There can be some changes for infantry?

[Mostro Joe]

I know that many of you are really not interested in how non-mechs units work. And it's fine, Battletech is battlemech game after all.

But I really like the combined arms aspect and, many years ago, I remember that with a friend of mine we had some games using only non-mechs units, and we had a lot of fun!

I've read in a recent interview by Ray Arrastia and Aaron Cahall that we can see a new iteration of the Battletech manuals, coming to an end to the "Total Warfare edition" (if I have well understood obviously).

I wanted to know if there are some ideas to clean a little the infantry rules, because again in that interview I've seen that in future we can see a different way to play Aerotech, for an exemple.

In particular, there are two aspects that I think can be addressed.

I think that the mechanized infantry concept introduced with Total Warfare is totally wrong and problematic. I mean that TW says that these units work in close conjunction with vehicles that they use to move around the battlefield. I think this creates problems, because it doubles with the motorized infantry concept that we have seen from the Citytech times. And creates problems even because in the TROs we see a lot of vehicles that can be used by infantry to move on the battlefield: APCs in particular, but not only them.
It is weird to think to these sort of "matrioska infantry" units, where they jump on jeeps or trucks (or worst of all "intrinsec APCs of IFVs"!!), and then again on APCs or Maxims! Also, it seems that mechanized infantry can go up and down building without any problem.

In some TROs there is also a lot of confusion how these "vehicles" should appear": they are hover bikes, VTOL packs or some sort of trucked sleds, it depends by the TRO and the illustration. It is very chaotic and I think this kind of infantry should be soon or later entirely removed from the rules.
Instead, given the light appearance of the vehicles, I think that it can rewritten the motorized infantry section. I mean, motorized infantry can be motorized (tracked) infantry, or motorized (VTOL) infantry and so on. It can still use the concept of infantry that moves around using very light vehicles. But IFVs should be separated vehicles that have their unit sheet, like the Maxim to make an easy exemple.

The other problem is the construction rules. In the techmanual there is huge array of weapons that can equip infantry, but it seems really a waste of space given the Battletech scale. I mean, yes we can think a bout a police squad armed just with pistols, but why have so many pistol models? I think that in the Battletech scale to make a difference between different assault rifles and pistols have little sense. In a "6mm scale" we can think about rifle infantry without having to really care about the exact rifle model they are using, on that scale there is no need for that. And the same can be said for SMGs and pistols. Support weapons can be different obviously.

And talking about support weapons, I found really strange to see that melee weapons can be chosen for that role.

Again, why there are grenades statistics? In a Battletech scale, it has little sense to have statistics for grenades (there are statistics for minigrenades!). I think their use should be automatically accounted for when infantries fight in the same hex, because they are a close combat device after all! I don't know, give the infantry an augmented firepower at 0 range, give it a bonus to hit, I don't know how to implement the use of grenades in game terms, but I think that a simple game mechanic is a clean idea and resolve the presence of grenades in the filed. And the same can be said for melee weapons! It is really needed a statistic for a knive of for a club on this gaming scale? For a shuriken, for a tomahawk??? Not even wargames in a 25/28mm scale are so nitpicky about the exact melee weapons used, why Battletech?

I think that to address some special equipment (like the use of microgrenades or neural whips) it is sufficient use some special ability written specifically for infantries, and just when it is really needed. Or for some flavour effect (taking into account katanas for Kuritan troops just to make an exemple). Et voila.

Sorry for the lenght of the post, if you arrived until there, thanks for your patience 

[AlphaMirage]

I think of Mechanized Infantry as the first attempt at abstracted infantry/vehicle pairing while keeping it at Mech Scale. I do think there needs to be a better name and clarity however as real world parlance would make Foot infantry 'mounted' in APCs/IFVs 'Mechanized.'

MechInf take Standard Damage as vehicles and should be able to use the heaviest of infantry weapons (with Tracked MechInf basically Panzer 1 or 2s and Tankettes). I however definitely think they should be treated as light vehicles with all the restrictions of their larger counterparts and the only type to utilize field guns or MLRS (Field Missile Launchers with all the same rules, so you can have a mobile mortar team) although I would only give these weapons a half ton of ammo for balance purposes with the dedicated combat vehicles.

Frankly they should be the poor man's Armored Infantry, equally fragile, with less firepower but superior mobility (and no motive checks) in open terrain while Armored Infantry is better up close or in broken terrain where they can break LOS. This gives them a distinct role and character.
 
Motorized I like as is except you shouldn't be able to carry a field gun behind a motorcycle or use support weapons, I would make them move 5 (6 on roads) however instead of 3 because Jump is just better at that speed and Wheeled MechInf move 4 (5 on roads) already. This would give them an outrider/scouting role for other assets or as objective grabbers. Jump I think is good as is.

That said I also don't like the lighter end of vehicles so I feel <10 should be built using support vehicle rules or as Infantry squads. The only thing stopping that is the Savanna Master Mafia. There is just to much madness going on with the movement profiles that low on the scale.

Speaking of Squads though I think the base deployment should be the Squad rather than the Platoon and that most of the additional rules in TacOps for Infantry (scaling walls, digging in, etc...) should be normal.

[Mostro Joe]

That said I also don't like the lighter end of vehicles so I feel <10 should be built using support vehicle rules or as Infantry squads. The only thing stopping that is the Savanna Master Mafia. There is just to much madness going on with the movement profiles that low on the scale.

I absolutely agree with you here. And I think that <10 vehicles could stay in a hex in a number of four.
To use the support vehicles rules for light vehicles can be a way to create really interesting motorized infantry units. No mechanized, I mean really motorized.

[DevianID]

So dont want to go into fan rules here.

Infantry, as I understand, are the most changed set of unit rules in battletech.  From the simple and fantastic squads in battletroops and jeeps for mech/motorized, to citytech, BMR, and now total warfare, infantry have gotten more amd more and more complicated.

Further, after total warfare they switched infantry again, and made infantry based off the RPG a time of war infantry weapons.  So a total warfare flamer team isn't a thing in tech manual.  The conversion for infantry to mech damage is also flatly incorrect--a micro/infantry grenade, even a dozen of them in a burst, do 0 damage to a mech in ATOW...but because of the creative math in the RPG companion an underslug grenade launcher somehow ADDS damage done to mechs, despite the grenade doing 0 damage in the RPG.  So this led to ANOTHER change, a damage cap on personal weapons because the RPG + conversion leads to such silly and broken infantry units.

So we have seen 3 different stat blocks for infantry even within total warfare.  The current implementation of tracking each pistol at the battlemech scale, which started with techmanual, is just awful--it also means being tied to the RPG instead of being tied to battlemechs, in the battletech game.  An infantry missile, because of weird conversion rules, does almost no damage especially compared to a rifle, compared to mech and battle armor where missiles act like missiles and the unit has a finite number of them.  Even battledroids infantry had SRMs with ammo.

Seeing as we have two battletech RPGs now, the 'next' total warfare could gladly do away with lots of the bad infantry things we have now.  Its more then fair to say a total warfare style book could have infantry written to work specifically at the battlemech scale, instead of giving us RPG weapons like platoons armed with pistols, which have no function at the battlemech total warfare scale.  And because infantry is the most changed units, I would love the new book to take another try at infantry honestly designed for the battlemech scale.

[Mostro Joe]

Even battledroids infantry had SRMs with ammo.

I think that's a concept that should be reintroduced.

Seeing as we have two battletech RPGs now, the 'next' total warfare could gladly do away with lots of the bad infantry things we have now.  Its more then fair to say a total warfare style book could have infantry written to work specifically at the battlemech scale, instead of giving us RPG weapons like platoons armed with pistols, which have no function at the battlemech total warfare scale.  And because infantry is the most changed units, I would love the new book to take another try at infantry honestly designed for the battlemech scale.

I agree. As I said there's no need to talk about minutiae when we consider the scale Battletech is played. A rifle platoon should be a rifle platoon, there's no need to talk about the exact brand of the rifle employed. I've seen historical wargames in a bigger scale that have absolutely no need to diversify from a M-16 or an AK-74, assault rifles are just assault rifles for gaming purpouses.

Not only it's crazy to write an entire page to have different data for tomahawks, axes, nunchakus and so on (how can a staff be so different from a club or a bo on a Battletech scale???), but if you think, medium lasers are just medium lasers, no matter if they are Martell branded or not! So the weapons mounted on Battlemechs, the kings of the battlefield and of the game, have no differences (a large laser is a large laser) but the brand of the laser rifle used by the foot soldier makes a difference? Nonsense!

[RifleMech]

I do think Infantry and Aerospace need work but the end of Total Warfare?

When it comes to Infantry, I think they're too abstracted, especially Motorized/Mechanized Infantry. They should be the vehicle version of Battle Armor. They're treated as Vehicles in AToW, they should be in Total Warfare too.

Infantry should also have more than one attack. Melee weapons shouldn't be added to ranged attacks to hit multiple hexes away.

I don't mind the different weapons. They do need to be consistent within and between games though. What AToW calls Ordnance Weapons are the biggest offenders. And all ammo types should be available and without averaging. The damage may not change in TW but the effects should be different.

[Mostro Joe]

I do think Infantry and Aerospace need work but the end of Total Warfare?

So it's hinted in the interview I've read on sarna.net.
It is said "the thing coming up is the new Total Warfare—and we’re not gonna call it that, but I’ve shorthanded it that way." And again "We can bring order to chaos. We can create a core line that makes sense; that’s fewer books, that still has the same content for the most part, but makes sense. A single book that Total Warfare once was when there was no BattleMech Manual, when there were not as many other core books".

Obviously I don't know if this will be effectively a real thing. Or what shape will have anyway.

[ColBosch]

We have to remember that Total War came out 20 years ago, originally under FanPro as part of the Classic BattleTech 20th Anniversary revival. It's the longest-running BattleTech rules set, but it's getting very long in the tooth now. It's a product of a different time and could really use a facelift and reorganization, especially with the Universe book coming out.

[Charistoph]

I do think Infantry and Aerospace need work but the end of Total Warfare?

Considering a reformat desperately needs to be done on the lines of The Battlemech Manual as well as the age of the original document, it does need to be replaced.  The longest running version of the rules before that was technically The Master Rules, and that's because FASA was gone and 'MechClix didn't touch it.

With that reformat, it won't line up with any version of Total Warfare before it, and so confuse some players when new documentation comes out.  The alternative is having The Battlemech Manual become the central focus and a "Combined Arms Manual" and similar start coming out to address specific rules for units like Infantry and Vehicles.

When it comes to Infantry, I think they're too abstracted, especially Motorized/Mechanized Infantry. They should be the vehicle version of Battle Armor. They're treated as Vehicles in AToW, they should be in Total Warfare too.

Infantry should also have more than one attack. Melee weapons shouldn't be added to ranged attacks to hit multiple hexes away.

I don't mind the different weapons. They do need to be consistent within and between games though. What AToW calls Ordnance Weapons are the biggest offenders. And all ammo types should be available and without averaging. The damage may not change in TW but the effects should be different.

While I agree that Motorized and Mechanized Infantry aren't done well, I disagree that Total Warfare needs to kowtow to the RPG.  Battletech came first and should be the dominant perspective.  Not to mention, Battletech is so far pulled out from the RPG perspectives that any regular guy can literally be taken out by anything if they aren't in Battle Armor.

Having a Physical Attack to work against other Infantry is a good idea, though.

[RifleMech]

So it's hinted in the interview I've read on sarna.net.
It is said "the thing coming up is the new Total Warfare—and we’re not gonna call it that, but I’ve shorthanded it that way." And again "We can bring order to chaos. We can create a core line that makes sense; that’s fewer books, that still has the same content for the most part, but makes sense. A single book that Total Warfare once was when there was no BattleMech Manual, when there were not as many other core books".

Obviously I don't know if this will be effectively a real thing. Or what shape will have anyway.

Thanks. I hadn't read that. I don't know how they'll have fewer books without making them bigger.

Considering a reformat desperately needs to be done on the lines of The Battlemech Manual as well as the age of the original document, it does need to be replaced.  The longest running version of the rules before that was technically The Master Rules, and that's because FASA was gone and 'MechClix didn't touch it.

With that reformat, it won't line up with any version of Total Warfare before it, and so confuse some players when new documentation comes out.  The alternative is having The Battlemech Manual become the central focus and a "Combined Arms Manual" and similar start coming out to address specific rules for units like Infantry and Vehicles.

I do agree that the layout could be a lot better.

While I agree that Motorized and Mechanized Infantry aren't done well, I disagree that Total Warfare needs to kowtow to the RPG.  Battletech came first and should be the dominant perspective.  Not to mention, Battletech is so far pulled out from the RPG perspectives that any regular guy can literally be taken out by anything if they aren't in Battle Armor.

I don't mean that the BG should kowtow to the RPG but one should be reflective of the other. If they don't it makes it difficult to believe they're in the same universe. For example, a 10kg SRM should be a 10kg SRM regardless of what fires it. Right now there's 3 different stats for the same 10kg SRM. And the ammo types shouldn't be averaged. Anti-Personnel rounds should have different effects from Anti-Vehicle rounds.

I get that some things, like the Pop-up Trailer, aren't going to have much of an effect in a pickup game but I should still be able to use it in a TW campaign.

Having a Physical Attack to work against other Infantry is a good idea, though.

Thanks, although it shouldn't be limited to just infantry. A platoon of Vibro-Sword armed Infantry could use their melee weapons against a tank.
presuming they live to get that close.

[House Davie Merc]

Honestly-I've been waiting for a new set of official rules to replace my old books.

My edition of TW is the 1st one.  If I print out all the errata for that I have to carry a stack
of papers almost as thick as the OG hard copy itself.

As for the infantry question-IMHO- they need to publish a chart of canon infantry platoons
available for each era including their BV costs and other relevant in game info.
Some overall standard that's easy to grab and go and accepted by the community. IN a core rule book.
If anybody wants to mod it-they can mod it, but a standard unit selection for something as low
level as infantry should be a no brainer.
Right now most players I know grab something off Mega-Mek.
I don't want to read an Encyclopedia to make my own for a pick up game when they're just crunchies.
Some standard platoons in print from an official source would be great.

[Charistoph]

I don't mean that the BG should kowtow to the RPG but one should be reflective of the other. If they don't it makes it difficult to believe they're in the same universe. For example, a 10kg SRM should be a 10kg SRM regardless of what fires it. Right now there's 3 different stats for the same 10kg SRM. And the ammo types shouldn't be averaged. Anti-Personnel rounds should have different effects from Anti-Vehicle rounds.

It came across that way.  As it is, there are a LOT of things that are notably abstracted from the Infantry level that just don't need to be replicated because the differences are just too finicky and variable.

Though this is getting in to Fan Rules territory, having different types of Missile Launchers is a good idea from one perspective, standard SRMs reduce Infantry's Movement.  Having a Lighter set that does lower Damage, but allows for regular Movement would be nice.  Much the same as the difference between Ballistic and Laser Rifles in Damage are, just with a different trade off.

However, having an AI Infantry Missile just doesn't make sense (aside from the dual-purpose Inferno).  The primary purpose of Missiles IS anti-Armor, after all.

I get that some things, like the Pop-up Trailer, aren't going to have much of an effect in a pickup game but I should still be able to use it in a TW campaign.

You're going to need to provide some reasoning for that, I think.  If you're just talking about its existence to it can be shot at like a Support Truck, I guess, but it doesn't have even that purpose, then why?

Thanks, although it shouldn't be limited to just infantry. A platoon of Vibro-Sword armed Infantry could use their melee weapons against a tank.
presuming they live to get that close.

I would rather address it as a means for Infantry to do an equivalent of a 'Leg Attack' on a Vehicle, rather than Swarm being the only option.  In those cases, the Vibro-Sword would be allowed to use it for this purpose instead of Satchel Charges.

As for the infantry question-IMHO- they need to publish a chart of canon infantry platoons
available for each era including their BV costs and other relevant in game info.
Some overall standard that's easy to grab and go and accepted by the community. IN a core rule book.
If anybody wants to mod it-they can mod it, but a standard unit selection for something as low
level as infantry should be a no brainer.
Right now most players I know grab something off Mega-Mek.
I don't want to read an Encyclopedia to make my own for a pick up game when they're just crunchies.
Some standard platoons in print from an official source would be great.

Since a couple TROs carry Infantry (and I haven't purchased any Record Sheet packs), I'm rather surprised that they don't already exist in the Record Sheet Packs.  This should be something easily addressed.

[Daemion]

I thought Total Warfare had stock infantry options.  The chaos came with TechManual.

That aside, I wholeheartedly agree that there should be a change.  But, I'm more one for narrative consistency.  And, the issue I had with Total Warfare in large part was the removal of that consistency to make all units playable in the game at all times.  It breaks my immersion when Mechs are supposed to be this amazing thing, but can be taken down by a similarly armed tank or amorphous stat blob of hit points that is standard infantry.  And, it was made worse by forcing armored units to have to move into engagement range where infantry can strike back to use the weapon best suited for that role because of errata enforcements.

It makes such fantastic machines such as Mechs, and even tanks, laughable when what might be a group of unarmored irregulars can take them out at all.  And, Total Warfare makes no distinction between front line troops or poorly equipped weekend warriors.  Again, that only comes into play with TechManual and potentially units in the TRos.

That doesn't sit right with me. 

It was many moons ago when somebody on these boards (not me) suggested that there should be about three levels of play when it comes to the personal individual character.  Roleplaying - Infantry Combat - Armored Combat.  (We could go so far as to add Capital Ship and maybe planetary strategy levels, too.)  The RPG should handle situations that don't involve combat.  That's what you need all those other skills and traits for.  An Infantry Combat game, like a refined Battle Troops can be used on its own or for RPG combat when all else has failed on the RPG front and bullets are about to fly.  And when armor gets involved in the form of Mechs and Tanks, you moved to the Game of Armored Combat.

I personally have come to agree with that.  Which is one of the reasons you hear me pining for a Revised BattleTroops.  It could be done with A Time of War combat rules if you give players stock infantry builds to pick from for each faction.  I would prefer something a little different, using elements of a game of armored combat like the pilot damage chart from BattleMechs to link it to the armored game more readily. 

BattleTech got off the ground not because of it's construction system and game rules specifically.  It got off the ground because it had some pre-made Mechs to choose from at the start.  The construction system allowed people to tweak existing designs or homebrew whole Mechs to their heart's content.  New equipment from different eras expanded that, which gave the game much longer legs. 

But, as it stands, when it comes to infantry, all we have is Total Warfare, or A Time of War.  Total Warfare is too ambiguous to give players something to latch onto for a mental visual. 

A Time of War has the problem of requiring players to go straight to the 'construction rules' to make PCs and NPCs.  That's a pretty daunting task to just get started in playing a game or two.  What if you just want to do a simple platoon-on-platoon fight? 

So, from a meta perspective, I've gone back to looking at BattleTroops rules when it comes to the armored combat scale.  The SRMs acted like SRMs on BattleMechs and Tanks.  The Machine Guns acted like Machine Guns on BattleMechs and Tanks.  And, that was the only things that Infantry had to use against armored units.  On the flip side, they were also glass cannons, able to be taken out pretty easily. That fits the lore of the setting much better than what we have now.

Now, the idea of a single point of damage wiping out an entire squad was a bit much, regardless of where that point of damage came from.  But, if we just change the fluff behind what's happening, it could simply be the attack took out one or more Squad Weapons.  That's something that feels right.  It also means the rest of the squad is potentially still present and active.  They just don't have the teeth to hurt armored units.  But, they could still hurt other squads.  Or, they could go to ground and regroup after the battle's said and done. I wouldn't mind having that bit of detail as an option.

For one, it makes sense that in an advanced enough future like BattleTech, a computerized targeting system should be able to pick out the threat in a squad and snipe it with ease.  Infantry are not good at keeping up a scramble at all times, even for a full minute, let alone two or more.  They're more inclined, or should be, to seek cover and fire from behind it.  That makes a Squad Weapon easy pickings once it's been used.

Heck, I wouldn't mind different scales of equipment and training getting different styles of performance.  I've toyed with and have seen other people look into deploying standard infantry platoons like Battle Armor squads. That could be something for proper front-line trained and equipped forces.

But, in the end, I want consistency.  I saw what the rules looked like when the goal was to make Everything Playable in a board game.  It breaks the reality for the setting for me.  Mechs are special for a reason beyond psychological, in-universe.  Instead of looking for a counter technology or tactic to overcome the Hegemony's new toy by the Great Houses, they all adopted the technology, instead.  Armored Warfare changed with the BattleMech.

That means, to me, infantry shouldn't be readily playable on the Game of Armored Combat Map.  They should be very niche and have very specialized roles.  And, if you try to use them in ways they shouldn't be, Like the UrbanMech, they'll get ripped apart.  They're narrative pieces, objective holders and takers, something that should make a game interesting.  Not something that should break the immersion.

For them to really shine, Infantry should be played on a different scale, like a dedicated infantry combat game, or RPG combat level. (Same with Space ships, while I'm at it.  But that's a different discussion.) 

So, that has been my hope and dream for a change to infantry.  Question is, will I be forced to do it at my own table?

We shall see.

[Lance Leader]

  Yeah, I have the same issues with the infantry rules.  I general stick to generic TW foot and jump platoons and ignore mechanized and motorized infantry types as I find them just a little too abstracted.  If I want to bring transports I just bring transports for my foot/jump platoons.

  I find the Tech-Manual custom infantry rules too open for min/maxing and non-sensical for my taste.  Too easy to combine a high damage short range weapon with a high range secondary weapon for a best off all worlds combination, like a mixed auto-rifle and laser-rifle squad that basically get the damage of auto-rifles and the range of laser-rifles. 

  I won't go into too much detail here but I have made some house-rules for infantry that work for me but I have never had an opportunity to put them to use in a game against an opponent.  To sum up the main changes are that, small vehicles can be assembled into platoons that function nearly identically to battle armor squads, and infantry weapons BAR ratings from ATOW dictate what they can and can't damage so that you can't auto-rifle a BAR 10 tank or mech to death and need something like SRM launcher to even damage heavy armored units.

[Mostro Joe]

Following with with interest this thread, Everyone is giving a lot of advice thanks.

I can say again that, in a new iteration of the infantry rules, there should not be that Rpg mad level of details if you want to play on a Battletech scale.

Please, try to remember that in many other infantry-centric wargames, there is absolutely no need to specify the exact kind of weapon every soldier is using. A colt 1911 is just a pistol. A Thompson M1A1 is just a SMG and so on. The important thing are the tactical choices and the ability of troops in using their tools. There is absolutely no need to create statistics for the needle weapons, the spray guns or the exact kind or staff or club that are used on a Battletech scale (that is the 6mm, or Microarmor or 1/285 scale, call it how you want). That's even more true if you think that the weapons used by the protagonists of this game, the Battlemechs, are no different one from the other. A medium laser is a medium laser, no matter the brand.

Sometimes special rules can be used for some special kind of troops (in other wargames Gurkhas are better in close combat for an exemple, or WWII Americans have a special bonus because they use the Garands, but the base mechanics do not change). But they should be "special" cases, precisely.

And again, the use of vehicles should not be computed abstractly in an infantry unit, or there could be strange results, when constructing custom infantry units above all.

If we have distinct APCs of IFVs in the game (like the hover APC, the Heavy Tracked APC or the Maxim) they should stay that: separate. There are rules to imbark/disembark units, so why mess with everything using the odd mechanized units concept?

[Daemion]

...{A}nd infantry weapons BAR ratings from ATOW dictate what they can and can't damage so that you can't auto-rifle a BAR 10 tank or mech to death and need something like SRM launcher to even damage heavy armored units.

That was an optional rule when they first introduced support vehicles in Combat Equipment back under FanPro.  Too bad they didn't run with it.

[Prospernia]

The first time I ran Mechwarrior, RPG, was to an Aliens, style game. Since everyone was infantry and attached to an APC, infantry was a lot stronger in combat; infantry was broken-down into squads and each squad had an SRM-2, MG, or a small-laser (SRM, MG or Laser squad), that worked just like they do in Battletech, and I ignored the rules in TRO: 3026.  I forgot how we did damage, but it wasn't that bad and more survival than just crossing out each man.

[RifleMech]

It came across that way.  As it is, there are a LOT of things that are notably abstracted from the Infantry level that just don't need to be replicated because the differences are just too finicky and variable.

If it did I apologize. That was not my intent. I do know that the RPG has things that don't need to be replicate at TW level, like clothing. But things that could be replicated should be.

Though this is getting in to Fan Rules territory, having different types of Missile Launchers is a good idea from one perspective, standard SRMs reduce Infantry's Movement.  Having a Lighter set that does lower Damage, but allows for regular Movement would be nice.  Much the same as the difference between Ballistic and Laser Rifles in Damage are, just with a different trade off.

There are Light and Heavy SRMs only they do the same damage .58 per missile as the 2 shot SRM launcher. The only reason it does 1.14 damage is because it's firing 2 missiles. the Light SRM I can understand as its 9kg to the SRM's 10kg but the Heavy is 18kg. It should do a lot more damage than the other Infantry SRMs but it doesn't.

However, having an AI Infantry Missile just doesn't make sense (aside from the dual-purpose Inferno).  The primary purpose of Missiles IS anti-Armor, after all.

If that were the case why do vehicle SRMs have Fragmentation or other rounds? Not all Vehicle SRMs are intended to kill Mechs and Tanks. Why should infantry SRMs?

Besides Anti-Personnel and Anti-Vehicle, AToW also has FASCAM, Flares, Flash, Gas, High-Explosive, Inferno, NARC, Smoke, Stun. Those also apply to Recoilless Rifles and Mortars which also have Air-Burst and Guided rounds. AToW Companion also has Flash-Bang and Training Ordnance but all but Inferno are averaged together in TW. The problem with that is they all have different effects but we don't get them in TW.
And that's just Ordnance Weapons. Other weapons also have additional ammo types but we're not given the option of using them in TW.

You're going to need to provide some reasoning for that, I think.  If you're just talking about its existence to it can be shot at like a Support Truck, I guess, but it doesn't have even that purpose, then why?

How much extra space would they take on transports? How would they effect stacking limits? What are the effects on moral levels in campaigns? Can campers be use by other units like support trucks or tanks to give crews a safer place to sleep out in the field? I'd love to be able to equip a long range mechanized sensor infantry platoon with them but right now it isn't legal in TW. I can give them field guns but not campers.

I would rather address it as a means for Infantry to do an equivalent of a 'Leg Attack' on a Vehicle, rather than Swarm being the only option.  In those cases, the Vibro-Sword would be allowed to use it for this purpose instead of Satchel Charges.

Sounds good to me.

\

[Charistoph]

If it did I apologize. That was not my intent. I do know that the RPG has things that don't need to be replicate at TW level, like clothing. But things that could be replicated should be.

So long as it is worth being represented on the TW field.  If the similarities with another thing are small or relegated to RP/scenario moments, that's more for the field of TacOps than regular TW/TM work.

If that were the case why do vehicle SRMs have Fragmentation or other rounds? Not all Vehicle SRMs are intended to kill Mechs and Tanks. Why should infantry SRMs?

Infantry don't have Ammo Bays to work with.  You have several of the platoon carrying the Ammo for the Support Weapon guys.

Besides Anti-Personnel and Anti-Vehicle, AToW also has FASCAM, Flares, Flash, Gas, High-Explosive, Inferno, NARC, Smoke, Stun. Those also apply to Recoilless Rifles and Mortars which also have Air-Burst and Guided rounds. AToW Companion also has Flash-Bang and Training Ordnance but all but Inferno are averaged together in TW. The problem with that is they all have different effects but we don't get them in TW.
And that's just Ordnance Weapons. Other weapons also have additional ammo types but we're not given the option of using them in TW.

Don't forget the basic rifles the guys not running around with the Missiles would be using in that frame of reference, too.

Still, One should consider all the aspects of what you're saying and that Infantry unit will only be using ONE type of that Ammo.  Carrying TacOps options may be fine if there are actual practical uses that would be used on a grand battlefield.  Something that would only useful in BattleTroops/ATOW because it doesn't scale properly isn't worth bringing up.

How much extra space would they take on transports? How would they effect stacking limits? What are the effects on moral levels in campaigns? Can campers be use by other units like support trucks or tanks to give crews a safer place to sleep out in the field? I'd love to be able to equip a long range mechanized sensor infantry platoon with them but right now it isn't legal in TW. I can give them field guns but not campers.

All you're doing is talking about what is missing, but not WHY it needs to be represented.  How many pop-up campers are actually used in militaries today?  That's the thing to consider.  Why would they be using this instead of the MHQ or a field tent?  That's what you're missing in your reasoning.  Answer those questions and maybe you'll have the answer why they aren't presently shown in Battletech.  If you want to represent something, there are rules for hauling trailers, and just find out how much weighs IRL and create it.

[RifleMech]

As for the infantry question-IMHO- they need to publish a chart of canon infantry platoons
available for each era including their BV costs and other relevant in game info.
Some overall standard that's easy to grab and go and accepted by the community. IN a core rule book.
If anybody wants to mod it-they can mod it, but a standard unit selection for something as low
level as infantry should be a no brainer.
Right now most players I know grab something off Mega-Mek.
I don't want to read an Encyclopedia to make my own for a pick up game when they're just crunchies.
Some standard platoons in print from an official source would be great.

There's generic platoons listed in TW. That they don't match up with those in TM is frustrating but they are there. There's also some specific platoons in TRO:3085 and TRO:3085S and various sourcebooks. More would always be welcome though.

I thought Total Warfare had stock infantry options.  The chaos came with TechManual.

That aside, I wholeheartedly agree that there should be a change.  But, I'm more one for narrative consistency.  And, the issue I had with Total Warfare in large part was the removal of that consistency to make all units playable in the game at all times.  It breaks my immersion when Mechs are supposed to be this amazing thing, but can be taken down by a similarly armed tank or amorphous stat blob of hit points that is standard infantry.  And, it was made worse by forcing armored units to have to move into engagement range where infantry can strike back to use the weapon best suited for that role because of errata enforcements.

(snip)

I agree there needs to be better consistency with Infantry and Aerospace. I don't have a problem with infantry being playable in TW or being able to take out mechs. Infantry have had that ability since Battledroids. We also see it in the novels and in real life. To take it away would break constituency and immersion. I'm not saying Infantry should be the most powerful unit on the field. I think how they take damage in TW isn't right but they should be playable.

  I find the Tech-Manual custom infantry rules too open for min/maxing and non-sensical for my taste.  Too easy to combine a high damage short range weapon with a high range secondary weapon for a best off all worlds combination, like a mixed auto-rifle and laser-rifle squad that basically get the damage of auto-rifles and the range of laser-rifles. 

That would be another reason for giving infantry more than one attack. If a weapon isn't in range it's damage shouldn't be included.

  I won't go into too much detail here but I have made some house-rules for infantry that work for me but I have never had an opportunity to put them to use in a game against an opponent.  To sum up the main changes are that, small vehicles can be assembled into platoons that function nearly identically to battle armor squads, and infantry weapons BAR ratings from ATOW dictate what they can and can't damage so that you can't auto-rifle a BAR 10 tank or mech to death and need something like SRM launcher to even damage heavy armored units.

That is how I think motorized/mechanized infantry should be assembled and function, like Battle Armor. I'm okay with auto-rifles damaging the tank though. Outside a very lucky shot, they'd need a lot to death a BAR 10 tank or mech. Small vehicles are limited to 5 items and their weapons don't get added together the way infantry weapons do. They only do damage if they hit and those doing .49 damage or less round to 0 damage. I think rounding up .5 up and what little armor protection they get for the cost of adding together weapons damage is a fair trade.

Following with with interest this thread, Everyone is giving a lot of advice thanks.

I can say again that, in a new iteration of the infantry rules, there should not be that Rpg mad level of details if you want to play on a Battletech scale.

Please, try to remember that in many other infantry-centric wargames, there is absolutely no need to specify the exact kind of weapon every soldier is using. A colt 1911 is just a pistol. A Thompson M1A1 is just a SMG and so on. The important thing are the tactical choices and the ability of troops in using their tools. There is absolutely no need to create statistics for the needle weapons, the spray guns or the exact kind or staff or club that are used on a Battletech scale (that is the 6mm, or Microarmor or 1/285 scale, call it how you want). That's even more true if you think that the weapons used by the protagonists of this game, the Battlemechs, are no different one from the other. A medium laser is a medium laser, no matter the brand.

Sometimes special rules can be used for some special kind of troops (in other wargames Gurkhas are better in close combat for an exemple, or WWII Americans have a special bonus because they use the Garands, but the base mechanics do not change). But they should be "special" cases, precisely.

Not all pistols are the same though. That's why we have the list in TM. So we can get specific. If we want generic infantry we have those in TW.

And again, the use of vehicles should not be computed abstractly in an infantry unit, or there could be strange results, when constructing custom infantry units above all.

If we have distinct APCs of IFVs in the game (like the hover APC, the Heavy Tracked APC or the Maxim) they should stay that: separate. There are rules to imbark/disembark units, so why mess with everything using the odd mechanized units concept?

I agree. Motorized/Mechanized Infantry should be treated like the vehicle version of Battle Armor. But if a vehicle can carry multiple BA up to 2 tons, why not the same number of same weight vehicles? I'm not saying a Maxim should carry several 5 ton half tracks but I can see it carrying a platoon of motorcycles.

[DevianID]

I do want to point out, the idea of a camper for LRRP is cool for an RPG, but on the field of battletech that kind of equipment, as well as what kind of batteries the soldier is using and who makes their rifle, are NOT in scope with the rest of the battletech game.  These things might be important for soldiers, but just like mechs dont track fuel/range (its somewhere listed as 650km right?) we shouldn't be tracking it for infantry.  I love the example "if it doesn't matter who makes that mech defining AC10/medium laser, then it REALLY shouldn't matter who makes that insignificant infantry rifle."  But OH boy did they decide it matters who makes that infantry rifle for infantry in battletech... look at the stupid damage the shrapnel guns do when converted compared to other sniper rifles.

Infantry damage divisors are also not in scope with the battletech game where damage and armor pips are otherwise universal.  28 strong platoons huddled together are not in scope for the RPG game by the same token, you cant run 28 soldiers in the RPG reasonably.  Its VERY debatable that 28 soldiers in a hex is reasonable at all for battletech too without tracking them by squad.

Battle armor, with bubbles of health, hit locations, and mech equivalent weapons with ammo ARE in the scope of the rest of the battletech game.  Infantry COULD function very similar, using the same heavy weapons BA does, with the same pips and squads and hit locations.  They would track ammo too, and without a separate damage divisor system a medium laser on a mech would continue to be a medium laser, totally consistent with every other unit type.  The fact that infantry have such a radical departure from every other unit type in terms of damage, heck even aerospace uses bubbles, does make infantry stick out like a sore thumb.  And this damage divisor was new to Total Warfare.  Id rather see armored infantry have armor bubbles... If infantry squads are intended to take multiple medium lasers to kill, they can just have more bubbles of health, like everything else in the game.

As for ammo types... again if infantry operated at the level mechs do, well they'd have 5 or whatever SRM shots, and just like battle armor they could load alternate munitions.  Instead, infantry have infinite ammo, and the support guns give range to the rifles but do less damage, oh unless you only take 1 in which the rifles set the range of the SRMs, because no good reason?...  The techmanual approach to infantry and their weapons is just a big departure from how all other units work, including total warfare generic squads which peacefully left the question unanswered because the minutiae of small arms doesnt matter on the mech scale. 

As a final bit, if infantry is supposed to be 100-200 BV, then a 100 BV rifle platoon needs to be 1/10th as complex as a hunchback.  If infantry are more then 1/10th complex then a Hunchback, then at the mech scale we play the game infantry are DRAGGING the game down.  Side arms, digging in, morale rules, damage divisors, ect, its important to keep focus on the scale of play here.  If lots of complex rules are what people want for infantry, thats fine, but then infantry needs to be 500+ BV, more then equal to a light mech in cost, so the decision on the actual game board is between a unit of infantry or a mech.  Right now, its 15 units of infantry for 1 average 3025 heavy mech... thats just not in scope with the scale and timeframe of a game of battletech.  Now, a BATTLE TROOPS style game can go nuts, have fun with all the crazy complex things infantry can do, as that game is scaled to infantry.

[RifleMech]

So long as it is worth being represented on the TW field.  If the similarities with another thing are small or relegated to RP/scenario moments, that's more for the field of TacOps than regular TW/TM work.

Being available for TacOps would be fine. Right now though, they're not.

Infantry don't have Ammo Bays to work with.  You have several of the platoon carrying the Ammo for the Support Weapon guys.

Don't forget the basic rifles the guys not running around with the Missiles would be using in that frame of reference, too.

Still, One should consider all the aspects of what you're saying and that Infantry unit will only be using ONE type of that Ammo.  Carrying TacOps options may be fine if there are actual practical uses that would be used on a grand battlefield.  Something that would only useful in BattleTroops/ATOW because it doesn't scale properly isn't worth bringing up.

So?

I think all those ammo types are all practical depending on the game being played. Even if they're not useful they should still be available for accounttech. And while a platoon may only use one type of ammo - Squad rules should allow more than one type though. - there can be more than one platoon on the field.

All you're doing is talking about what is missing, but not WHY it needs to be represented.  How many pop-up campers are actually used in militaries today?  That's the thing to consider.  Why would they be using this instead of the MHQ or a field tent?  That's what you're missing in your reasoning.  Answer those questions and maybe you'll have the answer why they aren't presently shown in Battletech.  If you want to represent something, there are rules for hauling trailers, and just find out how much weighs IRL and create it.

Which MHQs have quarters? We don't have rules for adding field tents to platoons but we should. And if we can equip our platoons with tents why not give campers to motorized/mechanized platoons? I'd certainly equip a couple platoons with them, especially if the platoon is supposed to be in the field for a few days or in hostile environments.

I do want to point out, the idea of a camper for LRRP is cool for an RPG, but on the field of battletech that kind of equipment, as well as what kind of batteries the soldier is using and who makes their rifle, are NOT in scope with the rest of the battletech game.  These things might be important for soldiers, but just like mechs dont track fuel/range (its somewhere listed as 650km right?) we shouldn't be tracking it for infantry.  I love the example "if it doesn't matter who makes that mech defining AC10/medium laser, then it REALLY shouldn't matter who makes that insignificant infantry rifle."  But OH boy did they decide it matters who makes that infantry rifle for infantry in battletech... look at the stupid damage the shrapnel guns do when converted compared to other sniper rifles.

I think of campers like Collapsible Command Modules. They don't really do anything for most pick-up games but we have rules to build mechs with them and deploy them. Only we don't have board game rules for campers. Just RPG rules.

Infantry damage divisors are also not in scope with the battletech game where damage and armor pips are otherwise universal.  28 strong platoons huddled together are not in scope for the RPG game by the same token, you cant run 28 soldiers in the RPG reasonably.  Its VERY debatable that 28 soldiers in a hex is reasonable at all for battletech too without tracking them by squad.

Each trooper is a bubble of health for the platoon. How those bubbles get marked off has changed over the years though. The older weapon hit kills that many troopers may have been too much one way but 1/10 damage goes too far the other. And the mechanized infantry damage is worse.

Battle armor, with bubbles of health, hit locations, and mech equivalent weapons with ammo ARE in the scope of the rest of the battletech game.  Infantry COULD function very similar, using the same heavy weapons BA does, with the same pips and squads and hit locations.  They would track ammo too, and without a separate damage divisor system a medium laser on a mech would continue to be a medium laser, totally consistent with every other unit type.  The fact that infantry have such a radical departure from every other unit type in terms of damage, heck even aerospace uses bubbles, does make infantry stick out like a sore thumb.  And this damage divisor was new to Total Warfare.  Id rather see armored infantry have armor bubbles... If infantry squads are intended to take multiple medium lasers to kill, they can just have more bubbles of health, like everything else in the game.

(snip)

And that's an issue I have. SRMs and many other support weapons are supposed to be mech equivalent weapons. The rules just haven't been consistent about it. It's been a constant, "They are. They're not." since Battledroids. And that's just with the board game. We get the same problem in the RPG as well as conflicts between it and the BG. It's immersion breaking to have the same weapon function differently depending on what uses it and in what game. If it's a 10kg SRM, it's a 10kg SRM.

Also Infantry really need more than one attack. Swords shouldn't hit at 7 hexes because a rifle does so. Weapons shouldn't be used unless the target is in range. Tracking ammo for at least support weapons shouldn't be problem.  And the damage divisor is a problem. I can see why they thought the old Infantry take full damage was too much but the divisor goes too far in the other direction.

As a final bit, if infantry is supposed to be 100-200 BV, then a 100 BV rifle platoon needs to be 1/10th as complex as a hunchback.  If infantry are more then 1/10th complex then a Hunchback, then at the mech scale we play the game infantry are DRAGGING the game down.  Side arms, digging in, morale rules, damage divisors, ect, its important to keep focus on the scale of play here.  If lots of complex rules are what people want for infantry, thats fine, but then infantry needs to be 500+ BV, more then equal to a light mech in cost, so the decision on the actual game board is between a unit of infantry or a mech.  Right now, its 15 units of infantry for 1 average 3025 heavy mech... thats just not in scope with the scale and timeframe of a game of battletech.  Now, a BATTLE TROOPS style game can go nuts, have fun with all the crazy complex things infantry can do, as that game is scaled to infantry.

I can't talk about BV but if I wanted to do 15 units of infantry vs 1 3025 heavy mech I should be able to under TW rules. I shouldn't need a second or third set of rules to play that out. The others may let me get more detailed, all the way down to individual troopers but I should be able to do squad and platoon level action TW and TO should work. Right now, they have some details missing.

[Charistoph]

Being available for TacOps would be fine. Right now though, they're not.

Still, it's starting to get in to Fan Design in order to implement them.

So?

I think all those ammo types are all practical depending on the game being played. Even if they're not useful they should still be available for accounttech. And while a platoon may only use one type of ammo - Squad rules should allow more than one type though. - there can be more than one platoon on the field.

You ask, "So?", but you're not thinking the aspect through.  Part of it is, how much do you want to track Ammo expenditures for a PBI unit?  Even if we are looking at just Squad Rules, once they are unified, it becomes more difficult to track without completely changing the PBI chart to be more reflective of Battle Armor sheets.  Not a bad idea, but still Fan Design realm.

You say there are available in ATOW, then ATOW provides the Accounttech for those options.  If they aren't a reasonably deployable option on a Battletech Map, there is no reason for Total Warfare-level Accounttech to consider it.

Which MHQs have quarters? We don't have rules for adding field tents to platoons but we should. And if we can equip our platoons with tents why not give campers to motorized/mechanized platoons? I'd certainly equip a couple platoons with them, especially if the platoon is supposed to be in the field for a few days or in hostile environments.

MHQs have an officer's office which has a cot available for sleeping in.

I think of campers like Collapsible Command Modules. They don't really do anything for most pick-up games but we have rules to build mechs with them and deploy them. Only we don't have board game rules for campers. Just RPG rules.

So leave them in AToW where other things that don't translate well go.

Each trooper is a bubble of health for the platoon. How those bubbles get marked off has changed over the years though. The older weapon hit kills that many troopers may have been too much one way but 1/10 damage goes too far the other. And the mechanized infantry damage is worse.

Not true.  You're conflating quantity of removal with methods of notation.  PBI platoons have always been a stretch of men across a line, which is how those bubbles get marked off.

A change of method would be like having 5 lines of 10 available on a sheet, 1 line for each potential Squad, and 10 possible for each potential size of a Squad.  You roll for which Squad you initially Hit and then it adjust remaining to the next Squad available (maybe?).

And that's an issue I have. SRMs and many other support weapons are supposed to be mech equivalent weapons. The rules just haven't been consistent about it. It's been a constant, "They are. They're not." since Battledroids. And that's just with the board game. We get the same problem in the RPG as well as conflicts between it and the BG. It's immersion breaking to have the same weapon function differently depending on what uses it and in what game. If it's a 10kg SRM, it's a 10kg SRM.

I'm going to need a quote on that.  As far as I can determine, they've NEVER been the same.  PBI Missiles have always been shorter ranged.  They also need to be lighter as each normal SRM tube basically costed half a ton.  That's a LOT of people to devote to just lifting one.  While the abstraction of the Ammo may suggest to some that a Heavy SRM used in Vehicles, 'Mechs, and Aerospace are 10kg, that is VERY heavy for a person to carry across a battlefield.

[AlphaMirage]

There was a vigorous discussion (in fan rules) about potential infantry rules here

[Prospernia]

. . .Battletech is battlemech game after all.

Battletech does have a universe that involves people, not mechs. If people are the focus of the game, I'm going to focus on them despite any rules, really.

[Daemion]

Each trooper is a bubble of health for the platoon. How those bubbles get marked off has changed over the years though. The older weapon hit kills that many troopers may have been too much one way but 1/10 damage goes too far the other. And the mechanized infantry damage is worse.

Yup.  And you're asking about all the different ammo types. I hope you realize that the alternate ammo types are there to bring back the full weapon damage against infantry in a limited fashion.  It's purely a rules for rules sake effect.  Which, to me, shows a regression in technology when you look at the meta. 

It's not just with infantry.  The biggest, easiest example is with terrain.

Recall that in the oldest rules, you just had to target a woods hex with weapons that weren't on a restricted list, and a hit would knock it down a class, no question.  Nominally it was any weapon that didn't do 5 or more points of damage.  Why the AC/5 was on the restricted list is beyond me.   You could ALSO accidentally clear woods hexes as well as accidentally set them on fire. In the optional rules for that era, it took 40 points of damage to crater a hex. That's moving 900 square meters of earth 6 meters deep.

Move to the BMR period.  Now all weapons can potentially clear woods, but it's not guaranteed.  You had to roll for it even on a successful hit, and roll equal or under the weapon's damage to knock a woods hex down a class. Much more difficult to do for light damage weapons.    Some were guarantees. 

Aside from anything that BattleTroops shared with BattleTech and CityTech, BT 2nd ed and on had much the same in common with the BMR when it came to attacking and damaging infantry.

Then comes Total Warfare.  Not only do some weapons get their damage cut against infantry, but against terrain, as well.  It takes 50 points of damage to take a Heavy Woods to Light, and 40 to reduce Light Woods to rubble. 

Drastic difference in performance. 

I could actually envision the right technology mission-killing a set number of dudes rather mechanically and still be able to use the same weapon to do an equivalent of trackable damage to armored units.  Could be the targeting software combined with the firing platform.  In the case of munitions, it could be something in their design that might be programmable on the fly.  We are talking 500 years into the future here at a minimum along with whatever discoveries may come with prolonged activity in vacuum as well as better access to rare metals and other minerals that are in short supply on Earth.

So, when I see that you have to have specific munition types to get an effect that was once automatic in a prior version of the game, I ask: Doesn't it feel like a tech downgrade?

And I would have been fine with that.  Infantry still have some minor conceptual issues, but it would have felt minor.

I would have been fine with it if TW hadn't been retconned to be how Everything in BattleTech functions for all periods of history in the Inner Sphere. But, that's what happened.  I'm sorry, but when you spoiled me on the good stuff, why do you think I would be satisfied with this low-end crap as the new norm?  I was expecting to at least have the option to run the older style game effects as a tech option.  But, if I want that, I'm currently forced to do it on my own at my own table.

Color me not surprised when I learn that they had taken the 'game rules for a tournament board game's sake' approach, with little consideration for story and setting consistency during the transition from BMR to Total Warfare.

And, that's why I personally want to see a return to the glass-jawed infantry. Sure, give them teeth and a little extra reach.  They sure certainly can't move worth squat if they're not motorized/mechanized.  But, your weekend warrior and glorified police grunt (IE Militia, rebels, or local lord's retainer) probably shouldn't have access to ultra-high tech bullets for his rifle.  Only certain squad weapons should be capable of doing damage at the BattleTech Armored Combat level. That's SRMs, maybe LRMs, lasers of the small class, and minigun style machine guns. (You know, the kind that can drop eleven pounds - 5 kg - of bullets down-range in a pull of the trigger.)  Anything less should only be good at hurting squishies.

But, again, there's no hiding the squad weapon.  There's no ducking and weaving and firing from the hip with the squad weapon. Not in a way that will keep a guy from getting pegged by something fired with mechanical, computerized precision.  Actually, I would cede that it's possible with the right equipment and training. But, do you think a paranoid System Lord House Ruler would let just anyone have that stuff?

So, yeah.  I want to see front line elite infantry to be exceptionally rare to the point you should not expect to field them in anything more than a company at a time.  Everyone else should be a glass-jawed unit which is readily defanged with a single hit from any armored unit.  I'm open to the option of them still being able to run around and deal with other infantry if I or the situation, or the faction doctrine, allows.

Basically, give me BattleSquad, or give me Infantry Pogs. Maybe both.  This strange version of what was introduced in City Tech just doesn't work for me anymore.

Heck, the current infantry aren't even interesting.  You can't crit them like you could any other armored unit.  At least with Battle Armor, you get the random opportunity to knock the troopers off in detail, or risk the chance that you'll sand blast the entire squad before they start dropping off quickly.  Standard Infantry don't even have that. 

[paladin2019]

Problem sources:

APCs: These 10 ton machines really feel like they were built in the squad-based rules paradigm of BattleDroids but were suddenly "rewritten" when CityTech dropped the year prior to their publication in TRO:3026. Rewritten in this case means that the troop compartments were simply rewritten to say 7 men instead of 9. That's the feel at least. But this also leads us to...

Infantry Unit Size. Back to BattleDroids, its included appendix for infantry tells us that infantry of the 31st Century are fielded in the same contemporary 9-man squads present at the game's writing. The squad is the basic unit of deployment in this ruleset. This makes sense for a lot of reasons in the BT scale, not the least is that a 15m radius is a criminally negligent dispersion for a platoon leader to keep his formation. CityTech perhaps wanted to bulk up to platoons in hexes to give infantry some resiliency (a squad is killed by any hit from a mech scale weapon), but the cognitive dissonance is deafening. It also makes the default APC of BT this (a combat vehicle with a huge bay)

rather than this (one optimized for being organic to the unit)
.
This "necessitates" the mechanized infantry type when simply making the basic formation a squad, like a BA squad or a 'mech would solve the problem.

Next

Infantry Damage. Prior to MW3e, infantry damage was simple. The unit had an expected density of special weapons and the damage a platoon dealt was [troopers/x, round up]. X was based on the special weapon types it carried; 4 for rifles, 3 for MGs and flamers, and 2 for SRMs and small lasers configured as crew served weapons. No cluster rolling, no fractional damages added up and divided. Roll to hit, check the rolls, and apply damage in 5-point clusters. Even before 3e, laser rifles were all-around better weapons than (ballistic assault) rifles but the difference wasn't factored in as a difference at the mech scale. MW3e changed this basic paradigm and TM exacerbates it by adding a line item for every variation on x-rifles ever published. Enough! It's just complexity for complexity's sake. It doesn't help that neither TW nor TM give us the assumed weapon mixes for non-rifled units so TM cannot replicate the non-rifle damage tables for the units in TW.

Solution:

• Basic unit of deployment for infantry is the squad. Give the squad the same dispersed formation rule as BA squads. Class foot squads as up to 1T to allow APCs to transport them and otherwise give transports an X squads limit in addition to the weight limits of their bays (usually one per door, but things like Karnovs will need more specificity). While you can stack troops like cordwood, they won't be very combat effective where you need them let alone be able to dismount effectively if you try to pack 28 men in the volume required for 4 IS Standard suits. Do not allow stacking in excess of the normal 2 friendly units; infantry should not be that close.
• Remove the mechanized infantry type. Reverting to squads eliminates the need in the ruleset for the type.
• Revert to basic troopers/x for infantry damage. If "more granularity" is desired, put it in an advanced rules compilation, not the standard construction rules document. When such rules are promulgated, define exactly what the squad's weapons density is and ensure the construction rules can match that.
• Reconsider MW3's complete reimagining of infantry weapons. There is a reason to want lasers instead of ballistics and it's more than just range.
• Update BattleTroops for more granular infantry action. Working at infantry scale where this level of detail for infantry should reside, not mech scale play. When looking down at the individual trooper level, we can more sensibly account for how much better are Zeus heavy rifles vs. blazers, etc. We have more control over how many heavy weapons are on the battlefield and where and how they are best employed.

[Mostro Joe]

Solution:

• Basic unit of deployment for infantry is the squad. Give the squad the same dispersed formation rule as BA squads. Class foot squads as up to 1T to allow APCs to transport them and otherwise give transports an X squads limit in addition to the weight limits of their bays (usually one per door, but things like Karnovs will need more specificity). While you can stack troops like cordwood, they won't be very combat effective where you need them let alone be able to dismount effectively if you try to pack 28 men in the volume required for 4 IS Standard suits. Do not allow stacking in excess of the normal 2 friendly units; infantry should not be that close.

I agree. Battletech is not napoleonic. And the squads should be of 9 men. I don't know if it's useful or logic to make some "flavour" variants here. And for flavour variants I mean Davion rifle squad and Kurita rifle squad, for an exemple. But perhaps, at this scale, there should not be differences.

• Remove the mechanized infantry type. Reverting to squads eliminates the need in the ruleset for the type.

I absolutely agree again. If there is the need to create infantry that moves with very light vehicles, like hover sleds, it is possible to elaborate on the concept of motorized units. There is even the jump troops concept in the game yet, so why not thinkin about others. For an exemple there's the funny idea of the beast mounted advanced infantry unit, that I like.

• Update BattleTroops for more granular infantry action. Working at infantry scale where this level of detail for infantry should reside, not mech scale play. When looking down at the individual trooper level, we can more sensibly account for how much better are Zeus heavy rifles vs. blazers, etc. We have more control over how many heavy weapons are on the battlefield and where and how they are best employed.

The so-nicknamed at the time "Battletroops 2", the squad combat chapter we see in AToW, has never been a thing for what I can see and what I can know. I found it very difficlut to use it, expecially for casual games. When I tried, years ago, to simulate more in detail Infantry operations, we used a very good 90s british system that today is freely downloadable. I don't say its name because I don't rememebr if it's againt the forum policy. But the point is, it had a very gritty nature that very well simultaed the battletech atmosphere.
Today I would really like to see a "real" Battletroops 2 volume. I know that many Battletech players don't care anyway.
But if we have a Battletech Manual, in future there could be a Manual for non-mech operations, the MechCommander Handbook for campaigns (I really hope they can finally produce a solid ruleset there) and finally a Battletroops manual.
Who knows.

[AlphaMirage]

I disagree on the removal of Mechanized Troops, they are good abstractions for Man/Machine teams. Merge them with the basic APCs, give them the best infantry support weapons on those vehicles instead of regular machine guns. They already possess the ability to tow other weapons like artillery, while remaining standard scale for damage like Battle Armor.

Just add a dismount option that lets them (and motorized/jump troops) exit their vehicles and become foot rifle squads instead. This lets them dig in, load cargo, take an objective, storm a structure, man a field gun, or take cover in woods. No need for two units on the field to do that task. I've never actually deployed a basic APC when I could take Mechanized Infantry instead and I do a lot of combined arms.

[MadCapellan]

There waa nothing realistic about the old infantry rules that allowed a single 200mm Gauss Slug to richocet around a forest & kill 15 men. I greatly prefer Total Warfare's method for tracking infantry damage.

If there's any change I'd like to see, it'd be giving conventional infantry two damage values - one for anti-personnel & another for anti-armor. This would elimonate some of the absurdity of things like auto-rifles adding significant anti-armor firepower & would also provide a nice reason to field things like squad MGs or flamers instead of SRMs or lasers.