There can be some changes for infantry?

[paladin2019]

Again, for the fourth or fifth time, can you demonstrate a military actually using campers?

At what scale? Because Patton. This is a replica of the actual artifact in the Patton Museum of Military Leadership at Fort Knox. I doubt he was alone in this.

(We will ignore NG units and unofficial modifications to their CUCVs.)

Addendum: It's always Patton 

[Charistoph]

Which I had been trying to avoid when this thread was in the other forum.

Not really by presenting suggestions on how to fix it or things to add.  It's just disingenuous to call me out on warning you when we were in General at the time.

Agreed the range is an issue. However, TW has all the ranges shortened so it's consistent. At least until you get to Aerospace and the RPG. Then it doesn't make sense. Just like it doesn't make much sense to have an issue with 6 tons of infantry and vehicles to be ride inside a tank but it's okay if they're towing and additional 30 tons of cannon and ammo.

TW doesn't really have any of the RPG elements, other books handle that aspect.  Most of the range differences in Aerospace apply to the void combat where atmosphere and gravity aren't factors.  On the Altitude scale, there's altitude and angle of vision and fire that isn't readily available to most ground-pounders.

I said I'd be okay with it, not that we had to. And why not? It's tracked in AToW. Missile rounds are tracked by BA. I also think that having support weapons be far more effective balances out the nerf. With 2 SRMs per squad doing 2 points of damage each, the platoon could do up to 16 points of damage out to 9 hexes per turn with SRMs alone. If they have 5 rounds that's up to 80 points of damage. Currently, we have the same number of SRMs doing 4.32 damage out to 6 hexes per turn. 20 points of damage after 5 turns. I think having limited ammo for 4 times the damage and increased range is a fair trade.

I already explained, "why not".  So quickly you forget or just don't bother to read. 

It would be a nerf to Conventional infantry.  By limiting the Ammo of Support Weapons you are quickly limiting how often they can fire that Weapon till they are relegated to Rifles, and they'll have all the fewer of those because of the Support Weapons.

Also, your numbers are off.  The standard 24 Man SRM Platoon does 12 points of Damage, maximum.  That's with 4 Squads of 2 SRMs each.  So each Infantry SRM is doing 1.5 Damage (12 points / 4 Squads / 2 SRMs) per Turn.  5 Turns would make that about 8 Damage (rounding up) per SRM, or 60 Damage potential for the whole Platoon.  The Damage multiplier in Tech Manual sticks them at 1.14.

Tracking in AToW is no excuse to impose on Total Warfare.  They operate on different levels of detail.

Battle Armor are also constructed on a different scale.  Their SRMs are at full power of range and Damage of the Vehicular counterparts, not the lighter man-portable options that ConvInf have.

They don't need to carry a ton of ammo to change ammo. Infantry have the option to choose between "averaged" rounds and infernos now. Why can't they have the option between anti-vehicle and anti-personnel? And if the only reason to have SRMs is to shoot armor, why do we have alternative ammunition? And Infantry don't have to be exclusively anti-armor. Infantry could fire smoke rounds, anti-personnel rounds, or other types of ammo instead of taking up tonnage in a Mech or Tank.

I've been looking at where the rules are to give Infantry Infernos, and for some reason I can't find it.  I can find the one for Battle Armor, but not for ConvInf.  I see where it talks about using Infernos with SRM Infantry, but not how they are equipped with it.  The standard rules for Special Munitions state that these are replaced in full-ton lots (TW pg 141) and on that same page it says unless otherwise stated, infantry may not carry special munitions.  While Infernos are later semi-exempted in the Infernos Special Munitions section, they only explain how they are used, not how they are given.

So you're going to need to provide a proper quote with reference that an SRM ConvInf Platoon can carry more that one type of Ammo before I believe they can just switch Ammo.  You've misquoted and misrepresented too many rules to me just to believe your say so.

And again, in Total Warfare, they only have access to the 2 types of SRM Ammo.  The "Alternative Ammo" you speak of is from a level of detail which would necessitate such differentiation.  If you want Infantry to be "Anti-Infantry" in Total Warfare, that's what the MG and Flamer options are for or they carry Inferno Ammo.

And you can use Campaign Operations with TW.

Other way around.  You use TW with CO.

Can you actually demonstrate a military actually using BattleMechs? That's various reasons for a military to use campers. Troopers would be better rested than those sleeping on the ground  They'd make a good temporary base, that is more mobile than a tent city. They're more environmentally secure than a standard tent. No need to bring a food truck as rations and cooking facilities are included.

You take campers in the military because they are more mobile and resilient than tanks?  How odd.

There is a reason why militaries don't use campers, they are big and the hauling power used on them could be used to haul more ammo and food.  While a camper could maybe sleep 8, that same space could hold enough tents as well as the Ammo, food, and other supplies for a whole Platoon.

A bubble is still a bubble. It's how many bubbles get marked off that changed.

Ah, but you didn't say, "how many", you initially said, "how those bubbles get marked off has changed", then changed it to being "how many".  The "how those bubbles get marked off" has not changed since CityTech, and probably even BattleDroids.

I did say where to find them.

You gave a book.  While that's more helpful than some provide, it's always important to know where a person is looking.  Even more so when someone asks for quotes, giving references isn't the same thing.

And the Heavy SRM and it's ammo are the same weight as the 2 shot SRM.

Which means that the standard Infantry SRM is lighter than what is normally used by Vehicles.

Actually it isn't since there are sources that have Infantry and BA SRMs being the same. It also shows how inconsistent the universe is by having different damages for TW and AToW. 

The first source never said that.  It never said to fire an Elemental Point's SRMs as if they were Conventional Infantry.  TRO: 3050, and all other Total Warfare equivalents always presented them as firing the SRM-2 found on 'Mechs and Vehicles.  Meanwhile ConvInf SRMs do Damage in 1 point increments, and always have.

And again, this sounds more like your problem is with AToW and RPG than with TW, because they are the ones not being consistent with the TW setting.

I've said where they were and even quoted sources for you.  Also note the "any more" in your statement. That means at one point, they did. Reducing the damages badly nerfed support weapons in TW. Even rounding up the infantry SRM only does 1 point of damage to all BAR Armor levels in TW. In AToW, the SRMs are more effective against lower BAR levels. I get the need for some abstraction, and that that will reduce weapons damage in TW some but it shouldn't reduce them to being pointless. Why use many of the support weapons when we have rifles doing more damage at the same range or greater? If support weapons are supposed to be the anti-vehicle weapons why are they worse than primary weapons?

And I've given you the actual stats used in Battletech since CityTech which demonstrate that it is the RPG elements which are off.

Um...no. They're not heavy because the squad gets to carry two of them.

If they weren't heavy, why can't they move and fire if they are carrying two of them?

Why do you keep using MML as a source? Last I heard it wasn't canon. TW page 216 has the ballistic rifle platoon moving and shooting with the same number of troopers doing the same or more damage than the SRM Platoon. The SRM platoon either move or shoot and has greater range.

That's an odd statement to make.  I rarely use MML as a source.  I think you've confused me with another person again.

As to why I used MML in this case, it's because I've not calculated Conventional Infantry builds by hand and MML is a lot faster, and more reliable, then most other methods I have access to.  As for being "not canon", CGL's been using them for their own official builds for a while now.  So unless you can actually demonstrate where the fault is, your complaint is meaningless.

And you've also demonstrated your incapacity to read my statements in context again.  I said the "Light" SRM team, i.e. the one that only took 1 SRM launcher instead of the 2 that Total Warfare's Standard which does not require a loss of MP to fire (which is 'Move or Shoot' for Foot).

TM though SRM infantry can move and shoot as long as they only have 1 SRM per squad. I don't know why there being only one would let the trooper carrying it move faster. And then there's the weapons. Since the nerfing of Primary weapons are limited to .60 damage. That is still more damage than the .57 infantry SRMs do. (And I include the 2 shot launcher as it does 1.14 which is .57 for each of it's 2 missiles.) Some primary weapons also have as good a range or better than many support weapons. It makes me wonder why use those support weapons outside of flavor.

The reason for the Move or Shoot modifier is because they have to be carrying 2 Secondary weapons to affect their range.  They reason they lose the Move or Shoot is because the guy can't shoot as far, so they are "quicker" to set up.  That's all I can think of.  Is it great?  Probably not.

And I have said that Ballistic Rifle Infantry Damage is rather high for what it is expected to do.  Maybe not to you, but I have noted it in this thread.

Agreed. There are some things in AToW that don't translate or aren't needed in TW. What type of swimwear my scuba infantry wear doesn't matter. Infantry having multiple weapons to choose from should matter. Infantry vehicles providing greater damage, speed, and armor protection should matter. AToW items that can be used in construction, take weight, effect speed, or can limit stacking should matter.

They should only matter if your group is planning on AToW scenarios.  For general pick-up games in Battletech, the question comes back as to why?  That's far more detail than is needed for a unit that is unlikely to survive an encounter with most units with a dedicated weapon.  That's why I said, AToW Accounttech will handle AToW's needs, and doesn't need to be addressed by general construction used for Total Warfare until and unless it needs to be presented in Total Warfare (or its equivalent).

At what scale? Because Patton. This is a replica of the actual artifact in the Patton Museum of Military Leadership at Fort Knox. I doubt he was alone in this.

(We will ignore NG units and unofficial modifications to their CUCVs.)

Addendum: It's always Patton 

That's not a camping trailer.  That's a mobile office.  They even call it a MHQ in the title of the page.

[Daryk]

At what scale? Because Patton. This is a replica of the actual artifact in the Patton Museum of Military Leadership at Fort Knox. I doubt he was alone in this.

(We will ignore NG units and unofficial modifications to their CUCVs.)

Addendum: It's always Patton 

That was a fascinating read that almost made me late for work this morning! :)

[Cavgunner]

Just an observation, but the passive-aggressive pedantry really needs to be taken down a notch before some mod notices that there is a slap-fight going on in here.

[Daemion]

So was that a, "Yes I want to see Rifle Squads/Platoons disappear because they will be useless against anything that isn't Infantry.", or were you referencing something else?

That is a yes, squads/platoons of nothing but AK style rifles should only be good against other squads/platoons with similar weapons.   

edit:
See, when I thought of Rifle Platoons under CityTech through pre-Tech Manual Total Warfare, I figured they were talking about something like the .50 cal ant-material (sniper) rifle or some sort of equivalent that required more than one person to operate.  It was called a 'Rifle Platoon' because that was the support/squad weapon the formation was fielding.

[Daemion]

Not really, no.  You spouted a lot of stats and then ask if I see where you're coming from.  You didn't really point a direction where you wanted to go with these stats.

Okay. This was simply to point out the difference between a simple AC/5 versus the auto rifle that got made the main default rifle for platoons in TechManaul:

So, novels trump sourcebooks, right?  Wasn't it stated in a Gray Death Novel that his Marauder's GM Whirlwind cannon fired off a 10-round burst?  And wasn't it a 120mm cannon?  For a moment, let's assume it took all 10 rounds to do a full 5 points of damage.  (I have reason to believe that's the case.  I've come to conclude, especially in light of how the Rotary Autocannon groups damage in solid 5- or 2- point clusters depending on the type, and not something weird like with LRMs, that the cannon rounds have built-in homing capacity. Combine that with the excessive recoil compensation built into the guns weight, and viola!  Solid damage grouping from a rapid-fire gun with consistency.)  With that assumption, each shot in the burst is only doing 1/2 a point of damage.  With 20 Bursts per ton of ammo, that's potentially 50kg per burst, or 5 kg a single shot.

According to sarna on the Auto-Rifle, if I'm reading it right, a 30-round clip is only 480 grams, or .48 kg.  (I'm assuming the rifle, itself, weighs the listed 4 kg. If I'm wrong, by all means correct me on this.)

Granted, there are range differences. The soft target range for a single round from the Auto-Rifle is between 13 and 14 BT hexes. Against Armor, it's only out to 60, if I recall right, maybe 90.  Depending on if you bring in AT ranges, the AC round could go out to 18 BT hexes,  12 BT maps in atmosphere, or either 216 km (AT2) or 117,000 km (AT1) in vacuum.  (Let's disregard AT1 ranges for now.  )

Even with that range performance in consideration the amount of damage being equivalent by weight doesn't add up. Especially when it's a human that has to brace and land all or a large portion of the shots on target in a presumably tight grouping.  But, if my assumption about the AC round is correct in its application of damage, any stray shot would negate the damage inflicted down to zero.

You see where I'm coming from, now? 

Also, look up the equivalency chart Sarna listed for the different BAR ratings.  BAR 10 is listed as Rock.  I'm guessing stuff as hard as granite or diamond.  See if anyone has done emptied a 30-round clip of 5.56 NATO into a granite boulder and let me know what kind of damage was inflicted. It's probably not much and/or not very deep. 

That's all it was, a simple attempt to show throw weight, and the fact that all of .5 kg of reload for a rifle is getting the same 1/2 point of damage as a single AC/5 bullet from a GM Whirlwind.

I put it out there as an explanation behind why I don't think simple AK- or M16-style rifles should be doing damage to mech armor at all.  And, that Rifle Platoons as a group of guys with nothing more than AK- or M16-style rifles shouldn't be on the Game of Armored Combat game board unless you want them to hunt down other infantry.

[Daemion]

And, to clarify, this:

Yeah, but a gauss round is most likely going muuuuuch faster than 3m per second. or 3km per second.  Assuming the same style of Gauss on a mech or tank is the one which can be used by Aero Units, then a Gauss has an Aero range of Long which is 20 hexes.  That's either 10 km on the ground, or 360 km in space.  I'm not going to concern myself with how drag effects things, and focus on the space range.  In either instance, it takes all of a second or two to change orientation and present an oblique armor face and turn a sure, damaging hit into 0 points of damage sustained.  Anything longer than that, and the velocities at which spacecraft are moving at out in space means a simple change in direction will put your fighter out of the transit line of your gauss round once its fired.  So, in space, the shot needs to arrive on target inside 2 seconds, in my opinion, to even score damage.  Let's be generous and say two. 

So, the Gauss round is moving at a minimum muzzle velocity of 180 km a second. The round is nominally 125 kg.  Do the energy math on that, then let me know what kind of explosive impact that would have with just the ground under a soldier's feet. 

There's a reason that even small meteors which hit the ground leave massive craters.

This is to show how I believe a gauss round is capable of doing more than knocking out 4 guys with something like a ground impact. 

So, this was addressing a point some other people had made earlier. 

[Cannonshop]

Okay, let's back up a second guys, and remind ourselves what the thread's supposed to be doing.

improving the game.

That's why we make House Rules-to improve the playing experience.

NOw, I think there's a strong argument for separating anti-armor damage, from anti-personnel damage, but I think it also needs to separate anti-armor RANGE from Anti-Personnel range.

Those two things are abstracted and amalgamated in the current, present, dating-back-to-battletroops rules with some heavy-lifting math involved.

I know this, I was on the playtest for Infantry Generation both in Companion (*the BMR(r) era prototype of the rules) and Total Warfare/Tech Manual.

We suggested things, that were rejected for ...reasons, including separating anti-armor, and anti-personnel damage and ranges.

But this, this is "House Rules Land", we can screw around with the rules to make something work differently here and it doesn't savage the whole universe.

My own little suggestion, then...

Calculate Antipersonnel damage as normal, this is the first row of boxes under your little box showing the trooper.
There is now a second row of stats, this represents your disposable weapons (VLAWs, rifle grenades, etc.) .
The third row is a series of repeating numbers counting down to zero.  This is your anti-armor capability through weapons like Recoilless Rifles, or other heavy support weapons that can actually hurt a 'mech.

On the side of the sheet, there are three ranges.  Range 1, is your antipersonnel range and it's the combination of your support weapon and infantry rifle/whatever primary weapons-the averaged out distance they reach to kill unarmored (as in not wrapped in 'mech grade armor) opponents.

Block 2 is the range of your disposable, one-shot weapons, with an ammo counter for however many volleys you use before you run out.

Block 3 is the anti-armor range of your anti-armor support weapons.  It's going to be shorter than block 1.  I'd say for efficiency's sake, a machine gun platoon's anti-armor range maxes at 3 here, but in anti-personnel use, it maxes at 12  to 18.

There, now you've got three values to calculate, but you don't need nearly as much complicated math to do it, and it's in a simple-ish, easily taught layout that doesn't make people go "but a .50 caliber browning can shoot into the THOUSANDS of meters, why does it fall out of the sky at 90?"

This also addresses Daemion's objection to something like an AK, AR, or Garand doing damage to Battletech starslab-simply put, it doesn't, and it doesn't pretend that it does.


for example: Rifle Platoon with Machine Gun support weapons:

28/27/26/25/24/22/s/21/20/19/18/17/16/15/s/14/12/11/10/9/8/s/7/6/5/4/3/2/1 Infantry damage (damage against soft targets) Range=12
10/10/10/10/10/10/10/s/8/8/8/8/8/8/8/8/s/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/s/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/s/2/0 Anti-armor damage (Support weapon damage) Range =3

Single-use disposable weapons: 3 per soldier, damage 1 point each (limpet grenade), Range 0 to 1 hexes, roll on cluster table.

There, that looks nice and simple, doesn't it? you're using the same table as an LRM or a swarm attack for the disposable weapons, we can set different values for different weapons, trading quantity for individual damage or range, but it's not averaged into a single stat.

Note: I went with full squads for the support weapons despite them only needing 2 or three people, because somoene's likely to pick one up if the crew is dead and it still works.  at the 'tag end' support weapon fire drops to zero, because one guy probably isn't going to be able to move, shoot, and reload it.

this will, of course, require adjustment, this is merely an hypothetical exercise, but note the difference in range and effectiveness-anti-infantry weapons reach out against light infantry a lot further than they do against something like a Suit or 'mech, and only the support weapons count for doing anti'mech or antitank (or anti suit) damage.

[Daemion]

If you were referencing something else, I think going back to CityTech or Battledroids would be a step backward, but a few things could be worked out.  Yet, I still think there are some wonky numbers going on the SRM numbers which just don't fly, be it CityTech or Total Warfare, those being the odd numbers that show up every few steps in troop size at the full range of the Support weapon.

Going to a Squad-based construction and general operation concept could work in what I think you're saying (but you weren't very clear), but I still think that the individual Support Weapons would probably still be a little bit weaker for one main reason, and that's mobility and range. 

Let's say weren't not going to address how Support Weapons are added to the group, so that the difference between constructing the TW SRM Platoon now would only be different in how it sets up on a Record Sheet.  You're still dealing with lighter versions of these weapons when compared to Vehicles and Mechs because a Squad isn't going to lift a 500KG Machine Gun.  A single SRM added in to a Squad doesn't affect its mobility, but adding 2 does.  It could also be looked at as adding 2 Light SRMs or 1 Heavy SRM (which counts as 2), but it amounts to the same thing at the end of the road.  But as the Support Weapon count goes up, the Rifle count goes down (Support Weapons are HEAVY).

Currently, 28 men of 4 Squads of 7 putting out a potential 14 Damage on the SRM chart (both CityTech and Total Warfare use this number), means about 1/2 Damage per person.  With Tech Manual Accounting that means 8 SRM 2-shots doing less than 8 SRM hits from a Combat Vechicle or Mech.  The Squad size works in CityTech, doing 4 Damage, but in Total Warfare we're down to 3, largely because they took the 1 person Damage to 0 and just adjusted the line down.

However, if we're looking at a full SRM-8 for a Platoon, or an SRM-2 for a Squad, that could theoretically work.  It actually coincides a little better with how everything works now.

Yeah.  SRMs and LRMs really should be full range. 
And, I strongly advocate squad-based operation. 
And, a full platoon should be capable of full SRM 8 damage. 

As to mobility, it would very much be an issue for infantry, which is why they're almost better as objective pieces or something to deploy as a form of trap like mines in a city environment. 

Remember that BattleTech operates at 10-second turns. So, unless it's been stated somewhere that gyro-stabilized support harnesses are standard issue even for militia, or some sort of exo-skeleton, they would have to either set up and park, or pack up and move.  Only with some sort of exoskeleton/harness would I be okay with them running around at a 7-mile-an-hour run and still be able to pop off accurate shots.

Aside from the harness, that's how infantry squad weapons function in the real world today, if I recall. In fact, I imagine things function probably a little slower, depending on the weapon and crew familiarity/training.



When I say 'objective pieces', I'm talking about deploying to take or man an installation, or clear out a building and find an object of interest, and hold onto it.  These kind of troop formations would be carried in transports and disembark at the particular objective point if they're trying to take it, or start at the objective and hold or operate it until the game is over, or they're no longer able to do so.

This could be like having a crew to man a gun tower, or control station that allows an array of gun emplacements to function.   It could also be a squad/platoon of simple Antipersonnel specialized Squads in transports that a side will have to guard and reach said control tower or gun emplacement and fight against the control crew to take it without destroying it outright.  Or airdropping such a platoon onto a gate control tower to open a door in an otherwise impervious defensive wall. 

THIS is what infantry should bring to the Game of Armored Combat, in my opinion.  But, just how much detail is pertinent is really a matter of taste.



 

[Cannonshop]

a little addendum to the idea I just posted: HOW DAMAGE WORKS...

Infantry vs. Infantry: Roll 2D6 per squad to hit, on a successful hit, roll on the relevant cluster table, by squad.
Infantry vs. Armor: Roll 2D6 per Squad to hit, on a successful hit, roll on the relevant cluster table once for the Platoon (or per squad when running individual squads, or when platoon size is larger than the cluster table.)

Apply point-value for support weapons in 1 point increments, except SRMs, which apply two point increments to armor (since they use the same ammunition that 'mech mounted SRM missiles do)

Round up for support weapons that do fractional damage to armor, but are still rated as support weapons per Battlearmor stats.

[Cannonshop]

Now, does my suggestion add a shit ton of extra rolling and rules? yes, yes it does.

Is it necessarily better? 

Jury's out.  the idea was rejected before so...probably not.

But the basic idea is that a man-killing rifle will likely kill a man in the era it's current to, who is wearing whatever is considered non-specialist general issue military gear.  (Helmets, Plate Carriers, etc.)

Otherwise, they'd be issuing hotter rifles.

But!! this does not mean it's going to pierce 27th century or newer heavy vehicle armors, any more than your M-16 (or M-14) is going to punch through the Chobham on an Abrams tank.

for that, you need something bigger, and hotter, and probably crew-served or single-shot and disposable.

Perfect Marksmanship is not common among Soldiers.  Having a 'fudge factor' where your squad or platoon engage the enemy squad, and hit a few of their guys? likely.  pulling off a full-on team-wipe? less likely with rifles and rifle-scale hardware.

the support weapons help out a lot there, depending on what they are, and I overlooked a lot of existing options that would have to be accounted for...

but the basic idea, is that your riflemen don't need to be standing in each other's boots to hit one another.

Basic firing order would be:

Joe's got a 28 man rifle/recoilless platoon.

Steve, also has a 28 man rifle/recoilless platoon.

Joe's got a Hetzer and Steve has an Urbie.

Each platoon has four tries to hit each other, or the vehicles, or to divide fire between them.

Joe gets the firing turn first.  He designates 3 squads to engaging Steve's urbanmech, with the fourth squad engaging Steve's infantrymen that are covering the urbie's advance.

Joe rolls 2d6 for each squad engaging the Urbie, and squads 1 and 3 hit, squad 2 misses.  He checks the handy-dandy table, and rolls 2d6 on the LRM-15 column, with a re-roll for crit on 12.  (two squads hit, one missed).  Damage is applied in 1 point increments to Steve's urbanmech.

Joe's fourth squad is engaging Steve's infantry platoon, They roll 2D6, and get an 11.  So, he rolls on the 7 table, and rolls 3.  Steve checks three men off his platoon's roster as wounded or dead.

Steve concentrated his WHOLE platoon on Joe's infantry, to clear them out before they can get close enough to his valuable Urbanmech to use their disposable weapons.  He rolls four times to hit, needs (gunnery) plus (terrain) since range is short-ish.  4, 6, 11, 7.  three hits, he can now roll cluster table on Joe's infantry platoon using the MRM-30 table.  He hits with an average of fifteen.  JOe has to mark off fifteen of his PBI on his sheet, losing roughly half his support weapons and half of his disposable one-shot weapons.

if either of them had taken Machineguns...well, the damage would be a lot higher on average vs. infantry for either of them, but they both wanted something more 'punchy' to throw at the armored vehicles than machine guns (meaning more range because getting closer is scary.)

The Machinegun secondary weapon on Joe's Hetzer engages next, firing at Steve's stronger infantry platoon, it hits at Long, and joe rolls 2D6, removing 11 of Steve's infantry and two of his support weapons, at range 9 (anti-Infantry range vs. anti-armor range).  He eats the plus one so he can fire his AC/20 at Steve's Urbanmech, (long range, 4 gunnery, needs 9 (splitting targets), rolls 9)  check for crit per normal, critical hit, left leg.  Steve returns fire with his Urbie, hits at medium (between 10 and 5), smacks the HETZER in the motive system (motive crit), and splinters te frontal armor.

Hetzer is now immobile.

and so on...

[Daemion]

My own little suggestion, then...

Calculate Antipersonnel damage as normal, this is the first row of boxes under your little box showing the trooper.
There is now a second row of stats, this represents your disposable weapons (VLAWs, rifle grenades, etc.) .
The third row is a series of repeating numbers counting down to zero.  This is your anti-armor capability through weapons like Recoilless Rifles, or other heavy support weapons that can actually hurt a 'mech.

On the side of the sheet, there are three ranges.  Range 1, is your antipersonnel range and it's the combination of your support weapon and infantry rifle/whatever primary weapons-the averaged out distance they reach to kill unarmored (as in not wrapped in 'mech grade armor) opponents.

Block 2 is the range of your disposable, one-shot weapons, with an ammo counter for however many volleys you use before you run out.

Block 3 is the anti-armor range of your anti-armor support weapons.  It's going to be shorter than block 1.  I'd say for efficiency's sake, a machine gun platoon's anti-armor range maxes at 3 here, but in anti-personnel use, it maxes at 12  to 18.

There, now you've got three values to calculate, but you don't need nearly as much complicated math to do it, and it's in a simple-ish, easily taught layout that doesn't make people go "but a .50 caliber browning can shoot into the THOUSANDS of meters, why does it fall out of the sky at 90?"

This also addresses Daemion's objection to something like an AK, AR, or Garand doing damage to Battletech starslab-simply put, it doesn't, and it doesn't pretend that it does.


for example: Rifle Platoon with Machine Gun support weapons:

28/27/26/25/24/22/s/21/20/19/18/17/16/15/s/14/12/11/10/9/8/s/7/6/5/4/3/2/1 Infantry damage (damage against soft targets) Range=12
10/10/10/10/10/10/10/s/8/8/8/8/8/8/8/8/s/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/s/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/s/2/0 Anti-armor damage (Support weapon damage) Range =3

Single-use disposable weapons: 3 per soldier, damage 1 point each (limpet grenade), Range 0 to 1 hexes, roll on cluster table.

There, that looks nice and simple, doesn't it? you're using the same table as an LRM or a swarm attack for the disposable weapons, we can set different values for different weapons, trading quantity for individual damage or range, but it's not averaged into a single stat.

Note: I went with full squads for the support weapons despite them only needing 2 or three people, because somoene's likely to pick one up if the crew is dead and it still works.  at the 'tag end' support weapon fire drops to zero, because one guy probably isn't going to be able to move, shoot, and reload it.

this will, of course, require adjustment, this is merely an hypothetical exercise, but note the difference in range and effectiveness-anti-infantry weapons reach out against light infantry a lot further than they do against something like a Suit or 'mech, and only the support weapons count for doing anti'mech or antitank (or anti suit) damage.

Eh.  If we're going to improve the game, I'd rather separate support weapons from the anti-personnel rifles/pistols a squad or platoon are fielding. The performance characteristics will be, in some instances, just too different. 



This is why I'm actually looking at using the BA squad sheet as a base for individual squads.  Already did it with Platoons a long time ago.  The only thing I've yet to hammer down is how much damage the rifles should be doing, especially if cover is involved.  A lot of firefights in the real world don't resolve inside 10 seconds unless one or both sides are out in the open, assuming the targets don't hit the dirt when under fire. 

I've already taken to looking at AToW ranges for the different basic weapons for the Anti-personnel ranges for a lot of infantry weapons and even the Mech/vehilce/BA antipersonnel weapons.  It's been made, might as well use it.

But, damage is still a matter of body count, more or less.  Once a squad hits the dirt and starts firing back at a squad that has them under fire, wiping them out inside 10 seconds is going to be a matter of shear luck.  As in, it shouldn't be happening that soon.  Ordinance and Flame might be quite capable, but that's not what I'm looking at in this case. 

In the past, I have looked at using the cluster chart to resolve anti-personnel damage against infantry squads/platoons while still looking at the body meter style infantry stats. Modify it with range and terrain modifiers the same way AMS effects missile results on the table.  It becomes easier if you remove the idea of a to-hit roll, and just go straight to figuring out how many troops got hit.  When you have lots of guys taking the shot, trying to group them all into one gunnery value flies in the face of how almost every other weapon is fired.  (Aside: That's right! I'm okay with the idea of rolling each of 4, 5, or 6 attacks for a Battle Armor squad.  Multiple sets of dice make that a simple task.)  When you you think about it, someone is going to get lucky with at least one bullet sometime. When it comes to dudes shooting at other dudes, that's all you need to take out just one dude.

I have also looked at using the critical hit chance table as the basis. I may be revisiting this with a look at weapon versus armor and cover and range.

In a means of acknowledging the number of rifles a squad carries, I had used the number of 'free rifles' not dedicated to firing the support weapon as the base value crit check chance value, then added a d6 roll to find the final table result.  But, this was a damage result, which followed a to-hit roll, and thus a successful hit would score one point of damage, and the crit result would be how many additional points of damage the squad did on top of that.

However, with the idea of deploying a squad on a BA record sheet, now we have the added bonus of accidentally applying shots to gaps in the group, which is something I kind like.

[Cannonshop]

Eh.  If we're going to improve the game, I'd rather separate support weapons from the anti-personnel rifles/pistols a squad or platoon are fielding. The performance characteristics will be, in some instances, just too different. 



This is why I'm actually looking at using the BA squad sheet as a base for individual squads.  Already did it with Platoons a long time ago.  The only thing I've yet to hammer down is how much damage the rifles should be doing, especially if cover is involved.  A lot of firefights in the real world don't resolve inside 10 seconds unless one or both sides are out in the open, assuming the targets don't hit the dirt when under fire. 

I've already taken to looking at AToW ranges for the different basic weapons for the Anti-personnel ranges for a lot of infantry weapons and even the Mech/vehilce/BA antipersonnel weapons.  It's been made, might as well use it.

But, damage is still a matter of body count, more or less.  Once a squad hits the dirt and starts firing back at a squad that has them under fire, wiping them out inside 10 seconds is going to be a matter of shear luck.  As in, it shouldn't be happening that soon.  Ordinance and Flame might be quite capable, but that's not what I'm looking at in this case. 

In the past, I have looked at using the cluster chart to resolve anti-personnel damage against infantry squads/platoons while still looking at the body meter style infantry stats. Modify it with range and terrain modifiers the same way AMS effects missile results on the table.  It becomes easier if you remove the idea of a to-hit roll, and just go straight to figuring out how many troops got hit.  When you have lots of guys taking the shot, trying to group them all into one gunnery value flies in the face of how almost every other weapon is fired.  (Aside: That's right! I'm okay with the idea of rolling each of 4, 5, or 6 attacks for a Battle Armor squad.  Multiple sets of dice make that a simple task.)  When you you think about it, someone is going to get lucky with at least one bullet sometime. When it comes to dudes shooting at other dudes, that's all you need to take out just one dude.

I have also looked at using the critical hit chance table as the basis. I may be revisiting this with a look at weapon versus armor and cover and range.

In a means of acknowledging the number of rifles a squad carries, I had used the number of 'free rifles' not dedicated to firing the support weapon as the base value crit check chance value, then added a d6 roll to find the final table result.  But, this was a damage result, which followed a to-hit roll, and thus a successful hit would score one point of damage, and the crit result would be how many additional points of damage the squad did on top of that.

However, with the idea of deploying a squad on a BA record sheet, now we have the added bonus of accidentally applying shots to gaps in the group, which is something I kind like.

Like I said, my idea isn't perfect, it's not necessarily even good...it's just 'an' idea, yours sounds pretty good to me.

[Daryk]

I've said it before (in thread long instances, some locked), but a 4AP/4BD rifle is NOT an AK-47 or M-4/16.  It's a rifle with literally centuries of improvements, some of which we haven't even imagined yet.  And BAR 10 ablative armor is NOT however many millimeters of Rolled Homogeneous high-quality steel.  It may be bog-standard in the 31st century, but it's not comparable to anything we have right now.  I have no problem with a full burst from such a weapon properly aimed (i.e., a successful to hit roll) causing a single point of damage to a 'mech with BAR 10 armor.  And the current infantry rules REDUCE the damage from that level, so I have no problem with that either.  Where I draw the line is an arbitrary zero damage determination.  Anything that gets to zero should get there procedurally, and the AToW Companion gives us a formula that does exactly that.  Is the threshold for zero "kind of" low?  Some would argue that.  I don't.

[Daemion]

As for a Rifle versus Trooper Armor performance -

Daryk, if you're still following this thread, what is a good common armor profile form AToW?  And, what is the general AP value most commonly seen across typical rifles?

Is it something like 4, in both cases?

The reason I'm asking is because I'm thinking of using that as a set of opposing modifiers whether to the cluster table or crit chance table.

And, if we use that as our THAC0, no real stat application would be necessary until we get into particularly weaker weapons or armor or stronger armor or weapons.

[Daemion]

Just a refresher why I would prefer squad- over platoon-deployment.

Edit: This is what it looks like to have one and two platoons in a hex next to a Mech.  I've even allowed for some spillover in the two-platoon deployment.

[Daemion]

That's 40k-style squad-cohesion levels of dispersion, right there. 

And, that's why I'm in agreement with whomever showed platoons on a BA sheet deployed as
1. 0000000
2. 0000000
3. 0000000
4. 0000000
5. -
6. -

Whereas, It would be easier to see a squad dispersed a little better, so that you CAN justify a gauss round only taking out a single guy.  But (ho-boy!) is that guy earning the title of bologna mist cloud x.

[Daryk]

Generic Flak armor and the Periphery/General jacket both have a Ballistic value of 5.  By definition, every actual infantry unit ever has at least a total of 5 BAR across all four values, or it would take yet another doubling of damage (i.e., Divisor 1, vice zero, which doubles damage).

Only armor on your torso counts at the TW level (so those awesome helmet values do you no good).  At the squad/platoon level you total the armor values on the torso and divide by 10, rounding normally, to yield the Armor Divisor.  So 5 total gets you to Divisor 1, and 15 gets you to Divisor 2.  It's possible to get to Divisor 3, but it's not easy, much less cheap.  If anyone has figured out how to get to Divisor 4 without actual Power/Battle Armor, I'd be interested to hear!

[Daemion]

I've said it before (in thread long instances, some locked), but a 4AP/4BD rifle is NOT an AK-47 or M-4/16.  It's a rifle with literally centuries of improvements, some of which we haven't even imagined yet.  And BAR 10 ablative armor is NOT however many millimeters of Rolled Homogeneous high-quality steel.  It may be bog-standard in the 31st century, but it's not comparable to anything we have right now.  I have no problem with a full burst from such a weapon properly aimed (i.e., a successful to hit roll) causing a single point of damage to a 'mech with BAR 10 armor.  And the current infantry rules REDUCE the damage from that level, so I have no problem with that either.  Where I draw the line is an arbitrary zero damage determination.  Anything that gets to zero should get there procedurally, and the AToW Companion gives us a formula that does exactly that.  Is the threshold for zero "kind of" low?  Some would argue that.  I don't.

Yeah. I'd rather a divisor than a subtractor. (Rifle Cannons, I'm looking at you...)

But, the AToW to TW conversion is assuming the whole clip(?) is being used, doesn't it?  But, that's in an anti-armor role.  When it comes to mano-a-mano firefights, that isn't a requirement, so the Tech Manual values suck as a determinant for Anti-personnel damage values.  Which is why I'm looking at anti-personnel damage values being better based on 'free rifles' available/left in a squad for that kind of damage, and not using the damage modifiers from TW as a hard stat, even though all that work has been done.

[Daryk]

Half a clip for a bog-standard Auto-Rifle.  A third if you use the "Extended Capacity" mod in the Companion.  TW turns are twice as long as AToW turns, generally assuming a move action for one AToW turn, and shooting for the other.

[Daemion]

Generic Flak armor and the Periphery/General jacket both have a Ballistic value of 5.  By definition, every actual infantry unit ever has at least a total of 5 BAR across all four values, or it would take yet another doubling of damage (i.e., Divisor 1, vice zero, which doubles damage).

Only armor on your torso counts at the TW level (so those awesome helmet values do you no good).  At the squad/platoon level you total the armor values on the torso and divide by 10, rounding normally, to yield the Armor Divisor.  So 5 total gets you to Divisor 1, and 15 gets you to Divisor 2.  It's possible to get to Divisor 3, but it's not easy, much less cheap.  If anyone has figured out how to get to Divisor 4 without actual Power/Battle Armor, I'd be interested to hear!

Okay. Not what I was thinking/hoping.

Because, here was what I was thinking:

Let's go with my squad rolling on the critical hit chance table to determine how much AnInf damage it has inflicted on another squad:
Assume 1) A to-hit roll is required to inflict even one point of damage.
Assume 2) A successful hit does 1 point of damage plus an additional amount of damage based on a modified critical hit chance check as follows:
The roll is based on the number of 'free rifles' that the squad has available.  So, if we have a squad with a support weapon crew of 2, out of a 7-man squad, that leaves 5 free rifles for an AnInf attack.  To that value, add
- the rifle's damage stat.
- the result of a d6 roll.

From that value subtract
- Terrain modifier of the occupied terrain(*).
- The armor value of the squad.

The final value is then compared to the critical hit chance chart.  Use the expanded critical hit chance chart from TacOps(?) or Maximum Tech.  The number of crits scored is the additional number of troopers taken out in the attack.

I was kinda hoping to have a THAC0 style set of stats for the stock rifle and armor where they effectively cancel each other out.  And, if they did that, then a conversion for Armored Combat would be stock troops with rifle damage of 0 and armor of 0, with some exceptions showing a -x or +x for either rifle or armor.

However!  Now that I think about it, we could use the armor divisor concept as the armor modifier, instead.  And, then give stock 4BD rifles a simple +1.


(*) = I'm tempted to remove the to-hit step when resolving infantry firing on other infantry, or firing on infantry in general.  And, if I do, then all range and terrain modifiers would be subtracted from the final value. 

And!  Looking back at some of my different levels of armor applied as a base for the crit value, we could look at using the AToW armor value as the base miss value for the crit chance chart.  So, if the stock value for armor is 5, then a successful crit will start at a 6+, and a Margin of Success of every two (MoS/2 rounding up) would add an additional target trooper hit.

[Daemion]

I've said it before (in thread long instances, some locked), but a 4AP/4BD rifle is NOT an AK-47 or M-4/16. 

I was just using a modern 20th/21st century example.  Of which we have physical analogues in the BTu in the 31st century, btw. I believe the TK assault rifle looks like an AK.  Don't quote me on that, but I recall seeing some art for Infantry gear, and I saw think I recall seeing that rifle or an M-16 picture in one of the RPG books or house source books.

[Daemion]

There's on thing I've been wanting to implement something as a tactic against foot infantry that we don't get to see in BT - pinning.

When a squad comes under fire, they should generally be trained to hit the dirt or find cover and keep close to the ground. This would hamper their movement over 100 feet pretty heftily. 

But, if there's one thing that I don't see high end tanks or BattleMechs doing, or even Battle Armor, it is laying down sustained fire to keep heads down.  However, that's something that infantry CAN do, whether from the back of a half-track or from behind trees or a broken wall.

This I might take to the general fan-rules.

[Charistoph]

That is a yes, squads/platoons of nothing but AK style rifles should only be good against other squads/platoons with similar weapons.

I'm going to disagree here, mostly because of the nature of Battletech Armor and continuous advancement of the basic small arm.  However, I do think that the Anti-Armor capacity of the Rifle should be notably reduced from what it is now, but their Anti-Infantry capacity is far more effective.

Going in to a memory hole to look up this information, from CityTech through BMR(r), Rifle Infantry only did about 1 Damage per for 4 Riflemen, rounded up.  Effectively speaking, a 7 man Squad could do no more than 2 Damage to Armor, and 7 Damage for the full 28-man Platoon.  Honestly, I think this is a better option than what currently exists, and still allows basic Rifle Squads/Platoons to do more than just die when a unit that is nothing but Armor rolls in.  As a side note, this should not trigger Vehicle Motive Crits or TACs, and even take reduced Chances on Structure Crits.

However, it's Damage to ConvInf is a different story.  How much Damage should a Sqaud or Platoon actually do to another Squad or Platoon?  Is the current Rifle Damage do to other ConvInf proper?  Should it apply to Battle Armor as well?

NOw, I think there's a strong argument for separating anti-armor damage, from anti-personnel damage, but I think it also needs to separate anti-armor RANGE from Anti-Personnel range.

Honestly, I thought that was rather inferred, as there is no way to properly separate Damage without separating the Range.  However, considering that the Tech Manual already does the opposite, it's probably a good thing to bring up.

On the side of the sheet, there are three ranges.  Range 1, is your antipersonnel range and it's the combination of your support weapon and infantry rifle/whatever primary weapons-the averaged out distance they reach to kill unarmored (as in not wrapped in 'mech grade armor) opponents.

Block 2 is the range of your disposable, one-shot weapons, with an ammo counter for however many volleys you use before you run out.

Block 3 is the anti-armor range of your anti-armor support weapons.  It's going to be shorter than block 1.  I'd say for efficiency's sake, a machine gun platoon's anti-armor range maxes at 3 here, but in anti-personnel use, it maxes at 12  to 18.

I think swapping Block 2 and Block 3 is a better idea.  Consider that the standard build of an Infantry unit in a Total Warfare equivalent doesn't carry things in Block 2, but most carry Block 3.  And unless you're going to increase the AP range of MGs for Vehicles and 'Mechs, I don't think it would be a good thing to have a different range there.

Yeah.  SRMs and LRMs really should be full range.

I'm going to disagree here, mostly because Infantry just don't have the sensor suite that Vehicles and 'Mechs have to guide the missiles over that range.

...Only with some sort of exoskeleton/harness would I be okay with them running around at a 7-mile-an-hour run and still be able to pop off accurate shots.

Aside from the harness, that's how infantry squad weapons function in the real world today, if I recall. In fact, I imagine things function probably a little slower, depending on the weapon and crew familiarity/training.

A lot of support weapons do need some time to set up in our day mostly because we don't have gyro-stabilized harnesses to carry a Javelin or M-2 HMG.  Still, if it became normal, it would return Infantry mobility back to what it was prior to Total Warfare.  I would not be against this concept, as I don't understand why this needed to be done.  It's not like Infantry were really outrunning anybody.

There's on thing I've been wanting to implement something as a tactic against foot infantry that we don't get to see in BT - pinning.

When a squad comes under fire, they should generally be trained to hit the dirt or find cover and keep close to the ground. This would hamper their movement over 100 feet pretty heftily. 

But, if there's one thing that I don't see high end tanks or BattleMechs doing, or even Battle Armor, it is laying down sustained fire to keep heads down.  However, that's something that infantry CAN do, whether from the back of a half-track or from behind trees or a broken wall.

This I might take to the general fan-rules.

This is an interesting idea.  The question is how to implement it.  Do you set it up as the nature of a certain type of fire, or is it an action performed with a set of certain weapons?  Probably limit it to Rifles and Burst-Fire weapons.

[Lance Leader]

I've said it before (in thread long instances, some locked), but a 4AP/4BD rifle is NOT an AK-47 or M-4/16.  It's a rifle with literally centuries of improvements, some of which we haven't even imagined yet.  And BAR 10 ablative armor is NOT however many millimeters of Rolled Homogeneous high-quality steel.  It may be bog-standard in the 31st century, but it's not comparable to anything we have right now.  I have no problem with a full burst from such a weapon properly aimed (i.e., a successful to hit roll) causing a single point of damage to a 'mech with BAR 10 armor.  And the current infantry rules REDUCE the damage from that level, so I have no problem with that either.  Where I draw the line is an arbitrary zero damage determination.  Anything that gets to zero should get there procedurally, and the AToW Companion gives us a formula that does exactly that.  Is the threshold for zero "kind of" low?  Some would argue that.  I don't.

  The issue I have with that is that an auto-rifle is orders of magnitude smaller than an auto-cannon.  One ton of auto-canon ammunition gets you 100 dmg, or you get 1 point of damage per 10kg of AC ammo.  A full clip of auto-rifle ammo is .48kg so you are going to need a minimum of 21 auto-rifle clips to do one point of mech scale damage.  To be internally consistent it should take 3 squads emptying their rifles on full automatic for a full 10 second turn with every bullet hitting to do one point of mech scale damage.

[Daryk]

Mass isn't everything, and no Autocannon is limited to a 3-hex range (4 using Extreme Range).

[Lance Leader]

Mass isn't everything, and no Autocannon is limited to a 3-hex range (4 using Extreme Range).

It's pretty fundamental when you're talking ballistics: mass of projectile, mass of propellant, total energy.  If we take the Btech machine gun, which has the same range restrictions, we are still looking at 2.5kg of munitions per point of damage or over five full clips on the auto-rifle. 

[Daryk]

Even so, compare 19th/early 20th century ballistic weapons to modern ones.  We get better effects with lighter ammo already.

[paladin2019]

I've said it before (in thread long instances, some locked), but a 4AP/4BD rifle is NOT an AK-47 or M-4/16.  It's a rifle with literally centuries of improvements, some of which we haven't even imagined yet.  And BAR 10 ablative armor is NOT however many millimeters of Rolled Homogeneous high-quality steel.  It may be bog-standard in the 31st century, but it's not comparable to anything we have right now.  I have no problem with a full burst from such a weapon properly aimed (i.e., a successful to hit roll) causing a single point of damage to a 'mech with BAR 10 armor.  And the current infantry rules REDUCE the damage from that level, so I have no problem with that either.  Where I draw the line is an arbitrary zero damage determination.  Anything that gets to zero should get there procedurally, and the AToW Companion gives us a formula that does exactly that.  Is the threshold for zero "kind of" low?  Some would argue that.  I don't.

The 4/4/ rifle is itself a problem when the laser rifle is also 4/4. It is a paradigm shift in the setting's conception of infantry weapons (from "It mostly resembles the M-1[sic] rifle of the late 20th century." to objectively better than a laser rifle rifle at its effective ranges), one that becomes confusing in the supporting contextual work. It was a bad idea when it was dropped with MW3e and it is a bad idea now.

[Daryk]

Shrapnel #9 cranked lasers WAY up.  Sniper Rifles got similar treatment in #1, but regular rifles haven't yet.