There can be some changes for infantry?

[DevianID]

I would use the existing reload rules, tac ops page 213, instead of making something up. 

Its 3 battletech turns, assuming you have the equipment (you need a lift hoist or mech to reach another mech), to reload a unit.  If the unit can suffer ammo explosions, there is a chance loading the ammo quickly 'is bad'.  For infantry, though, if you flub the reload roll you would just presumably lose the reload action cause they dont suffer crits, with the exception of infernos which do have rules for exploding when carried by infantry.  (on a roll of 11-12 when reloading in 30 seconds under fire, because of the haste, the ammo explodes causing an ammo crit--if the unit has those crits).  Also, if you are shot in the rear while reloading, the ammo causes an AE blast.  So dont do this in LOS of the enemy.  Ammo dumps going up to mortar fire is a thing after all.  However, infantry dont have rear arcs, so the good news is infantry never explode when reloading like a tank would.

As for capacity, the rules states its 1 ton cargo lots.  So if your j27 or Bulldog has 1 ton of cargo and you loaded it with ammo, then thats how many shots it can reload.  Mguns I guess get .5 ton lots, but I think thats the only one.

So, were you using a rifle squad with an SRM2 support weapon, with 2 shots (so not disposable OS javelins), they could spend 30 seconds unpacking fresh ammo from the crate and loading.  OS weapons reload in less time in some instances, and the fast reload quirk also reduces time, so I assume this is the same?  Battle armor, as an exception, still take 3 rounds to reload, but they reload all weapons to full regardless of number of weapons/ammo.  Infantry arnt specified in this, so reloading an AC10 field gun squad takes 6 turns, 1 per ton of ammo.  Field guns are the only ammo tracking infantry we have currently, so I would be fine saying infantry get the full battle armor reload of all weapons if infantry tracked multiple weapons, except for field guns, which must be loaded separately.

Thanks. So all it takes is a single hit or two, depending on armor for one guy to take out another.  So, how easy is it again to land that hit?

Daemion its almost the same chart as total warfare.  You get more variance in skills, but normal small arms shots are around a 4 'base'... They have a +/- system so medium range is -2 instead of +2, but it all works out to the same.  Walking is 1 AMM, 10-45 meters (90m in 10 seconds) is 1 harder like 3 hex TMM in classic, so roughly the same as btech.  RPG character can go below '0' effective small arms skill, so you can see like a -2 effective gunnery put in classic btech terms, but technically with campaign ops special skills you can do something similar in battletech too.

Also, yes you guessed right you get 2 actions, so can shoot 2 times in a 5 second turn.  But moving is an action, so in 10 seconds infantry that moves 1 hex (30m) will use up 2 actions doing that most of the time.  Also when damaged you lose an action, so in a back and forth exchange infantry cant shoot 2 times if they were hit.  Battletroops had you hit the deck at certain points when damaged, so its kinda similar.  Thats not counting bleeds crits and such, but those didnt come up too much unless you were taking massive hits.

[Charistoph]

I would use the existing reload rules, tac ops page 213, instead of making something up. 

Its 3 battletech turns, assuming you have the equipment (you need a lift hoist or mech to reach another mech), to reload a unit.  If the unit can suffer ammo explosions, there is a chance loading the ammo quickly 'is bad'.  For infantry, though, if you flub the reload roll you would just presumably lose the reload action cause they dont suffer crits, with the exception of infernos which do have rules for exploding when carried by infantry.  (on a roll of 11-12 when reloading in 30 seconds under fire, because of the haste, the ammo explodes causing an ammo crit--if the unit has those crits).  Also, if you are shot in the rear while reloading, the ammo causes an AE blast.  So dont do this in LOS of the enemy.  Ammo dumps going up to mortar fire is a thing after all.  However, infantry dont have rear arcs, so the good news is infantry never explode when reloading like a tank would.

As for capacity, the rules states its 1 ton cargo lots.  So if your j27 or Bulldog has 1 ton of cargo and you loaded it with ammo, then thats how many shots it can reload.  Mguns I guess get .5 ton lots, but I think thats the only one.

So, were you using a rifle squad with an SRM2 support weapon, with 2 shots (so not disposable OS javelins), they could spend 30 seconds unpacking fresh ammo from the crate and loading.  OS weapons reload in less time in some instances, and the fast reload quirk also reduces time, so I assume this is the same?  Battle armor, as an exception, still take 3 rounds to reload, but they reload all weapons to full regardless of number of weapons/ammo.  Infantry arnt specified in this, so reloading an AC10 field gun squad takes 6 turns, 1 per ton of ammo.  Field guns are the only ammo tracking infantry we have currently, so I would be fine saying infantry get the full battle armor reload of all weapons if infantry tracked multiple weapons, except for field guns, which must be loaded separately.

Three Turns seems a bit excessive as part of that reload is making sure that the feeding/loading mechanisms are functioning.  With Conventional Infantry, they ARE the feeding/loading mechanisms.  So it's grab, pack, and go.  Not to mention the full load weight we're looking at is WAY smaller for Support Weapons than it is for Ammo Bays and Field Guns.  I'm fine with one, but two might work as a compromise.  In essence, Conventional Infantry should have the Fast Reload Design Quirk for Support Weapons.

Thinking on it a little bit further, maybe this should be relegated to experience.  Green Troops, and even Regulars can easily fumble under fire (being reminded of the rifle training in Glory or Last Samurai).  Maybe it should be reserved for Veterans and better?

The rules also put the unit and its loader in to Immobilized Status.  That makes sense if it's happening in a building's Armory, but then, the Infantry aren't going anywhere anyway and already in "Immobilized" status as the enemy has to kill the Immobilized building to shoot the Infantry directly. 

That is probably excessive if they are boarding an APC to reload, though.  I'd probably put it as the APC can move no faster than Cruising Speed.  That's my thoughts on it at present, though.

[RifleMech]

Okay. Point of order.  I'm one that wants the AnInf ranges for rifles to match the RPG ranges for said rifles when engaging other infantry.  So, they wouldn't necessarily be completely outranged.  Getting into range for anti-armor work is the real risky part.

There's a huge disconnect between standard BT stats and RPG stats, and I want to see that reflected on the BT map should players want to run infantry squads that hunt other infantry squads.  If we're gonna have an RPG that does things so drastically different, that shouldn't magically disappear as soon as you move to the Game of Armored Combat for Mech and Tank and BA warfare.

That's why I'm still an advocate for two different stats for infantry.  Two different types of attack with two different range and damage values.

I agree that there's a huge difference between the RPG and TT. It would be better if they tried to close that divide. Giving Infantry weapons greater range against Infantry sounds good but using their RPG ranges may be too much though. They could be hitting other infantry more than a mapsheet away. At those ranges, Mechs and Vehicles wouldn't need anti-infantry weapons and ammo. They'd just bring infantry.

This is weird.  They had the damage value by number of troopers listed for a reason.  After the cluster roll, I just consulted the record sheet for the damage based on troopers hit.  So, if 4 guys hit, then look at what damage 4 troopers do on their damage chart.

That might work for Generic Infantry but those built under TM don't just add up damage per trooper that hits. They should but there is a couple more steps.

I would like to point out that I had started to move away from the Total Warfare interpretation of Infantry damage almost from the inception of the Mechanized Infantry in the base rules, before TechManual really made me question things.  And, a lot of it had to do with trying to emulate Dark Age infantry units like the Hoverbike squad. 
(snip)

For me it was the introduction of Support Vehicles. If individual types of Battle Armor could be built, why not the vehicles used by Motorized Infantry?  Mechanized Infantry and how TW handles them just made things worse. Wouldn't a halftrack be more armored than a jeep? And wouldn't those in the jeep be just as close as those in the halftrack? They way TW does it seems backwards and then we get ATOW and infantry's vehicles are actual vehicles. 

The way Battle Armor rules handle to different attack types, especially for Elementals, is the perfect way to do it.  And, might as well bridge the gap between the RPG and the board game with the infantry against infantry, and keep it easy by leaving the anti-armor work to the anti-armor weapons. Hard stats.  No real fuss.

I agree how BA is done would be better for motorized and mechanized infantry.

And, at the very least, the RPG shows that there should be a wide variety of troops with different levels of protection and armament, some of it (maybe most of it) practically worthless while some of it is really top tier (but extremely rare).  That needs to be reflected somehow.

There are some people who don't want to see any changes.  That's fine, then. You have the infantry you want.  Now, let me brainstorm and have something I feel more comfortable with.

I agree.

It would be nice better rules for infantry and either they or the current rules were optional. That way those who wanted to use what's available now can.

To the idea of limited ammo, I would like to point out that there are Mech and tank designs that have very limited amounts of shots for a main gun.  The Hatchetman comes to mind with only one ton of LB-x10 ammo.  I think there's a Mech somewhere that has a single ton of LRM-20 ammo. 

And, when they're out, they're out.  Why should infantry be any different.  For a real life comparison how many minutes of ammo would a modern squad have available to it?

I agree, especially since BA and small support vehicles which infantry weapons do track their ammo. At least the support ammo should be tracked.

Secondly, poor force-building is a thing.  You take something to a wrong situation, it should have ramifications.  Urbie in open field warfare, anyone? 

So, why not with Infantry, too?  You have a pure anti-infantry build with rifles, and the mission suddenly turns out to be all anti-armor, or changes to that at some point, well, you took the risk that you might need to bust some grunts.  Chalk it up to bad intel, or you can also look at it as bad scenario design.  (And, if you really are using them simply to occupy an end zone for points or an objective for points, they're still a body taking up space that someone will have to dedicate fire toward at some point.)

Agreed.

(snip)
Maybe one of the things we should consider as part purchasing and deploying infantry is some sort of emplacement.  You worried about running out of ammo for your anti-armor weapons, how about a supply drop placed at the start of battle.  At this place, infantry with ammo may fire in perpetuity, or get a huge ammo count to draw from.  While out on their own, they will run out, but at a supply drop, you get resupply.  Same with a hardened bunker.
(snip)

If infantry are to have a large amount of ammo the bunker should have some ammo set aside for infantry. As motorized/mechanized infantry should have ammo as part of their vehicle but if they need to carry more they should be able to tow a cargo trailer. All infantry types could also reload in the field. If Mechs and vehicles can, why not infantry?

Infantry are good at taking and holding objectives.  Well, why not bring an 'objective' along with them when building your force?

Edit: It's not necessarily a new idea.  I point you to the MW:DA emplacement infantry.  You bought them and set them up as part of your force for a game of Clix.

Why not?

I missed them.

[DevianID]

All infantry types could also reload in the field. If Mechs and vehicles can, why not infantry?

Infantry CAN reload in the field currently.  Its just, the only ammo tracked on infantry currently is for field guns.  So we just need infantry to track ammo, so that an SRM isnt .57 damage because of bullcrap conversion rules that dont agree with the RPG or how battle armor do things.

Also, there is a TON of vehicles I would like to see used in squads, because otherwise they are pretty stupid.  Automatically, everything under 5 tons, but realistically everything under 10 tons.  9 tons is the limit for protomechs and mechs start at 10, so I like the idea that vees under 10 tons, like the savannah master, have to operate in squads and not just be stupid cheap init sinks.  Having a squad of 4 savannah masters running around as 1 unit, like battle armor, increases the base cost, reduces the number of things to have to move, and makes taking savannah masters not a 'dick' move.

This, of course, is doubly true for infantry vehicles like whatever the mechanized hover squads are supposed to be.  A mechanized laser hover squad is 5 tons, which is what a savannah master is.

[DevianID]

One idea ive been mulling over is the '2 action' infantry.  So we kinda have this, with how infantry can move and shoot with some weapons, or move OR shoot with other weapons.  Id like to see this be more formalized in the rules, especially because infantry IMHO should 100% take movement modifiers (same with battle armor).  Encumbered infantry go to 1 action, elite troops (technically anti-mech is supposed to be elite, but its very poorly represented) could have 3 actions cause they are melee/ccb trained or anti-mech trained, and can make a 3rd action in the physical phase.  Likewise elite special forces with TAG would be 3 action troops if they can move, and spot, and shoot.  Most IRL spotters cant do that i think with their CLUs right? 

I mention 2 and 3 action infantry because in the current rules, anti-mech trained infantry pay DOUBLE for their shooting attack if they are AM capable.  But they cant use both AM and shooting in the current rules--this means most infantry is taken as non-AM troops, who get a 50% weapon discount, and a skill discount for 8 AM skill.  Its cheesy and exploity, and a big part of why infantry is far far too cheap.  With an action system, if you pay properly for AM attacks, then you should be able to make AM attacks as well as shooting attacks, to justify the 2x + skill costs.

The other important bit about '2 action' infantry is that we can use it for suppression/stun.  In the RPG, taking fire reduces your actions from 2 to 1.  I wouldn't mind making infantry tougher (via proper pips exactly like battle armor, NOT damage divisors), and increasing infantry range, if hits to infantry suppressed them/stunned them.  Basically, infantry that gets hit puts its head down, and while not that hurt per se, rifle infantry would be move or shoot, and encumbered infantry would lose their action.  Mechs that KO/shutdown or crews that get stunned lose their shooting action, so it would be a way to buff infantry health to mech/vee levels, and give them a simple to track condition like 'stunned' on tanks.

Thus, the more expensive 3 action AM infantry, which cost more cause of being AM trained, when shot would still have 2 actions left.  So they can still move and shoot, or shoot and AM attack.  The cheap, fodder infantry that takes any fire is down to 1 action, or 0 if encumbered.  So those cheap green and regular SRM teams with no AM attack you got for 60 bv, well any shot towards them puts their heads down and they cant shoot, as they count as moving next turn as they collect themselves after getting shot at.

This kinda also emulates morale.  The more expensive, special trained AM troops are more capable under fire, and light and mobile rifle squads can recover quicker when they arnt lugging around machine guns they have to entrench.  It helps balance the BV and weapon disparity issues infantry have.  Just a late night thought.

[Charistoph]

...So we kinda have this, with how infantry can move and shoot with some weapons, or move OR shoot with other weapons.  Id like to see this be more formalized in the rules...

How can it be more formalized than already existing in the rules?  This line of thinking is something I don't understand.

If you mean delineated in a step-by-step program with an "Action" definition, it almost sounds like setting up a different system and definitions for Infantry to work from than any other unit..

...especially because infantry IMHO should 100% take movement modifiers (same with battle armor).

Allow them to Run and Flank, first.  Right now they only have 2 options, maybe, and that's basic movement and MAYBE Jump.  As it is, they're using their bodies to aim and shoot, not trying to translate finicky movement through machinery.

This kinda also emulates morale.  The more expensive, special trained AM troops are more capable under fire, and light and mobile rifle squads can recover quicker when they arnt lugging around machine guns they have to entrench.  It helps balance the BV and weapon disparity issues infantry have.  Just a late night thought.

I don't think morale is the right word.  Morale is more about how likely the unit is to break, not how instinctual their actions under fire are.  It's experience, and that is what it is called, and how it is treated.

[DevianID]

Its not formalized as an action system because while foot infantry are move/shoot, other infantry move slower but move and shoot with no issue.  The idea of an 'encumbered' troop cause they are wearing heavy armor kits driving their half tracks slower and shooting at 100% efficiency, versus a half track moving 3 MP cause its a halftrack, thats how fast it goes, but the encumbered/bulky infantry being unable to shoot cause its not a tank with weapon stabilizers.
So id like a formal action system so we dont have all these different move values trying to represent firing on the move with heavy weapons by reducing some things movement but not others.

As for running, im 100% for infantry being able to run. Mostly vehicle infantry especially.  Foot infantry should need a specialization like "masc" to run, as 60m in 10 seconds is quite fast with no masc roll to 'cool down'.

I agree morale isnt the right word.  Stunned is the word the RPG uses, but thats a tank condition for classic.  Im fine with it being called stunned only if its identical to how tanks handle it just cause I don't want to confuse the two.  But also, stunned means no shooting, and i think a more flexible system where infantry can choose what action they give up makes more sense.

Edit: so instead of encumbered versus not, with overly gamey squad building, if we have 1/2/3 action infantry, then 2 action infantry are just better conditioned then 1 action, so they can move and shoot even with heavy weapons, while 1 action infantry are cheaper, but move/fire.

I hate that i can make a 7 squads 3 troopers per squad with 1 heavy weapon, versus 3 squads with 7 troopers with 2 heavy weapons, and in that example the platoon with fewer total heavy weapons is the "slow" one.  Id much rather slow infantry be 1 action and conditioned be 2, to remove the gameyness of platoon construction and heavy weapons.

[Daryk]

Consider how Infantry "SPAs" could address some of the options you outline.  If you're on the fence about 2 or 3 actions, make the baseline 2, with an SPA to get it to 3 (that's essentially what Foot Cavalry does; AToW Companion, page 71 refers).

[Charistoph]

Its not formalized as an action system because while foot infantry are move/shoot, other infantry move slower but move and shoot with no issue. 

That's because it's not an action system at all.  No other unit in Battletech operates on an action economy.  The reason Foot Infantry with a full Support Weapon allotment have Move or Shoot is because they can't go any slower, and it's important for them to move some time.

Also, Tracked Mechanized aren't affected by this, but in general Mechanized Infantry is an unintelligent unit type in general that needs to be removed as a concept.

Motorized is in a weird spot, though.  Honestly, there should just be a "Cavalry" unit type that Motorized and Beast-Mounted fall under that operates like an enhanced Infantry unit.

The idea of an 'encumbered' troop cause they are wearing heavy armor kits driving their half tracks slower and shooting at 100% efficiency, versus a half track moving 3 MP cause its a halftrack, thats how fast it goes, but the encumbered/bulky infantry being unable to shoot cause its not a tank with weapon stabilizers.

That's because the support Weapon is already deployed on the "vehicle", while the Foot guys have to set up the Support Weapons to fire.  That's a fairly obvious concept.

That doesn't explain the Jump Infantry, though.  That's one I think, in the sake of reality, that they should be like Foot Infantry in this regard.

So id like a formal action system so we dont have all these different move values trying to represent firing on the move with heavy weapons by reducing some things movement but not others.

Correction, you'd like AN action system.  The ruleset is pretty well-defined as to what gets full movement and what doesn't, and that's how many Support Weapons the unit is carrying per Squad.

The real question is why Motorized and most Mechanized are reduced in this case.  Are Machine Guns THAT heavy?

As for running, im 100% for infantry being able to run. Mostly vehicle infantry especially.  Foot infantry should need a specialization like "masc" to run, as 60m in 10 seconds is quite fast with no masc roll to 'cool down'.

Foot Cavalry can already move 60m in 10s, and that's just with training and many long running sessions, no tech.  Then there's Beast-Mounted Infantry, too.  Maybe they should have "Sprint" and "Gallop" options.

And honestly, I think Mechanized Infantry should go away and be represented by Ultra-Light Support Vehicles and organized like BA.  They'd at least get normal Vehicle rules (sort of) that way, and as they should.

I agree morale isnt the right word.  Stunned is the word the RPG uses, but thats a tank condition for classic.  Im fine with it being called stunned only if its identical to how tanks handle it just cause I don't want to confuse the two.  But also, stunned means no shooting, and i think a more flexible system where infantry can choose what action they give up makes more sense.

Stunned isn't an appropriate word, either, really.  Because they aren't really stunned, but transitioning from mobile to emplaced.

[DevianID]

Charistoph, in regards to the action system, the RPG has the action system, and after tech manual changed infantry classic has a pseudo action system too.  The reduction on MP and such in classic is a result of the action economy in the RPG, but its a loose conversion system.  It also impacts weapon damage in reload factors and such.

In prior versions of battletech, if im not crazy, SRM infantry and SRM jump infantry were normal movement, right?  We didnt use to have 2mp Jump squads, though it has been 20 years so correct me if im wrong.  It was only after the change to the 2 action system in the RPG that we saw those changes in classic, where they tried to emulate 2 action infantry and items that take multiple actions.

Anyway, thats why id like to see the action system brought out of hiding for classic, because a big part of the action system in the RPG is that you lose one of your 2 actions when you are hit, and that would be a good rule for infantry in battletech to use as well.  The fact that infantry have no status conditions, except the sub par morale rules, really relegates them to 'sub' units.  Id like an infantry platoon to be a real unit, tougher with normal ranges, and also priced reasonably so that taking a group of infantry isnt in the same gameplay space as taking a group of savannah masters.

The SPAs are a good nod to replicating some of this--great point Daryk.  I just wish we had this at a core level, instead of going to SPAs.

As for mech infantry having their weapons already mounted--some times they do sometimes they dont and are hand carrying everything, the art is inconsistent and we both agree the mech infantry concept is a mess and should go away/get treated like battle armor squads.  But, regardless of how the weapon is mounted in the art, on the table you can 'game' the squad/weapon system because of how ill defined it is, with small squads with 1 weapon for no speed reduction, and massive squads somehow struggling to carry two tiny SAWs.  Building infantry shouldnt be gamed like that, not when we have KG based construction rules for battle armor and small support vehicles that dont work the way infantry do at all AND it doesnt conform to how the same troop in the RPG moves, which the classic unit is drawing for its data.

[paladin2019]

In prior versions of battletech, if im not crazy, SRM infantry and SRM jump infantry were normal movement, right?  We didnt use to have 2mp Jump squads, though it has been 20 years so correct me if im wrong.  It was only after the change to the 2 action system in the RPG that we saw those changes in classic, where they tried to emulate 2 action infantry and items that take multiple actions.

Yes, since introduced in CityTech, SRM and portable laser jump troops (the 1:2 damage category) could only jump 2 hexes. MG and flamer platoons (1:3) damage category) have 3 MPs and rifles (1:4) have 4 MPs; BTM drops Rifle platoons to 3 MPs. CityTech motorized troops have the same MPs as BTM jump troops while all foot troops have a single MP with no move or fire considerations.

[Charistoph]

Charistoph, in regards to the action system, the RPG has the action system, and after tech manual changed infantry classic has a pseudo action system too.  The reduction on MP and such in classic is a result of the action economy in the RPG, but its a loose conversion system.  It also impacts weapon damage in reload factors and such.

That's a bit of an assumption, and rather irrelevant as the RPG doesn't, nor shouldn't, be defining the Wargame, as they aren't the same game.

You haven't provided another example of another unit using an "Action" system in Battletech, but went to another game of the universe.

There are similar concepts such as a Hatchetman not using his Medium Laser so he can use his Hatchet, or forgoing all fire to Sprint.

The fact that infantry have no status conditions, except the sub par morale rules, really relegates them to 'sub' units.  Id like an infantry platoon to be a real unit, tougher with normal ranges, and also priced reasonably so that taking a group of infantry isnt in the same gameplay space as taking a group of savannah masters.

How does lacking status conditions make them a 'sub' unit?  That's a concept that doesn't make sense.

And how do you mean "priced reasonably"?  What about them is not "priced reasonably" now?

And no one confuses Infantry with Savannah Masters.  Other than being cheaper than most other units, what space in gameplay do Infantry and Savannah Masters combine in?  Savannah Masters have insane speed, allowing them to be almost anywhere they choose to be, and allowing them to do insane Charging Damage or MedLas Backshots with impunity.  Only the foolish, ignorant, desperate, or those who fail their perception checks allow Infantry to do the same.

But, regardless of how the weapon is mounted in the art, on the table you can 'game' the squad/weapon system because of how ill defined it is, with small squads with 1 weapon for no speed reduction, and massive squads somehow struggling to carry two tiny SAWs.  Building infantry shouldnt be gamed like that, not when we have KG based construction rules for battle armor and small support vehicles that dont work the way infantry do at all AND it doesnt conform to how the same troop in the RPG moves, which the classic unit is drawing for its data.

Usually in those cases with 1 Support Weapon, they are stuck at the Primary Weapon's Range, and if those are Range 1 Rifles, it almost doesn't do much of anything.

And we agree that having a 30 man Squad (or 100) shouldn't gimp ones' available Support Weapon so much, so that's why the idea of building the Platoon on the Squad basis, and limiting Squad size to 10 members, is being proposed.  Failing that, it should be properly proportional, such as 1 Support Weapon per 5 men in the Squad (rounded up).  Still that games at 6 members, but it would at least match what the 7 man squads can do now.

And again, I really don't care about how the RPG handles individuals, so it is quite meaningless in this discussion.

[Daemion]

Edit: so instead of encumbered versus not, with overly gamey squad building, if we have 1/2/3 action infantry, then 2 action infantry are just better conditioned then 1 action, so they can move and shoot even with heavy weapons, while 1 action infantry are cheaper, but move/fire.

Gyro-stabilized harnesses are a thing in BattleTech.  Being equipped with one and maybe a support frame for the legs, something not quite full exoskeleton, might be the way to go.  Again, that's some fancy gear.  It's somethin I would imagine only elite front-line troops would have the clearance to procure.

Now, as to the rest of the idea of actions, I like the concept.  And, being able to sprint flat out to get 2 MP for ground but at the cost of not being able to shoot, or on the flip-side, be able to hold position and gain an extra attack for the squad, would make infantry interesting. 

The idea of stunning, or rather pinning, would fit the modern feel of fire-fights.  And, that might be an attack option for squads with light rifles, being able to put down sustained fire on a squad or an area to force that loss of action. But, I'm with you on the idea the infantry keeping their heads down should get to choose which they want to do. 

Maybe infantry should get a little mini 'heat scale'?  An action scale, if you will.  And, then they have a cool-down rate, as well.  The most basic is that the cost of moving or making any kind of attack, regardless of phase, costs one point.  If you're encumbered, then the cost of moving is increased by one, making it generally impossible to make an attack while moving at the same time.  And your cooldown rate during the heat phase would knock that back down to zero, so a rate of two.  But, let's say there's some overflow, and someone decides to 'push' the unit into hasty action.  So, suddenly, you're over the normal amount, and your cooldown is still only 2, so, you would be down an action until you take a proper moment to rest. 

Heck, we don't have to keep it tiny.  Maybe borrow the Alpha strike heat scale which is all of five places?  And you can scale the cost of your actions accordingly.  We could make it a little more meaningful with a slightly more granular scale, allowing for one cost things to refine some of the costs.


(All of this is making me feel that a Revised BattleTroops would work very well as a simple BattleTech reskin.) 

[Daemion]

I agree that there's a huge difference between the RPG and TT. It would be better if they tried to close that divide. Giving Infantry weapons greater range against Infantry sounds good but using their RPG ranges may be too much though. They could be hitting other infantry more than a mapsheet away. At those ranges, Mechs and Vehicles wouldn't need anti-infantry weapons and ammo. They'd just bring infantry.

Well, if you look what I posted above for the Federated-Barrett M42B, the short range is only 1 BT hex.  The medium range is either 2 or 3 BT hexes, depending on how you round, and Long is only 6.  That's not that far.  Sure, Extreme goes out to just over 14 hexes.  But that's Extreme Range, which imparts a +6 to-hit modifier.  When you start to factor in intervening and occupied terrain, that could quickly become impossible.  So, a lot of infantry combat is going to be relatively short range, especially if you're trying to inflict casualties.

[Daemion]

And again, I really don't care about how the RPG handles individuals, so it is quite meaningless in this discussion.

It might be meaningless to you, but that's just your preference.  We are in the fan rules sub-forum, and I, for one, am just spit-balling ideas, weighing them against others to see what I like and want to implement.  Feel free to take or leave what you want for your own game.  But, that's no reason to actively dissuade someone of pursuing an avenue of thought.

Each iteration of RPG has been an attempt to move conflict out of the crew compartment and into the unarmored field, or handle things that don't come normally in the Game of Armored Combat.  Infantry, oddly enough, are better represented in those systems.  I don't see it as a failing when trying to look at where to bridge the two. Bridging the two should be a goal in the game design.  It's the same issue with Aero.  The way the two systems we currently have are bridged are largely undesirable to a lot of people, if that thread in the General Discussion is anything to go by.

[Charistoph]

It might be meaningless to you, but that's just your preference.  We are in the fan rules sub-forum, and I, for one, am just spit-balling ideas, weighing them against others to see what I like and want to implement.  Feel free to take or leave what you want for your own game.  But, that's no reason to actively dissuade someone of pursuing an avenue of thought.

It's meaningless because they do not operate at the same scale of operations.  When the values are easily lost in the transition, it becomes quite meaningless.

It's meaningless when you want to introduce a new system for Infantry, but don't consider it for other unit types in the same vein.

It's meaningless when it feels like going backwards just for the sake of going backwards.

If you want to try an updated mechanic, that's fine, but presenting it just because the RPG has it is as meaningless as suggesting 40K or WarMachine systems.

RPGs care about individuals on a personal basis.  Battletech (the game) does not care about individual peoples on the battlefield unless they are encased in a Protomech, Tank, Fighter, or Battlemech.  All others come on the field in Squads or Platoons, i.e. groups of people.  It simply does not have the room to care about individuals of Infantry the way that the RPG does, which makes RPG comparisons rather meaningless.

BattleTroops is a better place for these considerations, not Battletech.

[Daemion]

Thank you for stating your position.  I think I understand where you're coming from much better now.

[DevianID]

That's a bit of an assumption, and rather irrelevant as the RPG doesn't, nor shouldn't, be defining the Wargame, as they aren't the same game

I really don't care about how the RPG handles individuals

I agree that the RPG shouldnt be defining the wargame, but it 100% is.  All the RPG stuff is converted via an RPG to Battletech conversion, and part of it includes the action rate of weapons and the reload action.  It appears only the BASE movement rate itself is solely based in battletech, and the final infantry move speed of things part of unit design including the RPG encumbering value and RPG crew requirements.

what space in gameplay do Infantry and Savannah Masters combine in?

  The 5 ton mech laser hover infantry, and the 5 ton hover vehicle with a laser.  I think we both agreed already that infantry sized vehicles and full sized vehicles overlapping in this way was problematic.

How does lacking status conditions make them a 'sub' unit?

  If all other unit types have some form of status condition, with the exception of infantry types, they stand out as 'less then' other unit types.  They ignore a few parts of the game that all other units follow, and this is usually presented as 'they are so insignificant' as the reason, with the follow up that 'you need more then one unit of infantry to make something happen'.  Thus, a single infantry unit selection compared to another unit, like a tank, mech or plane, feels like a sub-unit.  Its like taking only 1 proto--1 proto is a sub unit, they clearly are meant to operate in groups, and one individual protomech isnt a normal or real choice, but a sub choice as part of the 5 protomech unit.

[DevianID]

Now, as to the rest of the idea of actions, I like the concept.  And, being able to sprint flat out to get 2 MP for ground but at the cost of not being able to shoot, or on the flip-side, be able to hold position and gain an extra attack for the squad, would make infantry interesting.

Daemion I like your idea of MP being the replacement for actions.  So 1 MP infantry are your militia, your generic unconditioned troops who are encumbered with normal combat gear and the assumed base level armor infantry must wear to not take double damage.  If its 1 MP to shoot heavy weapons, then they get to move or shoot.  Rifles are simple to operate, so like the RPG you can walk and fire a rifle in a turn (with the walk penalty).

2 MP infantry could have stabilizers to represent 'well equipped' troops or quick recon troops (which are pretty cheap and one of the top 3 things to add to an autorifle or machine gun, along with upgraded scopes), or they could be elementals, or just really well trained.  They can move 2 MP when they go all out, or move 1 MP and still fire their heavy weapons.

It also 'fixes' not having a run speed, which honestly infantry and motorized infantry should have.  So a 2 MP infantry squad can run for 2 hexes, and if they take the normal running penalty like everything else does (including infantry in the RPG), then their rifles fired from the hip will be less accurate but still shoot-able.

It takes an action to reload the common weapons, so instead of SRM launchers dealing .57 damage cause of odd conversion stuff, they would deal 2 damage and take an MP to load.  So a 1 MP infantry would be the bumbling recruits who take forever to do anything when encumbered in all their gear, while conditioned infantry with 2 MP/actions could remain stationary to shoot and reload in the same turn.

Pinning is a good word for what the RPG calls 'stunned', where you lose 1 action in the RPG, since stunned is a term for tank crews.  (I think other games call a similar mechanic mechanic 'bailing' when a tank takes a pen hit and the crew cant shoot while they organize themselves?)

If we look at the actual movement rules, to see how this would line up, average joe of 4 or 5 attribute only walks 18 meters in 10 seconds, so without taking the run action they arnt moving 1 hex, but have 2 actions to use in the RPG each 5 seconds.  Average joe running moves 38, or 27 if they walk for 5 seconds and run for 5 seconds, and average joe who has trained running a normal amount can move 44-46, or if they walk for 5 seconds and run for 5, they can move 31-32 hexes.  So training does make the difference of being able to move 1 hex or not for average joe. 
So a trained soldier (or someone really buff like an average elemental) can move 30+ meters in 10 seconds, hip firing a rifle and spending a complex action laying down suppressive fire with a heavy weapon.

A 3 MP trooper, would be someone able to make use of the sprint action.  Sprinting in the RPG takes the whole turn and is fatiguing, so it takes a full turn doing nothing to remove it.  Fatigue is kinda like the 'heat' thing you mentioned, and is the MASC thing I mentioned.  However, for average joe you can build up 4 fatigue before the penalties kick in.  You also take fatigue each attack, in addition to stun, but it only really matters if you take a LOT of fatigue (or non-lethal damage, which in battletech comes from water cannons on mech mounted fluid guns and probably a few other places).

Sprinting for 5 seconds, our untrained average joe can move 38 meters, 76 in 10 seconds if unencumbered.  Thats no shooting, rifles, ect, just the same as sprinting in tactical operations for mechs and such, but with the additional limit that they cant sprint for very long.  A trained average joe can sprint for 88-92 meters, so well trained high willpower troops, unencumbered or with assistive load bearing devices, can hit 3 MP in a battletech turn.  Thats no actions.  Such well trained, or well equipped, or good elemental troops would be able to carry more stuff.  Thats either anti-mech or other specialist equipment.  So when they move 2 MP they would still be able to fire a heavy weapon with a complex action, as they would sprint for 45+ depending on skill and walk for 10+ depending on equipment and buffness, hitting 60 meters in 10 seconds with enough in the tank to still lay down suppressive heavy weapon fire.  Being above average, they would also be able to keep that up for 5+ turns in a row without pause, but getting hit would stun them as normal and 'pin' them/take away lots of actions.

So with the 1/2/3 MP infantry, we get more mobile troops with training, giving a reason to buy said training instead of just taking the horde of untrained infantry.  The movement of 1 walk 2 run 3 sprint also lets us use the standard hit chart that mechs and the RPG infantry share for +1/+2/No shots.  Motorized infantry by extension of a walk/run/sprint speed would move 3/5/6.  So across the board infantry would be more mobile and more responsive on the table, and less of a 'zombie' horde.  Further, a hit from a weapon would slow them down/pin them, encouraging taking actual skilled infantry instead of the no-AM skilled cannon fodder we see a lot of now.  Those AM or other specialized troops would be more expensive then the fodder infantry; the fodder might not be easy to kill in bulk, but putting them under fire makes them combat ineffective without needing morale or other such rolls. 

Suppressing infantry by shooting at them to pin them is a big deal in other games (and I assume real life), and this seems like a good way to implement this in BattleTech without needed any charts or rolls or such, while also encouraging the use of better trained infantry to be more effective under fire.

[Daemion]

And, the fun thing about defining actions with MP cost is that it has a correlation in the old BattleTroops 1 & 2. 

[Daemion]

And, all it requires is a small additional little table defining Infantry MP options.

[Daemion]

printing for 5 seconds, our untrained average joe can move 38 meters, 76 in 10 seconds if unencumbered.  Thats no shooting, rifles, ect, just the same as sprinting in tactical operations for mechs and such, but with the additional limit that they cant sprint for very long.  A trained average joe can sprint for 88-92 meters, so well trained high willpower troops, unencumbered or with assistive load bearing devices, can hit 3 MP in a battletech turn.  Thats no actions.  Such well trained, or well equipped, or good elemental troops would be able to carry more stuff.  Thats either anti-mech or other specialist equipment.  So when they move 2 MP they would still be able to fire a heavy weapon with a complex action, as they would sprint for 45+ depending on skill and walk for 10+ depending on equipment and buffness, hitting 60 meters in 10 seconds with enough in the tank to still lay down suppressive heavy weapon fire.  Being above average, they would also be able to keep that up for 5+ turns in a row without pause, but getting hit would stun them as normal and 'pin' them/take away lots of actions.

Do you think we could turn the pilot damage chart into the required fatique chart for an infantry squad?  After each turn doing flat-out running, you increase the level on the fatigue chart and roll against the value there to see if the squad members have to slow down and catch their breath next turn? 


And, suppression fire could simply be something that imparts a pinned condition that imparts a reduction in MP to the suppressed infantry target.

Again, this is something I can only see infantry doing, because they can stagger their fire over the full ten second turn, whereas Mechs and Tanks fire their guns in controlled bursts with a downtime for automatic reloading/charging mechanisms to kick in.  Or, that's how I see it, at least.

Although, I wonder if Mechs and Tanks should be allowed to choose between attack modes for their anti-infantry weapons like machine guns.  Especially machine guns.  Then we could bring in the anti-infantry ranges you get with equivalent support weapons in the RPG as an alternate attack mode, and it would be to largely deny a targeted infantry squad or squads in a hex valuable MP out to (looks at Sarna) goes out to an extreme range of 625 meters, or 21 BT ground hexes.  The suppression effect would happen regardless of whether damage is done or not.  The chances of doing damage could be determined with either a to-hit roll with the ranges, or maybe a crit chance roll with the modifiers for range inversed, but using the converted RPG ranges.

[DevianID]

I think using the existing damage KO chart for mechs is a great idea for infantry.  Each time you sprint, and each time the squad takes damage, you take a 'pilot' hit.  When you fail a 'KO' check, the squad loses its next turn (but doesnt count as immobile) and resets the KO chart.  This will very easily represent the building fatigue of infantry, or stopping to rescue and secure downed troops when you take damage.  Once you fail a 'ko' check, you triage the troops/stop the bleeding and rest to recover your fatigue/will/nerve.

Separately, suppression just means an infantry unit that is shot at loses an MP as they take cover.  I would like to add the battletroops thing here where if you are in the open, only the FIRST shot on the unit deals double damage and then the squad is on the ground and harder to damage.  After that, the squad has hit the deck and they dont take double damage in the open, at the cost of losing that MP.  This way you can still move up with infantry, and the 'tac ops' cover stuff can just be part of the normal game.

Having to add infantry ranges as a separate item for things is tough.  I would rather just increase the range of weapons infantry carry, and have the short range mgun be the terrifying point blank high explosive weapon it is that infantry try and stay out of range of.  If the medium laser is still effective against infantry, just less so then the mgun and flamer, then we dont need to bend over backwards increasing the range on anti infantry weapons.  I am very hesitant in improving items like the mgun for any reason, because they are cheap weapons taken up to 20 at a time (looking at you, linebacker), and I dont want them to be better values that negate infantry for no cost... especially because my goal would be an infantry platoon being more expensive and more capable, not fodder.

[Charistoph]

I agree that the RPG shouldnt be defining the wargame, but it 100% is.  All the RPG stuff is converted via an RPG to Battletech conversion, and part of it includes the action rate of weapons and the reload action.  It appears only the BASE movement rate itself is solely based in battletech, and the final infantry move speed of things part of unit design including the RPG encumbering value and RPG crew requirements.

If it already 100% is, then why are people asking for it to be put in?  This is a very contradictory statement.

  The 5 ton mech laser hover infantry, and the 5 ton hover vehicle with a laser.  I think we both agreed already that infantry sized vehicles and full sized vehicles overlapping in this way was problematic.

I don't know of any Mechanized Infantry Platoon that gets to weigh in at 5 tons.  Maybe a Squad, but they don't have anywhere near the firepower to match a Medium Laser, nor the range.  Nor do any of them move at the same rate as a Savannah Master.

It's like saying an UrbanMech and Spider share the same gap in a list.  Though, in this case, the Spider is carrying the AC/10, and the UrbanMech only has 2 Small Lasers.

(Funny side story, in our campaign we were discussing making modifications to our 'Mechs, and I suggested basically fitting out our salvaged UrbanMech to match a Spider's.  We play with Quirks in this campaign, too.)

  If all other unit types have some form of status condition, with the exception of infantry types, they stand out as 'less then' other unit types.  They ignore a few parts of the game that all other units follow, and this is usually presented as 'they are so insignificant' as the reason, with the follow up that 'you need more then one unit of infantry to make something happen'.  Thus, a single infantry unit selection compared to another unit, like a tank, mech or plane, feels like a sub-unit.  Its like taking only 1 proto--1 proto is a sub unit, they clearly are meant to operate in groups, and one individual protomech isnt a normal or real choice, but a sub choice as part of the 5 protomech unit.

But standing out does not make one a 'sub' unit.  All the rules that Infantry get to ignore aren't what make them an "insignificant unit".  It's their cost combined with their limited firepower and Movement, and that any Burst-Fire Weapon can clear them out with ease.

The Protomech analogy doesn't work.  Protomechs activate in groups of up to 5, but they don't have to operate as tightly as a Platoon or Squad does.  I can literally have 1 at each corner of the map and one in the center.  And The Society also operated in them 3s (not that this was a smart decision).

So, lacking the ability to be "stunned" isn't what makes them a sub-unit any more than lacking AMM or Facing does.  If anything, this is a "super" unit capability.

Do you think we could turn the pilot damage chart into the required fatique chart for an infantry squad?  After each turn doing flat-out running, you increase the level on the fatigue chart and roll against the value there to see if the squad members have to slow down and catch their breath next turn?

That could be interesting.

And, suppression fire could simply be something that imparts a pinned condition that imparts a reduction in MP to the suppressed infantry target.

It depends on where "suppression fire" comes from.

Again, this is something I can only see infantry doing, because they can stagger their fire over the full ten second turn, whereas Mechs and Tanks fire their guns in controlled bursts with a downtime for automatic reloading/charging mechanisms to kick in.  Or, that's how I see it, at least.

Machine guns on tanks and vehicles have been used for suppression since before World War 2.  They can also maintain their rate of fire longer than most Infantry because they are using chain-fed weaponry.  It's actually harder for a Squad to manage it as they have to stagger their fire appropriately.  This isn't X-Com.

Although, I wonder if Mechs and Tanks should be allowed to choose between attack modes for their anti-infantry weapons like machine guns.  Especially machine guns. 

It would be pointless in terrain where the Burst-Fire can hit them, however, it would be useful against Infantry in Buildings where the MG MIGHT be able to take out 2 PBI in a Light Building.  It could force Infantry to only be able to Move in to the 3 hexes behind the Facing that the Suppression Fire is coming from, and probably limit return fire as well (say, a -4 on Cluster Chart?).

I think using the existing damage KO chart for mechs is a great idea for infantry.  Each time you sprint, and each time the squad takes damage, you take a 'pilot' hit.  When you fail a 'KO' check, the squad loses its next turn (but doesnt count as immobile) and resets the KO chart.  This will very easily represent the building fatigue of infantry, or stopping to rescue and secure downed troops when you take damage.  Once you fail a 'ko' check, you triage the troops/stop the bleeding and rest to recover your fatigue/will/nerve.

A Fatigue bar with Infantry is interesting, but if the bar advances on Hits, a PBI Squad (short of blobs like the 30 man one) likely won't survive long enough for any recovery to mean anything.  Platoons might probably handle it, though.  However, there must be a means to reduce it and/or differentiate between Wounded Fatigue and Action Fatigue.

[Daemion]

So, the idea that you can get sustained fire is why I'm looking at a different attack mode for vehicular mounted machine guns.

And as for extended AnInf ranges, keep in mind that the 21 hexes is including the Extreme Range band that is included in AToW stats.  AToW stats seem to have an exponential curve to them, which fits when you're talking straight iron-sights usage.  The Support MGs converted hex ranges would be Short: 1-2, Medium: 3-4, Long: 8-9, all depending on how you want to round.  A couple of those could easily be rounded down, although the first one could be rounded up.  And, those are numbers I would consider fair when attacking units that have matching return ranges like a Long Range of 9 (SRM).

[Daemion]

Came up with some Record Sheets that incorporate some of the suggestions brought up here. 

[Daemion]

So, having tried out the ideas generated in this thread, If we work with the MP System, I've noticed a couple things:

I know that I want to up the base MP allotment for standard infantry to 3 under the current MP expenditure list I posted in [urlhttps://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=84571.msg2002224#msg2002224]this thread[/url] with custom BA Sheets I made to emulate what we discussed here. 
Leave the green with 2 MP.  But, I do want standard armor to impart an MP Deficit, at least in Design, so I may up it to three across the board, and allow improvement based on experience quality and gear, as well as Heavy Armor.

So, if we do scale the MP per squad by troop quality in the following fashion:
Green - 2
Regular/Veteran - 3
Elite - 4

Or do we want it to be linear across the Experience classes? 2, 3, 4, 5?

AND we impart an armor MP penalty, it would seem that green wouldn't be able to Move at all.  However, I think the answer would come with the Fatigue system discussed here.  Maybe instead of an MP penalty, you get a Fatigue penalty.  So:

Fatigue Cost for Fatiguing actions:  (I'm tempted to just leave it to moving from hex-to-hex though.)
Light Armor: 1
Standard Armor: 2
Heavy Armor: 3

And, we can also offset this with specialization and augmentation creating a reduction in Fatigue cost. 

[Cannonshop]

So, having tried out the ideas generated in this thread, If we work with the MP System, I've noticed a couple things:

I know that I want to up the base MP allotment for standard infantry to 3 under the current MP expenditure list I posted in [urlhttps://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=84571.msg2002224#msg2002224]this thread[/url] with custom BA Sheets I made to emulate what we discussed here. 
Leave the green with 2 MP.  But, I do want standard armor to impart an MP Deficit, at least in Design, so I may up it to three across the board, and allow improvement based on experience quality and gear, as well as Heavy Armor.

So, if we do scale the MP per squad by troop quality in the following fashion:
Green - 2
Regular/Veteran - 3
Elite - 4

Or do we want it to be linear across the Experience classes? 2, 3, 4, 5?

AND we impart an armor MP penalty, it would seem that green wouldn't be able to Move at all.  However, I think the answer would come with the Fatigue system discussed here.  Maybe instead of an MP penalty, you get a Fatigue penalty.  So:

Fatigue Cost for Fatiguing actions:  (I'm tempted to just leave it to moving from hex-to-hex though.)
Light Armor: 1
Standard Armor: 2
Heavy Armor: 3

And, we can also offset this with specialization and augmentation creating a reduction in Fatigue cost.

ahm....

SCALE!!!

your base number for movement, is a soldier on foot.

In other words, an unencumbered man, in good shape, can sustain about 4-5 Miles an hour.

https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/the-basics-of-marching.html

Translate that to Metric, about 6 KPH or so.

an urbanmech does 20 KPH at a walk.

Note, that's "Unencumbered" and not ducking, carrying heavy things, or trying to shoot, and not wearing body armour.

D'ye see the problem here?

[Daemion]

Fair point.  I appreciate real world stats for comparison. 

(Just to be clear, you are aware that the infantry rules I'm working with give the infantry their own MP cost expenditure table.  And, it takes 2 MP for a squad to move into a new hex on the BT ground map.  So, at most, I would only allow 2 hexes of movement, representing the most elite of flat-out runs.)

But, with that in mind, it really does suggest that infantry working at the BT scale should be augmented as a matter of course in order to not have to 'inverse-impulse' their movement in a stock BT game. (IE - you have to track the number of turns it takes them to move from one hex to another.  Maybe with tokens.  That might be an interesting way to handle pinning and encumbrance.)

[Daemion]

https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/the-basics-of-marching.html

I'm not seeing where you're deriving the information from that article.