There can be some changes for infantry?

[AlphaMirage]

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.

[RifleMech]

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.

[RifleMech]

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.

[paladin2019]

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.

[Charistoph]

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.  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.

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.

[Cavgunner]

You guys are starting to slap-fight again.

[CarcosanDawn]

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.

[Lance Leader]

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. 

[DevianID]

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.

[Charistoph]

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.

[Cannonshop]

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.

[Retry]

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.

[ActionButler]

**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.

[Cavgunner]

Mod: Chill, dudes

Them: No, I must win

[ActionButler]

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.

[ActionButler]

Unlocked. The prior mod request still stands.

[Daemion]

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.

[Daemion]

  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.

[Daemion]

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? 

[Retry]

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.

[Charistoph]

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.

[Daemion]

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.

[Charistoph]

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.

[AlphaMirage]

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.

[Cannonshop]

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.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

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.

[Charistoph]

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.

[AlphaMirage]

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.

[Retry]

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.

[Daryk]

I'm all for seamless transitions between scales.