So: Infantry

[Goose]

I keep tinkering with both conventional and BA, and I'm getting the sense there are few things you use non-BA for. Conventionals are good for field guns/ artillery (and their nephews, the monster support lasers), and sort of have this defacto stealth element to them. Sometimes it seems to come down to finding a truck that'd carry 6 tons instead of 3; But other then that, it seems hard to find a BA suit that won't do any other job better, despite maybe being built for a different specialty. Then you start pricing these formations out, and BA always wins for Bang-for-Buck.

I know I'm being a little general, but am I wrong? ???

[Fireangel]

Not all roles in the battlefield revolve around delivering damage.

Spotting - artillery and indirect fire just need eyeballs on the ground with LOS.
Rescue / capture - so your or your opponent's 'mechjock does not feel lonely after ejecting.
Combat Engineers - all types can be game-changers if used correctly.
Building Flushing - take care of enemy infantry without leveling the building.
Crowd Control - 'mechs suck at this.

[MadCapellan]

The primary advantage of a conventional infantry force over battle armor is that they are virtually impossible to eliminate unless the force attacking you is equipped specifically for the task.  A PPC kills Battle Armor dead just as readily as it kills BattleMechs, if not more so, but conventional infantry laugh at the typical battery of medium lasers, Gauss Rifles, etc that you find on most BattleMechs.  Taking conventional infantry forces your enemy into carrying specialist infantry hunting weaponry. 

Generally speaking, anti-infantry weaponry requires that the BattleMech or vehicle carrying them to engage the infantry at ranges they can successfully return fire at, another advantage over Battle Armor, which can be engaged successfully from 20+ hexes provided LOS is available.

Thirdly, properly equipped infantry platoons can dump out damage that way outstrips that available to your typical medium BA squad.  Check out TRO: 3085's House Steiner Heavy Infantry Platoon.  These guys dish out a maximum 23 damage or heat out to 6 hexes, and take 56 anti-infantry damage to eliminate!  Compare that to your typical IS Medium BA Squad, which can only deal a maximum of 12 damage at 3 hexes and the difference is very noticable!

Finally, conventional infantry platoons are usually slightly lighter to transport than BA squads.  Was the above squad built as foot infantry, the whole thing could have fit in a 3 ton infantry bay! 

There are plenty of reasons to use footsloggers if you think about it. 

[Goose]

See: This is what I'm talking about. :'(

The Lyrans here will do 17 on average, and should only get one turn get three turns of fire without reply as they retrograde across a salt flats. In two point groups, that's unlikely to drop any of the four generic IS suits on the first turn. Buy turn three, I'm hoping to have three suits put in 10.5 points into the Lyrans. More like just 7 from two suits. Give it another two turns? But "salt flats" means double damage, so …

So: Body Armor Pays, and being Motorized counts, too. But really, them Lyrans cost $4,143,887 and had a BV of … 84? 149? Op against $2,328,000 and BV 124 worth of BA, I guess they did alright. Two or three squads of Kage might be a better match. But these Lyrans are probably a high water mark for resiting BA. I guess BA could use some more reach in their anti-infantry weapons? The recoiless rifles, maybe?

The point about infantry resiting anti-armor weapons, unlike BA would, does still stand.

[sillybrit]

Another advantage for conventional infantry is that they're not effected by stealth armor, which can be very useful when confronting the CCAF or any other force that's stealth-happy.

Although powerful, the Steiner Heavy Infantry Platoon isn't really what you want to go hunting BA using infantry; for that you want a jump infantry platoon armed with M42Bs and Starfire ER secondaries, that're wearing IR Sneak Suits. With those you can match the speed of the IS Standard BA, for example, and outrange the non-SRM configurations (with the SRM config having its ammo problems), and if the BA does get a shot off the jump infantry have the benefit of stealth to help reduce the chance of being hit. The same benefits hold true against many other canon BA designs and quite a lot of customs too - although Clan suits armed with APGRs are just plain scary for infantry.

[MadCapellan]

Conventional infantry are much better at engaging 'Mechs and vehicles than BA.  BA are pretty much infantry-killers par excellence if they're equipped with flamers, since a single successful hit will probably roast the entire platoon. 

Sillybrit does make a good suggestion re: fighting Battle Armor if it comes to that, however.

[Goose]

O_o I'm showing $10,183,432 for 21 in that config, though they don't have a movement penalty …

Maybe the phrase is "BA is unquestionably superior to light infantry" …

[Weirdo]

An infantry platoon equipped with sneak suits that digs into a heavy woods hex is damn near invincible until you hit the whole hex with area effect weapons, or light the woods on fire. And any infantry platoon in a hardened building is a de facto god until you pour enough damage to bring down the whole building.

In regular combat, any infantry type is a crit-seeker par excellence, making them excellent escorts. Foot troops are great for defending a fixed location like a base or artillery battery, and the more mobile jump, motor or mechanized units can keep up with slower tanks and 'mechs on the move, protecting them from fast backstabbers. Then there's combat engineers, that can do damned near anything you can think of.

Finally, they're cheap. For the price of a medium tank, you can often bring a whole company of troopers, allowing you to spread platoons across the battlefield, denying the enemy numerous locations all at once.

[mensa12345]

It's really not about cost benefit.  Given the decay in tech in the Inner Sphere (around 3025), all most planets could afford was some armor and a lot of gomers.  Plus, given the expense of interstellar transport, it doesn't make sense to ship lots of people and all of their supplies through space.  On the other hand, all you need to have some infantry is a few weapons and a little time to train them.  If you're doing local policing, or trying to hold a few key points, that's plenty. 

[Goose]

Finally, they're cheap. For the price of a medium tank, you can often bring a whole company of troopers, allowing you to spread platoons across the battlefield, denying the enemy numerous locations all at once.

[Insert derogatory national moniker here] platoon equipped with auto-rifles and pajamas cost $545,820, AFAICT. How many to make a company?

[Note to self: Keep a Bitchin' Crusader handy]

[Shijima_3085]

If you're posted to garrison work on [insert backwater world here], where praytell, are you going to find replacement parts and armor for your BattleArmor?  Conventional infantry, on the other hand, can get away with a farmers market and a good shoe repairman.

[Demos]

So: Body Armor Pays, and being Motorized counts, too. But really, them Lyrans cost $4,143,887 and had a BV of … 84? 149? Op against $2,328,000 and BV 124 worth of BA, I guess they did alright.

The IS Standard BA costs around 200 per squad.
Apparently you applied a wrong multiplier to you BA calculation?
You know, a 4-trooper-suad have a multiplier of 5.2 (* cost of a single BA). So BA is significantly more expensive than conventional infantry in terms of BV.

[A. Lurker]

If we're talking C-bills, don't forget the weirdness that is the anti-'Mech training multiplier.

Really, any non-mechanized conventional infantry has an anti-'Mech skill, it's just that the default "anti-'Mech" infantry is a bit better at it. So at which point on the scale exactly are we supposed to multiply the cost of the entire platoon by 5?

[Martius]

Infantry ignores stealth armor modifiers (not camo however) so they are useful against certain types of BA.

[Demon55]

I have been using infantry a lot lately and they really can tie up mechanized forces.  I or my oponents will have to keep a mechs and or tanks a good distance away and pound them with longer ranged weapons.  This becomes particularly annoying when facing LRM infantry.

[Nibs]

Infantry are cheap. Take a few, stick them in buildings, watch the urban harassment begin while your 'Mechs outmaneuver theirs...

[Goose]

If we're talking C-bills, don't forget the weirdness that is the anti-'Mech training multiplier.

On the short list of easy decisions is "never pay for anti-'Mech PBIs": The suits rule that roost … ::)

[Goose]

The IS Standard BA costs around 200 per squad.
Apparently you applied a wrong multiplier to you BA calculation?
You know, a 4-trooper-suad have a multiplier of 5.2 (* cost of a single BA). So BA is significantly more expensive than conventional infantry in terms of BV.

:-\

[A. Lurker]

On the short list of easy decisions is "never pay for anti-'Mech PBIs": The suits rule that roost … ::)

Well, my point was that by the book, all non-mechanized infantry types are "anti-'Mech PBIs"; individual platoons may suck at it, but unlike their mechanized buddies they can at least still try. ;)

But I have my doubts that "just multiply the cost for all foot, motorized, and jump infantry by 5, period" was really the idea, either. Most likely that multiplier was just reflexively copy-and-pasted over from BMR, where anti-'Mech infantry was in fact explicitly a rare and special breed apart using rules that other common grunts just plain couldn't and "anti-'Mech skill" as such didn't exist yet...

[wundergoat]

The problem with using straight c-bills to calculate infantry costs is that it ignores availability and capital costs.  Mechs and battle armor might not cost that much compared to infantry squads, but you need expensive and rare factories to make those things.  They also need to be shipped to wherever using limited interstellar transport.  Infantry?  All you need are instructors and autorifles which should be available on any planet.

As for their in game role, conventional troopers make good speed bumps/pickets: heavy weapons are terribly slow at killing them while at the same time are vulnerable to them at close ranges.  Infantry therefore makes good area denial relative to its BV cost.  BAs work in a similar fashion, generally being more mobile and susceptible to heavy weapons in addition to being easier for offensive operations.  Out of game, conventional infantry is far far better at police work and occupation than any other unit type.

Field gunners using AC/2s, AC/5s, and LGRs are amazingly cost efficient fire support as well.

[Hellraiser]

To my knowledge infantry costs so much because it includes the training they get in Basic/AIT.
The costs a large nation pays w/ taxes.
I avoid that as a merc and higher ex-army guys that have already been trained.

[Alexander Knight]

If we're talking C-bills, don't forget the weirdness that is the anti-'Mech training multiplier.

Really, any non-mechanized conventional infantry has an anti-'Mech skill, it's just that the default "anti-'Mech" infantry is a bit better at it. So at which point on the scale exactly are we supposed to multiply the cost of the entire platoon by 5?

That's a legacy item which I believe is getting errata'd out now hat by default infantry can conduct A-M attacks.

[A. Lurker]

That's a legacy item which I believe is getting errata'd out now hat by default infantry can conduct A-M attacks.

Fair enough. I already suspected that it slipped in more or less by mistake, so I certainly won't complain. :)

[False Son]

Never underestimate the value of a good old fashioned -2 to hit at 0 hexes.

[Jim1701]

Well, my point was that by the book, all non-mechanized infantry types are "anti-'Mech PBIs"; individual platoons may suck at it, but unlike their mechanized buddies they can at least still try. ;)

But I have my doubts that "just multiply the cost for all foot, motorized, and jump infantry by 5, period" was really the idea, either. Most likely that multiplier was just reflexively copy-and-pasted over from BMR, where anti-'Mech infantry was in fact explicitly a rare and special breed apart using rules that other common grunts just plain couldn't and "anti-'Mech skill" as such didn't exist yet...

The stock jump and foot platoons in TW are trained in Anti-Mech attacks but there is no rule you can't create foot platoons that are not trained in anti-mech attacks.  I do it all the time.  I like using PBI's for 2 jobs.  One is spotting which I'll use jump infantry for and the other is to shoot stuff from buildings.  I give them the biggest, baddest support weapons there are and stick them in buildings.  If they are in a position to swarm a mech that also means they are in a position to make a point blank attack on same mech.  Generally I'll take the former over the latter.

There are times though when a leg attack will be advantageous which is why I'll keep a few platoons of A-M trained jump infantry around.   

[A. Lurker]

The stock jump and foot platoons in TW are trained in Anti-Mech attacks but there is no rule you can't create foot platoons that are not trained in anti-mech attacks.  I do it all the time.  I like using PBI's for 2 jobs.  One is spotting which I'll use jump infantry for and the other is to shoot stuff from buildings.  I give them the biggest, baddest support weapons there are and stick them in buildings.  If they are in a position to swarm a mech that also means they are in a position to make a point blank attack on same mech.  Generally I'll take the former over the latter.

There are times though when a leg attack will be advantageous which is why I'll keep a few platoons of A-M trained jump infantry around.

Sure you can create platoons not trained in anti-'Mech attacks. Those would simply be the ones with the default minimum anti-'Mech skill of 8, though, as creating non-mechanized conventional infantry units that just don't have an anti-'Mech skill rating at all is to the best of my knowledge not listed as an actual legal option anywhere.

[Jim1701]

I had to look in the TM errata to find it but

Skill Ratings (p. 314)
Add the following Bullet and Text after the Mechanized Infantry Paragraph: Anti-'Mech Default Skill: Any unit incapable of delivering an Anti-'Mech attack has a default Anti-'Mech skill of 5.

This is for purposes of calculating BV for units with a gunnery other than 4.  However, if a unit is not trained in anti-mech attacks then that unit cannot MAKE anti-mech attacks. 

[Demos]

Yes, they can.
I read nothing in the rules against this. Of coure, some types of infantry, like the mechanized, are excluded, but e.g. every(!) foot platoon can make a AM-attack (with successs, thats another point).

[A. Lurker]

I had to look in the TM errata to find it but
This is for purposes of calculating BV for units with a gunnery other than 4.  However, if a unit is not trained in anti-mech attacks then that unit cannot MAKE anti-mech attacks.

BV says nothing about what can or cannot be built, only how to calculate the point cost for it afterwards. What's more, at this point you're effectively arguing that not only should non-mechanized infantry utterly incapable of making anti-'Mech attacks exist despite no actual evidence for that in the books, but that they should also cost more points than infantry that can make them and just sucks at it... :)

[Lorcan Nagle]

With that rule I can go to a BV-balanced game and take "anti-'mech trained infantry" with an A-M skill of 7 and get a BV saving over a non-trained unit with a skill defaulted to 5!