My forces managed to find their way into a urban brawl, and I am taking a few knocks since most of my force is set up for direct fire anti-mech/vehicle weapons. Most of my LRM firepower is in a lance of LRM carriers, which was fine until now because they were ambush units. Then someone ambushed my while my aero and artillery support were tasked out. Its a good thing he did not have his infantry deployed on the battlefield, instead spreading them in fire teams through out the city for LP/OPs.
Since I fight almost exclusively through double blind, I am thinking my mercs are going to learn something as I do . . . a single infantry company (1 jump PLT, 2 foot PLT) supported by a BA platoon (I use 6 suits for a squad) and an engineering platoon . . . just will not get it done in those environments. And say what you will about not having to fight in them, sometimes it does happen.
So now I am thinking of reorganizing my infantry- which I had already planned to expand through rebel militia recruits (which means I can pick combat survivors I trained in the first place) from the current contract. I already was planning to expand it to a battalion . . . but I think I am going to organize it a bit differently.
According to some of the tactical discussions I have seen in books, a 3 sub-unit command works well for manuever. You have a 2 sub-unit front with a single sub-unit in reserve (forming a triangle of sorts) for when you make contact. The reserve sub-unit can either move around the two unit line to flank or can exploit any openings the two forward units make for a breakthrough and roll up. My understanding is due to geography, such a unit structure is not good for security/COIN operations which works better with even number of sub-units and multiples of 4 being the best. For example company of 4 platoons divides territory into the four quadrants which keeps the elements response time relatively the same through out the quadrant, say compared to a 3 sub-unit command trying to divide up a triangle which will have bad response times at the point/edges and allows someone to nip in to cut off an area easier. Expand that security zone into a battalion sized area that again divides it between four companies like the companies divide between platoons.
To add to this, infantry are not the primary striking force in BattleTech like they are in IRL . . . so having them organized for manuever warfare is not as important IMO. In support of a 3 sub-unit mech advance, a 4 sub-unit infantry command would actually work better IMO . . . 2 to the front, one to the rearguard and the 4th being in the center of the triangle in reserve.
With this in mind . . . I am thinking about going to 10 man squads (fluff-wise 2 4 man fire sections with a 2 man heavy weapons team) which gives me 4 squad platoons with a command section of 4 men- total of 44 men in a platoon. Each company would be 4 platoon (3 rifle, 1 heavy weapons)companies with a command squad of 10 men (CO, XO, 1SG, Supply NCO, 2 Radiomen, medic, FO/FAC, ?) for a total of 186 men on paper in a full strength company. My infantry battalion would have 4 line companies with a reinforced command platoon (5 squads total) for 794 men in the battalion if it was at full strength. The infantry battalion would be part of the merc combined arms regiment's Infantry Command which would include a Engineer Company (44 Engineers with equipment), Artillery (Towed) Battery (12 guns, 6 Sniper, 6 Thumper), and the Battle Armor Company (4 platoons of 24 suits & a command squad of 6, plus their tech support).
Which is paper strength goals . . . heck, right now I am lucky to have 18 suits before most of a squad was wiped out by LRM fire. Same with the Arty Batt, a few captured Snipers & Thumpers.
I realize the platoons will be considered overstrength- I do not mind since they are rarely likely to BE at full strength due to losses, illness and recruiting.
Feedback?
