His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/09/15 08:25 AM
71.170.162.49
|
Different subject new thread
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Now as for dual purpose weapons, The whole thing with infantry is when they changed how they take damage. The large weapons were great at destroying them, ie an awesome that hit with all 3 ppcs would wipe out a 28 man unit. Where I do agree it needed some tweaking, what they did was extremely overboard the other direction. And battle armor is something even harder to deal with, since you do need the heavier weapons to remove them from the field of battle, since you are very correct in the fact mgs and flamers aren't that effective against them unless there is massed amounts of them. And with the ba, by the time you can use those weapons you are already having to deal with them firing back.
I cant agree that there was something wrong with the new system. It did make a great deal of sense. you had 28 men spread over 900 square meters. How would a few weapons be able to hit all of them? Even a machine gun should only hit a few infantry troopers even if they are out in the open when there is so much empty space between each trooper..
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
happyguy49
08/09/15 12:04 PM
98.30.242.159
|
I personally don't think infantry are OP now. Consider all the specialty rounds and missile types that are murder on infantry. Flechette AC rounds, fragmentation LRMs, inferno SRMs, all that stuff can significantly outrange normal infantry and are devastating. Not to mention artillery and artillery cannons, some of which do enough damage to kill the platoon with one hit.
Even field gun equipped motorized infantry trade firepower for vulnerability, IIRC for some reason you get a damage multiplier when attacking them compared to foot, jump, etc.
|
ghostrider
08/09/15 12:55 PM
76.89.121.69
|
I don't believe anything that fires explosives or has any real length of time to it's firing sequence would hit just one infantry. And I would think they would have some sort of way to do an anti infantry mode to alot of the weapons. I know the some of the novels suggested it, but it was not added in the rules.
Slashing a laser across the field will kill more infantry then 1. You are talking about something designed to melt armor that is specifically designed to resist the laser and such. Now to keep it simple, they say killed, where some of them would be incapacitated so they could not be a threat anymore. A ppc should act like a lighting bolt, which would probably do more then shock just one trooper. Ac rounds have explosives, so hitting just one person with a full burst is just as bad.
Now infantry take more damage in the open, but not sure if motorized infantry takes more then other types for any reason. Without the new rules, I can not confirm this.
And to be honest, the specialty rounds should have been in the game when they first came out, since at that time, you were more likely to deal with infantry then mechs according to the story lines they had done up. And if this was true when it started, the entire history of a few battles would have turned out differently.
And I stick to the original statement. I believe they went to far the other direction for infantry taking damage. Both are the extreme ends of it. Somewhere in the middle is the answer.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/10/15 07:24 AM
71.170.162.49
|
I could not disagree more. I think killing one trooper for non machine guns and flamethrower weapons is right as I said in my statement. Yes a mounted weapon is quite powerful in a VERY confined area (aka inched to feet). to have the extremely powerful hard punch to be able to penetrate modern armor plating. But your talking of one lighting bolt, explosive shell, or what not covering an area of 900 square meters. I agree that battlemech/vehicle weapons are quite powerful even more so to the human body but your asking them to cover WAY to mush area to kill men that are spread out as much as they possibly can so they wont take splash damage from weapons. They are not going to stand in a tight bunch so every man can be killed by one weapon. I am sorry but your argument just makes no sense.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
ghostrider
08/10/15 12:21 PM
76.89.121.69
|
With your example of the mgs. How is something that is set up to fire at one spot going to hit more infantry? It would be the same thing as a pulse laser set up.
Does the mounting bounce around so much that it would cover more area firing?
Is that why the damage is so low on it?
The flamer will burn an area with it's own fuel, but would it cover even half the area for the number of infantry it would take?
Does it have servo motors to spray it around?
Now another question with the large weapons. When you have 28 men in a field you are trying to remove, why would you shoot at the lonely point person, when there are some closer together 5 meters back and off to a side?
Tank shells do kill multiple infantry today. Does that mean the ammunition of the future is set so it only damages a 6 in round area?
And with this, how many soldiers die from shrapnel, not from the shell, but from the area around them turning into flying missiles?
I am not saying the weapons should do their normal damage, but one point is not right either. Why is it the lasers can not be turn down in intensity to have a longer duration of the beam? When dealing with infantry, you do not need the super wattage to burn armor. That is there since trying to focus on any small spot while everything is moving around is almost impossible.
Ac's have burst. Why wouldn't you just spray the hex to spread out the damage across multiple targets, instead of focusing on one spot?
The gauss rifle is one weapon I agree will be limited, since it is one shot. You might get lucky and hit 2 or 3 if they are behind each other, or shrapnel scatters, but for the most part, 1 person is the most likely result.
And if the novels and stories have any impact on the game, you hear how ac shells stitch a path across a mechs torso when it hits. The would tell me they aren't a single 6 inch target area hits. And ultras would be even more likely to do extra damage.
And having the men spread out would mean every hex is set up so they could do so and still function. My understanding, which is very limited, deals mainly with movies, but most units are not that widely spread out in the battlefield.
Just thought about it, but 30 meters in about 90 feet. You are saying the explosive rounds of an ac would not send shrapnel in a quarter acre area? That would be about 100 by 100 feet. A grenade would do more damage then an ac round?
Or are you thinking an ac round is more like a normal slug thrown from a gun?
With the gun example, I can see it being the gauss example. Not many would be killed with it. And without multiple shots, it makes more sense for only one to die from it.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/10/15 02:17 PM
71.170.162.49
|
Since you had armor plating that had gotten even harder to penetrate with each generation of advances the large bore weapons need to concentrate more and more of the ammunition's energy in penetrating the armor and less on impressive but harmless pyrotechnics. I have always thought of AC ammo like something like a SABOT round where you get a very large amount of energy in a very tiny concentrated spot so as to penetrate ultra advanced armor plating like what BT modern battlemech and vehicles have. Such ammo would make a very deep hole in the ground where that hamburger is where there was once standing an infantry trooper but will do very little in the way of killing large numbers PBI.
As for energy weapons pilots and vehicle crews don't have the luxury of stopping, braking open each and every laser or PPC on their machine, and then recalibrating the weapons optics for a concentrated beam or wide beam during a fire fight. The optics are factory set for destroying the most powerful threat that the pilot or crew will encounter aka mechs and vehicles. I doubt that a mech pilot or vehicle crew will want their energy weapons to make a nice light show on some enemies machine because its optics have been preset for a wide beam for killing PBI.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Akirapryde2006
08/10/15 06:07 PM
71.100.132.249
|
I would like to offer this question to everyone. Does anyone in this conversation have military training?
I present this point for the conversation. How often would an Infantry Platoon be in an open field while a Battlemech is on the prowl? I guess if a infantry unit was out in the open then a solid case could be made for different weapons. But an infantry's best defense against a Battlemech is to hide and let it close in range before swarming. A swarming infantry is the worse case scenario for a Mech Pilot. The ability of one infantry man being able to open up a access hatch and drop a grenade right on top of a actuator can be a nightmare for a pilot. Times that by 30 and its over.
This is the reason why most pilots will not allow an Infantry unit to get that close. Sure machine guns are great but their ranges allow the infantry to be too close for comfort.
I have to disclose that I am not fully aware of the "new rules" regarding infantry. So please forgive my ignorance to them.
For me, if I was running Infantry in any battle. Placing them in the open would be the last thing I would do. City battles are where infantry are at their best. But one doesn't always battle in cities. You will be hard pressed to find anyone more supportive of a combined arms deployment than me. I truly believe that Armor, VTOL's, Artillery, ect, ect, all have their place on the battlefield beside a Battlemech.
But on that same note, a battlemech will outclass an infantry unit in nearly every situation. But these is only because the name of the game is Battletech. I am not sure if many of you are aware of this, but there are a lot of weapons available to Infantry in older books that leveled the playing field.
Take the Recoilless Rifle. With similar ranges as most weapons mounted on battlemech, this weapon can inflict damage (though minor damage) on a battlemech long before its machine guns can be in range. The Gray Death Legion employed a number of these weapons to great effectiveness in several books.
But I noticed that this and other infantry weapons were limited or removed in MaxTech.
|
ghostrider
08/10/15 10:41 PM
76.89.121.69
|
Not really saying open terrain, but all terrain. Even the rough ones that offer you every sort of nock and cranny to hide it.
The new rules of infantry taking damage is most weapons only kill one infantry personel per shot, not point of damage. So a ppc does one point against them. The older rules had them taking 10. Both are a little extreme.
Since the change, they have destroyed the history of the game since alot of battles had used hordes of infantry and lost without much damage to the attacker. With this new system, the attacking units would have lost alot more then they did. But that might just be me thinking this would be the case.
I can understand thinking the ac rounds are sabot rounds, but wouldn't that be considered the newer armor piercing rounds? Having the shell explode just after contact would be better then no explosion as the means anything that penetrates the armor would explode inside the targets armor causing even more damage. Possibly destroying a unit in one piercing shot.
And even if it was a sabot round, the scatter of the weapons would mean more then one person would be hit as the shells rattle in a small pattern.
Energy weapons would come from the factory with the ability to dial down the output allowing for longer shots with less actual damage in one spot. The phasors in star trek would be a good example. Even the torpedoes have setting they can use. And honestly, if you had the choice to use less power, but kill more infantry while in a unit, why wouldn't you have the system installed?
Otherwise, why send in mech to raid infantry positions on a planet? It would be stupid to send awesomes to remove an infantry position.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/11/15 06:37 AM
71.170.162.49
|
Akirapryde2006:
No, but that does not matter. Battletech has zero to do with real military training. Your comparing a pretend game that has nothing to do with reality to reality.
ghostrider:
I have read nothing either in the rule books or anything in the novels that state that the pilot can change energy weapons optics during combat. If there was something on this I am sure Cray would be the best one to know.
This is Battletech and not Star Trek. What happens in the Star Trek universe has no affect in the Battletech universe. But to answer you anyways, a Star Trek Phasor Bank weighs thousands of tons, takes up a good amount of space in the ship, and each one is maned by its own crew members and officer, the same goes for the Photon Torpedoes.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
happyguy49
08/11/15 12:47 PM
98.30.242.159
|
The small pulse laser and micro pulse laser have an anti-infantry mode where they do the same damage as a regular machinegun; 2D6. Not too shabby.
AP Gauss rifle also does 2D6, and can use Targeting Computer! Pretty nice range on it too, 9.
The new Heavy Flamer does.. 6D6, its fricking murder.
I think these new weapons and the new specialty ammo for regular missiles, cannons, etc. balance out the nerfing of the big anti-vehicular weapons against infantry. A PPC, laser, gauss rifle, or HEAT type cannon shot would realistically get one guy plus another one or two from shrapnel, etc. Waving a steady laser beam around isn't likely to hit many scurrying, cover-finding people and if it does will probably just scorch some paint on their ablative flak armor; a non-magical laser needs to hold on a spot to burn through someone.
A downside of the new rules is the significant added complexity to determining damage inflicted to infantry. Each weapon has a divisor based on specific type, plus possibly die-rolls for damage, (with another completely different set of damages for battle armor weapons against regular infantry) plus terrain modifier, mechanized modifier? (does this mean/include motorized? or just infantry riding on the outside of a vehicle?) I am not even sure myself.
|
Akirapryde2006
08/11/15 06:07 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
Akirapryde2006:
No, but that does not matter. Battletech has zero to do with real military training. Your comparing a pretend game that has nothing to do with reality to reality.
Don't mistake my intention. I wasn't stating that by having military training that you (or anyone) is any less or more qualified than myself. It just helps me better form my own conversation points.
That being said, I couldn't disagree with you more. While I will concede that Battletech is only a game, much like any strategy game. I also like enjoying meeting other members of the Armed Forces. Those who have served their time or who are serving right now.
However that doesn't mean that a level of understanding military tactics is not vital to success in this game. Consider the topic here. We are talking about Infantry units vs Battlemechs. This topic has circulated before during the dawn of Tanks.
I have seen my share of battletech (and Battleforce) matches and at no time had military tactics not been used to secure victory. Not to make any assumptions, I am willing to make the bet that even you employ military tactics during your own matches. You might not even realize it, but I am sure you do.
So in claiming that battletech and real world tactics have nothing in common is not a truthful statement to make. Regardless if you are commanding a formation of Hoplites, Heavy Infantry, Mounted Calvary, a Platoon of Tanks, or a Lance of Battlemechs a flanking maneuver is still a flanking maneuver.
So yes, my question does have relevance to the conversation and to being a successful Commander of your forces on the ground.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/11/15 07:10 PM
71.170.162.49
|
Just because one has military training that does not make one know how to use the tactics that was beaten into their heads over and over again in basic training. I have known way to many military personal that are so out right dumb that they could not use even the most basic concept of tactics, and no they where not all E2 or even limited to the enlisted personal.
Yes training can improve ones use of tactics but one still needs to have a usable brain to really make the best use of the tactics that they where taught.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Akirapryde2006
08/11/15 07:47 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
Just because one has military training that does not make one know how to use the tactics that was beaten into their heads over and over again in basic training. I have known way to many military personal that are so out right dumb that they could not use even the most basic concept of tactics, and no they where not all E2 or even limited to the enlisted personal.
Yes training can improve ones use of tactics but one still needs to have a usable brain to really make the best use of the tactics that they where taught.
well said. I am willing to concede that while having military training (as in your example, Basic Training) doesn't make a person any more qualified at this game or military tactics for that matter. Are you willing to concede that an understanding of real military tactics is fundamental to success within this game (as with my example, Infantry don't fight and survive in the open).
What do you say?
|
ghostrider
08/11/15 09:52 PM
76.89.121.69
|
So a single shot ap gauss rifle does 2d6 verses infantry? How does this happen?
Now the laser is something that needs a little explaining. My understanding that a normal foot soldier is not able to carry elemental armor on them without assistance. Even trying to carry around 1 inch thick steel plates isn't feasible. Kevlar is better for ballistics, how having it heated up to several thousand degrees in a part of a second is not going to let the trooper keep it on his body, or even keep his body. And that would be assuming a full suit, not just a jacket with possible leg protectors. So I must be missing something else.
I do agree the ppc wouldn't kill 10 troopers with any sort of real training or at least weren't smoking something. 3 troopers, is more acceptable then a single one for the large weapon. Even a medium laser should do close to this. Maybe half damage until the unit is below a certain amount where they would have some buffer zones between them.
Now as for basic training, I do think someone that has some training has a slight advantage over someone that doesn't know what a flank is. This is for standard people. There are some that would do well in a game understanding use of terrain, and still not realize getting behind the unit is a good thing. It does not mean they would know to send the forces in a wide arc to force a unit to reveal their weak sides to atleast one attacker. Or to hit one end to prevent this. And with a lot of military commanders, especially dictators, they do not want their soldiers thinking for their own. Make them more likely to say screw this and leave.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/12/15 05:34 AM
71.170.162.49
|
Not really. There are lots more variables in real life than in the game. In the game troops can hide in a building for cover. In real life there is are a great deal more more factors than just walking into some random building. For example what blocks them from getting to you has the same affect of blocking you from getting to them.
Just because someone does not know what a flanking maneuver is that does not mean that they cant execute it perfectly out of just figuring out that is the best thing to do. Training can make up some for not being intelligent but intelligence is extremely important.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Akirapryde2006
08/12/15 10:30 AM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
Not really. There are lots more variables in real life than in the game. In the game troops can hide in a building for cover. In real life there is are a great deal more more factors than just walking into some random building. For example what blocks them from getting to you has the same affect of blocking you from getting to them.
Your lack of real world experience here shows through. Getting in to a building is not that hard when you are a soldier. I would go in to a long explanation of this based on my own military experience, but I just got home from work and am about to go to bed. Still this doesn't prove my point.
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
Just because someone does not know what a flanking maneuver is that does not mean that they cant execute it perfectly out of just figuring out that is the best thing to do.
This actually proves my point perfectly. Even though a person might not have military training, that person can still execute a military maneuver. Here I will put in the basic of terms. Think of a quarter pound of cooked ground beef in the form of a patty between two pieces of bread. Add some lettuce and cheese. Call it what you what, its still a burger.
Okay so you figured out that this attack from the side of the enemy's position is the best thing to do. Wonderful, you just conducted a flanking maneuver. Regardless of what you call it, it is still a flanking maneuver.
Again, any such lack of this training has no baring on your abilities at this game. Nor does this make you less of a Commander than I am. And I do agree with you, intelligence does play a big factor in most things we do.
Its a shame you don't wish to see my point. Regardless we are getting off the topic. I would love to continue talking about Infantry vs Mechs.
|
ghostrider
08/12/15 01:53 PM
76.89.121.69
|
Training does allow people to react better, such as a shot is fired, all soldiers move to cover. Some people stand out in the middle of the road looking to see where it came from.
Now as for getting back to the topic, I would suggest a thread like training vs instinct. And this one isn't really infantry vs mechs, it how infantry takes damage. Vehicles have more problems dealing with infantry the mechs do. Once in range. smashing them with physical attacks makes it easier for a mech to squash them. Which also is a good point for the being spread out and the damage they take.
Why would a 100 ton mech be able to kill more infantry with a move of 2/3 then a locust mech with a move of 8/12? The locust would have the agility to move around stomping in the dodging infantry then say an imp. This should change the way they take damage from a physical attack, barring the swarming maneuver.
And getting a little more complicated, a mech firing jets would do damage to infantry in the hex. I would say landing to, but that is not as energy intense, since you are slowing down, not trying to accelerate.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/12/15 09:16 PM
71.170.162.49
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Now as for getting back to the topic, I would suggest a thread like training vs instinct. And this one isn't really infantry vs mechs, And this one isn't really infantry vs mechs, it how infantry takes damage.
No its not. The subject is Poor Bloody Infantry I set no limiting requirements out side the subject of Poor Bloody Infantry.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Edited by His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey (08/12/15 09:16 PM)
|
Retry
08/14/15 05:57 PM
76.7.232.58
|
Don't have time for a long drawn-out post right now, so I'm giving the TL;DR version.
IMO the way infantry takes damage is fine, it makes both PBIs and anti-infantry weaponry relevant and provides more battlefield roles for mechs and tanks designed to deal with them, a la anti-infantry mechs like the Piranha or custom home-grown designs like my Pegasus mod.
|
Akirapryde2006
08/17/15 09:33 AM
71.100.132.249
|
Just in the way a infantry unit (for this example a Platoon) moves and operates, I would say (only speaking from a point of realism) that point weapons like lasers would be less effective against them while auto cannons would be slightly better (but not much). Area effect weapons like LRMs and SRMs would be more effective. But this is only if the Infantry is not in a building.
Though I have always had issues with how they put an entire Platoon within a 30 meter hex. This is where having some real world experience comes in to play. Ever seen a war movie or show about war. Hack you can do a google search for Infantry march.
You will see two kinds of movement. One where they are in a large formation, this is Drill and Ceremony and done in the rear (like at their base or what not). Then you will see them walking in two separate columns, this is a field style movement when not under enemy fire.
Note that they are not in some gaggle, this is a formation for a reason. There is a spacing between them (normally five to six meters), and that spacing has a lot to do with the kill radius of a grenade. Toss a grenade in the middle of the formation and you might get two or three. If the unit walks in to an ambush the leading element of the formation can be supported by the rear element.
All this changes under combat situations. The formation breaks away to squad level movement. Each squad will move independently of the large platoon to support each other. Yet the spacing between soldiers within the squad will grow as does the spacing between squads.
Sure the rules of the game don't reflect this because it would be madness to separate your platoons in to each four squads. But you are talking about a unit of 30+ soldiers operating in a space of roughly 90 meters. Why would an AC 20 designed to penetrate armor hit an infantry unit and kill twenty of them. This would imply that they are taking cover right on top of each other. Unless we are conceding that the AC 20 round is using High Explosive round, but now we are getting in to details that I don't think the game designers really considered.
|
ghostrider
08/17/15 02:31 PM
76.89.121.69
|
I do concede the weapons should not do the max damage, but a single point is the extreme opposite. One shot weapons, such as the gauss rifle, might hit more then one if they are behind each other or drops a tree on them. I understand that being limited to one.
The fact a simple hand grenade could kill more infantry then a 3 to 5 round burst form an autocannon makes it sound like magic, especially the 10 and 20 ranges. The fact that the ultra explains the shacking of the cannon spread the damage which may cause the second volley to fail. That in itself should suggest it does not hit the same exact point like a beam from a laser would. And a cluster round is able to hit more, yet for some reason, it still penetrates armor?
The silver bullet gauss sounds like even more magic if you look at it that way. The shrapnel it sends out would be horribly inaccurate at ranges.
Both should have lesser ranges of effectiveness then solid shots. But his is another issue.
With the new rules in effect, a platoon of infantry in hardened structures could very well guard a pass for hours, even days.
That would change most of history in the game.
It destroys continuity of the time line.
This to me sounds like changing the horses in the middle of a stream
|
|
|
Extra information
|
1 registered and 71 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 8710
|
|
|
|
|
|
|