Infantry

[Bad_Syntax]

First of all I am probably one of the biggest fans of infantry out there, having served in the US Army for 7 years, before my body decided to call it quits.  I even enjoy them in Battletech, but after writing the infantry editor, reading up on a few things, having far too many discussions about them, and applying some common sense I think infantry are completely broken.

I can build a 75 BV platoon, that does up to 34 damage (average around 20) damage out to 18 hexes, every turn, twenty could be purchased for a single average mech.  That is 400 damage out to 18 hexes, from a unit that can even start hidden, and is very hard to kill.  It is just broken if abused, and shouldn't be able to be abused.

The thing that really set me off here was the optional rule for soft attack values in combat operations.  It makes a LOT of sense, and *should* be implemented.

Here is what I would suggest:

#1.  Infantry no longer roll a to-hit, then a cluster table, to determine the amount of damage they do.  Instead they roll 2d6, adding any modifiers for movement/terrain, and then look on the infantry hit table (not the same as the existing cluster hit table) for how much damage is done.  There is just no way a grunt would miss a mech, period, and some grunts would *always* hit.  However, harder targets do reduce the amount of hits taken.

#2.  Weapons now have multiple damage values.  Their damage is AI/AT for Anti-Infantry/Anti-Tank.  AI damage is simply the total of the base damage of the weapon.  The AT value is the total weapon damage  multiplied by AP/10.  These values are further divided by 10 on the damage table, the higher numbers are needed for squads with minimal damage potential.  For example an automatic rifle has AP/BD of 4B/4B, in BT terms this weapon does .4 /.16 damage (right now it is .52).  A support particle weapon however does 5E/14S damage, this would be 1.4 / .7 damage (right now it is 1.58).  A clan Ultra-Heavy Support Laser, which does 7E/14 damage, now becomes 1.4 / .98 damage, the most effective man portable anti-tank weapon out there, and requires 4 crew.  Surely this makes more sense to everybody.  A platoon with 20 Auto Rifles and 4 Support Particle Cannons has a total damage of 14.6 / 8.8, right now that platoons does 16.72 damage to mechs, rounded it was 17, and only 9 with my new system, however anti-infantry damage isn’t changed very much.  As a squad this platoon would do 4/2 damage. 

#3.  Since in many cases some platoons can no longer damage armored vehicles, this is where the disposable weapons actually become usable (they are not really now).  A platoon can carry up to 1 disposable weapon per squad member that is not carrying a support weapon.  This means a typical IS squad, with 7 members and 1 support weapon with 2 crew, would have 5 disposable weapons.  With a Dragonsbane Pulse Laser, that would be 1 anti-tank damage point, a LAW is 4, an SRM or Satchel Charge would be 5 damage!  This makes sense, and allows infantry squads a single good anti-tank attack, but they can only do that once.

#4.  Each weapon range has its own to-hit roll.  It was silly to think that just having 2 support weapons, even if they only did 10% of the total damage, could increase the range of the platoon by 6 fold.  Instead now we would track the range of each weapon.  The ranges would be kept the same as in the Tech Manual.  This also prevents a lesser ranged support weapon from basically screwing the unit out of ranged combat.

#5.  Infantry are *always* deployed in squads.  Never platoons.  Never in a million years would you see 28 men be in a 700m^2 area when potentially under fire, it is absurd, they would have to be marching in line.  However, for field gun purposes, you can have up to 30 troops in a single hex, as they are far more compressed as they move ammo around and man the gun.  However, field gun infantry do take quadruple damage from vehicle mounted weapons (they are typically unarmored, have no cover, are carrying explosive ordnance, and tightly grouped together).

#6. OPTIONAL, but suggested.   Infantry *do* get the possibility of a floating critical, but if the location ends up being the head, a +1 to the critical roll is applied, but can never be over a single critical and never blows off the head.  This represents the fact that the armored canopy has 10% less armor than the rest of the mech, and everybody knows that, and many of the grunts will be aiming for it.  If you happen to get a floating critical, and it happens to land on the head, there is a 16% higher chance of a single critical hit taking place.  This would be optional, but based on fluff where so many cockpits are breached it makes a lot of sense, and barely changes the game and would only affect one in over 8000 rolls anyway

#7. OPTIONAL.  I think burst fire should add 5 to the original damage per 5 shots in a burst.  If bursts are used though, I think ammo should be tracked.  An auto-rifle would get 2 bursts, a Semi-Portable Machine Gun 5.  Using a burst uses a shot (non-burst fire does not), and after the bursts are used up the weapon can no longer be used in burst fire (perhaps they could just be down for a turn to reload).  5 Auto-Rifles would typically do 2 damage vs infantry (6*.4), but if firing a burst it would do 5 damage (6*(.4+.5)).  Damage vs vehicles wouldn’t increase as much, from 1 damage (6*.16) to 2 damage 6*(.16+.2).  This would require a bit of bookkeeping but would be much more accurate.

#8.  I really think that infantry armor shouldn’t modify vehicular weapon damage.  Damage from anti-tank weapons are very brutal, and all AP 10 anyway, armor just simply doesn’t help against these weapon classes.  Soldiers will either get hit by any part of the weapon and are out of action, or they are relatively unscathed.  Even a small piece of shrapnel from these weapons does enough damage to render a soldier incapable of performing.  Against weapons that do under 1 AT damage, like all infantry mounted stuff armor helps, but do you really think armor is going to help from a gauss rifle shot or a 40mm autocannon/2?  Unfortunately I’m not real sure how to deal with this yet, I think it may be too complex so the existing system may be acceptable, just ignoring the divisor unless it is infantry on infantry.  Any system implemented could be used with infantry vs battle armor as well, as battle armor isn’t always 10 BAR.  I tinkered with the idea of averaging the AV for the armor on a unit, and simply subtracting a # of columns for damage based on that number, which would kind of make sense, but would also require tracking AP and if used against battle armor their armor values as well.  I also just thought about armor saves with AP as a negative modifier, but it just felt too GW for me :)

Here is the infantry damage table, not that it is very hard to figure out (Troopers * Damage / 10):

Code: [Select]

Infantry Damage Table                   
        Column For Up To This Much Damage                 
Troops  10  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  0 to 1
    10  10  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1
     9   9  8  7  6  5  5  4  3  2  1
     8   8  7  6  6  5  4  3  2  2  1
     7   7  6  6  5  4  4  3  2  1  1
     6   6  5  5  4  4  3  2  2  1  1
     5   5  5  4  4  3  3  2  2  1  1
     4   4  4  3  3  2  2  2  1  1  0
     3   3  3  2  2  2  2  1  1  1  0
     2   2  2  2  1  1  1  1  1  0  0
     1   1  1  1  1  1  1  0  0  0  0

Issues:
•   I'm ignoring the different capabilities of the AI weapons in A Time of War
•   I think there should be grenades, they are very popular, and can make a difference at range 0
•   I haven't looked into the differences between Incendiary/Ballistic/Energy/Missile/etc weapons
•   The stats (BV/Cost/year/etc) on the attached record sheet block probably aren't correct
•   This system WILL modify the BV of infantry, I'd guess multiply infantry offensive BV by about 2/3rds.
•   I'd like to think up how to deal with melee, since it is typically pretty different.  Maybe just a "melee" damage value for the squad.
•   I haven't looked into prosthetics/manei domini stuff yet, I'm sure it'll modify some of these numbers
•   I'd like to see a way to determine if a trooper was lightly wounded, critically wounded, or KIA

I attached an infantry block, formatted in the same way as the official ones, but with the new statistics.  I can fit 6 on a page, with some tables, it works rather well.

I know these will be ignored by, well, probably everybody, but if anybody wants to play with infantry, and wants them to play a bit more realistic compared to their actual capabilities in BT, not their enhanced ones for, I think these rules should make them far less effective, and far more fun to play. 

Some comparisons to infantry in TRO3085:
DEST Heavy Jump Infantry (p194).  Damage was just 2-3 to 6 hexes per squad.  Now it is 2/1 (AI/AT) for the Blazers, and 1/0 for the SP-PPC.  Basically

Steiner Heavy Infantry  (p203).  Damage was 5-6 to 6 hexes.  Now it is 2/1 for the Auto-Rifles to range 3, and 2/1 for the MP-Plasma Rifles to range 6. 

7 laser/auto rifles or auto-pistols do 3/1 damage.  7 Mauser IIC do 4/1, 7 Heavy Gyrojet Gun do 4/2, 7 Bearhunter do 5/3 with 6 bursts adding +4/+3 damage each, 7 Heavy Mortar/SRM Launcher/HRR = 8/7, 7 Combat Shotgun do 4/1, 7 Neural Whip does 4/0 damage (and 0 can never be 1).  Basically NO single weapon infantry or battle armor can carry does > 1 damage each (though some squads of 10 could get up to 12 damage vs infantry).  Since AT is simply AI * (AP/10), most squads will be hard pressed to do more than a couple AT damage without blowing through ammo quickly or using single shot weapons.

I don't think this will be any more time consuming to play, and in many cases may be faster as a single d10 is used that determines both the to-hit and damage, so essentially you just roll 2d10 for an infantry platoon with support weapons instead of 2d6 twice.

For those of you who hate infantry, this would turn them back into the squishy targets they were meant to be :)

Ok, that was a few hours of brain activity on my part, what do some of ya'll think of my approach?  If any of ya'll are willing to try it I'd be interested to hear any results.  If anybody has any feedback that'd be cool too, positive or negative.  I understand nothing in the game will change, and I'm not suggesting that, just a suggestion on an alternate way of dealing with something I feel is seriously busted.

[NightmareSteel]

I kinda skimmed, but: Good reasoning, and definitely worth a second look when I am willing to take more time.

[Challenger]

I can build a 75 BV platoon, that does up to 34 damage (average around 20) damage out to 18 hexes, every turn, twenty could be purchased for a single average mech.  That is 400 damage out to 18 hexes, from a unit that can even start hidden, and is very hard to kill.  It is just broken if abused, and shouldn't be able to be abused.

I'm not certain that BV is correct, can't check till tonight though.  I've used similar platoons and they tend to even out at arround 120 or so.

The thing that really set me off here was the optional rule for soft attack values in combat operations.  It makes a LOT of sense, and *should* be implemented.

That should definately have been in the standard rules IMO

Here is what I would suggest:

#1.  Infantry no longer roll a to-hit, then a cluster table, to determine the amount of damage they do.  Instead they roll 2d6, adding any modifiers for movement/terrain, and then look on the infantry hit table (not the same as the existing cluster hit table) for how much damage is done.  There is just no way a grunt would miss a mech, period, and some grunts would *always* hit.  However, harder targets do reduce the amount of hits taken.

Quite like this, though I'd disagree about 'no way a grunt would miss a mech' but I'd agree some of the platoon almost certainly will.

#2.  Weapons now have multiple damage values.  Their damage is AI/AT for Anti-Infantry/Anti-Tank.  AI damage is simply the total of the base damage of the weapon.  The AT value is the total weapon damage  multiplied by AP/10.  These values are further divided by 10 on the damage table, the higher numbers are needed for squads with minimal damage potential.  For example an automatic rifle has AP/BD of 4B/4B, in BT terms this weapon does .4 /.16 damage (right now it is .52).  A support particle weapon however does 5E/14S damage, this would be 1.4 / .7 damage (right now it is 1.58).  A clan Ultra-Heavy Support Laser, which does 7E/14 damage, now becomes 1.4 / .98 damage, the most effective man portable anti-tank weapon out there, and requires 4 crew.  Surely this makes more sense to everybody.  A platoon with 20 Auto Rifles and 4 Support Particle Cannons has a total damage of 14.6 / 8.8, right now that platoons does 16.72 damage to mechs, rounded it was 17, and only 9 with my new system, however anti-infantry damage isn’t changed very much.  As a squad this platoon would do 4/2 damage. 

Thats a rather maths intensive solution.  Why not just assign different  hard attack/soft attack values to each weapon?

#3.  Since in many cases some platoons can no longer damage armored vehicles, this is where the disposable weapons actually become usable (they are not really now).  A platoon can carry up to 1 disposable weapon per squad member that is not carrying a support weapon.  This means a typical IS squad, with 7 members and 1 support weapon with 2 crew, would have 5 disposable weapons.  With a Dragonsbane Pulse Laser, that would be 1 anti-tank damage point, a LAW is 4, an SRM or Satchel Charge would be 5 damage!  This makes sense, and allows infantry squads a single good anti-tank attack, but they can only do that once.

Quite like this.

#5.  Infantry are *always* deployed in squads.  Never platoons.  Never in a million years would you see 28 men be in a 700m^2 area when potentially under fire, it is absurd, they would have to be marching in line.  However, for field gun purposes, you can have up to 30 troops in a single hex, as they are far more compressed as they move ammo around and man the gun.  However, field gun infantry do take quadruple damage from vehicle mounted weapons (they are typically unarmored, have no cover, are carrying explosive ordnance, and tightly grouped together).

There is actualy a very good reason for them to clump up.  Infantry need to concentrate their fire at the best of times to avoid being over run.  I've toyed with squad deployment and always found it dilutes the units firepower too much.

Just a few of my thoughts.  I personaly agree that infantry should have been more detailed.  But its certainly possible to go too far the other way and make them harder to run than mechs

Challenger

[Lyran Archer]

There are actually three threads discussing conventional infantry.

As I said in the other conventional infantry threads, munchkins can abuse the construction rules for 'Mechs and vehicles too which is why mostly everyone now plays with stock 'Mechs and vehicles now. Until Catalyst addresses the infantry construction abuse, here's my solution:

#1. Players can only choose stock infantry types from TRO 3085, RS 3085, and future CGL-produced stock conventional infantry tech read-outs and record sheets.

#2. Every game should have a maximum number of units. The force size multiplier merely encourages abuse of its own and doesn't solve the problem of facing 100 platoons of infantry in a 6000 point game. A better calculation would be the game BV divided by 750:

BV/750 = maximum number of units

In a 6000 BV game, this would allow each player to have up to 8 units, which is the most you'd want in a small game. In a 12 000 BV game, you'd get 16 units per player, which is the most you'd want even in a larger game.

Anyhoo, those are my quick-fix solutions. They solve the two current problems of conventional infantry being too powerful and taken in too great of numbers.   

[Belisarius]

I like the whole idea of paying more attention to infantry deployment, but i fear that too much micromanagement would be necessary to fight them consistently at the squad level. Granted, squad level makes sense when compared to the organization of all the other combat arms in the game. But squads of regular infantry, unless we're talking some really broken specially made units, aren't effective enough squad vs mech/vee to necessitate the detailed bookkeeping. Platoons, OTOH, have the broken firepower thing going on. So, I think the trick might just be to relook the construction rules again. Let's face it, having support weapons change the range of the long arm of the unit makes no sense at all. Only the support weapons should reach out to support weapon range. Simultaneously, why are rifles doing significant mech damage anyway? So how about rifles and the like do negligible damage, and support weapons deal the real blows? After all, you aren't going to kill a tank with 7.62 fire, but you might keep them buttoned up long enough for the ATGM gunner to do his job.

[Marwynn]

I fully support a renovation of the rules for Infantry, and yes this is the third such thread regarding the PBIs but the first where there are (fan-based) attempts to curb infantry power.

I was using Infantry Platoons before they were cool and deadly. They had flavour. Now that flavour is extra crispy since they can fry a lot of things en masse.

1) Elegant solution, however doesn't it take away the skill of the platoon in question? This makes all infantry guaranteed to hit with something all the time which I fear isn't in keeping with the established universe and gameplay.

What if the margin of success/failure on a to-hit roll modified the damage roll? Set a baseline for each Platoon skill level.

2) I would rather have something simpler, with dedicated AI and AT values. A Heavy Support Laser could have an AT of 1.5 and an AI of 0.5. Simpler numbers, and allows for some weapons to be better at one task than the other.

3) Agreed, Disposable Weapons would be nice to use again. If the AI/AT were independent of each other this would work out well for designing troops.

4) Agreed, ranges can be tracked individually. It's not that hard, we're doing it for half a dozen weapon systems on some tanks and 'Mechs already.

5) I know it doesn't make any sense for platoons to deploy in squads, but this would be a massive change for little benefit.

8) It's the age of wonders here, so I don't begrudge the infantry some protection. I don't like the Armour Divisors though.

Infantry Armour needs to be expanded upon. We can take the same route with weapons and split them via AI/AT as well, and work via percentages of damage reduced.

Just my thoughts on the matter, now to make more Warships.

[Bad_Syntax]

Thanks for all the feedback.  Some comments.

On #1.  The idea is that even a crappy infantry unit will still do *some* damage, while a really good one will typically do more.  An elite platoon, with a -2 to hit in BT, would do, on average, about 20% more damage than a regular platoon, and a green platoon 10% less.  This isn't quite the bell curve, but it makes more sense, as there could be a time when the soldiers are repositioning, dealing with wounded, or all of them focused and firing in line.  The idea that all 10 members of the squad miss their target, when their target is much larger, is hard to comprehend.  The margin of success/failure does modify the amount of damage, as a d10 is rolled, modifiers added, and damage determined based on that final number.

#2.  This isn't a math intensive, I was simply showing the formulas.  Right now in the back of the tech manual they have decimal damage listed for every weapon, I'd just be providing 2 numbers, separated by a slash.  I wouldn't expect people to do those calculations, they'd be done and on a table.  Maybe I'll go ahead and make that table :).  Regardless though, infantry attack factors will *always* be higher, as infantry are just more vulnerable.

And #5, the whole squad vs platoon thing.  30m is not a lot of distance, its basically 100'.  Today our squads are 9 men, a squad leader and 2 teams of 4, each with a team leader.  There is a 5m minimum separation between soldiers on patrol.  Typically one team is up front, spread out in a 15-50m area (depending on terrain), the squad leader behind them, and the other team following up the rear.  In most cases the squad will actually cover a frontage OVER 30m, even in broken terrain.  It wouldn't be any more complex to have a squad than a platoon, its the same rules essentially.  It doesn't make the game any easier or harder if its 100 troops, or 1, but if your fielding a battalion it would be a lot more units.  Also, having a platoon just puts too much damage potential in a single hex, as a platoon could do like 30 damage, while a squad would top out at third of that.  I can fit 36 squads on a sheet of paper in the standard BT format, that is a battalion.

We can't currently rely on published platoon stats, as there are FAR too few, and most are specialized and not the more generic platoons.  TRO3085 was an *excellent* start, but I'd like to see an entire book of infantry before we can just stick to existing platoons.  Right now we don't even know what a standard laser platoon has for each faction.  Even a simple table showing the faction standard platoons, their primary/secondary weapons, and armor type would be very helpful here.

I loathe limiting the number of units in a game, I think its highly unrealistic.  If I want 12 Vedette's vs your mech lance I should be able to, and not *have* to take much higher BV units.  There is a very simple solution for games that don't balance BV wise.  If you have a 2.42:1 ratio of BV, when you kill something you get 41% (1/2.42) of the BV you killed as VP, while the enemy would get 242% of the BV they killed.  This makes games where one side outnumbers the other still fun, and still have a clear winner/looser at the end.  I have no idea why people think that BT is a competition between players, its a game, a simulation, a thing to do to have FUN, and you simply can't have as much fun when only fighting balanced factions.  Try it before you knock it.

I also loathe that people don't play campaigns.  People should worry about loosing a unit, and strategic maneuvering, and be able to fight a battle where their light company out maneuvered an assault lance, it just makes sense, is and is not only more fun, but more realistic to the universe.

I will see about diving into the armor rules and comming up with an elegant solution that works.

[Jackmc]

There is just no way a grunt would miss a mech, period, and some grunts would *always* hit.

I think you may have a bit of institutional bias creeping in.  There are numerous studies that show that marksmanship under combat stress is absolutely horrid even among elite units.  My personnel experience playing opfor also agrees with that on multiple occasions I've had non-suprised fire team-sized elements open up on me at a range of 5 yds or less and not score a single hit. 

-Jackmc

[Gracus]

1.  True

2.  You aren't the size of a mech, which tends to place the generalizability of your observation into question.

[Jackmc]

1.  True

2.  You aren't the size of a mech, which tends to place the generalizability of your observation into question.

Ok, let me expand the size of the target.  I witnessed troops with rifles and crew-served's having trouble engaging a vehicle-sized target at 10 yards.

-Jackmc

[NightmareSteel]

Saw similar results with manned .50 cal mounts aboard ship.  In target practice, the target usually won.  That said, A) there was more target movement, B) there was more target distance, and C) I guess you can't expect much from a bunch of squids who didn't have enough of an ammo budget to be called anything remotely like "elite."

[massey]

The to-hit mechanic is one of the basic principles of the Battletech game system.  Light and medium mechs make their living by not being hit.  Speed is just as much a defense as armor.  If you allow infantry to auto-hit, they'll be inordinately effective against mechs dependent on speed.  That's the primary reason why it's a bad idea.

[Nebfer]

Well one thing to keep in mind is B-tech units are not all that slow if you realy look at it, a 3/5 Tank is in fact not that much different than the stated off road speeds of most real world MBTs.

And 3/5 units in B-tech are considered to be slow and sluggish units, yet in real life, these units would be considered to be reasonably agile. And most B-tech units are faster than this.

I do believe that Moving targets are a lot harder to hit...


The thing about platoons back in the Pre TW era you needed them in platoon sized units as a PPC could vaporize most squad sized units, and even a medium laser could wipe out a fire team. Nowadays with the drastically reduced anti-infantry damage, platoons are not as needed, out side of time savers and accounting uses (1/4th the units to keep track of...).

[Fallen_Raven]

There is just no way a grunt would miss a mech, period, and some grunts would *always* hit.

Hitting a 12m target moving at 119k/m at 900m would be a difficult shot, especially when it's shooting back. That's assuming it's Locust coming at you, not a Firemoth with Elementals dismounting to come disembowel you.

[Reaver]

Hitting a 12m target moving at 119k/m at 900m would be a difficult shot, especially when it's shooting back. That's assuming it's Locust coming at you, not a Firemoth with Elementals dismounting to come disembowel you.

And when we add in the fact that infantry is often moving around, only briefly setting up to aim and shoot before moving again, accuracy goes way down.

[Bad_Syntax]

Well I can speak for the US Infantry, both the way we trained and the way we trained other infantry (I was in the 11th ACR in Fort Irwin, the National Training Center, and did hundreds of missions over 5 years).

A soldier, who is not under immediate fire, can and will always hit a moving TANK at 300m, and with a few shots hit a person simply running.  Also remember, this is not ONE shot, this is 30 seconds of fire, and surely in 30 seconds, firing 20 rounds, a soldiers can get at least a hit or two in.  If you get close to a platoon, in a 30' tall MECH, even moving at 70 mph, you are likely to take a few hits.  The hits may be less in a locust moving at 12, than an Annihilator moving at 2 (roughly 40% less), but regardless you will take some hits.  If the squad isn't that powerful, and only does a couple damage anyway (many do), there is a decent chance of 0 points of damage actually being inflicted.  Sure, a few soldiers hit, but not enough to do even a single point of damage.

These aren't "30 point" automatic hits, these are 2-3 point automatic hits, which can be a bit less or more depending on the situation.  Infantry will never be very powerful under my proposal, even a company of them can't outgun most 1000 BV+ mechs.

Also, the best standard small arms only has a range of like 180m, or maybe 270m, its only the larger support weapons with tripods and more accuracy that can shoot out to 540m.

I am not 100% set on the d10 for damage, it was just much faster than 2d6+modifiers, then 2d6 for hits, and got rid of the whole "all or nothing" approach when a platoon fires (there are 7 in a squad, firing multiple times per turn, they will get *some* hits), and tended to be more average, but if people don't mind the double rolls a 2d6 table could be used like the standard rules.

Feel free to take a look at the RPG rules for how infantry attacks would work, including things like repositioning within the hex behind different cover, to get a good feel for how they should play in BT, just as a group of up to 10 instead of 1.

[Fallen_Raven]

I thought BT turns were 10 seconds? I could very well be wrong on that.

 Another issue is that you have to consider the rate of fire. One round from an assault rifle isn't going to do any noticeable damage to Battletech armor, you have to empty a clip into something. Mechs also move differently than tanks do, with fast pumping legs and swinging arms, not to mention bouncing torsos from vertical movement. And while I can't speak for military training, I'll bet dollars to donuts that it doesn't include hitting a target that is moving 180 meters through the air on a parabolic arc on fusion rockets.

Also using infantry in squads runs into the problem of them being annihilated by anti infantry weapons. 2d6 from a machinegun and 4d6 from a flamer means that a P-hawk can wipeout a squad in 1 turn with an average roll.

At the end of the day any issue of "realism" are largely moot because this isn't a military simulation, it's a game about giant robots beating the hell out of eachother in the future, with fun alternative toys added and a story to add fun books and RP materials.

[iamfanboy]

At the end of the day any issue of "realism" are largely moot because this isn't a military simulation, it's a game about giant robots beating the hell out of eachother in the future, with fun alternative toys added and a story to add fun books and RP materials.

This.

The problem with the current infantry rules is that they make infantry a bit too strong in contrast to Battlemechs - they can do many things that a 'Mech can't, which is enough reason to keep them around, but a match for 'Mechs is exactly what infantry should not be.

Base security? Great. Taking buildings from other infantry? Awesome. Holding on to objective buildings? Wonderful. Nasty ambushing in urban fights? Perfect. Building bridges, peacekeeping in a city, acting as extra hands in case of an emergency? Just what the Tai-sho ordered.

Being able to out-fight an even BV of 'Mechs on an open field, with ranges out to medium/long Battleforce? Uh, no. Yes, from a pure game balance perspective, the new infantry rules are only slightly overpowered, but from the prospective that "Battlemechs are kings of the battlefield" I just... I dunno. It doesn't work for me.

The infantry construction rules are broken, but not terribly - I just split up support weapon and regular weapon damage and range instead of combining them, having them make two rolls to hit instead of one and two cluster checks instead of two. A slight more bookkeeping, but overall a bit more satisfying if you insist on support weapons.

[Bad_Syntax]

Yeah, BT turns are 10 seconds, ATOW turns are 5, my bad.

A SINGLE shot from a rifle actually can't hurt a mech at all, it needs an AP of 5+, and even with an AP of 5 its damage is -5 and the damage it does is further divided by 10, so essentially a single shot does nothing, heck, 1000 shots do nothing.  If a rifle is fired, and it has an MoS of like 10, was fired on burst with 15 shots, it can do a point of damage.  However some weapons *can* do damage to mechs with a single shot, and this is the whole reason I wanted to have an anti-infantry and anti-tank attack value, as some weapons (like a generic staff) just can't hurt an armored target, no matter how lucky Kai Allard Liao happens to be today.

Simply splitting the weapons, AND making weapons have an AT and AI values, are essentially the most important part of the changes I had suggested, and I think would "fix" infantry.  I do prefer squad deployment, and it is a TacOps optional rule, as putting 28 soldiers in a 700m^2 area (thats like 1 soldier per 10' circle I think) is just ludicrous.

To prove my point, I drew up a hex, with a warhammer in it, in actual scale.  I also drew in the top one, a 7 man squad (they can go up to 10), and in the bottom, a 28 man platoon (they can go up to 30).  Now the infantry are sized as they would be lying prone, but just look at that, think of the available cover in a 30m area, and tell me that a platoon would be in a hex.

[massey]

In Battletech, nothing is an automatic hit (unless, of course, the to hit number drops to 2 or less).  Everything uses the to-hit mechanic.  I have to use the to-hit mechanic if I'm shooting at a building in the next hex.  Yes, in Battletech, with movement, heat, and other factors, it's possible that you can't hit the broad side of a barn.  It doesn't matter whether this is realistic or not, it's how the game works.  Infantry are not special, they should not use different mechanics.  They have to roll to hit like everyone else.

Assault rifles should never do damage to Battlemechs, no matter how well you roll.  I had always figured that infantry damage came from a combination of support weapons, LAWs, grenade launchers, and anything else they could scrape together.  It's just a generic damage rating because they aren't the star of the show.  Battletroops covers them in a lot more detail.

I always figured a "rifle platoon" had a decent amount of recoilless rifles in it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpFkqcF-7Hs&feature=related

[Neufeld]

In my opinion splitting platoons into squads, and splitting out support weapons as separate attacks would be the easiest ones to implement and do the most to solve the issues. The AT/AI idea has also potential but requires more work to implement.

[Shijima_3085]

Squad deployment might backfire a bit once somebody does some numbers.  2d6 for a machine gun/4d6 for a flamer *but* that weapon can only attack one target (i.e. one squad) in a turn.  The squad would almost always be wiped out on a single hit but seeing that you get on average 3-4 squads from each platoon I think the numbers work out slightly on the infantry side.  For fun, games, and more number crunching, weapons with the "AI" flag in Total Warfare could be considered mini-AE weapons, affecting all infantry squads in the hex.

As for infantry weapons not always damaging heavy armor, the to-hit + cluster table is fairly abstracted.  Together they could easily be said to indicate that all weapons hit but only this many actually did damage, or everything missed except the support weapons, and so on.

[Jackmc]

A soldier, who is not under immediate fire, can and will always hit a moving TANK at 300m, and with a few shots hit a person simply running.

I just finished an XCTC and I can assure you that your info does not match the reality.  Being the NTC Red Force meant that you guys were some of the most experienced guys out there and I can believe that you were that accurate, but I don't buy it for the majority of infantry.  It just doesn't match up with not only my training experience, but it also doesn't match the battlefield experience of my friends who have been, or currently are, in the box.

-Jackmc

[NightmareSteel]

As a completely different alternative- apply BAR.  Give each weapon an ability deal full damage to BAR of such-and-such or lower, and one fifth that to greater BAR.  Or simply make a blanket statement- Infantry deal one fifth the damage to BAR 10 or military grade armour.  Keep BVs the same.

Now still a threat en masse *maybe.*  Still good at taking and holding buildings, so on and so forth.  Still good at ambushing non-tank convoys.  Still combat engineers and whatnot.

As yet another alternative, simply make Infantry BV additive.  Your first platoon costs normal, your second double, your third triple, so on and so forth.  If you end up trying to take ten infantry units, you pay the BV for 55; probably *not* worth it.  This method means that one, two, even five units of infantry is a good buy, but more than that gets pretty nasty.  If you want a fluffy reason for why this happens, chalk it up to the logistic issues of fielding a freaking regiment.

[boilerman]

A point on the 34 damage platoon: munchkin-ism in general is something that should be controlled at the game table, not in the rules.  There will always be rules that can be exploited, trying to write them out is almost impossible.

That being said I agree, the hard/soft damage concept should be brought back and that would make one-shot weapons worthwhile again. 

I like your idea for how to account for one-shot weapons but I believe the damage values are too high.  In Combat Operations the rules for converting RPG support weapons to BT stats had you divide the calculated damage value by 3 for a weapon if it did not carry 3 or more rounds of ammunition, as in bullets, not turns/time, whatever its type.  If the weapon had 2 rounds of ammunition then the DV would be doubled, as in the case of the infantry Standard SRM Launcher.  Eliminate that divisor and support weapons such as recoilless rifles, LAWs and mortars start to look attractive.  I would still clump hard target/disposable weapon damage into a single damage value, use the standard to-hit roll system and the cluster chart.

Beyond that I would stick with the status quo.  Infantry have to be abstracted to a great extent to make them playable.  Most of the things you should suggest would , in my opinion, bog the game down.  And one thing to consider when deploying infantry in squads - the stacking rules.  That might not bother some but it would annoy me a lot. 

Personally, I've never thought that all the infantry are in a single hex when deployed as a platoon; the target hex is simply its "center of mass."  You have to aim at something to hit it and since infantry are abstracted to the point that you don't target them individually pick a point, call it the platoon and shoot at it.  Works for me, but I go for playability over simulation every time. So as they say: your mileage may vary. 

[Shijima_3085]

Doesn't TacOps have rules for conventional infantry and disposeable weapons?  I believe they are similar to the Combat Operations rules.

[Quigs]

A soldier, who is not under immediate fire, can and will always hit a moving TANK at 300m, and with a few shots hit a person simply running.

I think that's your problem right there. You're using RL information to base judgement on what should happen in game. Weapons ranges had to be drastically reduced, as did targeting information and realistic weapons damage. A "Real Battlemech" sitting atop a mountain with clear terrain could take on anything a mechanized infantry unit could deliver. Infantry would be rendered red mist before their rifles could hit anything, and APC's and light vehicles would be fun targets to practice autocannon trajectories on.

[Fireangel]

Several factors apply to this particular discussion.

A single infantry trooper with an off-the shelf rifle (i.e. that when the "platoon" is reduced to 1 trooper doing 0 damage) can't do diddly against a 'mech (I'll use the term to mean any non-infantry combat unit), however, if the trooper is armed with something more substantial (i.e. that when the "platoon" is reduced to 1 trooper it does 1+ damage), it can be assumed that both careful aim and volume of fire is employed to effect damage on the 'mech.

What does this mean? PBI fire v. 'mechs is not a matter of simply hitting the target; it is a matter of hitting the target OFTEN and in the RIGHT PLACE. A BT turn is, indeed, 10 seconds long; in that time a platoon gets into a firing position,has its leaders select targets and give the order to fire. All troopers make sure that they are in the best position to not get shot, take aim at the more vulnerable parts of the target (such as the joints in 'mechs, intakes in vehicles and anywhere EXCEPT the "broad side of the barn", which is generally too well-armoured to be penetrated) and unload their rifles at the target, sending upwards of 30 or 40 rounds per trooper at the weaker/more vulnerable parts of the target, with only a few rounds actually hitting anything critical and ablating the armour a bit. After unloading on the target, the trooper reloads and gets ready for the next turn, either shifting position in the same hex or running to another hex. Troopers with weapons that have a lower rate of fire generally spend more time aiming, so they put a higher percentage of shots on-target, but less damage is delivered due to lower volume of fire.

Note that PBI units deliver damage in 2-point clusters. this fits well (in general) to the average (abstracted) damage delivered by a single fire team of 2-5 troopers (generally 1-2 per squad). This fits well with the concept that each fire team coordinates its fire on a single spot on the target. All sorts of conceptual fluff can be used to explain the spread of damage across the target (such as LL and LT damage meaning that the point aimed at by a squad was the hip joint; one fire team hit higher, one lower).

Beyond this, it is possible that the nature of BT's magic ablative armour is more susceptible to lower-velocity projectiles such as those used by infantry weapons (basically a sanding effect), which could help explain the highly abbreviated ranges of BT weapons.

[Bad_Syntax]

I'm basing many of these factors off the rules in A Time of War.

For example, a weapon with an AP of <4 can't do any damage, at all, to a mech, ever, period.  An AP of 5 can, on a very good roll, do minor damage to the canopy which has a BAR of 9 instead of 10.  Only weapons AP 6+ have any real chance to hurt armored targets (mech/tanks/etc with BAR 10).  Even an AP 6 weapon has -4 damage vs an armored target.

Lets take a standard Auto-Pistol.  Its AP is 3, and damage is 4.  This means it has ZERO chance to hurt a mech, so I would give it a hard attack value of 0.  Its soft attack value would be .4, as each grunt takes about 10 damage, and 4 damage / 10 = .4 per weapon.

An Automatic Rifle has AP 4, and 4 damage, which means it does the same damage against infantry, but against armored targets it could do AP 4/10 = 40%, or .16 damage to an armored target.  I am leaning towards half that damage if the AP is exactly 4, as they have to aim for the cockpit.  In that case the hard attack of the rifle would be .08, or a 28 man platoon would do all of 2.24 damage to a mech!  Right now they'd do like 15 damage!

Now lets take some anti-mech weapons, lets say its a clan ultra-heavy support laser, the most power anti-mech weapon infantry can carry.  Its AP is 7, and its damage is 14.  It would do 1.4 damage to infantry per weapon, but against armor it would do 7/10, or 70% of 1.4, which would be .98 damage per weapon.  If a platoon had 4 of these, 1 per squad, it would do 4 damage to mechs, a heavy platoon with 2 per squad could do 8.

We can assume the ranges given in ATOW are against infantry, as that last weapon has a range of 63 BT hexes, but only 15 in BT.  We can assume that difference is due to battlefield conditions.  Lets face it, rifles maximum effective range is rarely actually reached in combat, and ranges at which the rifles get used are often much less. 

Another difference is each MoS in ATOW is +1 damage, or +10% damage based on the way I'm calculating damage.  Since I'm multiplying damage by the AP/10,  the ultra heavy clan support laser with an MoS of 7 would do 2 damage points for a single weapon, instead of 1, however 8 of them would only need, on average, an MoS of 1-2 to gain +1 damage point.  I think the minimal increases in most situations, it is acceptable to ignore this damage increase weapons would get in the RPG.

Doing the half AT damage if AP is 4, here are the Soft/Hard (or Anti-Infantry/Anti-Tank) values for all the weapons in ATOW.  I also gave them more specific range bands based on their range in ATOW, with the maximum being the Clan ER Heavy Support Laser at 16 hexes (basically all range bands were divided by 150m).  This gives the weapons a bit more flavor, and easier to calculate range brackets.

Soft/Hard (SR/MR/LR/ER) = Weapon Name
0.4/0 (0/0/0/0) = Auto-Pistol
0.3/0.06 (0/0/0/0) = Auto-Pistol (Hawk Eagle)
0.4/0 (0/0/0/0) = Auto-Pistol (M&G Service Auto)
0.5/0 (0/0/0/0) = Auto-Pistol (Magnum)
0.2/0 (0/0/0/0) = Auto-Pistol (Mydron)
0.4/0 (0/0/0/0) = Auto-Pistol (Nambu)
0.3/0 (0/0/0/0) = Auto-Pistol (Serrek 7875D)
0.4/0.08 (0/0/0/0) = Auto-Pistol (Sternsacht Python)
0.2/0 (0/0/0/0) = Auto-Pistol (Stetta)
0.6/0.3 (0/0/1/2) = Elephant Gun
0.4/0 (0/0/0/1) = Federated-Barrett M42B (Close-In Mode)
0.5/0.1 (0/0/1/2) = Federated-Barrett M42B (Standard Mode)
0.4/0.08 (0/0/0/0) = Harpoon Gun (Pequod, Mk. 2)
0.3/0 (0/0/0/0) = Harpoon Gun(Pequod, Mk. 1)
0.3/0 (0/0/0/0) = Machine Pistol (Martial Eagle)
0.3/0 (0/0/0/0) = Pistol (Hold-Out)
0.4/0 (0/0/0/0) = Pistol (Makeshift)
0.6/0 (0/0/0/0) = Pistol (Sternsnacht Claymore)
0.4/0.08 (0/0/0/0) = Revolver
0.5/0.1 (0/0/0/0) = Revolver (Magnum)
0.4/0.08 (0/0/1/2) = Rifle (Automatic)
0.4/0.08 (0/0/1/3) = Rifle (Bolt-Action)
0.5/0.1 (0/0/1/3) = Rifle (Federated Long)
0.4/0.08 (0/0/1/2) = Rifle (Imperator AX-22 Assault)
0.4/0.08 (0/0/1/3) = Rifle (M&G G-150)
0.4/0.08 (0/0/0/2) = Rifle (Makeshift)
0.4/0.08 (0/0/1/2) = Rifle (TK Assault)
0.5/0.25 (0/0/1/2) = Rifle (Zeus Heavy)
0.3/0 (0/0/0/0) = Semi-Auto (TK Enforcer)
0.3/0.06 (0/0/0/0) = SMG (Gunther MP-20)
0.2/0.04 (0/0/0/0) = SMG (Imperator 2894A1)
0.2/0.04 (0/0/0/0) = SMG (KA-23 Subgun)
0.2/0 (0/0/0/0) = SMG (Rorynex RM-3/XXI)
0.2/0 (0/0/0/0) = SMG (Rugan)
0.4/0.2 (0/1/2/4) = Sniper Rifle
0.4/0.2 (0/1/2/4) = Sniper Rifle (Minolta 9000)
0.3/0 (0/0/0/0) = Submachine Gun
0.3/0.15 (0/0/0/1) = Blazer Pistol
0.4/0.2 (0/1/3/7) = Blazer Rifle
0.2/0 (0/1/4/8) = Ebony Assault Rifle (Extended-Range Mode)
0.4/0.2 (0/1/2/4) = Ebony Assault Rifle (High-Power Mode)
0.3/0.06 (0/1/3/6) = Ebony Assault Rifle (Standard Mode)
0.3/0.06 (0/0/0/2) = ER Laser Pistol
0.4/0.08 (0/2/4/9) = ER Laser Rifle
0.2/0.04 (0/0/0/0) = Holdout Laser Pistol
0.3/0.06 (0/1/3/8) = Intek Laser Rifle
0.3/0.06 (0/0/0/1) = Laser Pistol
0.3/0.06 (0/0/0/1) = Laser Pistol (White Dwarf)
0.4/0.08 (0/1/3/7) = Laser Rifle
0.3/0.15 (0/1/3/7) = Laser Rifle (Maxell PL-10)
0.4/0.08 (0/1/3/7) = M61A Combat System
0.5/0 (0/1/2/6) = Magna Laser Rifle
0.3/0.15 (0/1/3/7) = Marx XX Laser Rifle
0.4/0.08 (0/1/2/4) = Mauser 1200 LSS
0.3/0 (0/1/2/4) = Mauser 960 Assault System
0.5/0.1 (0/2/4/9) = Mauser IIC IAS
0.2/0.1 (0/0/0/1) = Nakjima Hand Laser
0.5/0 (0/0/0/0) = Nova Laser Pistol
0.2/0 (0/0/0/1) = Pulse Laser Pistol
0.3/0 (0/0/0/1) = Pulse Laser Pistol, Clan
0.3/0 (0/0/1/3) = Pulse Laser Rifle
0.4/0 (0/1/2/5) = Pulse Laser Rifle, Clan
0.4/0.08 (0/1/4/8) = Starfire Er Laser Rifle
0.4/0.08 (0/0/0/1) = Sunbeam Laser Pistol
0.3/0.15 (0/1/3/8) = Dragonsbane Pulse Laser
0.7/0 (0/0/0/0) = Flamer, Heavy
0.5/0 (0/0/0/0) = Flamer, Man-Pack
1.2/0.72 (1/5/9/16) = Heavy Support Laser, ER (Clan)
1/0.6 (1/4/8/15) = Heavy Support Laser, ER (Non-Clan)
1/0.6 (0/2/5/10) = Heavy Support Laser, Semi-Portable (Clan)
0.6/0.36 (0/1/3/7) = Hellbore Assault Laser
0.8/0.16 (0/1/3/8) = Particle Cannon, Semi-Portable
1.4/0.7 (0/1/4/9) = Particle Cannon, Support
1/0.5 (0/1/3/6) = Plasma Rifle, Man-Portable
0.8/0.48 (0/2/5/10) = Support Laser
1/0.6 (0/3/6/11) = Support Laser, ER (Clan)
0.8/0.4 (0/2/5/10) = Support Laser, ER (Clan, Semi-Portable)
0.8/0.48 (0/2/5/11) = Support Laser, ER (Non-Clan)
1.2/0.84 (1/3/6/12) = Support Laser, Heavy
0.7/0.35 (0/2/4/9) = Support Laser, Semi-Portable
0.5/0.25 (0/2/4/10) = Support Pulse Laser
0.5/0.3 (0/2/5/11) = Support Pulse Laser, Heavy
0.4/0.2 (0/1/4/8) = Support Pulse Laser, Semi-Portable
0/0 (1/3/6/12) = TAG, Light (Man-Portable)
1.4/0.98 (1/3/6/12) = Ultra-Heavy Support Laser (Clan)
0.5/0 (0/0/0/0) = Automatic Shotgun
0.6/0 (0/0/0/0) = Avenger CCW (Buckshot)
0.6/0.3 (0/0/0/0) = Avenger CCW (Solid)
0.5/0 (0/0/0/0) = Combat Shotgun
0.6/0 (0/0/0/0) = Double-Barreled Shotgun
0.6/0 (0/0/0/0) = Double-Barreled Shotgun (Sawed Off)
0.4/0 (0/0/0/0) = M&G Flechette Pistol
0.4/0 (0/0/0/0) = M&G Flechette Rifle
0.5/0 (0/0/0/0) = Needler Pistol
0.5/0 (0/0/0/0) = Needler Pistol (Hold-Out)
0.4/0 (0/0/0/0) = Needler Pistol (Sea Eagle)
0.5/0 (0/0/0/0) = Needler Rifle
0.6/0 (0/0/0/0) = Pump Shotgun
0.6/0 (0/0/0/0) = Pump Shotgun (Sawed-Off)
0.5/0 (0/0/0/0) = Shredder Heavy Needler Rifle
0.5/0.1 (0/0/0/1) = Gauss Pistol
0.4/0 (0/0/0/0) = Gauss Pistol (Mandrake)
0.6/0.3 (0/0/2/5) = Gauss Rifle (Thunderstroke II)
0.6/0.3 (0/0/1/4) = Gauss Rifle (Thunderstroke)
0.4/0.2 (0/0/1/4) = Gauss Submachine Gun
0.4/0.08 (0/0/0/1) = Coventry Handrocket
0.6/0.12 (0/0/2/4) = Gyrojet Gun, Heavy
0.4/0 (0/0/0/1) = Gyrojet Pistol
0.4/0 (0/0/0/0) = Gyrojet Pistol, Holdout
0.5/0.1 (0/0/1/3) = Gyrojet Rifle
0.4/0.08 (0/0/0/1) = Gyroslug Carbine
0.5/0.1 (0/0/0/1) = Gyroslug Carbine (Star King)
0.5/0.1 (0/0/1/2) = Gyroslug Rifle
0.4/0 (0/0/0/0) = Buccaneer Gel Gun
0.5/0 (0/0/0/0) = Ceres Arms Crowdbuster
0.3/0 (0/0/0/0) = Dart Gun
0.2/0 (0/0/0/0) = Flare Pistol
0/0 (0/0/0/0) = Gas Capsule Pistol (“Spitball”)
0/0 (0/0/0/0) = LGB-46R “Paint” Gun
0.5/0.1 (0/2/5/10) = Radium Sniper Rifle
0.4/0 (0/0/0/0) = Sonic Stunner
0.4/0 (0/0/0/0) = Tranq Gun
0.6/0.3 (0/1/2/4) = Mk 1 Light AA Weapon
0/0 (0/2/6/12) = Mk 2 Man-Portable AA Weapon
0.1/0 (0/0/0/0) = Medusa Whip
0.3/0 (0/0/0/0) = Mini Stunstick
0.5/0.1 (0/0/0/0) = Monowire
0.5/0 (0/0/0/0) = Neural Lash
0.5/0 (0/0/0/0) = Neural Whip
0.4/0 (0/0/0/0) = Stun-Staff, Double-End
0.4/0 (0/0/0/0) = Stun-Staff, Single-End
0.4/0 (0/0/0/0) = Stunstick
0.4/0.24 (0/0/0/0) = Vibroaxe
0.2/0.12 (0/0/0/0) = Vibroblade/Vibrodagger
0.3/0.18 (0/0/0/0) = Vibrokatana
0.5/0 (0/0/0/0) = Vibromace
0.3/0.18 (0/0/0/0) = Vibrosword
0.3/0.21 (0/0/0/0) = Vibrosword, Clan
0.5/0.25 (0/2/4/10) = David Light Gauss Rifle
0.6/0.36 (0/0/2/6) = Grand Mauler Gauss Cannon
0.5/0.3 (0/2/5/10) = King David Light Gauss Rifle
0.7/0.42 (0/1/4/8) = Magshot Gauss Rifle
0.6/0.36 (0/0/2/7) = Tsunami Heavy Gauss Rifle
0.7/0.49 (0/0/0/1) = Autocannon, Bearhunter
0.3/0.18 (0/0/1/3) = Autocannon, Semi-Portable
0.5/0.1 (0/0/1/3) = Federated-Barrett M42B (LMG Mode)
0.3/0.15 (0/0/1/3) = Machine Gun, Light
0.4/0.2 (0/0/1/3) = Machine Gun, Portable
0.4/0.2 (0/0/1/3) = Machine Gun, Semi-Portable
0.5/0.25 (0/0/1/4) = Machine Gun, Support
0.7/0 (0/0/0/0) = Support Needler, Firedrake
Ord B (0/0/0/1) = Grenade Launcher
Ord B (0/0/0/1) = Grenade Launcher, Automatic
Ord A (0/0/0/1) = Grenade Launcher, Compact
Ord C (0/0/1/1) = Grenade Launcher, Heavy
Ord D (0/0/1/1) = Grenade Launcher, Heavy Automatic
Ord D (0/1/2/3) = LAW
Ord C (0/2/6/14) = LRM Launcher
Ord D (0/2/7/10) = MRM Launcher
Ord E (0/1/2/3) = SRM Launcher (Heavy)
Ord E (0/1/1/3) = SRM Launcher (Light)
Ord E (0/1/2/4) = SRM Launcher (Standard)
Ord C (0/1/1/3) = VLAW
Ord E (0/1/2/6) = Mortar, Heavy
Ord D (0/0/1/3) = Mortar, Light
Ord E (0/1/3/4) = Recoilless Rifle, Heavy
Ord C (0/1/2/4) = Recoilless Rifle, Light
Ord D (0/1/2/4) = Recoilless Rifle, Medium

Ordnance based weapons, such as Mortars, LAW/VLAW, Recoilless Rifles, SRM/LRM, and Grenade Launchers have damage based on their ordnance values:
A = 0.8/0.00 AP, 0.6/.12 HE
B = 1.0/0.00 AP, 0.8/.40 HE, .3/0 Inferno
C = 1.2/0.24 AP, 1.0/.60 HE, .5/0 Inferno, 1.0/0.00 Stun, 1.0/.80 Anti-Vehicle
D = 1.3/0.26 AP, 1.1/.66 HE, .7/0 Inferno, 0.5/0.25 Flash, 1.1/.88 Anti-Vehicle, 1.0/0.50 Air-Burst/Guided
E = 1.4/0.28 AP, 1.2/.72 HE, .9/0 Inferno, 0.6/0.42 Flash, 1.2/.96 Anti-Vehicle, 1.1/0.55 Air Burst/Guided
Gas is available for all, and is always 0.5/0.0.  C/D/E can use Narc.  Any can use smoke/Flare, D/E can use FASCAM.

Using these tables, instead of those in TM, make the weapons more true to ATOW, make infantry less lethal and less "munchy", and are very easy to implement.

The downside is infantry armor isn't modeled very well now, and it would still be kinda silly.  I also haven't yet figured out how to implement burst fire weapons.  In ATOW you fire a burst, take a modifier to hit, and for each MoS you can get up to the size of the burst in extra shots.  I think maybe just a table for "burst strength", that shows you additional infantry damage per MoS or something, but using a burst goes through ammo (and you get maybe 1-4 bursts before being out and not shooting for a turn, or needing a reload).

Another method, which would require more math while in play, would be totally accurate to ATOW, but I doubt very well liked, is this.  Instead of tracking Hard/Soft damage, just keep track of AP/Damage, though you'll have to do it for both the primary and support weapons (and any disposable ones).  These numbers would be the same as they are in ATOW.  You would then have a table that compared the damage vs BAR for each weapon, and you would simply do that much damage.  This would be great against battle armor, which rarely have a BAR of 10, as infantry would be more effective against them.  It would also allow much more accurate damage against armored infantry.  This would be my recommended way of playing, if you only had a few platoons on board, or wanted to do a battletroops style game, but for anything very large it would probably be too cumbersome.

Another note, right now damage for some weapons (M42B) are excessive due to their integral grenade launchers.  As these weapons have limited ammo, and aren't fired all the time, and most assuredly aren't fired at the same time as the rifle, I recommend these systems be treated as additional disposable weapons, which can be fired *instead* of the normal attack, and may or may not have a limited number of shots (modern grenadiers can have a dozen to 30 rounds on them).

[Fireangel]

I'm basing many of these factors off the rules in A Time of War.

<snip>

Using these tables, instead of those in TM, make the weapons more true to ATOW, make infantry less lethal and less "munchy", and are very easy to implement.

Yes, but these tables only take into account individual weapons firing single rounds/bursts at AToW rates of fire (AToW turns); it does not take into account several disciplined soldiers coordinating their fire at a single location and emptying their weapons in a TW turn.