Infantry rules: After TW or Before TW?

[massey]

The clan up or out policy is misdirected, though... it only focuses on tactical skills, and fails to recognize that operational and strategic level skills are fundamentally different.

Nah.  Just at the lower levels.  Nobody is getting above Star Commander on the basis of their piloting/gunnery skills.  Not unless you're some complete freak of a pilot.  Even then you've got to show other skills beyond that of being good in a mech.

You can't duel your way into a Galaxy Commander's spot.  To get there, you've got to have political ability.  You've got to be a ruthless backstabber.  You need to be able to think strategically.  They just don't tell you that crap when you're a beginning mechwarrior, your head full of tales of glorious battle and honor.

The Clans value winning above all else.  If you were really such a great warrior, you wouldn't have fallen for my honorless trick, now would you?  High ranking Clan officers always have to keep an eye peeled for who they need to have murdered.  "Oh look ristar Joey thought he could challenge my orders just because he's a good pilot.  Damn shame he got beaten to death in an alley last night by five 8 foot tall dudes.  I wonder who could have done such a thing.  I'll designate Point Commander Steve to investigate."

[Colt Ward]

  Every play a Clan campaign? The players tended to be very two-dimensional and nearly useless off the battlefield, even worse as administrators...which led to some hilarious gameplay.

Some where . . . some where not, to be honest the interesting entries were the ones in the FMCC/WC series where you were told a Galaxy Commander or Star Colonel sucked for strategy or as administrators.  Most the time they did not know they did, but a few were aware and found lower ranked warriors with the skills to offset their own lack.  But its an old topic, the Clan system promotes those with tactical abilities . . . and it was all they really had to select for in the closed environment of the Home Worlds.

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

Some where . . . some where not, to be honest the interesting entries were the ones in the FMCC/WC series where you were told a Galaxy Commander or Star Colonel sucked for strategy or as administrators.  Most the time they did not know they did, but a few were aware and found lower ranked warriors with the skills to offset their own lack.  But its an old topic, the Clan system promotes those with tactical abilities . . . and it was all they really had to select for in the closed environment of the Home Worlds.

  Did you ever have a bad player? I GMed as campaign with one...I mean, he only had fluff knowledge of the BTU, and I'd call him "D&D" because he was usually shocked that he didn't one-shot kill his opponents. I ran a Clan Burrock campaign and D&D spent all of his points on combat skills and his Omnimech, a Timberwolf. All the other players had lights and mediums and more balanced characters. When D&D wanted more points to spend, one of the Min/Max players showed him a list of Negative Traits and he took several, including a few that I can't even list here... He was such a bad player on tabletop that I allowed him to be the only player in any campaign to have NatAp: Gunnery.
  He easily won the position of Trinary Commander in the Trials of Position, out of eight players, and pretty much took up space in an office while he was "helped" by other players who had him sign for stuff, much of which were requisitions for personal gear, and stuff that eventually wound up sold on the Black Market. Having no skills for admin or bureaucracy, he rubber stamped all requests for omni modifications and heavier machines for the players.
  Once his superiors caught wind of the antics that he was solely responsible for (on paper, at least) members of the unit were granted to handle the issue in-house with a Trial of Possession over his command. It was a battle between two optimized Timbies, with the challenger (Mechwarrior Blackadder) in a jumper, loaded with 5 Streak SRM6s...with Special Ability: Jumping Jack. D&D managed to hit once as Blackadder closed, aimed high and all 30 missiles hit...D&D auto ejected and survived...expect a fanfic...

D&D: Had no non-combat related skills other than those automatically assigned; would break down and weep hysterically under stress; was hospitalized more than once after having intimate contact with poisonous plants; had a deadly rival: His evil twin, Trinary Commander Skippy, who, years before, was taken as a bondsman by Clan Smoke Jaguar, who also new how to trigger D&D's hysterical reaction...

[Colt Ward]

Dude, I am still trying to explain to a player at our table top group to roll the location of his ERPPC and MLs before he rolls to see where his LBX pellets hit.  I spent years on the MM campaign servers . . . my FAVORITE faction during that play was Bandit Kingdoms, because we had no factories to produce mechs so you lived by salvage and faction mate's grace.  If you did not figure things out, you quickly ended up busted which was great.

But the point was per the fluff the Clan system rewards mechwarriors, pilots and Elementals who are able to fight well because they win Trials, they do not have to have any strategic, logistical or administrative skills.  In the Home Worlds the flaw in both commanders and the system was not easily apparent.  During the Invasion and afterwards it became more obvious for those who could analyze what their Clans did . . . Ulric got logistics, I think a case could be made Lincoln Osis did not.  The Falcons did work on logistics, its why they had turned their most forward worlds in the OZ into supply dumps before Ulric & Natasha went on their romp.

In mentioning FMCC/WC I know there were a few Galaxy Commanders & Star Colonels who were self-aware enough to know they lacked the logistical or Ops planning skills that they found subordinate warriors with those skills and kept them close.  Which is just more evidence of the patronage system as displayed in the BoK series during Conclave meetings.

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

Dude, I am still trying to explain to a player at our table top group to roll the location of his ERPPC and MLs before he rolls to see where his LBX pellets hit.  I spent years on the MM campaign servers . . . my FAVORITE faction during that play was Bandit Kingdoms, because we had no factories to produce mechs so you lived by salvage and faction mate's grace.  If you did not figure things out, you quickly ended up busted which was great.

D&D could NEVER figure out TSM, even with cheat sheets in front of him, because he was so impulsive and if a target didn't drop, he'd fire more weapons, which always put him over heat. He'd burn Edge too soon, which made him the worst dueller, ever...and he could never handle more than ONE Mech on tabletop. One was almost too much for him...but we had a large group and there were several unable to cope with handling a lance, let alone a command. D&D also allowed people to help him...until they no longer needed him...and he could not even manage to push a Star around the map.

[SCC]

Yeah . . . no unit is ever really at institutional/OB/paper strength . . .
-Snip-

So I have questions:

1) Why are units always under strength? I can understand being short a few men, but you make sound like 4 battalions had only something like 3.5 battalions worth of men between them, that doesn't sound right.

2) Why where there 4 battalions at this base? My understanding is that the US uses triangle, not square structure for it's regiments.

3) You're making it sound like these battalions where permanently formed into this regiment, which my understanding of how the US makes up it's regiments is untrue.

[Weirdo]

I also have questions:

What does any of this have to do with TW or pre-TW infantry rules? C:-)

[Colt Ward]

So I have questions:

1) Why are units always under strength? I can understand being short a few men, but you make sound like 4 battalions had only something like 3.5 battalions worth of men between them, that doesn't sound right.

2) Why where there 4 battalions at this base? My understanding is that the US uses triangle, not square structure for it's regiments.

3) You're making it sound like these battalions where permanently formed into this regiment, which my understanding of how the US makes up it's regiments is untrue.

Further detail in a PM, but just a simple answer- number of units and actual strength were arbitrary.  While I used specific soldier stories as specific examples (like single use land mine detector) the numbers for the units are generalities to illustrate the point.