Conventional Infantry Battle Armor Sheet

[Daryk]

Thing to remember is, what these guys are working on, might actually BE better.

I'm unconvinced so far but could be persuaded.

[Daemion]

Three Fireteams of Support Trooper, Generic Soldier: carries the Squad Support weapon and Primary
One Command Trooper, Generic Soldier: carries Primary Weapon

TT

Yes.  I want to be able to emulate this as a dedicated heavy weapons squad, similar to the mortar and heavy weapons squads seen in 40k Imperial Guard.  It makes sense to specialize in some cases.

[Daemion]

We tried it out today. 

The scenario I had set up didn't really get the infantry into action against each other, but we did get to use the fatigue system as he moved a pure rifle squad out of a fire base to protect a Thumper Artillery Cannon Turret.  The APCs I had rushing the base were able to get trounced by the Hero's Champion Mech.  I even allowed for the squads to survive simple destruction by IS damage due to this being the Dark Age and steady improvements.  But the amount of damage destroyed two APCs to the point of blowing up. (BMR vehicle damage rules.)

My friends said they liked it, regardless.   I'll be setting up another scenario for a proper parts raid for this little campaign, and we'll get to really do proper mano-a-mano, squado-a-squado action. 

[Charistoph]

Charistoph, 300-600 is battle value range.  I guess my context wasn't clear, my bad.  Same with elementals, elementals are the equal to a light mech and threat to armor and such, my context was that infantry are not, but a platoon should be.  If you need a special scenario rule 'hidden units' to make infantry good, then infantry arnt good the hidden units rule is.  Like, an SRM carrier is also a good hidden unit, its not an infantry specific thing.

Infantry Platoons also don't cost as much as a Light Battlemech in BV.  They average about 90 BV, which means it takes 3-4 of them to equate to a Light Battlemech among the cheapest Battlemechs, and about 5 to face an equivalently skilled Elemental Squad.  Obviously it's even more with a Front-line Regular Elemental force when compared to a Regular ConvInf Platoon with no Anti-Mech capabilities.

And unless you're getting those Infantry moving the same as a Light Mech, it really doesn't matter.  Last I checked, though, even Hover Mechanized can't match the speed of the average Light Mech that isn't a Trooper like the Panther.  That means, outside of needing to Run on Pavement, most Infantry will be outmanuevered by most Light Mechs.

And being in Urban environments is where Infantry starts to match up properly with Mechs.  They don't Fall.  The don't Skid.  They don't take Damage from going through a building.

I believe a platoon is comically too cheap and Napoleonic.  Waterloo had blocks of soldiers shoulder to shoulder getting destroyed by the dozen by mortars and such.  In battletech, a future combat setting, a single blast lf a machine gun can down 24 troopers in grassland terrain... Thats, just, not a thing right? 

The combat doctrine of the modern military is all about either putting Infantry in control of a location in an environment filled with machine guns and explosives designed to take out mobs of people.

Combat in the 31st Century is focused around mechanized kaiju.  A Squad is barely able to make a dent in them, and that's only because of how the Armor on those kaiju works.  To do anything serious, you need to bring the full firepower of a platoon on a target.

For all your mockery of napoleonic considerations, they would think the same of seeing our infantrymen moving in skirmish order in WW2 to today.

And that's why I want each squad in a platoon to be a real unit, with the platoon costing 300 to 600 battlevalue base.  That puts a 7 strong squad at around 100 BV, about half as good as 4 inner sphere 3052 battle armor, and about 25% as good as 5 elementals.  More range on their guns, armor as armor pips not bad damage divisors, and a +2 target size bonus.

1st off, the ConvInf Squad is a real unit.  I've even baked a couple.

2nd, in order to justify a Platoon being worth that much, each Squad needs to be as powerful AND RESILIENT as a Platoon is now, and at least as mobile as the average Battle Armor.  That's a HUGE jump in personal power.  Right now, a 500 BV Platoon is an LB-20X or RAC/5 Field Gunner.  That's super-hero expectations in comparison to what they were.

[DevianID]

Infantry Platoons also don't cost as much as a Light Battlemech in BV.  They average about 90 BV

Yes, I know, thats my entire point.  A platoon, as a unit of order, should be as complex as the smallest battlemechs.  This includes having a comparable cost to the 20 ton mechs.  Like battle armor.  90 BV is a joke when the core gameplay unit is in the 1000's.

How would a squad of 7 be worth 100 BV?  Its easy.  Deploy by fireteams of 2, as discussed above, so a machine gun doesnt eat 2-24 soldiers.  In place of damage divisors, if the infantry has armor, give them a pip of armor per soldier.  If they have heavy armor, do the '/ X' thing suggested just like hardened armor.  So the standard 2 strong rifleteam with standard infantry armor would have 2 internal pips and 2 points of armor, and attacks that hit the squad would randomize which team is hit, same as battle armor.  Increase the MP, to include run/sprint.  Give infantry the +2 size modifier, because they are smaller then battle armor.  Give them the normal weapons, so a platoon with a heavy weapon squad has multiple SRM2s if they are carrying multiple SRM2s, and not the odd .5 damage rounding thing we have now.  Give rifles more range, and make rifleteams have their own weapon attack, separate from the grenade launcher, separate from any heavy weapon in the squad.

Edit: at a glance, a platoon might have 3 rifle squads and 1 weapon squad.  Each rifle squad would have at its disposal a grenade launcher or 2, an SRM2 OS, a burstfire weapon, and several rifles.  The weapon squad would have 2 machine guns and 2 SRM2, plus rifles.

[Charistoph]

Yes, I know, thats my entire point.  A platoon, as a unit of order, should be as complex as the smallest battlemechs.  This includes having a comparable cost to the 20 ton mechs.  Like battle armor.  90 BV is a joke when the core gameplay unit is in the 1000's.

You're not making a point, just stating a desire with nothing to support it.  There's a reason that ConvInf Foot Platoons are cheap, and it's not due to their firepower.

How would a squad of 7 be worth 100 BV?  Its easy. 

No, it isn't without making them all metahumans that could toss Batman around all day and make the Thing nervous.

Deploy by fireteams of 2, as discussed above, so a machine gun doesnt eat 2-24 soldiers. 

A Heavy-class Machine Gun (i.e. the one mounted on Vehicles and Mechs) is 5 BV, 6 if you include Ammo.  Even having 3 in a Squad, you're about 82 BV shy of 100 BV at 4/5.

Or if you're referring to taking them out, that's something a PPC can now do if they are in the open.

In place of damage divisors, if the infantry has armor, give them a pip of armor per soldier. 

Without Damage Divisors, a Medium Laser can take out one of your Fire Teams quite handily, even with Armor, and if they are in Cover.

Increase the MP, to include run/sprint. 

Foot Infantry already move a 1 MP at a run or a sprint.  That's already a 3m/s pace, quite notably faster than the average person walks.  The average person in their 20s usually pulls in the 1.3m/s range.  So 1MP IS a Run.  Even an unarmored Elemental would be hard put to have a walking pace that is capable of averaging a full 1 MP before running is involved.

Give infantry the +2 size modifier, because they are smaller then battle armor. 

I assume you mean a +2 To-Hit modifier, right?  There isn't a "size" modifier in the game as part of the normal definitions.

Give them the normal weapons, so a platoon with a heavy weapon squad has multiple SRM2s if they are carrying multiple SRM2s, and not the odd .5 damage rounding thing we have now. 

So 2 men are going to walk at 3m/s while carrying a literal metric ton of a launcher, as well as the Ammo to keep it firing long enough to justify them lugging a ton.  You're literally over Bane levels of strength here, approaching Spider-man levels.  Meanwhile, that's only 15 BV, per launcher, before Ammo.

Aside from having ubermench as your troopers that would make Elementals cry in jealousy, you've said nothing to justify a Squad being worth that much BV.

Give rifles more range, and make rifleteams have their own weapon attack, separate from the grenade launcher, separate from any heavy weapon in the squad.

Sorry, this does nothing to improve BV.  Rifle Attacks will have to be reduced again to justify their range.  Because of that annoying range, it just makes them a bigger, and more squishy target, and not worth bringing because they are now so expensive and squishy that they aren't even worth taking for Initiative-scumming.

To be honest, I don't even find Elementals to be worth their BV right now because of the ease of which it is to hurt them due to their general lack of speed.  Players just find them scary, which has done more for hurting them than any of the attacks I've landed with them.  Same thing applies with Protomechs, really.

[Daemion]

To be honest, I don't even find Elementals to be worth their BV right now because of the ease of which it is to hurt them due to their general lack of speed.  Players just find them scary, which has done more for hurting them than any of the attacks I've landed with them.  Same thing applies with Protomechs, really.

And they carry SRMS, too, in very limited supply.  I've found the only time I employ BA is as clean-up or a guard against swarming/and other physical attacks as they sit in the hex with a friendly mech, like a sniper on a hill.  The weapons ranges for what ever else they carry just isn't enough unless you see a moment of opportunity.  I've played plenty of BA in games, and I know the speed and range is their biggest detriment, even in a city environment. 

But, I look at that as the general point.  BattleTech isn't about the Infantryman.  Are they fun to have?  On occasion and in certain circumstances.  And, I want them to be fun when I do have them for that very instance.  The current stock rules for conventional infantry are NOT fun.  Not in that they're worthless, but that they're boring to employ.  They may work if someone is a player that wants to run massive battles with a Battalion's worth of units to a side.  But, when it comes to lance to demi-lance level games, which is what my group generally plays, they aren't at all interesting to field.  Battle Armor are at least interesting, if lack-luster.

And, I think that's what DevianID is trying to get at.  (I may be misreading between the lines, so I'll wait to see if he confirms that.)

[Daryk]

This is the branch of the discussion that does not persuade me... :/

[Charistoph]

And they carry SRMS, too, in very limited supply. 

While augmented which the Clan version on Vehicles is half a ton instead of a metric ton.

I've found the only time I employ BA is as clean-up or a guard against swarming/and other physical attacks as they sit in the hex with a friendly mech, like a sniper on a hill.  The weapons ranges for what ever else they carry just isn't enough unless you see a moment of opportunity.  I've played plenty of BA in games, and I know the speed and range is their biggest detriment, even in a city environment. 

Not much different, in many respects, as Conventional Infantry.

But, I look at that as the general point.  BattleTech isn't about the Infantryman.  Are they fun to have?  On occasion and in certain circumstances.  And, I want them to be fun when I do have them for that very instance.  The current stock rules for conventional infantry are NOT fun.  Not in that they're worthless, but that they're boring to employ.  They may work if someone is a player that wants to run massive battles with a Battalion's worth of units to a side.  But, when it comes to lance to demi-lance level games, which is what my group generally plays, they aren't at all interesting to field.  Battle Armor are at least interesting, if lack-luster.

But here's the other side of the coin.  What is being asked is the equivalent of suddenly every Infantryman is now Custodes carrying around weaponry of Astartes Dreadnoughts. 

By increasing the cost, while not actually increasing the strength (going with BA-scale SRM launchers with equivalently-limited Ammo would not sufficiently increase their strength) and survivability of the unit makes people less want to take them.

If you increase their strength and durability by too much, you devalue everything else that is heavier, because they will be compared to how they used to be.  Battle Armor will seem weaker.  Protomechs will seem weaker.  Even Light Mechs will seem weaker in comparison.

[Daemion]

Honestly, I've gotten past trying to convince any of y'all of anything.  I just put out ideas as a matter of sharing.  Take it or leave it at your leisure. 

It looks like I've finally found a format for infantry that hits all the buttons I'm looking for.  Now it's just a matter of refining it for personal use.

[DevianID]

This is the branch of the discussion that does not persuade me... :/

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.

[Daryk]

You're not wrong about the weirdness of combining the Grenade Launcher with Rifles, especially since the launchers they use for those purposes don't exist as separate weapons.

[Daemion]

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.

Same.  And, applying them to the Battle Armor sheet layout helps bring that bit of crunch. 

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.)

You pointed out that all it takes to incapacitate a person is a hit, with body armor providing a kind of portable cover that's good maybe once.  So, we don't need some weird damage conversion to emulate that when one squad is shooting at another.  It doesn't matter how many bullets are put into the attack at the BT scale, or how big.  It's just a matter of did this rifleman score a hit?  What about the next one? 

People have no problem rolling for each and every ER Medium Laser on a Nova.  The only concern they have is how many to fire, deciding whether or not to go straight into shutdown, and what level of hampering they'll accept after the fact. 

Why should that be a problem when running an infantry squad, including Battle Armor? 

People don't seem to mind tracking and resolving a combination of LRMs, SRMs, Autocannon and PPCs or Lasers in a single Mech or vehicle attack. 

So, why should people balk when Infantry can resolve a heavy support weapon, a light support weapon (grenade launcher or man-pack flamer or shot gun), and individual rifles from an infantry squad, or an Elemental firing its anti-Mech Weapon, it's SRM 2-pack, and its sub machine gun or shot gun?  Sure, some weapons like the rifles and light support weapons will (and should) only effect one unit type (other conventional infantry).  But, that's what they're for, even in a game of Armored Combat (in the 25th and a Half 31st century.)

So, if all you need to track is whether a guy got hit and how many times, there's no reason not to resolve each rifle attack individually from a squad to see if that hit was made.  It fits the style of BT combat from other, more prominent BT combat units.  And, unless you go into some weird formation types for infantry squads (Marians, and arguably Kurita infantry from the old house book) you'll typically be looking at 5 such attacks from any given squad, because two guys will be operating a more complicated weapon. 

Yes, I am saying we can finagle a form of BattleTroops into the stock BT game, and have it bridge the RPG with a touch of scaling gloss.

[Charistoph]

Honestly, I've gotten past trying to convince any of y'all of anything.  I just put out ideas as a matter of sharing.  Take it or leave it at your leisure. 

It's called "Feedback" while taking in to account more than just one single aspect of the game as well as the history of the game.  If you don't want RandomInternetPerson#549813 giving feedback you don't like, don't post it where random internet people can read and respond.

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.

The compilation and conversion system IS rather obnoxious and unnecessary.  Even worse when the only notable difference between Rifles and SRMs is their Range bands.  It's far easier to have them separately targetable and then set them as 1 Damage/X People, rounding up (in case of Small Arms).

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.

So you're trying to shove in mechanics from another game (admittedly in the same universe) that operates on a completely different level of scale while completely ignoring that scale difference?

So, why should people balk when Infantry can resolve a heavy support weapon, a light support weapon (grenade launcher or man-pack flamer or shot gun), and individual rifles from an infantry squad, or an Elemental firing its anti-Mech Weapon, it's SRM 2-pack, and its sub machine gun or shot gun?  Sure, some weapons like the rifles and light support weapons will (and should) only effect one unit type (other conventional infantry).  But, that's what they're for, even in a game of Armored Combat (in the 25th and a Half 31st century.)

Who has balked at the separation of weaponry in this thread?  I think I've done the most, and the only thing I balked at was considering ConvInf using the same launcher that a Mech or Vehicle uses.

So, if all you need to track is whether a guy got hit and how many times, there's no reason not to resolve each rifle attack individually from a squad to see if that hit was made.  It fits the style of BT combat from other, more prominent BT combat units.  And, unless you go into some weird formation types for infantry squads (Marians, and arguably Kurita infantry from the old house book) you'll typically be looking at 5 such attacks from any given squad, because two guys will be operating a more complicated weapon.

True.  Even with Battle Armor Squads, their weapons are all basically tracked as a Cluster Weapon based on the number in the unit (times launcher tubes for Missiles).  At the scale of Total Warfare, though, that is sufficient.  One does not need to do 20 To-Hit rolls for 20 Rifle Infantry then calculate the Damage from there when there is a more streamlined and consistent mechanic.

[Daryk]

I've been advocating for a reduction in the number of scales we need to convert between, not an increase.

RPG Scale?  Yep!  Need it!
BA Scale?  Nope... not so much.
TW Scale?  Hell yes!  This is the soul of the game!
Alpha Strike Scale?  Not so much... seems an unnecessary "in between" scale...
BattleForce Scale?  I can see the need for this, but it's not exactly clean, and probably led to the above...
SBF Scale?  Not sure we need this in addition to the above.
ISAW Scale?  Yep!  This isn't a bad abstraction at the top level.

I probably missed a level or two, but my points stand.  I don't see a need for more than four (RPG, Tactical, Operational, and Strategic).