Author Topic: Are tiny units simply more cost effective  (Read 874 times)

Primus203

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« on: 02 August 2024, 14:17:49 »
The reason i make this is it seems small units though not particularly survivable hut high for their cost especially if you match cost of the unit your fighting. The example I have here is one of my previously posted unit's the jeep this is the basic form there are other variants.

Code: [Select]
Jeep
<p>
<b>Mass: </b>4.5 tons<br/>

<b>Movement Type: </b>Wheeled<br/>

<b>Power Plant: </b> ICE<br/>
<b>Cruising Speed: </b>97.2 kph<br/>
<b>Maximum Speed: </b>151.2 kph<br/>
<b>Armor: </b>BAR 7</b><br/>
<b>Armament:</b><br/>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3 Recoilless Rifle (Heavy)<br/>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2 Machine Gun (Support)<br/>


<b>Communication System: </b>Unknown<br/>
<b>Targeting & Tracking System: </b>Unknown<br/>
<b>Introduction Year:</b> 3080<br/>
<b>Tech Rating/Availability:</b> C/X-X-D-D<br/>
<b>Cost:</b> 26,794 C-bills<br/>
</p>




 
Type: Jeep
Chassis Type: Wheeled (Small)
Technology Base: Inner Sphere (Standard)
Mass: 4,500 kg
Battle Value: 72

Equipment                                         Mass (kg)
Chassis/Controls                                  2045.9999999999998
Engine/Trans.                                     1435.0
    Cruise MP:9
Flank MP:14
Heat Sinks                    0                     0.0
Fuel                                              144.0
Turret                                             27.0
Armor Factor (BAR 7)          10                  450.0

                          Internal   Armor   
                          Structure  Value   
     Front                   1         2     
     R/L Side               1/1       2/2   
     Rear                    1         2     
     Turret                  1         2     


Weapons
and Ammo                                    Location    Tonnage   
2 Machine Gun (Support)                      Turret       88.0   
2 Machine Gun (Support) Ammo (200 shots)     Turret       10.0   
3 Recoilless Rifle (Heavy)                   Turret      180.0   
3 Recoilless Rifle (Heavy) Ammo (33 shots)    Turret       12.0   

Cargo
    None

Notes:
Features Off-Road, Armored Chassis Chassis and Controls Modifications
Trailer Hitch
Advanced Fire Control(27 kg)
So as you can see this little sucker is decently armed mounting two support machine guns which will make infantry disappear and remove a point of armor each. It also has 3 recoiless rifles with a mix of explosive and inferno. My understanding is that the inferno rounds would make this death against battlearmor. And at the cost of battlearmor if I traded 20 for a single squad I'm winning the cost game.

For the cost of a locust i can have 33 of these and they will absolutely take it down. The locust also cannot outrun them. Am I understanding things right?

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 39272
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #1 on: 02 August 2024, 18:24:17 »
In every way except salaries... each vehicle needs a tech team.

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1938
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #2 on: 02 August 2024, 21:08:34 »
The big deal with tiny units is (in addition to ongoing crew costs like daryk said) attrition.  Those little vees always die when hit, losing all structure making the vee and crew member unable to be recovered.

So while the up front cost is low, the campaign cost is high.  If you play either chaos campaign or spreadsheet itemized campaign, after playing a few games you will be in the red.  Battle armor have some deployment advantages and city fighting opportunity, and van survive multiple hits.

Primus203

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #3 on: 02 August 2024, 21:11:43 »
This is not a traveling campaign unit these are planetary defense units.

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1938
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #4 on: 02 August 2024, 21:38:51 »
Right, even in a planetary militia its still very expensive attrition wise.  Like, if you are playing 1 single game, with no other considerations, then as soon as you hit bad weather or woods maps the entire garrison is grounded.  Likewise trying to shoot airborne assets, or dealing with artillery or city fights.

 But balancing by cbill for single, one off random games has never been valid, as it just becomes a theory battle around air and space versus ground... There isnt any game being played.  Cbills only ever make sense as part of a campaign, whether that campaign is a militia defense long term deal or chaos campaign or RPG group.

I play lots of cbill campaigns, and really enjoy the journey from budget units to upgrades in the midgame.  And the endgame you have lots of money, and can start buying dropships and xxl engines, at which point its bout time for my group to reset.

Primus203

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #5 on: 02 August 2024, 22:08:20 »
So Im just noting I was never going to make all of a defense force all from them. The jeep is the smallest effective designed unit. Also for about 40k there is a aa design with the man portable aa weapon x5. The jeep is only ever planned to be deployed in places where it will work well. Otherwise it's a scout that can tow light artillery. Honestly max percentage of force I ever considered for jeeps was 5 - 10 percent by budget.

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12293
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #6 on: 02 August 2024, 22:10:58 »
plus relatively few worlds have local industry able to produce combat vehicle grade units, or even combat grade support units. most that do already have production lines for larger combat vehicles and use those. so you have to import them from offworld. which faces the difficulty of larger vehicles being much more common on the market, plus the fact that shipping tiny vehicles is not any different per ton than moving larger vehicle, and when you factor in the attrition rate those small vehicles have, and the need to buy replacement vehicles and ship them, might end up costing a world more than just buying larger vehicles in the first place. (especially since those smaller vehicles can easily destroy themselves with simple accidents in the field during training exercises, given the way that battletech rules work. accidents which might only do minor and repairable damage to a larger vehicle's armor and motive system)

Primus203

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #7 on: 02 August 2024, 22:33:36 »
A valid point with limited production id guess glitterboy. Though I see the jeep in it's role for it's maker like the Humvee made in such numbers that it's also on the civie market affordably.

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1938
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #8 on: 03 August 2024, 00:45:58 »
If 5-10% of the force is jeeps, thats a much more managable number.  Thats still probably too many, but at the first post it seemed like the goal was an all jeep force.

The mainenance and motor pool mechanic and astech group is still gonna be crazy high, which yes is part of the campaign rule set so may not apply, but still worth noting.  But if the goal was to replicate, say, the army's deploymemt yeah when the humvee was in main deployment we used a LOT of them in all sorts of companies.  But they were never what you sent versus armored forces, cause again attrition, so even though we use javelin teams with humvees, they arnt for driving right up to a tank and firing like the recoilless on your jeep would be. 

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 39272
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #9 on: 03 August 2024, 06:11:18 »
For not much more, you can build it as a Combat Vehicle.  Fractional Accounting can get it up to a ton of payload with a Fusion Engine.  The bulk of the cost is in the armor system (PPC resistance all around runs 25,000 before the multiplier).
Code: [Select]
Combat Jeep

Mass: 5 tons
Tech Base: Inner Sphere
Motive Type: Wheeled
Rules Level: Tournament Legal
Era: Age of War/Star League
Tech Rating/Era Availability: D/C-C-C-B
Production Year: 2750
Dry Cost: 38,010 C-Bills
Total Cost: 38,010 C-Bills
Battle Value: 124

Power Plant:  25 I.C.E.
Cruise Speed: 97.2 km/h
Flanking Speed: 151.2 km/h
Armor:  Standard Armor
Armament:
    None
Manufacturer:
    Primary Factory:
Communications System:
Targeting and Tracking System:

================================================================================
Equipment           Type                         Rating                   Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Standard                       4 points                0.50
Engine:             I.C.E. Engine                 25                       1.00
    Cruise MP:  9
    Flank MP:   14
Heat Sinks:         Single Heat Sink             0                         0.00
Control Equipment:                                                         0.50
Lift Equipment:                                                            0.00
Armor:              Standard Armor               AV -  40                  2.50

                                                      Armor     
                                                      Factor     
                                               Front     10       
                                          Left/Right   10/10       
                                                Rear     10       

================================================================================
Equipment                                 Location    Heat     Spaces     Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infantry Compartment (0.5 tons)              BD        0         1         0.50

BattleForce Statistics
MV      S (+0)  M (+2)  L (+4)  E (+6)   Wt.   Ov   Armor:      1    Points: 1
9w         0       0       0       0      1     0   Structure:  0
Special Abilities: ENE, EE

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1993
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #10 on: 03 August 2024, 09:00:34 »
Code: [Select]
Utility One Blueprint

Mass: 5 tons
Movement Type: Tracked
Power Plant: 45 Fusion
Cruising Speed: 97.2 kph
Maximum Speed: 151.2 kph
Armor: Heavy Ferro-Fibrous
Armament:
     3 ER Small Laser
Manufacturer: Unknown
     Primary Factory: Unknown
Communication System: Unknown
Targeting & Tracking System: Unknown
Introduction Year: 3080
Tech Rating/Availability: E/X-X-E-D
Cost: 77,438 C-bills

Type: Utility One
Technology Base: Inner Sphere (Standard)
Movement Type: Tracked
Tonnage: 5
Battle Value: 153

Equipment                                          Mass
Internal Structure                                  0.5
Engine                        45 Fusion             1.5
Cruising MP: 9
Flank MP: 14
Heat Sinks:                   10                      0
Control Equipment:                                  0.5
Power Amplifier:                                    0.0
Turret:                                             0.5
Armor Factor (Heavy Ferro)    9                     0.5

                          Internal   Armor   
                          Structure  Value   
     Front                   1         2     
     R/L Side               1/1       2/2   
     Rear                    1         1     
     Turret                  1         2     


Weapons
and Ammo              Location    Tonnage   
Trailer Hitch           Rear        0.0     
Trailer Hitch          Front        0.0     
3 ER Small Laser       Turret       1.5     


With only some more cost you can pack it with even more firepower as well.

Anyway, spamming the units are fine, but remember that only up to two units are on the same hex in a time. Up to six of those jeeps are able to focus a single target within their short range, for example. Also with the mediums with good jump speed the horde is easily turned to the pry for target pratice.

And don't think that you are the only player who can go mean. There is a trick to using the hordes of boeing bombers and destroy everything. Even without that, if the opponent are starting to making the bombing run with full of light fuel air bombs, they are expected to be gone to the history for good.



For not much more, you can build it as a Combat Vehicle.  Fractional Accounting can get it up to a ton of payload with a Fusion Engine.  The bulk of the cost is in the armor system (PPC resistance all around runs 25,000 before the multiplier).
Code: [Select]
Combat Jeep

Mass: 5 tons
Tech Base: Inner Sphere
Motive Type: Wheeled
Rules Level: Tournament Legal
Era: Age of War/Star League
Tech Rating/Era Availability: D/C-C-C-B
Production Year: 2750
Dry Cost: 38,010 C-Bills
Total Cost: 38,010 C-Bills
Battle Value: 124

Power Plant:  25 I.C.E.
Cruise Speed: 97.2 km/h
Flanking Speed: 151.2 km/h
Armor:  Standard Armor
Armament:
    None
Manufacturer:
    Primary Factory:
Communications System:
Targeting and Tracking System:

================================================================================
Equipment           Type                         Rating                   Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Standard                       4 points                0.50
Engine:             I.C.E. Engine                 25                       1.00
    Cruise MP:  9
    Flank MP:   14
Heat Sinks:         Single Heat Sink             0                         0.00
Control Equipment:                                                         0.50
Lift Equipment:                                                            0.00
Armor:              Standard Armor               AV -  40                  2.50

                                                      Armor     
                                                      Factor     
                                               Front     10       
                                          Left/Right   10/10       
                                                Rear     10       

================================================================================
Equipment                                 Location    Heat     Spaces     Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infantry Compartment (0.5 tons)              BD        0         1         0.50

BattleForce Statistics
MV      S (+0)  M (+2)  L (+4)  E (+6)   Wt.   Ov   Armor:      1    Points: 1
9w         0       0       0       0      1     0   Structure:  0
Special Abilities: ENE, EE

Well isn't the infantry compartment requires at least a full 1 ton to be functional, for even the seven infantrymen requires 0.595->1.0 tons to transport? I did consider adding the infantry compartment but it seems to be requires more tonnage to support. Also note that this represents the infantry with non-anti mech capability.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 39272
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #11 on: 03 August 2024, 09:20:13 »
A half-ton compartment will fit 5 troops (without Anti-'Mech training).

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1993
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #12 on: 03 August 2024, 09:34:39 »
Just for five is doable, indeed, even if they are anti mech trained(with anti mech trained each of them weights 0.1 ton).

Asides, it's fun to make it an omnivehicle. For up to six battle armors are able to ride it.

idea weenie

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4998
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #13 on: 03 August 2024, 11:14:03 »
So Im just noting I was never going to make all of a defense force all from them. The jeep is the smallest effective designed unit. Also for about 40k there is a aa design with the man portable aa weapon x5. The jeep is only ever planned to be deployed in places where it will work well. Otherwise it's a scout that can tow light artillery. Honestly max percentage of force I ever considered for jeeps was 5 - 10 percent by budget.

So assuming a 20 million budget, and 5% for these jeeps, that is 1 million C-Bills worth.  At 40k for a basic AA platform, you can still have 10 of these AA setups to keep enemy scouts from spotting your HQ as quickly, and still have over half your cash available for other jeep setups.

Decently cheap, though I'm thinking of these jeeps being used by the local rednecks with their AA setup being a Punt Gun.

Primus203

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #14 on: 03 August 2024, 20:45:31 »
yeah the posted jeep was the general purpose scouting and anti infantry slash battlearmor.

There's the anti armor jeep with 5 two shot infantry SRM launchers with a mix of standard and inferno.
Code: [Select]
Jeep Export Jeep Anti Armor Vehicle
<p>
<b>Mass: </b>4.5 tons<br/>

<b>Movement Type: </b>Wheeled<br/>

<b>Power Plant: </b> ICE<br/>
<b>Cruising Speed: </b>108 kph<br/>
<b>Maximum Speed: </b>162 kph<br/>
<b>Armor: </b>BAR 7</b><br/>
<b>Armament:</b><br/>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5 SRM Launcher (Std, Two-Shot)<br/>


<b>Communication System: </b>Unknown<br/>
<b>Targeting & Tracking System: </b>Unknown<br/>
<b>Introduction Year:</b> 3065<br/>
<b>Tech Rating/Availability:</b> C/X-X-D-C<br/>
<b>Cost:</b> 26,745 C-bills<br/>
</p>




 
Type: Jeep Export
Chassis Type: Wheeled (Small)
Technology Base: Inner Sphere (Standard)
Mass: 4,500 kg
Battle Value: 106

Equipment                                         Mass (kg)
Chassis/Controls                                  1386.0000000000002
Engine/Trans.                                     1755.0
    Cruise MP:10
Flank MP:15
Heat Sinks                    0                     0.0
Fuel                                              175.0
Turret                                             15.0
Armor Factor (BAR 7)          13                  585.0

                          Internal   Armor   
                          Structure  Value   
     Front                   1         3     
     R/L Side               1/1       2/2   
     Rear                    1         3     
     Turret                  1         3     


Weapons
and Ammo                                        Location    Tonnage   
SRM Launcher                                     Turret       30.0   
SRM Launcher Ammo (2 shots)                      Turret       20.0   
4 SRM Launcher (Std, Two-Shot)                   Turret      120.0   
4 SRM Launcher (Std, Two-Shot) Ammo (8 shots)    Turret       80.0   

Cargo
    None

Notes:
Features Off-Road Chassis and Controls Modification
Trailer Hitch
Advanced Fire Control(15 kg)
And the AA version with 5 Man portable AA weapon MK2
Code: [Select]
Jeep Export Jeep AA Vehicle
<p>
<b>Mass: </b>4.5 tons<br/>

<b>Movement Type: </b>Wheeled<br/>

<b>Power Plant: </b> ICE<br/>
<b>Cruising Speed: </b>108 kph<br/>
<b>Maximum Speed: </b>162 kph<br/>
<b>Armor: </b>BAR 7</b><br/>
<b>Armament:</b><br/>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5 AA Weapon (Mk. 2, Man-Portable)<br/>


<b>Communication System: </b>Unknown<br/>
<b>Targeting & Tracking System: </b>Unknown<br/>
<b>Introduction Year:</b> 3065<br/>
<b>Tech Rating/Availability:</b> D/X-X-D-D<br/>
<b>Cost:</b> 43,683 C-bills<br/>
</p>




 
Type: Jeep Export
Chassis Type: Wheeled (Small)
Technology Base: Inner Sphere (Standard)
Mass: 4,500 kg
Battle Value: 87

Equipment                                         Mass (kg)
Chassis/Controls                                  1389.0
Engine/Trans.                                     1755.0
    Cruise MP:10
Flank MP:15
Heat Sinks                    0                     0.0
Fuel                                              175.0
Turret                                             18.0
Armor Factor (BAR 7)          13                  585.0

                          Internal   Armor   
                          Structure  Value   
     Front                   1         3     
     R/L Side               1/1       2/2   
     Rear                    1         3     
     Turret                  1         3     


Weapons
and Ammo                                            Location    Tonnage   
5 AA Weapon (Mk. 2, Man-Portable)                    Turret   175.00000000000003
5 AA Weapon (Mk. 2, Man-Portable) Ammo (20 shots)    Turret       70.0   

Cargo
    None

Notes:
Features Off-Road Chassis and Controls Modification
Trailer Hitch
Advanced Fire Control(18 kg)

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 39272
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #15 on: 03 August 2024, 20:57:43 »
The problem with such light armor is that AOE weapons outright erase vehicles with it.

idea weenie

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4998
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #16 on: 04 August 2024, 21:31:40 »
The problem with such light armor is that AOE weapons outright erase vehicles with it.

If you can keep the vehicles far enough apart and the cost under 20,000 C-Bills, you can make it more expensive to kill them with Long Tom Artillery than the vehicles cost.

(Long Tom Artillery ammo is 100,000 C-Bills and 5 shots per ton,m or 20,000 C-Bills per shot)

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1993
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #17 on: 04 August 2024, 22:03:47 »
Well, I do think that AOE weapons is not so big problem since you don't have high chance to encounter that, but the nature of tiny units means they are virtually inevitable to be stick together, for those units' short range means they are need to be gathered on a point in order to focus fire to a target. If they doesn't? It only means they lost their advantage of having more numbers of individual unit.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 39272
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #18 on: 05 August 2024, 03:26:37 »
Yeah... to dodge Long Tom rounds, each vehicle would have to be six hexes from any other.  That's only ~six vehicles per map sheet...

Primus203

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #19 on: 05 August 2024, 11:26:14 »
All valid points I have 3 points to make. One the Jeep us fast enough that movement is it's best defense against artillery. This would require usage of multiple rounds. This would probably cost more in ammo costs than the jeep is worth.

Second if you are wasting ammo on the jeep you aren't using it on more dangerous fast moving 20 - 30 ton units. If your using it on these units your not using it on the jeep.

Third the jeep was originally never designed with the intention of being used to fight heavy units. it was made mainly as a scout and artillery spotter. It was however given heavy infantry weapons to combat infantry and battlearmor. This thread cam around because it seemed that mechs especially with their notably weaker rear armor would be vulnerable to massed swarms of light units.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 39272
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #20 on: 05 August 2024, 18:29:33 »
It only takes 6-10 Long Tom rounds to blanket an entire map sheet, and that would annihilate anything with less than 5 points of armor across the whole thing.  There's a reason they refer to artillery as a "grid square remover".

Mechanis

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 68
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #21 on: 07 August 2024, 23:58:19 »
Yeah the biggest issue with trying to do horde armies like this is that you are committing a cardinal sin of BattleTech weapons Design: Trying to compete with the Scorpion tank.

You might have to order two battalions worth to put together one battalion and change of functional vehicles and a pile of lemon parts in the "melt for raw materials" bin because Quikshel's quality control is more non-existent than bootleg Chinese lego set producers,
but trying to compete with THE posterchild Crapbucket Militia Tank is a game where the only winning move is not to play.

EPG

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 147
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #22 on: 31 August 2024, 20:57:45 »
Units like this definately work for planetary militia’s.  Problem is they have to be spread out all over the place covering a bunch of different potential targets.

An effective invading force is going to use high value units like mechs (because ultimately moving lots of stuff in space is very expensive) with dropships.  Your planetary militia might have 10,000 jeep type vehicles, 5,000 light tanks  and 100 regiments of infantry but with 1,000 targets they need to defend there’s only on average a company of keeps, a lance of tanks, and a company of infantry at each one of them.  Land a union full of mechs at a target, delete, then dona suborbital hop to some other place and repeat. 

Sure you can concentrate forces at the really important places, but then the lower priority targets are in defended and destroyed or secured by the attackers piecemeal further degrading the plants ability to sustain and defend itself. 

In order to mount a proper defense, either the planet needs to have only a few key points to defend (the spaceport, the capital city, the big factory and the mine) or they need aerospace assets of their own to concentrate and disperse forces just as fast as the attackers can (who are basically guaranteed to have aerospace lift capacity for their entire force handy, since it’s how they got there) or to massively outnumber them with reasonably high quality units so that there aren’t any weak points to pick apart. 

Primus203

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: Are tiny units simply more cost effective
« Reply #23 on: 31 August 2024, 22:58:51 »
That is something I fully understand EPG if you look at this thread https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=84546.0 you will find that the jeep is but one part of a unified whole including a strong rail network to move large amounts and an air transport wing for responsive movement of elite battalions.