing but defends that meanwhile?
--------------
Simply put, in short, what's the problem?
-
TAC is short for 'Through Armor Critical' or the "2" on the Hit Location chart. Its basically what you are fishing for when firing SRMs or AC/2s at someone as it can quickly end the fight via engine or gyro damage.
-
Sadly it sounds like the poking didnt go anywhere. Also, while changing personal weapons to cap at .6 damage was nice, its a bandaid on the formula because the formula produces personal weapons with too much damage when compared to the RPG source. And it adds burst to weapons that absolutely should not have burst.
No argument on the problems with the damage cap. It only affected a handful of weapons in the base rules (though quite a few more in Shrapnel).
-
Because:
1) I don't always write the scenarios, so such options aren't always available. Useless units won't be taken there.
2) Infantry that fire off all their Support Ammo would just become Rifle Infantry.
3) Said now-Rifle Infantry may not be in position to work objectives because they were using their Support Ammo.
4) Sometimes enemy Armor is the Objective, and you weren't aware of it when you brought your Rifles, or the Objective changes in the middle of the game.
Yeah. The groups I'm in aren't big on random pick-up games. Each one of us will be in charge of a campaign of sorts. Which means, a bit of storytelling and a touch of roleplaying involved in the mission set-up.
And, as such, I've found that I want some wider variety alongside some internal consistency with the setting.
The whole making everything playable at all times breaks the consistency part for me, since I'm also heavily into the lore as much as being a player of the game. I pointed it out once before, and I'll say it again: The BattleMech was adopted by all the houses when they could get ahold of the specs. The proper course of simply coming up with a counter weapon or tactic wasn't the way they went, although they probably put some brain-time into it. The adopted it wholesale. That says a lot about the technology. And, that's what drives my desire to see a change, if in nothing more than the base representation of what a platoon or squad happens to be carrying in the fiction side of things, if not a change in the labels or stats.
-
I don't think rock/paper/scissors completely describes what should be going on, entirely. What has been proposed is that Rifle Infantry be largely useless against anything that isn't also Rifle Infantry. They are (currently) outgunned and/or out-ranged by any other type of Infantry, so they can't really compete there. While I don't think that Rifle Infantry should be the scariest thing on the planet, I think allowing for at least mosquito bites is a reasonable request.
Okay. Point of order. I'm one that wants the AnInf ranges for rifles to match the RPG ranges for said rifles when engaging other infantry. So, they wouldn't necessarily be completely outranged. Getting into range for anti-armor work is the real risky part.
There's a huge disconnect between standard BT stats and RPG stats, and I want to see that reflected on the BT map should players want to run infantry squads that hunt other infantry squads. If we're gonna have an RPG that does things so drastically different, that shouldn't magically disappear as soon as you move to the Game of Armored Combat for Mech and Tank and BA warfare.
That's why I'm still an advocate for two different stats for infantry. Two different types of attack with two different range and damage values.
And, while you may cite the random instances where a 'rifle' squad or platoon may be facing a mech, is that the justification you're using for fielding rifle platoons in your games? Or will the forces in your games have been specifically chosen with an objective in mind? And you pointed out that there's no real difference in cost per SRM or LRM platoons beyond range of weapons?
Don't use the narrative argument for a pick-up game. Because, conceptually, that rifle platoon doesn't necessarily have to be just some guys with AKs. They could be fielding something more potent, conceptually.
-
Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like people may be talking past each other and describing two different interpretations of Total Warfare's infantry damage resolution system. A specific example might help.
Assume we've got a group of 8 troopers who hit a 'Mech, and they are using weapons that do 0.25 damage each. We roll a 5 and consult the cluster table for a cluster size of 8. That gives us a 4.
Interpretation 1:
The 4 means the maximum damage the platoon can do is 4. However, 8 troopers * 0.25 damage per trooper is only 2 damage, so the platoon does 2 damage.
Interpretation 2:
The 4 means that 4 troopers hit. Since 4 troopers * 0.25 damage per trooper is 1 damage, the platoon does 1 damage.
Is that a fair summary?
This is weird. They had the damage value by number of troopers listed for a reason. After the cluster roll, I just consulted the record sheet for the damage based on troopers hit. So, if 4 guys hit, then look at what damage 4 troopers do on their damage chart.
-
I would like to point out that I had started to move away from the Total Warfare interpretation of Infantry damage almost from the inception of the Mechanized Infantry in the base rules, before TechManual really made me question things. And, a lot of it had to do with trying to emulate Dark Age infantry units like the Hoverbike squad.
The actual hoverbike write-up from WizKids in the dossier from the named unit which fielded them showed that a single hoverbike had two different weapons. But, looking at hover MechInf, I had a hard time figuring out how to parse the two. Add to that the notion that infantry on such large vehicles with something like an SRM launcher should be firing at the conventional anti-armor ranges for an SRM, in my opinion.
That's where the break really started for me. It got worse when MechInf turned out to not be the motorized with specific motive type that I was thinking. One of the things about motorized infantry, and by extension MechInf, was that each drop in damage could be looked at as a vehicle getting plastered, thus a support weapon lost. If you'll notice, the drop is roughly every 4 guys or so, but not an even breakdown of 4x on a MechInf chart. But Tech Manual came in and specifically said that a MechInf platoon is four vehicles.
Again, if you ignore the RPG and TechManual, it's easy to assume that the damage being done is by a support weapon, and even a rifle platoon is something like a recoilless or something else heavy.
But, then, recently, when delving into BT history for inspiration on miniature collections and team colors, I discovered that BattleDroids infantry did what I expected for support weapons. That means, conceptually, I have a precedent. It doesn't matter that it was discarded by later rules iterations. It was a part of BattleTech 1st edition.
And, knowing that any of the RPGs are drastically different, and that people don't have the same kind of resilience when taking damage as something solid and made of armor, I wanted that to be reflected. Still do.
The way Battle Armor rules handle to different attack types, especially for Elementals, is the perfect way to do it. And, might as well bridge the gap between the RPG and the board game with the infantry against infantry, and keep it easy by leaving the anti-armor work to the anti-armor weapons. Hard stats. No real fuss.
What's really interesting is the discussions on these boards in the past regarding the foibles or benefits of adding detail to infantry. It has been argued that some people don't want infantry to get any more complicated because 'it detracts from the Mechs'. Well, if that's the case, why do you need to track how much of a body-count is being done to eliminate them? You could go back to the BMR and take some examples from Clearing Woods, for example. Clearing Woods in the BMR was rather elegant.
Or, like in BattleTech 1st Ed, you could just have the squad eliminated with a hit. Why that happens is up for narrative interpretation.
Sad thing is, I like both approaches: a little extra crunch to make infantry interesting, or the means to oversimplify them so that I don't have to field a record sheet at all.
And, at the very least, the RPG shows that there should be a wide variety of troops with different levels of protection and armament, some of it (maybe most of it) practically worthless while some of it is really top tier (but extremely rare). That needs to be reflected somehow.
There are some people who don't want to see any changes. That's fine, then. You have the infantry you want. Now, let me brainstorm and have something I feel more comfortable with.
-
To the idea of limited ammo, I would like to point out that there are Mech and tank designs that have very limited amounts of shots for a main gun. The Hatchetman comes to mind with only one ton of LB-x10 ammo. I think there's a Mech somewhere that has a single ton of LRM-20 ammo.
And, when they're out, they're out. Why should infantry be any different. For a real life comparison how many minutes of ammo would a modern squad have available to it?
Secondly, poor force-building is a thing. You take something to a wrong situation, it should have ramifications. Urbie in open field warfare, anyone?
So, why not with Infantry, too? You have a pure anti-infantry build with rifles, and the mission suddenly turns out to be all anti-armor, or changes to that at some point, well, you took the risk that you might need to bust some grunts. Chalk it up to bad intel, or you can also look at it as bad scenario design. (And, if you really are using them simply to occupy an end zone for points or an objective for points, they're still a body taking up space that someone will have to dedicate fire toward at some point.)
But, some of this could be remedied. We're discussing infantry purely for infantry sake. But, what's one of the things that infantry work best with? Emplacements!
While this could be fleshed out in the general fan rules thread, I'm just gonna float the idea here.
Maybe one of the things we should consider as part purchasing and deploying infantry is some sort of emplacement. You worried about running out of ammo for your anti-armor weapons, how about a supply drop placed at the start of battle. At this place, infantry with ammo may fire in perpetuity, or get a huge ammo count to draw from. While out on their own, they will run out, but at a supply drop, you get resupply. Same with a hardened bunker.
You can already design field gun platoons. Those usually need to be predesignated if I'm not mistaken. And, you usually want to start with them already deployed and set up. Not often you can justify catching them buttoned up and on the move. And, if you're already playing that way, it should be no different from having weaponized emplacement buildings like Bunkers and such. If the scenario doesn't immediately have them available, I don't see why you can't purchase them and 'bring them' as part of your force. If story isn't an issue, like it might not normally be for a pick-up game, then it should be easily justifiable.
Infantry are good at taking and holding objectives. Well, why not bring an 'objective' along with them when building your force?
Edit: It's not necessarily a new idea. I point you to the MW:DA emplacement infantry. You bought them and set them up as part of your force for a game of Clix.
-
So, for those wanting to use BA stats for the CI Squad Weapon instead of what we get from TechManaul for anti-armor attack stats, I found this list of BA Weapons (https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons) on Sarna.
Is there anything missing?
And, if we want to base anti-infantry attacks by infantry against infantry from the RPG, I have a question for anyone thoroughly familiar with A Time of War (Daryk. DevianID):
Run me through how easy it is for a guy with the 'bog standard' assault rifle to attack and incapacitate another guy with average armor kit. What kind of modifier would we be looking at for a one-for-one exchange? And, would terrain and range effect it similarly to BattleTech?
Because I'm still up in the air on whether anti-infantry attacks should be nebulized with a singular die roll to-hit and to-damage.
It would be quick and dirty to do so, but I'm contemplating incorporating a 40k style fist-full of death attack set-up instead. BT is equal parts dice-chucking as well as modifier wars. We don't see a lot of the dice chucking in most common designs, so this could be a way to set Infantry apart.
Thanks.
-
Ahah! Found the M-16 pic I knew was around. The Federated Long Rifle (https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Federated_Long_Rifle).
Edit: The pic in question -
(https://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/f/f2/Federated_Long_Rifle_-_TR3026.jpg?timestamp=20090919211925)
-
I just posted a link to the latest development in "Medium" machine guns: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=84339.0
That should be more than enough justification for those still doubting that individual man-portable systems can at least ding BAR 10 armor... ;)
Either that, or we're firmly in TL C NOW! :)
-
And I will note that the infantry forces with such vehicle supports do get more chances to have the better support than mere infantry rifles, thus they don't be required to deal with the armors only by their rifles at best.
And with the exception of Tracked Mechanized, they all get slowed down by doing so. So if I want fast Infantry that isn't dependent on Vehicles to move, they need to be carrying Rifles.
Sure there would be some corner cases, but you don't need to consider every single possible situation include various odds between each forces of the engagement.
Mostly I consider likely affairs, or ones I've seen regularly.
Also worth mention that while infantry is fairly useless by their own, but the stock rifleman squad/platoon without any vehicles to ride will makes the gap by their ridiculously cheap points. They are unlikely to be attack the enemy actively, though.
Depends on the scenario. I've been in plenty of campaign scenarios over the last 3 years where they are in position to attack the enemy actively. Either they were Hidden, sitting on Objectives, were in between the Objective and the unit, and/or were, in fact, the Objectives themselves. They were all not only likely, but expected, to be attacking the enemy actively. One nasty group even had the Urban Guerilla SPA.
Whatever worlds one is not what I cares for that when I wrote the reply; it would be applied whatever its ours or theirs, since they are described as humanity and the infantry squad they muster would be largely same as the infantry squad of our world, apart the quality of the rifles, and they will aim the rifle and shoots. That's all the same.
Whether you care for which worlds it applies to or not, one should take consideration for the structure of how the universe operates that you're talking about. And since introduced, Infantry have been doing Damage with Rifles in Battletech. Not a whole lot for the first half, but they have been.
Meanwhile, the whole point of tanks in our world is to be proof against enemy Rifles, and it is only very lucky, or precise, shots which have been able to do anything with just a Rifle against a Tank without Swarming them.
And I did said that it is impossible to do, at least on purpose. Even if they were the robot soldiers that is controlled by a single mind/program, it won't be an easy task.
Not to mention that, consider the damage of the rifles against armors on the game, they don't be requires every single troopers to be concentrate the attack at a single 1cm² point either, which was my point on the older reply.
They just have to provide sufficient energy at points of connection or leverage to dislodge the points of Armor they hit, nor is there any fluff that considers that all Troopers are hitting the same square centimeter point, so bringing it up is rather pointless other than to try and put our physics in to the BT universe.
Yeah. The groups I'm in aren't big on random pick-up games. Each one of us will be in charge of a campaign of sorts. Which means, a bit of storytelling and a touch of roleplaying involved in the mission set-up.
Nor are mine. We have a community organizer that sets up most of the "scenario of the week". We also have a biweekly campaign held on another day, and the Player unit does have Infantry units we sometimes choose to deploy, and may be required to deploy in a crazy scenario the GM dreams up. In addition, as part of those weekly games, I'm running a campaign for the group.
So if you know what the scenario is, there are many times there is no reason to bring Rifle Infantry at all. Or you're running the OpFor, so Rifle Infantry will be on the table for one reason or another.
And, as such, I've found that I want some wider variety alongside some internal consistency with the setting.
Of which Rifle Infantry are the most consistent units in the setting of Battletech (Meat is cheap and so are Rifles), and they've consistently done Damage to Armor for almost 40 years now.
The whole making everything playable at all times breaks the consistency part for me, since I'm also heavily into the lore as much as being a player of the game. I pointed it out once before, and I'll say it again: The BattleMech was adopted by all the houses when they could get ahold of the specs. The proper course of simply coming up with a counter weapon or tactic wasn't the way they went, although they probably put some brain-time into it. The adopted it wholesale. That says a lot about the technology. And, that's what drives my desire to see a change, if in nothing more than the base representation of what a platoon or squad happens to be carrying in the fiction side of things, if not a change in the labels or stats.
People often misuse the term "playable" far too often. Right now, "Chubbum" Armor isn't playable. Currently even Foot Laser Rifles Squads are technically playable. They aren't very good, and more likely to be slaughtered if anyone pays attention to them, but they are playable.
Okay. Point of order. I'm one that wants the AnInf ranges for rifles to match the RPG ranges for said rifles when engaging other infantry. So, they wouldn't necessarily be completely outranged. Getting into range for anti-armor work is the real risky part.
There's a huge disconnect between standard BT stats and RPG stats, and I want to see that reflected on the BT map should players want to run infantry squads that hunt other infantry squads. If we're gonna have an RPG that does things so drastically different, that shouldn't magically disappear as soon as you move to the Game of Armored Combat for Mech and Tank and BA warfare.
And I've countered with if there is a disconnect, then it is the fault of the RPG, not with BT, as it is BT that is first and the RPG second.
That's why I'm still an advocate for two different stats for infantry. Two different types of attack with two different range and damage values.
And, while you may cite the random instances where a 'rifle' squad or platoon may be facing a mech, is that the justification you're using for fielding rifle platoons in your games? Or will the forces in your games have been specifically chosen with an objective in mind? And you pointed out that there's no real difference in cost per SRM or LRM platoons beyond range of weapons?
Don't use the narrative argument for a pick-up game. Because, conceptually, that rifle platoon doesn't necessarily have to be just some guys with AKs. They could be fielding something more potent, conceptually.
Simply put right now, Rifle Platoons are never taken for pick-up games unless someone doesn't know the BV of the other weapon types of Platoons. They are only taken in narrative games. In a Pick-up Game, the only reason to take a Rifle Platoon is because you want the unit to have full mobility and be able to Shoot without it being a Tracked Mechanized Infantry unit.
If they are carrying a Support Weapon, then that is the type of unit they are described as. Rifle Squads/Platoons are noted because they DON'T have heavier firepower.
However, we're back at Point#2 from earlier, If Infantry fire off all their Support Ammo, they default to being just Rifle Infantry. OR Point #3, they are out of position now because they were firing off their Support Ammo. Of course, that is assuming that Support Ammo is implemented at all.
-
And, if we want to base anti-infantry attacks by infantry against infantry from the RPG, I have a question for anyone thoroughly familiar with A Time of War (Daryk. DevianID):
I got into the RPG 'ATOW' only recently. I was a player in 2 GM'd games so far, and I played a few solo games after that just to learn the rules better since combat was so scary in ATOW at the table, more then I expected.
I did play the older mechwarrior RPGs more, but that was also before techmanual existed and changed the previous 'total warfare' infantry. So infantry was always citytech style infantry in my old RPG games.
The first thing with ATOW style combat is that high AP guns are pretty easy to get a hold of in terms of cost. So guns pierce armor, if you are bothering to try to get the +ap stuff. This, ironically, is similar to older RPGs where armor helped but was unlikely to save you from real damage. Armor in battle troops for example was nice to have but only helped you shrug off a light hit to the middle of your damage track, and only once. It was ablative in a way, kinda like btech armor, but if you take rifle damage in battletroops armor can only go so far, so if they rolled a 3 for example you are still getting KOd.
In ATOW, blast weapons are real infantry killers. They rip infantry to shreds. This is realistic to a point--grenades are scary, but in relation to other weapons its really noticeable how they got buffed. Machine guns on the other hand, have a weird problem. In ATOW you can draw a line with them, so you can attack multiple troops, but the issue is that the bullets only exist in the little line. It isnt a 'cone' effect like in battletroops, or area attack like blast weapons. If you spray/suppress a 4 square wide zone with a machine gun, the enemy can walk up to that zone, the square right in front of the line of bullets, or around that zone so the wall of bullets is right behind them, and they wont get suppressed. So machine guns have way less utility. We ended up having our machine gunner act as a sniper at the table, shooting specific targets and using the high base AP to cut through walls/cover. It was fun, but we definitely missed the feel of the mgun having an area or 'beaten' zone. The low accuracy regardless of firing 5 or 20 rounds was a big letdown, meanwhile the guy with the grenade launcher (and an area attack) was just going HAM in inverse proportion to how the guy with the machine gun was unable to deal with a group of bad guys behind low cover, cause while the mgun bullets could pierce the cover the mgunner couldn't hit the to-hit with the burst to deal damage to anyone, forcing the mgun to fire single shots to land hits.
EDIT: conversely, a machine gun in battletech, thanks to burst, deals bonus damage to infantry, while an automatic grenade launcher doesnt have burst. I mentioned this in a post above, how the ATOW RPG grenade launcher relationship is reversed in battletech. The mgun in Battletroops is, on the far end of the spectrum, the visage of death itself. If an MGUN in battle troops can see you walking, you are dead--even mechs cant afford to walk through an MGUN field of fire the way battletroops works.
Edit2: An example mgun in ATOW. 2 Characters are standing next to each other. The mgunner, after all the skills are tabulated, needs to roll a 4 to hit with a single shot. They can do this twice. Or, the mgunner can fire a burst, one at a time (so a controlled burst really), with a +2 penalty to hit for recoil, but if they roll a 7 or higher they will do more damage, however they will now miss entirely on a 4 or 5. Short controlled bursts, treating the mgun as an assault rifle, yields the most damage on the easy shots, but as soon as its hard to hit you switch to single aimed shots for more absolute damage.
Finally, the mgun can use the attack the mgun is meant for, and fire a burst that hits multiple people with 1 sweep. This attack takes both actions, and thus has a +1 extra penalty to hit, on top of the +2 penalty from burst fire. Further, you have to put 5 rounds into each meter covered to minimize the additional penalty of +6-bullets per meter, but it caps at 5 bullets for some odd reason. So that means, to open up with a machine gun on two people standing should to shoulder, you need, instead of a 4, an 8 to hit them. Now, with a burst of 15 base, you can attack a total of 6 meter squares with this attack--more if you make the attack even worse to hit, which you shouldnt. Cover, attacker and target movement, range, all that still applies too. So in the RPG a full blast from a machine gun on napoleonic rank and fire should to shoulder troops will hit 2 or 3 at best if they are standing still at short range. Meanwhile, you could take 2 shots on 4s, never using the burst function and treating the support machine gun like a sniper rifle with a really deep ammo bin. So ATOW machine guns are poop, but whatever.
-
And with the exception of Tracked Mechanized, they all get slowed down by doing so. So if I want fast Infantry that isn't dependent on Vehicles to move, they need to be carrying Rifles.
They can still get the support from the artillery, although I concede that planning to destory the armors by the artillery is nothing but a daydream on the most times, at least while using the game rules. With a TAG and copperhead/Homing ammunition it could be changed, but it seems that it's not the case. These are not so cheap either.
Depends on the scenario. I've been in plenty of campaign scenarios over the last 3 years where they are in position to attack the enemy actively. Either they were Hidden, sitting on Objectives, were in between the Objective and the unit, and/or were, in fact, the Objectives themselves. They were all not only likely, but expected, to be attacking the enemy actively. One nasty group even had the Urban Guerilla SPA.
That's far from the attacking actively, for my perspective, but that does not makes me to deny their usefulness - for those examples shows that they are good at attacking the enemy while unprepaired and they can takes the advantage of their own. But with their lack of good speed and/or lack of good raw anti-armor firepower, they are not something rush through the enemy and destroy them with brute force. Although they will got on nerves of the opponent all the times they want to go somewhere and take the toll for each armored units fell into their traps.
That's why I think that they are more like the minefield. Although infantry could be redeployed and are actually quite active than the mine as well.
Whether you care for which worlds it applies to or not, one should take consideration for the structure of how the universe operates that you're talking about. And since introduced, Infantry have been doing Damage with Rifles in Battletech. Not a whole lot for the first half, but they have been.
Meanwhile, the whole point of tanks in our world is to be proof against enemy Rifles, and it is only very lucky, or precise, shots which have been able to do anything with just a Rifle against a Tank without Swarming them.
But the point is, 'it is not possible to concentrate all the attacks at a single point during the battle in the first place' so whatever the rifles on our world can penetrate armor not it's not something important.
I want to say that, because it is not possible, it seems that the rifles on the battletech universe would be not requires that much concentrated firepower of the rifles to penetrate armors. Although I do think that they does needs to deals sufficient damage to the each armor points, but since their weapon is basically anti infantry weapon, its higher RoF will solves the issue.
They don't need to aim and hit a specific poiont, but I assumed that the leader of the infantry unit may order to aim a part of the armored unit at least, then perhaps more shots would hits the same point than let them shoot individually. Anyway 'try to' hit the same point of the armor would makes some result and is not requires the concentrated precision shots of all the personnel on a platoon.
For example, you cannot order them to aim down the point 3cm right and 5cm below of its center point, but you can order them to shoot the left leg/front wheel instead, which is manageable. Consider the target is expected to be moving all the time, not all shots will hits well. Some will simply miss, and some will hit the other parts. Even many shots that actually hits the leg/wheel would be the only hit on the same point and are just wasted by let the armor point to be cooled down. But that still raise the possibility to burning some armor plates on the target's left leg/cause the wheel to malfunction.
IDK how to do this by the normal bullet instead of laser rifles, but as the game allows to do so, perhaps it would be possible as well. Maybe they will have the bullets enough to live the battlefield of 31th century.
They just have to provide sufficient energy at points of connection or leverage to dislodge the points of Armor they hit, nor is there any fluff that considers that all Troopers are hitting the same square centimeter point, so bringing it up is rather pointless other than to try and put our physics in to the BT universe.
Which is exactly what I have said.
-
The other reason AOE attacks are so brutal in AToW is that most body armor has lower X BAR ratings. Flak armor, for example, is 5 against Ballistic but only 3 vs. Explosive attacks.
-
However, we're back at Point#2 from earlier, If Infantry fire off all their Support Ammo, they default to being just Rifle Infantry. OR Point #3, they are out of position now because they were firing off their Support Ammo. Of course, that is assuming that Support Ammo is implemented at all.
Well, as a narrative style player, that is something I'm willing to deal with.
So, we're back to 'Agree to disagree'.
-
The other reason AOE attacks are so brutal in AToW is that most body armor has lower X BAR ratings. Flak armor, for example, is 5 against Ballistic but only 3 vs. Explosive attacks.
Makes sense. AoE weapons affect the entire body with both direct damage and concussion, Flak only has to deal with direct damage.
I'd be happy if Infantry units only had a limited number of anti-armor shots, similar to how the Clan Elementals only had two SRM salvos. The Platoon design is where you decide if your 28-person platoon has 2 launchers + 26 SRMs for 13 shots of 2 SRMs/, 4 launchers + 24 SRMs for 6 shots of 4 SRMs, 6 launchers and 18 SRMs due to rounding down, etc.
Similarly, you'd have options for ballistic Rifle modifications to change the receiver to handle larger calibers before you fire off an entire clip, a laser rifle mod that uses a Hot Shot clip that gets 1 powerful shot instead of 30 regular shots, etc.
Now one place where infantry should shine in the 3025 era is attacking shutdown/overheating Mechs. The Mech is sitting still, and the infantry have grenades. Shove the grenades into crevices and run away. Perhaps setting it where attacks against a shutdown Mech are made with double the infantry unit's current strength? So a platoon of 12 people vs a shutdown Mech are treated as if the platoon has 24 troopers.
-
The first thing with ATOW style combat is that high AP guns are pretty easy to get a hold of in terms of cost. So guns pierce armor, if you are bothering to try to get the +ap stuff. This, ironically, is similar to older RPGs where armor helped but was unlikely to save you from real damage. Armor in battle troops for example was nice to have but only helped you shrug off a light hit to the middle of your damage track, and only once. It was ablative in a way, kinda like btech armor, but if you take rifle damage in battletroops armor can only go so far, so if they rolled a 3 for example you are still getting KOd.
Thanks. So all it takes is a single hit or two, depending on armor for one guy to take out another. So, how easy is it again to land that hit?
Machine guns on the other hand, have a weird problem. In ATOW you can draw a line with them, so you can attack multiple troops, but the issue is that the bullets only exist in the little line. It isnt a 'cone' effect like in battletroops, or area attack like blast weapons.
I was mostly concerned about the squad's rifles, since I know how I want to handle support weapons. But, thanks for pointing out how backwards that is.
-
I want to say that, because it is not possible, it seems that the rifles on the battletech universe would be not requires that much concentrated firepower of the rifles to penetrate armors. Although I do think that they does needs to deals sufficient damage to the each armor points, but since their weapon is basically anti infantry weapon, its higher RoF will solves the issue.
They don't need to aim and hit a specific poiont, but I assumed that the leader of the infantry unit may order to aim a part of the armored unit at least, then perhaps more shots would hits the same point than let them shoot individually. Anyway 'try to' hit the same point of the armor would makes some result and is not requires the concentrated precision shots of all the personnel on a platoon.
For example, you cannot order them to aim down the point 3cm right and 5cm below of its center point, but you can order them to shoot the left leg/front wheel instead, which is manageable. Consider the target is expected to be moving all the time, not all shots will hits well. Some will simply miss, and some will hit the other parts. Even many shots that actually hits the leg/wheel would be the only hit on the same point and are just wasted by let the armor point to be cooled down. But that still raise the possibility to burning some armor plates on the target's left leg/cause the wheel to malfunction.
What's being said here is kinda how I would imagine a spray attack from a platoon/squad against an armored unit like a Mech would function visually. And, that's why I actually dislike how you can get a bunch of 2 point groupings that can potentially spread all over the place. Especially from a platoon at range. I might see it applying if the platoon occupied the same hex as their target, because then the squads would be spread around the target, potentially.
Your trying to get all your guys to focus on, say, the foot or upper leg, or knee joint or {insert location here}. While your guys can't expect to land the necessary number of bullets to damage the armor individually, you're hoping that enough bullets from the whole squad or platoon will land close enough together with the right amount of frequency that it does enough damage that it could track on your record sheet. But, it should be all against one designated spot. You're not sandblasting the whole mech. Doing that would net in zero damage across the board, and should.
And, that's just standing still. There's no way they should be able to do that while on the run.
So, for me, even if I did follow that enough grouped rifles could actually do armor damage at the levels shown by TW infantry, the way its implemented still breaks the visual for me. I'm guessing the two point grouping business was done largely because of the BAR system for support vehicles. They didn't want infantry weapons being able to score crits through BAR. But, that's a poor excuse for the way it's implemented.
I was okay with how CityTech through BMR did it, but even then, it still wasn't perfect.
Ideally, to fit the image in my head for allowing grouped rilfe attacks to be successful, the damage would be random, then it would just be one location rolled for the grouping. . I wouldn't base it off the number of guys but the amount of damage they can muster as a squad/platoon at the number of active free rifles.
But, again, if you get a full platoon together to coordinate such an attack, A gauss should be taking out more than 4 guys, and any sort of autocannon should be doing at least damage on the cluster chart in the amount of bodies hitting the dirt, the infantry are that close together.
Again, that was if I were inclined to allow it. For me, it comes down to consistency of narrative, and BattleMechs or equivalent battle Tanks become laughable if simple rifle bullets can bring one down at all, let alone in anything other than a ridiculous volume at very short ranges.
-
They can still get the support from the artillery, although I concede that planning to destory the armors by the artillery is nothing but a daydream on the most times, at least while using the game rules. With a TAG and copperhead/Homing ammunition it could be changed, but it seems that it's not the case. These are not so cheap either.
Not really. Even assuming Artillery is available in the scenario (which can be rare depending on the group), it may be focused on other targets. This applies to light artillery like LRMs and Morters as well.
That's far from the attacking actively, for my perspective, but that does not makes me to deny their usefulness - for those examples shows that they are good at attacking the enemy while unprepaired and they can takes the advantage of their own. But with their lack of good speed and/or lack of good raw anti-armor firepower, they are not something rush through the enemy and destroy them with brute force. Although they will got on nerves of the opponent all the times they want to go somewhere and take the toll for each armored units fell into their traps.
That's because I was talking about how they get in to position to attack actively, which is the biggest hindrance for Infantry to do so outside of Mechanized. This is particularly true in urban environments where they can use the buildings so that other units cannot see them unless they get close.
Sure, they aren't going to be chasing units down, unless they are Urbanmechs with damaged Jump Jets or Annihilators in an urban environment where they can just go through buildings without trouble, but that wasn't what I was trying to convey. If you think the only way to "actively attack" is to chase something down, then I guess Stalkers and a whole host of Assault Mechs can't "actively attack", either.
But the point is, 'it is not possible to concentrate all the attacks at a single point during the battle in the first place' so whatever the rifles on our world can penetrate armor not it's not something important.
A group can concentrate to dislodge an Armor plate or two. Sometimes they can even get more, but concentration on a Location on a whole target the size of a Vehicle or Mech will be impossible without the Cluster Hitter SPA. But that's due to the (properly logical) method of Clustering of Infantry fire.
I want to say that, because it is not possible, it seems that the rifles on the battletech universe would be not requires that much concentrated firepower of the rifles to penetrate armors. Although I do think that they does needs to deals sufficient damage to the each armor points, but since their weapon is basically anti infantry weapon, its higher RoF will solves the issue.
Damaging Armor and Penetrating Armor are two different concepts within the Battletech game/universe. A TAC represents penetrating Armor, and anything that can do Damage (and a few things that don't) can do this. Armor in the BTVerse is more ablative in nature, which allows things to get through the cracks (or even the Armor being blasted in to the unit, I guess).
Meanwhile, modern Armor is designed to prevent penetration, and it takes specialized rounds to achieve penetration.
Which is exactly what I have said.
Sorry, but it didn't come across that way.
Well, as a narrative style player, that is something I'm willing to deal with.
So, we're back to 'Agree to disagree'.
So you're willing to have Infantry made useless regarding any Armored unit after they fire off 2-3 SRMs?
"Haha! We've unloaded all of our Missiles in to you monster! Fall! Fall!... Why aren't you falling? Run AWAY!" - Some arrogant Platoon commander, probably.
------------------------
One thought that might work with increased Rifle Ranges might be a depreciating Cluster Modifier value as Range increases a Cluster modifier akin to Hyper-Assault Gauss, such as a -4 at Long, -2 at Medium. This modifier just isn't used against Conventional Infantry. Won't need different values at that point.
-
Looking at what DevianID pointed out for mano-a-mano rifle kerfluffles, all it would take is a hit to generally incapacitate a target with a single attack. Two if they have armor.
Since AToW opperates in 5-second turns, that means two potential attacks per BattleTech turn. How many attacks can be conducted in an AToW turn? Potentially two if you don't move? I'm assuming you get two actions an RPG turn. That seems to be the common theme with a lot of RPGs and tactical infantry games.
The reason I'm asking is that I'm style trying to justify whether to use a single attack roll and a single damage roll when making anti-infantry attacks with the free rifles in a squad as per the typical Battle Armor rules. I'm sure some people would prefer it.
I'm thinking that 'unarmored' should be the base for the number of attacks. Then standard kit provides a divisor of 1/2 damage. Would heavy Armor then be a 1/4?
I'm tempted to apply that modifier to the cluster column size rating before the roll to see how much damage actually got applied to the target squad.
And, since cover plays a large part in protection, it would stand to reason to apply that in some way to the damage sustained. Thought: MP cost for units to normally enter a terrain type which the infantry squad occupies acts as a modifier to the cluster chart roll result, kinda like TW AMS is applied to missile cluster rolls. If the roll would go below zero, the squad hit for only 1 anti-infantry damage.
Or! Infantry in a squad get extra armor boxes for standard and heavy armor. They should be discolored to show that it's armor that only applies to anti-infantry attacks from squad rifles.
Then, you could have fun with something between standard and full heavy.
But, to be honest, as I said once before, I think I'd almost prefer individual attack rolls by trooper/fire team, forgoing the cluster damage table entirely. Because this is something I may be implementing at my table, I'll be asking my group. Because I have a scenario in mind in the Dark Age, and I want to have some infantry on board for taking/holding an abandoned firebase.
-
One thought that might work with increased Rifle Ranges might be a depreciating Cluster Modifier value as Range increases a Cluster modifier akin to Hyper-Assault Gauss, such as a -4 at Long, -2 at Medium. This modifier just isn't used against Conventional Infantry. Won't need different values at that point.
An interesting thought.
-
So you're willing to have Infantry made useless regarding any Armored unit after they fire off 2-3 SRMs?
"Haha! We've unloaded all of our Missiles in to you monster! Fall! Fall!... Why aren't you falling? Run AWAY!" - Some arrogant Platoon commander, probably.
Absolutely.
Just like if you manage to get some ammo hog tank or Mech to run out of ammo. Sure, the tank could stick around and try to ram ankles or other tanks, but the crew might not be up for that, and it being expensive to replace means they would be better off withdrawing. The Mech has a better chance with physical attacks, being a Mech, but that's barring damage.
-
Absolutely.
Just like if you manage to get some ammo hog tank or Mech to run out of ammo. Sure, the tank could stick around and try to ram ankles or other tanks, but the crew might not be up for that, and it being expensive to replace means they would be better off withdrawing. The Mech has a better chance with physical attacks, being a Mech, but that's barring damage.
For all too many of the Mechs and Vehicles that's more than 2-3 Shots, though. Not to mention, they have other equipment to fall back on even then (Hoplites being one of the wretched exceptions).
Then there's the fact that Infantry have no effective means of rapid egress without an APC which would also be taken off the board with them.
From there, why would Infantry be included if they were just 2-3 shot ponies outside of pure narrative or cheap Imitative scumming?
-
For all too many of the Mechs and Vehicles that's more than 2-3 Shots, though. Not to mention, they have other equipment to fall back on even then (Hoplites being one of the wretched exceptions).
Then there's the fact that Infantry have no effective means of rapid egress without an APC which would also be taken off the board with them.
From there, why would Infantry be included if they were just 2-3 shot ponies outside of pure narrative or cheap Imitative scumming?
If they have an APC, we could revisit the idea of supply stations. I could see an APC being a supply point where they could restock. Most BT APCs are quite large. Besides, having run APCs, I find that without the infantry, they're not much in a fight in BT. I think the Maxim has an LRM variant, and that one would be the only real battlefield asset worth keeping on if for no other reason than it can provide indirect fire. At which point, your 'worthless' rifle infantry can deploy as spotters.
Otherwise, the only reason to bring them beyond the reasons given would very much be because you decided you wanted to, just because. Maybe you want to help them level up because there's a hero in the unit. Being on the board, whether they shoot anything or not, means they'll get participation experience, especially if you're using the BMR experience acquisition and crew/pilot improvement rules.
And, it sounds like there are some on these boards who want to include infantry with almost the same affection as some people always want to run an UrbanMech or LAMs, no matter the situation. You don't see the devs giving the Urbie an arbitrary speed or armor boost, do you? And, you've seen what the Devs actively did to LAMs.
So, why should Conventional Infantry be any more special?
But, we've agreed to disagree, so why belabor the point?
-
And, also, if we were to assume that a Rifle Platoon isn't a bunch of guys solely outfitted with Federated Long Rifles or the equivalent, but were equipped with, say 50 cal sniper support weapons or light recoilless rifles, one could make an argument for those weapons having more shots per deployment. An SRM at about 10 kilograms is 22 pounds. I don't think a squad would want to carry more than two per guy at most. So, seven-man squad with a single portable SRM-2 would most realistically have 6 reloads beyond the ones in the chamber. Edit: Whereas a clip of 50 cal rounds in that special rifle would last quite a while, and each of those is pretty light.
Edit: Going back to the light rifle squad having special munitions -
How many clips would any given trooper in light squad of 7 men outfitted with purely Federated Long Rifles have on them, do you think? How many of those clips should be dedicated anti-armor rounds per man? How many should be standard rifle rounds for firing at other dudes? And, remember, the assumption is that when in anti-armor mode, it takes the whole squad or platoon firing in concert to score armor damage. That means they're all burning through a matching clip at the same time, unlike say SRMs fired from an SRM Launcher. You're not relying on one guy to fire the shot with his lone Federated Long Rifle to get the armor damage to spread out the amount of required special munitions across the guys.
-
Quick question for anyone who has Total Warfare:
Is the range for the stock Federated Long Rifle the same as the M42B replacement in standard mode? I don't have access to the book, so I'm working purely off what I can find on Sarna.
If we were to create a set of range brackets based off the 30/75/180/430 meter distance, would that be pretty common across the board for stock ballistic rifles?
On a BT map with 30 meter hexes, that would come out to 1/2-3/6/14-15 depending on how you round.
I'm looking at using these ranges for the Anti-Infantry attack stat for infantry with light rifles.
(And, in comparison, any vehicle that has anti-infantry weaponry, including mechs, would get their RPG ranges for the weapons as a secondary stat in BT's 30m hexes. Yes! I know that means that armored units can plink at infantry inside that range. I won't be quite as mean about it, probably keeping the huge xd6 damage to inside the standard anti-armor ranges. It's something I'm looking at for head-canon logical consistency.)
-
If they have an APC, we could revisit the idea of supply stations. I could see an APC being a supply point where they could restock. Most BT APCs are quite large. Besides, having run APCs, I find that without the infantry, they're not much in a fight in BT. I think the Maxim has an LRM variant, and that one would be the only real battlefield asset worth keeping on if for no other reason than it can provide indirect fire. At which point, your 'worthless' rifle infantry can deploy as spotters.
Having APCs provide a restock is an interesting idea. How long would such a restock take, though?
What if they meet an APC that delivered a different unit that carried a different Support Weapon?
The the question goes, What happens if the APC is destroyed so they can't restock and now they can't leave? Just have a useless unit humping it off the battleground?
And there are a few APCs that have more firepower than just "Hey, you've been tickled." But in many scenarios, if they leave the table, they are destroyed for the purposes of scenario.
Otherwise, the only reason to bring them beyond the reasons given would very much be because you decided you wanted to, just because. Maybe you want to help them level up because there's a hero in the unit. Being on the board, whether they shoot anything or not, means they'll get participation experience, especially if you're using the BMR experience acquisition and crew/pilot improvement rules.
Why would a Hero be in an unit that is pretty much useless except against other useless units?
Not every group provides for "participation experience". In fact, we didn't for ours till we left the Aurigan Reach.
And, it sounds like there are some on these boards who want to include infantry with almost the same affection as some people always want to run an UrbanMech or LAMs, no matter the situation. You don't see the devs giving the Urbie an arbitrary speed or armor boost, do you? And, you've seen what the Devs actively did to LAMs.
So, why should Conventional Infantry be any more special?
Because Conventional Infantry aren't oddball units that pop in to existence every few generations to be proven stupid or memeable. Conventional Infantry have been the backbone of every single army since the concept of an army existed. And again, this wouldn't be special since they've literally been doing this for decades in game, and centuries in-universe.
Quick question for anyone who has Total Warfare:
It doesn't. That's the Tech Manual.
Is the range for the stock Federated Long Rifle the same as the M42B replacement in standard mode? I don't have access to the book, so I'm working purely off what I can find on Sarna.
The Tech Manual, and the Errata for the Infantry Weapons (June 2021 (https://bg.battletech.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/TechManual-TM_22-Tech-InfTables-Rev2021.pdf) list the ranges of both as "1", which is the 1-2-3 Range which can be expected of Rifles in Total Warfare.
The next one down that I don't know if it is a Laser Rifle or not that has a Range of "2" (TW ConvInf SRM range) is the M&G G-150.
(And, in comparison, any vehicle that has anti-infantry weaponry, including mechs, would get their RPG ranges for the weapons as a secondary stat in BT's 30m hexes. Yes! I know that means that armored units can plink at infantry inside that range. I won't be quite as mean about it, probably keeping the huge xd6 damage to inside the standard anti-armor ranges. It's something I'm looking at for head-canon logical consistency.)
So a reversal of standards in that the RPG that came second should inform the TT which came first?
-
Daemion: Shrapnel #1 makes your dream of ".50 cal" sniper rifles for all your friends a reality. If you want the full effect, you need to spring for the "Expanded Capacity" modification, at least at the AToW scale (they seem to have used Reload Factor as the way to limit its power). The Barton with that mod is capped by the 0.6 damage thing at TW scale (yes, it's totally one of those weapons that SHOULDN'T have the Heavy Burst special).
-
So a reversal of standards in that the RPG that came second should inform the TT which came first?
I'm asking about the A Time of War ranges for my own purposes. I thought I made that clear.
Some conceptual issues aside, I view the RPGs and how they handle personal combat as more in line with what I'm after. And, since I want infantry on infantry combat to be a bridge to that should I ever decide to incorporate more. I'm prone to 2nd ed, myself, but the ranges from AToW are more refined.
So, don't cite Tech Manual ranges to me when I'm asking about something else specifically, please.
Not every group provides for "participation experience". In fact, we didn't for ours till we left the Aurigan Reach.
So our groups are different. You're gonna find a lot of groups are different.
You may find that some people use the quick and easy experience system from ye olde BMR, and then want to level up some units like you would weak pokemon by throwing them in the fight for a moment. We don't necessarily balance forces by BV. We'll use it as a rough gauge. When game forces aren't determined by BV, there's all kinds of room to do weird stuff if you want to and the group allows.
And, speaking of weird shenanigans:
Why would a Hero be in an unit that is pretty much useless except against other useless units?
As for hero infantry, I point you to the elite named units provided in MechWarrior Dark Age that you had to win as prizes. Some of them were infantry. So, you have a guy that wants to have some named people as part of his custom infantry unit. They mostly get deployed for clean-up after the fighting's done. But, the commander, if not a few other guys in the squad/platoon have names that he's tracking for fun/story reasons. Maybe he's writing a fanfic about their exploits or using them as outside observers when writing about the larger battle.
Or maybe a MechWarrior decides to deploy their security team on the field because he's injured just enough that he can't pilot under Doc's orders, but he feels cantankerous enough that he wants to be there as moral support or to issue commands from the sidelines. The security team isn't outfitted for anti-armor work, nor trained for it. They're security, which means they tackle mano-a-mano firefights when they have to.
If I can imagine it, I'm sure there's someone out there who's done it for reasons that only their mind can fathom.
Players will be goofy in their own way when they want to be.
{1}Having APCs provide a restock is an interesting idea. How long would such a restock take, though?
{2}What if they meet an APC that delivered a different unit that carried a different Support Weapon?
{3}The the question goes, What happens if the APC is destroyed so they can't restock and now they can't leave? Just have a useless unit humping it off the battleground?
{4}And there are a few APCs that have more firepower than just "Hey, you've been tickled." But in many scenarios, if they leave the table, they are destroyed for the purposes of scenario.
Modifications in bold I put in so that I could tackle the different thoughts in sequence.
{1} How long to restock, I imagine would be a simple matter of boarding the APC. And then, next turn, they dismount, all topped off.
{2} This one would be up to the player group running the infantry. Because you have to ask a few questions which are very situational and shouldn't have a hard flat answer.
Are the infantry units cross-trained in other support weapons? If so there might be a spare weapon in its supplies that they can swap to.
If the squads and their attached APCs are largely part of a larger formation, it might be possible that the platoon as a whole leaves a little bit of everything in each of the platoon's APCs just in case. In that instance, there would be no problem.
Or, maybe procurement has been a bit of a hardass, and the platoon or company commander doesn't allow squads to deploy with any options other than what they're trained for with the APC they usually are assigned. In that instance, they're SoL.
{3} If their APC is destroyed and can't restock with another one, then, yeah. That happens. It's like having ejected pilots on the battlefield. You can't always run a mech over to pick that pilot up, so they're left hoofing it at best possible speed. Then the opposition has to decide if they want to run that pilot down or leave them to the wild.
{4} The idea of treating a unit as destroyed strikes me as something for games that track BV for victory conditions. Makes sense if that's how you do things. But, that doesn't mean you strike the retreating unit from your roster, does it?
I usually pay wording like that in scenarios little mind, because it's usually irrelevant to how our group plays.
Since a lot of my group's games don't use BV as anything more than a rough gauge of parity, we don't do objectives that way. And that ruling also precludes the possibility of linked play, especially if you have a set-up on a low-altitude map where you're tracking multiple battles that are a few kilometers/maps apart.
For instance, there will be times in some of our games where we'll track an opfor's movement off the edge of the map as it's racing away out of retreat to allow parting shots because somebody on the hero force has range and potential LoS, but we're too lazy to set up a new map. Some scenarios we turned into a chase, so we dropped one map Thunder Road style, and set up a new one with the fleeing units plopped down where they should be. Any units on the dropped map have a minimum of a few turns before they catch up, assuming they're gonna participate in the chase. Some will be rather damaged and/or left to hold the field.
Usually, in gauntlet style linked games where a force presses on in a larger battle, survivors can be important later on. They could show up as reinforcements to one side in whatever condition they left as they try to link up with friendlies, whether that's opfor for your hero team, or different elements of your hero team.
edit: Making the numbered bullets a little more distinct.
-
Daemion: Shrapnel #1 makes your dream of ".50 cal" sniper rifles for all your friends a reality. If you want the full effect, you need to spring for the "Expanded Capacity" modification, at least at the AToW scale (they seem to have used Reload Factor as the way to limit its power). The Barton with that mod is capped by the 0.6 damage thing at TW scale (yes, it's totally one of those weapons that SHOULDN'T have the Heavy Burst special).
I'm not asking for it to be true in Total Warfare via TechManual.
I'm just pointing out that a Rifle Platoon doesn't have to be visualized as guys solely outfitted with TK Assault Rifles or Federated Long Rifles or M42Bs. Recoilless rifles are the equivalent to tank guns. But if that's a little too big and clumsy, I've seen the .50 Cal do some very interesting things, and it is classed as anti-armor. A futuristic equivalent would still be a 'Rifle'.
And, before there was a Tech Manual, that was an easy assumption to make. Just because they decided to retcon in that a rifle platoon happens to be just that via TechManual doesn't mean I have to follow that reasoning.
We're in the fan rules boards, after all.
I have spoken.
-
I'm asking about the A Time of War ranges for my own purposes. I thought I made that clear.
I've thought I've made it very clear that I'm not, and I only address those points that are not solely directed at ATOW.
Some conceptual issues aside, I view the RPGs and how they handle personal combat as more in line with what I'm after. And, since I want infantry on infantry combat to be a bridge to that should I ever decide to incorporate more. I'm prone to 2nd ed, myself, but the ranges from AToW are more refined.
In general, from what I understand, soldiers, troopers, and combatants are considered individuals in the RPG, save when the situation calls for 'Mech and Vehicle combat. When considered in the 'Mech and Vehicle combat, they are always in groups of Infantry because it uses Battletech (though I could definitely be wrong).
There have been those who are trying to push the RPG as THE standard by which Total Warfare should resolve its rule structure. This would be VERY inconsistent with the history of the game, as it has not bowed to that structure at all. Hence my bringing it up at all.
So, don't cite Tech Manual ranges to me when I'm asking about something else specifically, please.
I will when you ask for Total Warfare, which doesn't carry the information you request, but The Tech Manual does.
So our groups are different. You're gonna find a lot of groups are different.
You may find that some people use the quick and easy experience system from ye olde BMR, and then want to level up some units like you would weak pokemon by throwing them in the fight for a moment. We don't necessarily balance forces by BV. We'll use it as a rough gauge. When game forces aren't determined by BV, there's all kinds of room to do weird stuff if you want to and the group allows.
Right back at you. In fact, in our weekly games, prior to me starting a monthly campaign, NO experience was tracked from week to week, as they are one-offs. The same applies to two other locations that have weekly games around here on different nights. We had a bi-weekly game held on another day for such things. So don't just assume that such is in play for every game for every one.
As for hero infantry, I point you to the elite named units provided in MechWarrior Dark Age that you had to win as prizes. Some of them were infantry. So, you have a guy that wants to have some named people as part of his custom infantry unit. They mostly get deployed for clean-up after the fighting's done. But, the commander, if not a few other guys in the squad/platoon have names that he's tracking for fun/story reasons. Maybe he's writing a fanfic about their exploits or using them as outside observers when writing about the larger battle.
And where are those now?
Or maybe a MechWarrior decides to deploy their security team on the field because he's injured just enough that he can't pilot under Doc's orders, but he feels cantankerous enough that he wants to be there as moral support or to issue commands from the sidelines. The security team isn't outfitted for anti-armor work, nor trained for it. They're security, which means they tackle mano-a-mano firefights when they have to.
If they are a commander, they are a target. Just because they don't WANT to nor are equipped to handle anti-Armor work, they may not get a choice in the matter. Instead of now being useless in that environment, I think having the traditional, and hence consistent, capacity to defend themselves in an offensive matter are important.
{1} How long to restock, I imagine would be a simple matter of boarding the APC. And then, next turn, they dismount, all topped off.
That sounds reasonable. It's always good to check expectations.
{2} This one would be up to the player group running the infantry. Because you have to ask a few questions which are very situational and shouldn't have a hard flat answer.
You're wrong. This should not be up to the group running the Infantry. There should be an expected standard to work from. Having no standard only leads to arguments. If people want to house-rule from there, that is their choice, but a baseline expectation should be set.
Are the infantry units cross-trained in other support weapons? If so there might be a spare weapon in its supplies that they can swap to.
This is part of the reason an expectation should be set. If they swap Support Weapons, they won't be on the unit's Record Sheet, and including ALL of them could take an inordinate amount of space. ConvInf Sheets are crowded enough as it is at present with a maximum of 3-4 when compared to Battle Armor's 5.
If the squads and their attached APCs are largely part of a larger formation, it might be possible that the platoon as a whole leaves a little bit of everything in each of the platoon's APCs just in case. In that instance, there would be no problem.
The next question is, if there is unlimited ammo in a single APC to cover a Battalion of ConvInf, why can't the ConvInf not also carry that same amount of Ammo on their person?
Or, maybe procurement has been a bit of a hardass, and the platoon or company commander doesn't allow squads to deploy with any options other than what they're trained for with the APC they usually are assigned. In that instance, they're SoL.
Or maybe, it's a practical measure because the APC barely has room for the Infantry they are carrying, and expected expenditures, that they can not carry infinite loads for everyone in a company/battalion riding in other APCs.
I bring up these questions because these are the standards we need to look at with these ideas.
{3} If their APC is destroyed and can't restock with another one, then, yeah. That happens. It's like having ejected pilots on the battlefield. You can't always run a mech over to pick that pilot up, so they're left hoofing it at best possible speed. Then the opposition has to decide if they want to run that pilot down or leave them to the wild.
So they are back to being in that pile of "useless" that they weren't in before. Up to 30 guys running because a sudden change in the universe made their weapons useless against what they could Damage before (if even only a little).
{4} The idea of treating a unit as destroyed strikes me as something for games that track BV for victory conditions. Makes sense if that's how you do things. But, that doesn't mean you strike the retreating unit from your roster, does it?
I usually pay wording like that in scenarios little mind, because it's usually irrelevant to how our group plays.
Didn't you just talk about not everyone playing the same way? In fact, this is a standard rule, and only when the scenario states otherwise that it isn't.
As a point, we do use the Forced Withdrawal rule in most of our weekly non-experience-gathering scenarios. One of the Victory Points is having the BV of enemy units that are in Forced Withdrawal still on the table counted up. Those who have the highest amount of BV in Forced Withdrawal on the table when time is up, loses this Victory Point.
-
I would use the existing reload rules, tac ops page 213, instead of making something up.
Its 3 battletech turns, assuming you have the equipment (you need a lift hoist or mech to reach another mech), to reload a unit. If the unit can suffer ammo explosions, there is a chance loading the ammo quickly 'is bad'. For infantry, though, if you flub the reload roll you would just presumably lose the reload action cause they dont suffer crits, with the exception of infernos which do have rules for exploding when carried by infantry. (on a roll of 11-12 when reloading in 30 seconds under fire, because of the haste, the ammo explodes causing an ammo crit--if the unit has those crits). Also, if you are shot in the rear while reloading, the ammo causes an AE blast. So dont do this in LOS of the enemy. Ammo dumps going up to mortar fire is a thing after all. However, infantry dont have rear arcs, so the good news is infantry never explode when reloading like a tank would.
As for capacity, the rules states its 1 ton cargo lots. So if your j27 or Bulldog has 1 ton of cargo and you loaded it with ammo, then thats how many shots it can reload. Mguns I guess get .5 ton lots, but I think thats the only one.
So, were you using a rifle squad with an SRM2 support weapon, with 2 shots (so not disposable OS javelins), they could spend 30 seconds unpacking fresh ammo from the crate and loading. OS weapons reload in less time in some instances, and the fast reload quirk also reduces time, so I assume this is the same? Battle armor, as an exception, still take 3 rounds to reload, but they reload all weapons to full regardless of number of weapons/ammo. Infantry arnt specified in this, so reloading an AC10 field gun squad takes 6 turns, 1 per ton of ammo. Field guns are the only ammo tracking infantry we have currently, so I would be fine saying infantry get the full battle armor reload of all weapons if infantry tracked multiple weapons, except for field guns, which must be loaded separately.
Thanks. So all it takes is a single hit or two, depending on armor for one guy to take out another. So, how easy is it again to land that hit?
Daemion its almost the same chart as total warfare. You get more variance in skills, but normal small arms shots are around a 4 'base'... They have a +/- system so medium range is -2 instead of +2, but it all works out to the same. Walking is 1 AMM, 10-45 meters (90m in 10 seconds) is 1 harder like 3 hex TMM in classic, so roughly the same as btech. RPG character can go below '0' effective small arms skill, so you can see like a -2 effective gunnery put in classic btech terms, but technically with campaign ops special skills you can do something similar in battletech too.
Also, yes you guessed right you get 2 actions, so can shoot 2 times in a 5 second turn. But moving is an action, so in 10 seconds infantry that moves 1 hex (30m) will use up 2 actions doing that most of the time. Also when damaged you lose an action, so in a back and forth exchange infantry cant shoot 2 times if they were hit. Battletroops had you hit the deck at certain points when damaged, so its kinda similar. Thats not counting bleeds crits and such, but those didnt come up too much unless you were taking massive hits.
-
I would use the existing reload rules, tac ops page 213, instead of making something up.
Its 3 battletech turns, assuming you have the equipment (you need a lift hoist or mech to reach another mech), to reload a unit. If the unit can suffer ammo explosions, there is a chance loading the ammo quickly 'is bad'. For infantry, though, if you flub the reload roll you would just presumably lose the reload action cause they dont suffer crits, with the exception of infernos which do have rules for exploding when carried by infantry. (on a roll of 11-12 when reloading in 30 seconds under fire, because of the haste, the ammo explodes causing an ammo crit--if the unit has those crits). Also, if you are shot in the rear while reloading, the ammo causes an AE blast. So dont do this in LOS of the enemy. Ammo dumps going up to mortar fire is a thing after all. However, infantry dont have rear arcs, so the good news is infantry never explode when reloading like a tank would.
As for capacity, the rules states its 1 ton cargo lots. So if your j27 or Bulldog has 1 ton of cargo and you loaded it with ammo, then thats how many shots it can reload. Mguns I guess get .5 ton lots, but I think thats the only one.
So, were you using a rifle squad with an SRM2 support weapon, with 2 shots (so not disposable OS javelins), they could spend 30 seconds unpacking fresh ammo from the crate and loading. OS weapons reload in less time in some instances, and the fast reload quirk also reduces time, so I assume this is the same? Battle armor, as an exception, still take 3 rounds to reload, but they reload all weapons to full regardless of number of weapons/ammo. Infantry arnt specified in this, so reloading an AC10 field gun squad takes 6 turns, 1 per ton of ammo. Field guns are the only ammo tracking infantry we have currently, so I would be fine saying infantry get the full battle armor reload of all weapons if infantry tracked multiple weapons, except for field guns, which must be loaded separately.
Three Turns seems a bit excessive as part of that reload is making sure that the feeding/loading mechanisms are functioning. With Conventional Infantry, they ARE the feeding/loading mechanisms. So it's grab, pack, and go. Not to mention the full load weight we're looking at is WAY smaller for Support Weapons than it is for Ammo Bays and Field Guns. I'm fine with one, but two might work as a compromise. In essence, Conventional Infantry should have the Fast Reload Design Quirk for Support Weapons.
Thinking on it a little bit further, maybe this should be relegated to experience. Green Troops, and even Regulars can easily fumble under fire (being reminded of the rifle training in Glory or Last Samurai). Maybe it should be reserved for Veterans and better?
The rules also put the unit and its loader in to Immobilized Status. That makes sense if it's happening in a building's Armory, but then, the Infantry aren't going anywhere anyway and already in "Immobilized" status as the enemy has to kill the Immobilized building to shoot the Infantry directly.
That is probably excessive if they are boarding an APC to reload, though. I'd probably put it as the APC can move no faster than Cruising Speed. That's my thoughts on it at present, though.
-
Okay. Point of order. I'm one that wants the AnInf ranges for rifles to match the RPG ranges for said rifles when engaging other infantry. So, they wouldn't necessarily be completely outranged. Getting into range for anti-armor work is the real risky part.
There's a huge disconnect between standard BT stats and RPG stats, and I want to see that reflected on the BT map should players want to run infantry squads that hunt other infantry squads. If we're gonna have an RPG that does things so drastically different, that shouldn't magically disappear as soon as you move to the Game of Armored Combat for Mech and Tank and BA warfare.
That's why I'm still an advocate for two different stats for infantry. Two different types of attack with two different range and damage values.
I agree that there's a huge difference between the RPG and TT. It would be better if they tried to close that divide. Giving Infantry weapons greater range against Infantry sounds good but using their RPG ranges may be too much though. They could be hitting other infantry more than a mapsheet away. At those ranges, Mechs and Vehicles wouldn't need anti-infantry weapons and ammo. They'd just bring infantry.
This is weird. They had the damage value by number of troopers listed for a reason. After the cluster roll, I just consulted the record sheet for the damage based on troopers hit. So, if 4 guys hit, then look at what damage 4 troopers do on their damage chart.
That might work for Generic Infantry but those built under TM don't just add up damage per trooper that hits. They should but there is a couple more steps.
I would like to point out that I had started to move away from the Total Warfare interpretation of Infantry damage almost from the inception of the Mechanized Infantry in the base rules, before TechManual really made me question things. And, a lot of it had to do with trying to emulate Dark Age infantry units like the Hoverbike squad.
(snip)
For me it was the introduction of Support Vehicles. If individual types of Battle Armor could be built, why not the vehicles used by Motorized Infantry? Mechanized Infantry and how TW handles them just made things worse. Wouldn't a halftrack be more armored than a jeep? And wouldn't those in the jeep be just as close as those in the halftrack? They way TW does it seems backwards and then we get ATOW and infantry's vehicles are actual vehicles. :huh:
The way Battle Armor rules handle to different attack types, especially for Elementals, is the perfect way to do it. And, might as well bridge the gap between the RPG and the board game with the infantry against infantry, and keep it easy by leaving the anti-armor work to the anti-armor weapons. Hard stats. No real fuss.
I agree how BA is done would be better for motorized and mechanized infantry.
And, at the very least, the RPG shows that there should be a wide variety of troops with different levels of protection and armament, some of it (maybe most of it) practically worthless while some of it is really top tier (but extremely rare). That needs to be reflected somehow.
There are some people who don't want to see any changes. That's fine, then. You have the infantry you want. Now, let me brainstorm and have something I feel more comfortable with.
I agree.
It would be nice better rules for infantry and either they or the current rules were optional. That way those who wanted to use what's available now can.
To the idea of limited ammo, I would like to point out that there are Mech and tank designs that have very limited amounts of shots for a main gun. The Hatchetman comes to mind with only one ton of LB-x10 ammo. I think there's a Mech somewhere that has a single ton of LRM-20 ammo.
And, when they're out, they're out. Why should infantry be any different. For a real life comparison how many minutes of ammo would a modern squad have available to it?
I agree, especially since BA and small support vehicles which infantry weapons do track their ammo. At least the support ammo should be tracked.
Secondly, poor force-building is a thing. You take something to a wrong situation, it should have ramifications. Urbie in open field warfare, anyone?
So, why not with Infantry, too? You have a pure anti-infantry build with rifles, and the mission suddenly turns out to be all anti-armor, or changes to that at some point, well, you took the risk that you might need to bust some grunts. Chalk it up to bad intel, or you can also look at it as bad scenario design. (And, if you really are using them simply to occupy an end zone for points or an objective for points, they're still a body taking up space that someone will have to dedicate fire toward at some point.)
Agreed.
(snip)
Maybe one of the things we should consider as part purchasing and deploying infantry is some sort of emplacement. You worried about running out of ammo for your anti-armor weapons, how about a supply drop placed at the start of battle. At this place, infantry with ammo may fire in perpetuity, or get a huge ammo count to draw from. While out on their own, they will run out, but at a supply drop, you get resupply. Same with a hardened bunker.
(snip)
If infantry are to have a large amount of ammo the bunker should have some ammo set aside for infantry. As motorized/mechanized infantry should have ammo as part of their vehicle but if they need to carry more they should be able to tow a cargo trailer. All infantry types could also reload in the field. If Mechs and vehicles can, why not infantry?
Infantry are good at taking and holding objectives. Well, why not bring an 'objective' along with them when building your force?
Edit: It's not necessarily a new idea. I point you to the MW:DA emplacement infantry. You bought them and set them up as part of your force for a game of Clix.
Why not?
I missed them.
-
All infantry types could also reload in the field. If Mechs and vehicles can, why not infantry?
Infantry CAN reload in the field currently. Its just, the only ammo tracked on infantry currently is for field guns. So we just need infantry to track ammo, so that an SRM isnt .57 damage because of bullcrap conversion rules that dont agree with the RPG or how battle armor do things.
Also, there is a TON of vehicles I would like to see used in squads, because otherwise they are pretty stupid. Automatically, everything under 5 tons, but realistically everything under 10 tons. 9 tons is the limit for protomechs and mechs start at 10, so I like the idea that vees under 10 tons, like the savannah master, have to operate in squads and not just be stupid cheap init sinks. Having a squad of 4 savannah masters running around as 1 unit, like battle armor, increases the base cost, reduces the number of things to have to move, and makes taking savannah masters not a 'dick' move.
This, of course, is doubly true for infantry vehicles like whatever the mechanized hover squads are supposed to be. A mechanized laser hover squad is 5 tons, which is what a savannah master is.
-
One idea ive been mulling over is the '2 action' infantry. So we kinda have this, with how infantry can move and shoot with some weapons, or move OR shoot with other weapons. Id like to see this be more formalized in the rules, especially because infantry IMHO should 100% take movement modifiers (same with battle armor). Encumbered infantry go to 1 action, elite troops (technically anti-mech is supposed to be elite, but its very poorly represented) could have 3 actions cause they are melee/ccb trained or anti-mech trained, and can make a 3rd action in the physical phase. Likewise elite special forces with TAG would be 3 action troops if they can move, and spot, and shoot. Most IRL spotters cant do that i think with their CLUs right?
I mention 2 and 3 action infantry because in the current rules, anti-mech trained infantry pay DOUBLE for their shooting attack if they are AM capable. But they cant use both AM and shooting in the current rules--this means most infantry is taken as non-AM troops, who get a 50% weapon discount, and a skill discount for 8 AM skill. Its cheesy and exploity, and a big part of why infantry is far far too cheap. With an action system, if you pay properly for AM attacks, then you should be able to make AM attacks as well as shooting attacks, to justify the 2x + skill costs.
The other important bit about '2 action' infantry is that we can use it for suppression/stun. In the RPG, taking fire reduces your actions from 2 to 1. I wouldn't mind making infantry tougher (via proper pips exactly like battle armor, NOT damage divisors), and increasing infantry range, if hits to infantry suppressed them/stunned them. Basically, infantry that gets hit puts its head down, and while not that hurt per se, rifle infantry would be move or shoot, and encumbered infantry would lose their action. Mechs that KO/shutdown or crews that get stunned lose their shooting action, so it would be a way to buff infantry health to mech/vee levels, and give them a simple to track condition like 'stunned' on tanks.
Thus, the more expensive 3 action AM infantry, which cost more cause of being AM trained, when shot would still have 2 actions left. So they can still move and shoot, or shoot and AM attack. The cheap, fodder infantry that takes any fire is down to 1 action, or 0 if encumbered. So those cheap green and regular SRM teams with no AM attack you got for 60 bv, well any shot towards them puts their heads down and they cant shoot, as they count as moving next turn as they collect themselves after getting shot at.
This kinda also emulates morale. The more expensive, special trained AM troops are more capable under fire, and light and mobile rifle squads can recover quicker when they arnt lugging around machine guns they have to entrench. It helps balance the BV and weapon disparity issues infantry have. Just a late night thought.
-
...So we kinda have this, with how infantry can move and shoot with some weapons, or move OR shoot with other weapons. Id like to see this be more formalized in the rules...
How can it be more formalized than already existing in the rules? This line of thinking is something I don't understand.
If you mean delineated in a step-by-step program with an "Action" definition, it almost sounds like setting up a different system and definitions for Infantry to work from than any other unit..
...especially because infantry IMHO should 100% take movement modifiers (same with battle armor).
Allow them to Run and Flank, first. Right now they only have 2 options, maybe, and that's basic movement and MAYBE Jump. As it is, they're using their bodies to aim and shoot, not trying to translate finicky movement through machinery.
This kinda also emulates morale. The more expensive, special trained AM troops are more capable under fire, and light and mobile rifle squads can recover quicker when they arnt lugging around machine guns they have to entrench. It helps balance the BV and weapon disparity issues infantry have. Just a late night thought.
I don't think morale is the right word. Morale is more about how likely the unit is to break, not how instinctual their actions under fire are. It's experience, and that is what it is called, and how it is treated.
-
Its not formalized as an action system because while foot infantry are move/shoot, other infantry move slower but move and shoot with no issue. The idea of an 'encumbered' troop cause they are wearing heavy armor kits driving their half tracks slower and shooting at 100% efficiency, versus a half track moving 3 MP cause its a halftrack, thats how fast it goes, but the encumbered/bulky infantry being unable to shoot cause its not a tank with weapon stabilizers.
So id like a formal action system so we dont have all these different move values trying to represent firing on the move with heavy weapons by reducing some things movement but not others.
As for running, im 100% for infantry being able to run. Mostly vehicle infantry especially. Foot infantry should need a specialization like "masc" to run, as 60m in 10 seconds is quite fast with no masc roll to 'cool down'.
I agree morale isnt the right word. Stunned is the word the RPG uses, but thats a tank condition for classic. Im fine with it being called stunned only if its identical to how tanks handle it just cause I don't want to confuse the two. But also, stunned means no shooting, and i think a more flexible system where infantry can choose what action they give up makes more sense.
Edit: so instead of encumbered versus not, with overly gamey squad building, if we have 1/2/3 action infantry, then 2 action infantry are just better conditioned then 1 action, so they can move and shoot even with heavy weapons, while 1 action infantry are cheaper, but move/fire.
I hate that i can make a 7 squads 3 troopers per squad with 1 heavy weapon, versus 3 squads with 7 troopers with 2 heavy weapons, and in that example the platoon with fewer total heavy weapons is the "slow" one. Id much rather slow infantry be 1 action and conditioned be 2, to remove the gameyness of platoon construction and heavy weapons.
-
Consider how Infantry "SPAs" could address some of the options you outline. If you're on the fence about 2 or 3 actions, make the baseline 2, with an SPA to get it to 3 (that's essentially what Foot Cavalry does; AToW Companion, page 71 refers).
-
Its not formalized as an action system because while foot infantry are move/shoot, other infantry move slower but move and shoot with no issue.
That's because it's not an action system at all. No other unit in Battletech operates on an action economy. The reason Foot Infantry with a full Support Weapon allotment have Move or Shoot is because they can't go any slower, and it's important for them to move some time.
Also, Tracked Mechanized aren't affected by this, but in general Mechanized Infantry is an unintelligent unit type in general that needs to be removed as a concept.
Motorized is in a weird spot, though. Honestly, there should just be a "Cavalry" unit type that Motorized and Beast-Mounted fall under that operates like an enhanced Infantry unit.
The idea of an 'encumbered' troop cause they are wearing heavy armor kits driving their half tracks slower and shooting at 100% efficiency, versus a half track moving 3 MP cause its a halftrack, thats how fast it goes, but the encumbered/bulky infantry being unable to shoot cause its not a tank with weapon stabilizers.
That's because the support Weapon is already deployed on the "vehicle", while the Foot guys have to set up the Support Weapons to fire. That's a fairly obvious concept.
That doesn't explain the Jump Infantry, though. That's one I think, in the sake of reality, that they should be like Foot Infantry in this regard.
So id like a formal action system so we dont have all these different move values trying to represent firing on the move with heavy weapons by reducing some things movement but not others.
Correction, you'd like AN action system. The ruleset is pretty well-defined as to what gets full movement and what doesn't, and that's how many Support Weapons the unit is carrying per Squad.
The real question is why Motorized and most Mechanized are reduced in this case. Are Machine Guns THAT heavy?
As for running, im 100% for infantry being able to run. Mostly vehicle infantry especially. Foot infantry should need a specialization like "masc" to run, as 60m in 10 seconds is quite fast with no masc roll to 'cool down'.
Foot Cavalry can already move 60m in 10s, and that's just with training and many long running sessions, no tech. Then there's Beast-Mounted Infantry, too. Maybe they should have "Sprint" and "Gallop" options.
And honestly, I think Mechanized Infantry should go away and be represented by Ultra-Light Support Vehicles and organized like BA. They'd at least get normal Vehicle rules (sort of) that way, and as they should.
I agree morale isnt the right word. Stunned is the word the RPG uses, but thats a tank condition for classic. Im fine with it being called stunned only if its identical to how tanks handle it just cause I don't want to confuse the two. But also, stunned means no shooting, and i think a more flexible system where infantry can choose what action they give up makes more sense.
Stunned isn't an appropriate word, either, really. Because they aren't really stunned, but transitioning from mobile to emplaced.
-
Charistoph, in regards to the action system, the RPG has the action system, and after tech manual changed infantry classic has a pseudo action system too. The reduction on MP and such in classic is a result of the action economy in the RPG, but its a loose conversion system. It also impacts weapon damage in reload factors and such.
In prior versions of battletech, if im not crazy, SRM infantry and SRM jump infantry were normal movement, right? We didnt use to have 2mp Jump squads, though it has been 20 years so correct me if im wrong. It was only after the change to the 2 action system in the RPG that we saw those changes in classic, where they tried to emulate 2 action infantry and items that take multiple actions.
Anyway, thats why id like to see the action system brought out of hiding for classic, because a big part of the action system in the RPG is that you lose one of your 2 actions when you are hit, and that would be a good rule for infantry in battletech to use as well. The fact that infantry have no status conditions, except the sub par morale rules, really relegates them to 'sub' units. Id like an infantry platoon to be a real unit, tougher with normal ranges, and also priced reasonably so that taking a group of infantry isnt in the same gameplay space as taking a group of savannah masters.
The SPAs are a good nod to replicating some of this--great point Daryk. I just wish we had this at a core level, instead of going to SPAs.
As for mech infantry having their weapons already mounted--some times they do sometimes they dont and are hand carrying everything, the art is inconsistent and we both agree the mech infantry concept is a mess and should go away/get treated like battle armor squads. But, regardless of how the weapon is mounted in the art, on the table you can 'game' the squad/weapon system because of how ill defined it is, with small squads with 1 weapon for no speed reduction, and massive squads somehow struggling to carry two tiny SAWs. Building infantry shouldnt be gamed like that, not when we have KG based construction rules for battle armor and small support vehicles that dont work the way infantry do at all AND it doesnt conform to how the same troop in the RPG moves, which the classic unit is drawing for its data.
-
In prior versions of battletech, if im not crazy, SRM infantry and SRM jump infantry were normal movement, right? We didnt use to have 2mp Jump squads, though it has been 20 years so correct me if im wrong. It was only after the change to the 2 action system in the RPG that we saw those changes in classic, where they tried to emulate 2 action infantry and items that take multiple actions.
Yes, since introduced in CityTech, SRM and portable laser jump troops (the 1:2 damage category) could only jump 2 hexes. MG and flamer platoons (1:3) damage category) have 3 MPs and rifles (1:4) have 4 MPs; BTM drops Rifle platoons to 3 MPs. CityTech motorized troops have the same MPs as BTM jump troops while all foot troops have a single MP with no move or fire considerations.
-
Charistoph, in regards to the action system, the RPG has the action system, and after tech manual changed infantry classic has a pseudo action system too. The reduction on MP and such in classic is a result of the action economy in the RPG, but its a loose conversion system. It also impacts weapon damage in reload factors and such.
That's a bit of an assumption, and rather irrelevant as the RPG doesn't, nor shouldn't, be defining the Wargame, as they aren't the same game.
You haven't provided another example of another unit using an "Action" system in Battletech, but went to another game of the universe.
There are similar concepts such as a Hatchetman not using his Medium Laser so he can use his Hatchet, or forgoing all fire to Sprint.
The fact that infantry have no status conditions, except the sub par morale rules, really relegates them to 'sub' units. Id like an infantry platoon to be a real unit, tougher with normal ranges, and also priced reasonably so that taking a group of infantry isnt in the same gameplay space as taking a group of savannah masters.
How does lacking status conditions make them a 'sub' unit? That's a concept that doesn't make sense.
And how do you mean "priced reasonably"? What about them is not "priced reasonably" now?
And no one confuses Infantry with Savannah Masters. Other than being cheaper than most other units, what space in gameplay do Infantry and Savannah Masters combine in? Savannah Masters have insane speed, allowing them to be almost anywhere they choose to be, and allowing them to do insane Charging Damage or MedLas Backshots with impunity. Only the foolish, ignorant, desperate, or those who fail their perception checks allow Infantry to do the same.
But, regardless of how the weapon is mounted in the art, on the table you can 'game' the squad/weapon system because of how ill defined it is, with small squads with 1 weapon for no speed reduction, and massive squads somehow struggling to carry two tiny SAWs. Building infantry shouldnt be gamed like that, not when we have KG based construction rules for battle armor and small support vehicles that dont work the way infantry do at all AND it doesnt conform to how the same troop in the RPG moves, which the classic unit is drawing for its data.
Usually in those cases with 1 Support Weapon, they are stuck at the Primary Weapon's Range, and if those are Range 1 Rifles, it almost doesn't do much of anything.
And we agree that having a 30 man Squad (or 100) shouldn't gimp ones' available Support Weapon so much, so that's why the idea of building the Platoon on the Squad basis, and limiting Squad size to 10 members, is being proposed. Failing that, it should be properly proportional, such as 1 Support Weapon per 5 men in the Squad (rounded up). Still that games at 6 members, but it would at least match what the 7 man squads can do now.
And again, I really don't care about how the RPG handles individuals, so it is quite meaningless in this discussion.
-
Edit: so instead of encumbered versus not, with overly gamey squad building, if we have 1/2/3 action infantry, then 2 action infantry are just better conditioned then 1 action, so they can move and shoot even with heavy weapons, while 1 action infantry are cheaper, but move/fire.
Gyro-stabilized harnesses are a thing in BattleTech. Being equipped with one and maybe a support frame for the legs, something not quite full exoskeleton, might be the way to go. Again, that's some fancy gear. It's somethin I would imagine only elite front-line troops would have the clearance to procure.
Now, as to the rest of the idea of actions, I like the concept. And, being able to sprint flat out to get 2 MP for ground but at the cost of not being able to shoot, or on the flip-side, be able to hold position and gain an extra attack for the squad, would make infantry interesting.
The idea of stunning, or rather pinning, would fit the modern feel of fire-fights. And, that might be an attack option for squads with light rifles, being able to put down sustained fire on a squad or an area to force that loss of action. But, I'm with you on the idea the infantry keeping their heads down should get to choose which they want to do.
Maybe infantry should get a little mini 'heat scale'? An action scale, if you will. And, then they have a cool-down rate, as well. The most basic is that the cost of moving or making any kind of attack, regardless of phase, costs one point. If you're encumbered, then the cost of moving is increased by one, making it generally impossible to make an attack while moving at the same time. And your cooldown rate during the heat phase would knock that back down to zero, so a rate of two. But, let's say there's some overflow, and someone decides to 'push' the unit into hasty action. So, suddenly, you're over the normal amount, and your cooldown is still only 2, so, you would be down an action until you take a proper moment to rest.
Heck, we don't have to keep it tiny. Maybe borrow the Alpha strike heat scale which is all of five places? And you can scale the cost of your actions accordingly. We could make it a little more meaningful with a slightly more granular scale, allowing for one cost things to refine some of the costs.
(All of this is making me feel that a Revised BattleTroops would work very well as a simple BattleTech reskin.)
-
I agree that there's a huge difference between the RPG and TT. It would be better if they tried to close that divide. Giving Infantry weapons greater range against Infantry sounds good but using their RPG ranges may be too much though. They could be hitting other infantry more than a mapsheet away. At those ranges, Mechs and Vehicles wouldn't need anti-infantry weapons and ammo. They'd just bring infantry.
Well, if you look what I posted above for the Federated-Barrett M42B, the short range is only 1 BT hex. The medium range is either 2 or 3 BT hexes, depending on how you round, and Long is only 6. That's not that far. Sure, Extreme goes out to just over 14 hexes. But that's Extreme Range, which imparts a +6 to-hit modifier. When you start to factor in intervening and occupied terrain, that could quickly become impossible. So, a lot of infantry combat is going to be relatively short range, especially if you're trying to inflict casualties.
-
And again, I really don't care about how the RPG handles individuals, so it is quite meaningless in this discussion.
It might be meaningless to you, but that's just your preference. We are in the fan rules sub-forum, and I, for one, am just spit-balling ideas, weighing them against others to see what I like and want to implement. Feel free to take or leave what you want for your own game. But, that's no reason to actively dissuade someone of pursuing an avenue of thought.
Each iteration of RPG has been an attempt to move conflict out of the crew compartment and into the unarmored field, or handle things that don't come normally in the Game of Armored Combat. Infantry, oddly enough, are better represented in those systems. I don't see it as a failing when trying to look at where to bridge the two. Bridging the two should be a goal in the game design. It's the same issue with Aero. The way the two systems we currently have are bridged are largely undesirable to a lot of people, if that thread in the General Discussion is anything to go by.
-
It might be meaningless to you, but that's just your preference. We are in the fan rules sub-forum, and I, for one, am just spit-balling ideas, weighing them against others to see what I like and want to implement. Feel free to take or leave what you want for your own game. But, that's no reason to actively dissuade someone of pursuing an avenue of thought.
It's meaningless because they do not operate at the same scale of operations. When the values are easily lost in the transition, it becomes quite meaningless.
It's meaningless when you want to introduce a new system for Infantry, but don't consider it for other unit types in the same vein.
It's meaningless when it feels like going backwards just for the sake of going backwards.
If you want to try an updated mechanic, that's fine, but presenting it just because the RPG has it is as meaningless as suggesting 40K or WarMachine systems.
RPGs care about individuals on a personal basis. Battletech (the game) does not care about individual peoples on the battlefield unless they are encased in a Protomech, Tank, Fighter, or Battlemech. All others come on the field in Squads or Platoons, i.e. groups of people. It simply does not have the room to care about individuals of Infantry the way that the RPG does, which makes RPG comparisons rather meaningless.
BattleTroops is a better place for these considerations, not Battletech.
-
Thank you for stating your position. I think I understand where you're coming from much better now.
-
That's a bit of an assumption, and rather irrelevant as the RPG doesn't, nor shouldn't, be defining the Wargame, as they aren't the same game
I really don't care about how the RPG handles individuals
I agree that the RPG shouldnt be defining the wargame, but it 100% is. All the RPG stuff is converted via an RPG to Battletech conversion, and part of it includes the action rate of weapons and the reload action. It appears only the BASE movement rate itself is solely based in battletech, and the final infantry move speed of things part of unit design including the RPG encumbering value and RPG crew requirements.
what space in gameplay do Infantry and Savannah Masters combine in?
The 5 ton mech laser hover infantry, and the 5 ton hover vehicle with a laser. I think we both agreed already that infantry sized vehicles and full sized vehicles overlapping in this way was problematic.
How does lacking status conditions make them a 'sub' unit?
If all other unit types have some form of status condition, with the exception of infantry types, they stand out as 'less then' other unit types. They ignore a few parts of the game that all other units follow, and this is usually presented as 'they are so insignificant' as the reason, with the follow up that 'you need more then one unit of infantry to make something happen'. Thus, a single infantry unit selection compared to another unit, like a tank, mech or plane, feels like a sub-unit. Its like taking only 1 proto--1 proto is a sub unit, they clearly are meant to operate in groups, and one individual protomech isnt a normal or real choice, but a sub choice as part of the 5 protomech unit.
-
Now, as to the rest of the idea of actions, I like the concept. And, being able to sprint flat out to get 2 MP for ground but at the cost of not being able to shoot, or on the flip-side, be able to hold position and gain an extra attack for the squad, would make infantry interesting.
Daemion I like your idea of MP being the replacement for actions. So 1 MP infantry are your militia, your generic unconditioned troops who are encumbered with normal combat gear and the assumed base level armor infantry must wear to not take double damage. If its 1 MP to shoot heavy weapons, then they get to move or shoot. Rifles are simple to operate, so like the RPG you can walk and fire a rifle in a turn (with the walk penalty).
2 MP infantry could have stabilizers to represent 'well equipped' troops or quick recon troops (which are pretty cheap and one of the top 3 things to add to an autorifle or machine gun, along with upgraded scopes), or they could be elementals, or just really well trained. They can move 2 MP when they go all out, or move 1 MP and still fire their heavy weapons.
It also 'fixes' not having a run speed, which honestly infantry and motorized infantry should have. So a 2 MP infantry squad can run for 2 hexes, and if they take the normal running penalty like everything else does (including infantry in the RPG), then their rifles fired from the hip will be less accurate but still shoot-able.
It takes an action to reload the common weapons, so instead of SRM launchers dealing .57 damage cause of odd conversion stuff, they would deal 2 damage and take an MP to load. So a 1 MP infantry would be the bumbling recruits who take forever to do anything when encumbered in all their gear, while conditioned infantry with 2 MP/actions could remain stationary to shoot and reload in the same turn.
Pinning is a good word for what the RPG calls 'stunned', where you lose 1 action in the RPG, since stunned is a term for tank crews. (I think other games call a similar mechanic mechanic 'bailing' when a tank takes a pen hit and the crew cant shoot while they organize themselves?)
If we look at the actual movement rules, to see how this would line up, average joe of 4 or 5 attribute only walks 18 meters in 10 seconds, so without taking the run action they arnt moving 1 hex, but have 2 actions to use in the RPG each 5 seconds. Average joe running moves 38, or 27 if they walk for 5 seconds and run for 5 seconds, and average joe who has trained running a normal amount can move 44-46, or if they walk for 5 seconds and run for 5, they can move 31-32 hexes. So training does make the difference of being able to move 1 hex or not for average joe.
So a trained soldier (or someone really buff like an average elemental) can move 30+ meters in 10 seconds, hip firing a rifle and spending a complex action laying down suppressive fire with a heavy weapon.
A 3 MP trooper, would be someone able to make use of the sprint action. Sprinting in the RPG takes the whole turn and is fatiguing, so it takes a full turn doing nothing to remove it. Fatigue is kinda like the 'heat' thing you mentioned, and is the MASC thing I mentioned. However, for average joe you can build up 4 fatigue before the penalties kick in. You also take fatigue each attack, in addition to stun, but it only really matters if you take a LOT of fatigue (or non-lethal damage, which in battletech comes from water cannons on mech mounted fluid guns and probably a few other places).
Sprinting for 5 seconds, our untrained average joe can move 38 meters, 76 in 10 seconds if unencumbered. Thats no shooting, rifles, ect, just the same as sprinting in tactical operations for mechs and such, but with the additional limit that they cant sprint for very long. A trained average joe can sprint for 88-92 meters, so well trained high willpower troops, unencumbered or with assistive load bearing devices, can hit 3 MP in a battletech turn. Thats no actions. Such well trained, or well equipped, or good elemental troops would be able to carry more stuff. Thats either anti-mech or other specialist equipment. So when they move 2 MP they would still be able to fire a heavy weapon with a complex action, as they would sprint for 45+ depending on skill and walk for 10+ depending on equipment and buffness, hitting 60 meters in 10 seconds with enough in the tank to still lay down suppressive heavy weapon fire. Being above average, they would also be able to keep that up for 5+ turns in a row without pause, but getting hit would stun them as normal and 'pin' them/take away lots of actions.
So with the 1/2/3 MP infantry, we get more mobile troops with training, giving a reason to buy said training instead of just taking the horde of untrained infantry. The movement of 1 walk 2 run 3 sprint also lets us use the standard hit chart that mechs and the RPG infantry share for +1/+2/No shots. Motorized infantry by extension of a walk/run/sprint speed would move 3/5/6. So across the board infantry would be more mobile and more responsive on the table, and less of a 'zombie' horde. Further, a hit from a weapon would slow them down/pin them, encouraging taking actual skilled infantry instead of the no-AM skilled cannon fodder we see a lot of now. Those AM or other specialized troops would be more expensive then the fodder infantry; the fodder might not be easy to kill in bulk, but putting them under fire makes them combat ineffective without needing morale or other such rolls.
Suppressing infantry by shooting at them to pin them is a big deal in other games (and I assume real life), and this seems like a good way to implement this in BattleTech without needed any charts or rolls or such, while also encouraging the use of better trained infantry to be more effective under fire.
-
And, the fun thing about defining actions with MP cost is that it has a correlation in the old BattleTroops 1 & 2.
-
And, all it requires is a small additional little table defining Infantry MP options.
-
printing for 5 seconds, our untrained average joe can move 38 meters, 76 in 10 seconds if unencumbered. Thats no shooting, rifles, ect, just the same as sprinting in tactical operations for mechs and such, but with the additional limit that they cant sprint for very long. A trained average joe can sprint for 88-92 meters, so well trained high willpower troops, unencumbered or with assistive load bearing devices, can hit 3 MP in a battletech turn. Thats no actions. Such well trained, or well equipped, or good elemental troops would be able to carry more stuff. Thats either anti-mech or other specialist equipment. So when they move 2 MP they would still be able to fire a heavy weapon with a complex action, as they would sprint for 45+ depending on skill and walk for 10+ depending on equipment and buffness, hitting 60 meters in 10 seconds with enough in the tank to still lay down suppressive heavy weapon fire. Being above average, they would also be able to keep that up for 5+ turns in a row without pause, but getting hit would stun them as normal and 'pin' them/take away lots of actions.
Do you think we could turn the pilot damage chart into the required fatique chart for an infantry squad? After each turn doing flat-out running, you increase the level on the fatigue chart and roll against the value there to see if the squad members have to slow down and catch their breath next turn?
And, suppression fire could simply be something that imparts a pinned condition that imparts a reduction in MP to the suppressed infantry target.
Again, this is something I can only see infantry doing, because they can stagger their fire over the full ten second turn, whereas Mechs and Tanks fire their guns in controlled bursts with a downtime for automatic reloading/charging mechanisms to kick in. Or, that's how I see it, at least.
Although, I wonder if Mechs and Tanks should be allowed to choose between attack modes for their anti-infantry weapons like machine guns. Especially machine guns. Then we could bring in the anti-infantry ranges you get with equivalent support weapons in the RPG as an alternate attack mode, and it would be to largely deny a targeted infantry squad or squads in a hex valuable MP out to (looks at Sarna (https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Support_Machine_Gun)) goes out to an extreme range of 625 meters, or 21 BT ground hexes. The suppression effect would happen regardless of whether damage is done or not. The chances of doing damage could be determined with either a to-hit roll with the ranges, or maybe a crit chance roll with the modifiers for range inversed, but using the converted RPG ranges.
-
I think using the existing damage KO chart for mechs is a great idea for infantry. Each time you sprint, and each time the squad takes damage, you take a 'pilot' hit. When you fail a 'KO' check, the squad loses its next turn (but doesnt count as immobile) and resets the KO chart. This will very easily represent the building fatigue of infantry, or stopping to rescue and secure downed troops when you take damage. Once you fail a 'ko' check, you triage the troops/stop the bleeding and rest to recover your fatigue/will/nerve.
Separately, suppression just means an infantry unit that is shot at loses an MP as they take cover. I would like to add the battletroops thing here where if you are in the open, only the FIRST shot on the unit deals double damage and then the squad is on the ground and harder to damage. After that, the squad has hit the deck and they dont take double damage in the open, at the cost of losing that MP. This way you can still move up with infantry, and the 'tac ops' cover stuff can just be part of the normal game.
Having to add infantry ranges as a separate item for things is tough. I would rather just increase the range of weapons infantry carry, and have the short range mgun be the terrifying point blank high explosive weapon it is that infantry try and stay out of range of. If the medium laser is still effective against infantry, just less so then the mgun and flamer, then we dont need to bend over backwards increasing the range on anti infantry weapons. I am very hesitant in improving items like the mgun for any reason, because they are cheap weapons taken up to 20 at a time (looking at you, linebacker), and I dont want them to be better values that negate infantry for no cost... especially because my goal would be an infantry platoon being more expensive and more capable, not fodder.
-
I agree that the RPG shouldnt be defining the wargame, but it 100% is. All the RPG stuff is converted via an RPG to Battletech conversion, and part of it includes the action rate of weapons and the reload action. It appears only the BASE movement rate itself is solely based in battletech, and the final infantry move speed of things part of unit design including the RPG encumbering value and RPG crew requirements.
If it already 100% is, then why are people asking for it to be put in? This is a very contradictory statement.
The 5 ton mech laser hover infantry, and the 5 ton hover vehicle with a laser. I think we both agreed already that infantry sized vehicles and full sized vehicles overlapping in this way was problematic.
I don't know of any Mechanized Infantry Platoon that gets to weigh in at 5 tons. Maybe a Squad, but they don't have anywhere near the firepower to match a Medium Laser, nor the range. Nor do any of them move at the same rate as a Savannah Master.
It's like saying an UrbanMech and Spider share the same gap in a list. Though, in this case, the Spider is carrying the AC/10, and the UrbanMech only has 2 Small Lasers.
(Funny side story, in our campaign we were discussing making modifications to our 'Mechs, and I suggested basically fitting out our salvaged UrbanMech to match a Spider's. We play with Quirks in this campaign, too.)
If all other unit types have some form of status condition, with the exception of infantry types, they stand out as 'less then' other unit types. They ignore a few parts of the game that all other units follow, and this is usually presented as 'they are so insignificant' as the reason, with the follow up that 'you need more then one unit of infantry to make something happen'. Thus, a single infantry unit selection compared to another unit, like a tank, mech or plane, feels like a sub-unit. Its like taking only 1 proto--1 proto is a sub unit, they clearly are meant to operate in groups, and one individual protomech isnt a normal or real choice, but a sub choice as part of the 5 protomech unit.
But standing out does not make one a 'sub' unit. All the rules that Infantry get to ignore aren't what make them an "insignificant unit". It's their cost combined with their limited firepower and Movement, and that any Burst-Fire Weapon can clear them out with ease.
The Protomech analogy doesn't work. Protomechs activate in groups of up to 5, but they don't have to operate as tightly as a Platoon or Squad does. I can literally have 1 at each corner of the map and one in the center. And The Society also operated in them 3s (not that this was a smart decision).
So, lacking the ability to be "stunned" isn't what makes them a sub-unit any more than lacking AMM or Facing does. If anything, this is a "super" unit capability.
Do you think we could turn the pilot damage chart into the required fatique chart for an infantry squad? After each turn doing flat-out running, you increase the level on the fatigue chart and roll against the value there to see if the squad members have to slow down and catch their breath next turn?
That could be interesting.
And, suppression fire could simply be something that imparts a pinned condition that imparts a reduction in MP to the suppressed infantry target.
It depends on where "suppression fire" comes from.
Again, this is something I can only see infantry doing, because they can stagger their fire over the full ten second turn, whereas Mechs and Tanks fire their guns in controlled bursts with a downtime for automatic reloading/charging mechanisms to kick in. Or, that's how I see it, at least.
Machine guns on tanks and vehicles have been used for suppression since before World War 2. They can also maintain their rate of fire longer than most Infantry because they are using chain-fed weaponry. It's actually harder for a Squad to manage it as they have to stagger their fire appropriately. This isn't X-Com.
Although, I wonder if Mechs and Tanks should be allowed to choose between attack modes for their anti-infantry weapons like machine guns. Especially machine guns.
It would be pointless in terrain where the Burst-Fire can hit them, however, it would be useful against Infantry in Buildings where the MG MIGHT be able to take out 2 PBI in a Light Building. It could force Infantry to only be able to Move in to the 3 hexes behind the Facing that the Suppression Fire is coming from, and probably limit return fire as well (say, a -4 on Cluster Chart?).
I think using the existing damage KO chart for mechs is a great idea for infantry. Each time you sprint, and each time the squad takes damage, you take a 'pilot' hit. When you fail a 'KO' check, the squad loses its next turn (but doesnt count as immobile) and resets the KO chart. This will very easily represent the building fatigue of infantry, or stopping to rescue and secure downed troops when you take damage. Once you fail a 'ko' check, you triage the troops/stop the bleeding and rest to recover your fatigue/will/nerve.
A Fatigue bar with Infantry is interesting, but if the bar advances on Hits, a PBI Squad (short of blobs like the 30 man one) likely won't survive long enough for any recovery to mean anything. Platoons might probably handle it, though. However, there must be a means to reduce it and/or differentiate between Wounded Fatigue and Action Fatigue.
-
So, the idea that you can get sustained fire is why I'm looking at a different attack mode for vehicular mounted machine guns.
And as for extended AnInf ranges, keep in mind that the 21 hexes is including the Extreme Range band that is included in AToW stats. AToW stats seem to have an exponential curve to them, which fits when you're talking straight iron-sights usage. The Support MGs converted hex ranges would be Short: 1-2, Medium: 3-4, Long: 8-9, all depending on how you want to round. A couple of those could easily be rounded down, although the first one could be rounded up. And, those are numbers I would consider fair when attacking units that have matching return ranges like a Long Range of 9 (SRM).
-
Came up with some Record Sheets (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=84571.msg2001799#msg2001799) that incorporate some of the suggestions brought up here.
-
So, having tried out the ideas generated in this thread, If we work with the MP System, I've noticed a couple things:
I know that I want to up the base MP allotment for standard infantry to 3 under the current MP expenditure list I posted in [urlhttps://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=84571.msg2002224#msg2002224]this thread[/url] with custom BA Sheets I made to emulate what we discussed here.
Leave the green with 2 MP. But, I do want standard armor to impart an MP Deficit, at least in Design, so I may up it to three across the board, and allow improvement based on experience quality and gear, as well as Heavy Armor.
So, if we do scale the MP per squad by troop quality in the following fashion:
Green - 2
Regular/Veteran - 3
Elite - 4
Or do we want it to be linear across the Experience classes? 2, 3, 4, 5?
AND we impart an armor MP penalty, it would seem that green wouldn't be able to Move at all. However, I think the answer would come with the Fatigue system discussed here. Maybe instead of an MP penalty, you get a Fatigue penalty. So:
Fatigue Cost for Fatiguing actions: (I'm tempted to just leave it to moving from hex-to-hex though.)
Light Armor: 1
Standard Armor: 2
Heavy Armor: 3
And, we can also offset this with specialization and augmentation creating a reduction in Fatigue cost.
-
So, having tried out the ideas generated in this thread, If we work with the MP System, I've noticed a couple things:
I know that I want to up the base MP allotment for standard infantry to 3 under the current MP expenditure list I posted in [urlhttps://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=84571.msg2002224#msg2002224]this thread[/url] with custom BA Sheets I made to emulate what we discussed here.
Leave the green with 2 MP. But, I do want standard armor to impart an MP Deficit, at least in Design, so I may up it to three across the board, and allow improvement based on experience quality and gear, as well as Heavy Armor.
So, if we do scale the MP per squad by troop quality in the following fashion:
Green - 2
Regular/Veteran - 3
Elite - 4
Or do we want it to be linear across the Experience classes? 2, 3, 4, 5?
AND we impart an armor MP penalty, it would seem that green wouldn't be able to Move at all. However, I think the answer would come with the Fatigue system discussed here. Maybe instead of an MP penalty, you get a Fatigue penalty. So:
Fatigue Cost for Fatiguing actions: (I'm tempted to just leave it to moving from hex-to-hex though.)
Light Armor: 1
Standard Armor: 2
Heavy Armor: 3
And, we can also offset this with specialization and augmentation creating a reduction in Fatigue cost.
ahm....
SCALE!!!
your base number for movement, is a soldier on foot.
In other words, an unencumbered man, in good shape, can sustain about 4-5 Miles an hour.
https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/the-basics-of-marching.html (https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/the-basics-of-marching.html)
Translate that to Metric, about 6 KPH or so.
an urbanmech does 20 KPH at a walk.
Note, that's "Unencumbered" and not ducking, carrying heavy things, or trying to shoot, and not wearing body armour.
D'ye see the problem here?
-
Fair point. I appreciate real world stats for comparison.
(Just to be clear, you are aware that the infantry rules I'm working with give the infantry their own MP cost expenditure table. And, it takes 2 MP for a squad to move into a new hex on the BT ground map. So, at most, I would only allow 2 hexes of movement, representing the most elite of flat-out runs.)
But, with that in mind, it really does suggest that infantry working at the BT scale should be augmented as a matter of course in order to not have to 'inverse-impulse' their movement in a stock BT game. (IE - you have to track the number of turns it takes them to move from one hex to another. Maybe with tokens. That might be an interesting way to handle pinning and encumbrance.)
-
https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/the-basics-of-marching.html (https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/the-basics-of-marching.html)
I'm not seeing where you're deriving the information from that article.
-
It has the standard 30-inch step but is missing the normal cadence of 120 beats per minute.
-
I see. 120 beats per minute is two steps per second. Is that where you'd be getting the 4-5 MPH? I could see 60 inches per second getting you to about the 2 mph that most people can walk relatively comfortably. I'm assuming that the 4-5 is a simple doubling one would expect if you were to run at a sustainable pace. Edit: But, to clear 100 feet in 10 seconds, you'd have to be moving at 10 feet per second. You can't get that starting from a dead stop. You'd already have to be at a flat-out dash.
I recall the typical flat-out sprint speed for most people would be 7 MPH.
But! (!!) That's before field conditions. :tongue:
As someone who's traversed all kinds of uncultivated terrain from grassy fields to plowed to weed-infested woods and even the occasional wetland, all while carrying a screen or shovel or GPS or a combination of other earthmoving gear all in the name of science (CRM Archaeology), one thing I've found is that holes, roots, sticks, stones, and other fun little obstacles will jump out at you in a hurry. Especially when you're not looking and you're in a hurry. Even something like following a dear trail can force a face-plant. And, it wasn't just me. Everyone I've worked with has taken a spill, and we were usually taking it slow and casual, with eyes on the ground. (Heck the worst incident was busting up the undercarriage of a car when I failed to notice a stone a farmer had planted in a field entrance, even though I had walked right next to it. When I turned around and saw it, it was too late, and I couldn't signal the driver in time. We're talking 2 foot tall and wide boulder, and it had been hidden by tall grass. My worst spill had sent me home with a sprained ankle when stepping into a small rivulet hidden in tall grass at the edge of a cornfield. One of our people had disappeared into a hole she hadn't seen, but managed to extricate herself. I have plenty of tales in this regard.)
So imagine having to take that kind of terrain in haste.
One begins to appreciate a form of magic tech enhancement such as the grav pack that Renegade Legion Infantryman are supposed to have. if you don't have to worry about hitting the ground real hard, you can run to your heart's content, with the only thing to worry about is catching your toe on something.
-
I'm not seeing where you're deriving the information from that article.
oops. Here, this one's better: https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/health/a45709070/average-walking-speed/ (https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/health/a45709070/average-walking-speed/)
Now, mind that in a nation the size of the Successor States, you might be able to find enough olympic quality athletes to edge that closer to the higher average, but still...you're not going to be moving at the speed of a galloping horse even at eight feet tall without mechanical help.
-
But! (!!) That's before field conditions. :tongue:
As someone who's traversed all kinds of uncultivated terrain from grassy fields to plowed to weed-infested woods and even the occasional wetland, all while carrying a screen or shovel or GPS or a combination of other earthmoving gear all in the name of science (CRM Archaeology), one thing I've found is that holes, roots, sticks, stones, and other fun little obstacles will jump out at you in a hurry. Especially when you're not looking and you're in a hurry. Even something like following a dear trail can force a face-plant. And, it wasn't just me. Everyone I've worked with has taken a spill, and we were usually taking it slow and casual, with eyes on the ground. (Heck the worst incident was busting up the undercarriage of a car when I failed to notice a stone a farmer had planted in a field entrance, even though I had walked right next to it. When I turned around and saw it, it was too late, and I couldn't signal the driver in time. We're talking 2 foot tall and wide boulder, and it had been hidden by tall grass. My worst spill had sent me home with a sprained ankle when stepping into a small rivulet hidden in tall grass at the edge of a cornfield. One of our people had disappeared into a hole she hadn't seen, but managed to extricate herself. I have plenty of tales in this regard.)
So imagine having to take that kind of terrain in haste.
One begins to appreciate a form of magic tech enhancement such as the grav pack that Renegade Legion Infantryman are supposed to have. if you don't have to worry about hitting the ground real hard, you can run to your heart's content, with the only thing to worry about is catching your toe on something.
I was part of the BSA for a few years, and usually did a hike a month, sometimes excluding June through August (Arizona native, so yeah). Since we usually camped as well, we would be carrying packs only a slight bit lighter than a soldier's kit. Most of us ended up getting frame packs, so it was easier for our pubescent bodies to carry.
Trust me that I can agree that running with those things is a challenge, and we only did that on trails if running was needed at all. Over unimproved terrain there is simply no point of running with a pack (and Arizona off-road can be painful due to cacti and the wild residents).
Still, most of the images they show of troopers have no packs. Just the armor kit and weapons. No idea where they keep their ammo.
-
Still, most of the images they show of troopers have no packs. Just the armor kit and weapons. No idea where they keep their ammo.
On their belt, maybe? [chiding]And you want your infantry to run with 'infinite' ammo...[/chide]. :tongue:
Regardless, our combined experiences are justification enough that a proper Game of Rifles for BattleTech needs to be at a completely different scale and/or the image of Field Infantry that are fit for the Game of Armored Combat needs to be changed to show augmentation of some sort.
-
Basically, BT Infantry, even conventional, need to be like Heinlein's Mobile Infantry. The MI may have trained without power armor, but they always deployed in it.
-
60 inches (5 feet) per second is about 3.4 mph, not 2. I personally walk around 4.5 mph when I'm commuting (i.e., when I'm not late for the train and running instead). I normally do that in light hiking boots and with a pack between 5-10% of my body weight.
When I was training for Iraq, a member of the cadre told me to "run over to Admin", so I immediately set out at speed. When I was about halfway to Admin, I heard the cadre member yell "don't run in body armor!". That struck me as a little silly at the time, but I'll say the IBA I was wearing was closer to 30% of my body weight than 10%. Later in my career, I was privileged to work with an Infantry Colonel who had deployed to the various lands of sand at least three times... his knees were shot from wearing body armor so much.
All that to say, from my personal experience, 1 MP for Foot Infantry is a reasonable base, and the various ways to boost that to 2 MP are also completely reasonable. I don't look askance at it until they're up to 3 MP on the ground without augmentation (that said, I don't count MP reductions for rough terrain as actually boosting the speed of the Infantry). THAT's beyond Olympic level performance given the loads they're carrying.
-
On their belt, maybe? [chiding]And you want your infantry to run with 'infinite' ammo...[/chide]. :tongue:
Correction, I recognize that they CURRENTLY run with 'infinite' ammo, and if their fire is too limited, no one will ever have a reason other than just to be run over.
Admittedly, there are people who do that now, but still.
-
oops. Here, this one's better: https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/health/a45709070/average-walking-speed/ (https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/health/a45709070/average-walking-speed/)
Now, mind that in a nation the size of the Successor States, you might be able to find enough olympic quality athletes to edge that closer to the higher average, but still...you're not going to be moving at the speed of a galloping horse even at eight feet tall without mechanical help.
Okay. But, that's Walking. Not the same as running. Again, it's good to know what the average is.
But, I want to tackle a misconception I think people had about my wanting 3 MP, and I'll start by sharing this quote from my record sheet thread:
Yeah, I feel you. If it helps any, my ideal for infantry is to do away with the conversion formula in the companion, and make infantry move and act like ATOW with much less abstraction, making them more similar. The companion formula adds lots of weird things, like combining the grenade launcher with the rifle... Why? Just have a rifle and a grenade launcher on the sheet, if the unit carries both.
Thats where the size mod comes from (RPG hit chart makes battle armor 1 easier to hit then infantry), I pulled my movement stats of 1/2/3 for green, skilled, and augmented from the RPG movement stats, obviously I want the range and damage from the RPG so an SRM is an SRM and not some odd blended rifle attack like the companion formula. Also, flak at BAR5 and 1 point of battlearmor is in the 4/5 range, which is why I liked armored infantry in BattleTech to have 1 armor pip, and the BAR6 plate to have 2 pips like the 5/6 2 point battle armor does.
And since the RPG is run in 5-second turns, and you get two actions a turn, I wanted to emulate that potential higher rate of fire with infantry rifle attacks, but strictly against other infantry. If a guy is holding ground, he can potentially get off 4 attacks. Am I right on this? (I ask because I'm not learned in AToW. I'm basing it off of comments I get from DevianID and Daryk. To me, a simple two-actions a turn system seems to be typical, especially from my experiences in DnD and Pathfinder.)
This is why I decided to work in a different scale of MP for infantry, with a different list of MP options. The 1/2/3 MP proposed is scale to the map.
But, if we really are going to emulate the two action system with an adhoc BattleTroops MP cost system, I want something like double. (Hence my comment in the other thread about wanting MP of 2, 3, and 4 or 5. If you look at the little list of what MP can be spent on, I explicitly list that it would cost a conventional Infantry squad 2 MP to enter an adjacent hex. Some of the reactions to that have me wondering if anyone caught that.) That way, you can spend 1 mp to get a ranged attack. For the support weapon, you'd also have to spend 1 mp to prep the weapon, whether that's reloading from the last shot or setting it up to start with. 1 MP can get you some other ancillary action like spotting or conducting some sort of task the squad may be specialized in. It would allow Pinning to not be completely devastating. And, you get to double up in a 10-second BT turn. (Except for Support Weapons. They have to combo their attacks with the preparation action.)
Let me relist what I had proposed for a separate MP List strictly for conventional infantry squads:
MP Actions List
2 MP - Enter an adjacent Hex (Whole squad moves.) <-- (There. Did you see that? It was there the first time. Go look at the original post {edit} in the Sheet thread (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=84571.msg2002224#msg2002224).)
1 MP - Make a Support Weapon attack. (Note: Support weapons cannot use this unless they first spend an MP to Set-up/Load. This MP can be combined with another action.)
1 MP - Set-up/Load (Support Weapon Team action. This MP can be combined with another action.)
1 MP - Make a Free Rifle Attack. (The rifles make an anti-infantry attack. This Action can be combined with the Set-up/Load Action or Make a Support Weapon attack.)
1 MP - Recover (Reduce the squad's Fatigue Level by one. This action can be combined with the Set-up/Load or Make a Support Weapon attack.)
----------
So, under this proposed MP list, Devian's proposed 1/2/3 would effectively become 2/4/6. That's too extreme for me.
But, I tried the game out with the 2MP as the allotment for some green, lightly armored squads of rebels. (It was a post black-out scenario, and both the Hero team and the OpFor are people declaring for a flag on a world in the Republic.) I realized, even though we never got to actual squad interaction, that 2MP wasn't enough under this differnt MP system for infantry to emulate the potential for run and gun that squads could get standard. And, if you're not firing on the move, there's no need to worry about an Attacker Movement Modifier.
However, under the RPG, clearing 30 meters will still only allow for 1 ranged attack from an RPG character. With a base of 3 MP, where it costs 2 MP to enter an adjacent hex on the BT ground map would allow for that. And, the fact that they spent MP on movement in the turn would impart an AMM. Since it's considered running, it would be the +2.
And, putting a little more emphasis on the Fatigue track would help with complications such as entering adverse terrain that has an MP Cost beyond +1. Like Heavy Woods.
Here's what I'm thinking: It costs a base of 2 to enter a hex plus any additional costs for entering the terrain type. If the unit would be short, the extra MP is made up for by increasing the fatigue gained by the missing allotment. They're having to move harder to get there.
So, if I go with the 2/3/3/4 I had proposed across the experience levels, a standard squad would have a base of 3 MP. Entering a clear hex, they could still have an MP to use to make an anti-infantry attack with their rifles, firing from the hip. This would normally cost an increase of 1 fatigue on the Fatigue track. They could push themselves to 2 if they wanted to double their rate of fire. The attacks would be with the +2 running AMM penalty though.
However, if they're moving into a light woods hex, it would cost all 3 MP they have. It's hard to crack off a shot when you're trying not to trip up or run into a tree, or move bramble vines or branches out of the way. It only costs one fatigue, though. They just sacrifice the attack for a different distraction.
And, if they were to enter a Heavy Woods Hex, which costs 4 total, they could, but they would be moving a little more intently, dealing with distractions and having to really dodge some obstacles, so it would eat up all 3 MP and cost 2 fatigue to do so.
And, then armor class would slow you down the same way, but making things more fatiguing. Because anyone can generally muster a burst of strength to get some speed, even under a load. But how long they can maintain that depends on the load and their physical conditioning and familiarity with the load's distribution.
-
With that, you could see why my conundrum was whether to do 2/3/3 with a specialty bonus/4 for Green/Standard/Vet/Elite, or maybe go for 2/3/4/5 in a purely linear fashion. Again, with 2 MP being the base cost of moving across hexes for infantry in BT.
And, that MP action list is far from comprehensive. There are a couple things that aren't on there that I can think of right off hand:
Specialization actions, like spotting, controlling a system in a facility, or Anti-Mech attacks. are not on there. But, I haven't figured out if those should cost a simple 1 or the full 2.
-
Y'know, if we were just discussing developing a stand-alone game for infantry?
Action Points
Green: 2 Action points/turn
Regular: 3 Action Points/turn
Veteran: 4 Action Points/turn
Elite: 5 Action Points/turn
What are action points? they represent actions such as moving, taking cover, shooting, etc. that a squad stand can take.
Spotting: 1 AP
Walking/marching: 1 AP
Sprinting: 2 AP
Taking Cover: 1 AP
Firing personal/Issue weapon (Rifles or other small arms):1 AP
Firing heavy weapons: 1 AP
setting up Crew Served weapon: 2 AP/turn (Crew Served would be things like Mortars that you REALLY don't want to try to fire off your shoulder, not even as a joke, or other very heavy weapons)
Players have to decide how they're going to spend the AP (action points) for their squad of infantry in the movement phase. 'sprinting' is using the maximum number of AP to move, and tops out at 2, in some cases (Regular, Veteran, or Elite) leaving room to do other things-like taking cover, spotting for indirect fire or airstrikes, or shooting at something.
Veterancy ratings determine how many actions a squad can take as an expression of competency. More competent soldiers can do more things in less time, overcome fatigue, etc. more easily.
Fatigue
Fatigue is the 'heat scale' for Infantrymen. For the cost of up to 3 AP now, you're going into fatigue debt. This impacts the gunnery score for the squad, but can be paid off at a rate of 1 fatigue point per turn spent instead of an action point.
Fatigue is also accumulated through personnel losses and can not be bought back, except by ditching or losing assets like crew served weapons.
Fatigue points not bought back remain, and stack with any additional fatigue points in following turns. When the fatigue scale reaches 10, the squad is incapable of actions, and must rest until the fatigue level reaches zero again.
A squad at Fatigue 10 cannot even retreat, though if they were in cover, they retain the cover bonuses until said cover is removed. Note that squads embarked on vehicles can recover their fatigue debt while the vehicle is in motion, and recover it at double rate when the vehicle is cruising or parked, while only recovering at 1/turn if the vehicle is flanking.
-
Y'know, if we were just discussing developing a stand-alone game for infantry?
Action Points
Green: 2 Action points/turn
Regular: 3 Action Points/turn
Veteran: 4 Action Points/turn
Elite: 5 Action Points/turn
BattleTroops? :wink:
Seriously, BT uses MP mods to account for skill level, with no more than 8 MP allowed to be spent on movement.
Green: -1 MP
Regular: 8 MP (the base)
Veteran: +1 MP
Elite: +2 MP
-
Not sure if you guys could or would use any of what I posted above, but the idea, is the 'trick' with infantry; You can push through up to the limits of your endurance.
Notably, elite troops are going to have significantly more endurance than Greenies.
note also, this gives a different sort of play when compared with Battlesuits, which have power assist and herojuice dispensers, onboard medical, and so on.
Suit units don't have a fatigue score, and don't have to choose how to spend their action points, and don't get the veterancy bonus for additional actions.
BattleTroops? :wink:
Seriously, BT uses MP mods to account for skill level, with no more than 8 MP allowed to be spent on movement.
Green: -1 MP
Regular: 8 MP (the base)
Veteran: +1 MP
Elite: +2 MP
I see this as being both too abstract, and too clunky, but then, I did point out this is more or less deviating hard enough from the hyper-abstract treatment of infantry in TW to be a different game, so...
-
anyway, for an example of the idea of 'Action points'
Green: the unit can move 1 and fire, or move 1 and take cover, or take cover and fire, or fire twice, or spot for artillery and move, or spot for aty and fire.
Elites can Move, Move, take cover, fire, and fire. (Or any mix so long as 'move' is limited to 2 movements maximum). This is separate from their gunnery score, which decides if their shots actually hit on the dice roll, and is influenced by fatigue-fatigue slows people down and makes them less accurate and effective until it's bought off.
in essence, an elite squad can lay down 5 firing tries in a single turn if that's all the player's wanting from them-but it comes with a cost, while greenies can only fire twice.
by 'fire' I mean 'aimed shots' not just waving your rifle over the parapet and emptying the mag.
but the IDEA is to give infantry squads a 'trick' over other types of unit that carry bigger weapons, inbuilt armor, and computer assistance.
the trick, is flexibility. the better your infantry, the more flexible they are and the harder they are to tire out. Basically it's inspired in part by Cassie Southorn, who, in the Camacho's Caballeros stories, did eight impossible things before breakfast on a regular basis, sometimes in heels.
This would also demonstrate the qualitative difference between, say, a Rabid Fox team, and Bunkietown's Militia...without it being a GEAR thing.
-
As I said in the other thread, I'm trying to reduce the levels requiring conversion between each other, not increase them...
-
Well, the easiest way to do that is to not have to do some weird conversion into some weird value that's supposed to be good across the board in the Tactical level game. They're already making a distinction between armored and unarmored targets with conventional infantry. It's in the terminology of the game when discussing Conventional Infantry.
So, in the RPG, you run each guy individually, much like a Mech or tank or any other combat unit is run in TW/Tactical Scale.
So, treating conventional infantry in the same vein as a Battle Armor squad in the Tactical Game but with a distinction between attacks that can harm armored units and attacks that are only good against unarmored targets seems a pretty simple means of conversion.
And from there, it really comes down to personal taste. For instance, some people don't like multiple dice rolls. Whereas, I'm okay with it because one of the core mechanics to play with in BT is dice-chucking with modifiers, and I've bought scads of pairs of d6s in different colors both pip and block.
Y'know, if we were just discussing developing a stand-alone game for infantry?
Action Points
If we were, but we're not, sadly. And, what you propose is just a difference in terminology from the MP list I displayed already. Was that the idea?
And, if it were at a different scale, like, say, where the Mech minis and the map are on even scaling instead of the 1-3 size difference we have now, you could run each individual infantry dude, well, individually. An Epic BattleTech, if you will. :laugh:
-
... what you propose is just a difference in terminology from the MP list I displayed already. Was that the idea?
for the most part. I think the idea that was spinning in my crippled brain was that terms didn't really matter as much as application, but some terms might lead to confusion.
-
Which is potentially true.