Infantry Idea...

BattleTech : Board Game Previous Index Next Threaded
Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
Karagin
02/24/03 02:46 PM
68.21.149.195

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I ran across some old notes the other day and here is an idea I thought you folks would love to toss around and comment on...

Would giving each platoon of infantry a 1 shot, .5 point of damage missile make them more effective or too powerful for the game as things are currently written?

The total number of hits from these weapons could be added in to the overall damage infantry does or it could be a seperate roll/attack...

So what do you folks think...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
02/24/03 03:04 PM
65.32.253.120

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So, the infantry platoon turns into an "RL-28" that does 0.5 damage per hit?

Sounds reasonable if the infantry isn't already a missile-type, like LRM/SRM infantry. Would be a good ambush force multiplier for rifle, laser infantry representing LAWs and so forth.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Karagin
02/24/03 03:08 PM
68.21.149.195

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
More like they do an extra 14 points of damage if they hit with the 1 shot half point rockets or LAWs...

Yes missile carrying infantry would not have these...only laser, rifle, smg carrying units...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
02/24/03 06:31 PM
65.32.253.120

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Sounds like a cool idea to me and very easy to adopt.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Vapor
02/24/03 07:54 PM
202.123.138.238

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think you'd have to do a 2D6 roll to see how many of the missiles hit the target, since that missile wouldn't be the platoon's primary weapon, and they wouldn't be as well trained with it (as opposed to the LRM/SRM infantry platoons). Other than that, it's an intriguing idea. What kind of range are we looking at for this missile?
"For those about to rock, we salute you." - AC DC

"The evil that can come, from the heart of a man, must be answered in kind 'till it disappears, and we're safe." - Kansas
Karagin
02/24/03 08:43 PM
68.21.149.232

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Uhmm they would be profient with the missiles to the point that they could hit a target the size of a building without too much trouble...infantry train on all kinds of weapons not just a rifle.

I used the same chances to hit that normal infantry have. Range would be the same as what is standard for the infantry's base weapon, this keeps things simple and easy enough to keep folks from having to track another weapon.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Vapor
02/25/03 12:36 AM
202.128.71.197

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The thing is that most missile-type weapons are notoriously difficult to target, unless they have some kind of built-in guidance. For an infantry platoon to bring these missiles along, they would have to be fairly small and light, and if you want it to be a viable weapon, you would need to either sacrifice explosive yield in favor of a guidance system (better accuracy, less damage), or sacrifice the guidance system for greater explosive yield (more damage, worse accuracy). Having all the missiles automatically hit wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. Maybe instead of making a to-hit roll for the missiles, roll to see how many of the missiles hit the target (after all, how could they miss a target the size of a building?). I'm just trying to keep their rules more in line with standard CBT rules for missiles. They're still your missiles, though, so you're the one with the ultimate say in how they are used.
"For those about to rock, we salute you." - AC DC

"The evil that can come, from the heart of a man, must be answered in kind 'till it disappears, and we're safe." - Kansas
CrayModerator
02/25/03 02:29 AM
65.32.253.120

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In reply to:

Maybe instead of making a to-hit roll for the missiles, roll to see how many of the missiles hit the target (after all, how could they miss a target the size of a building?). I'm just trying to keep their rules more in line with standard CBT rules for missiles.



Vapor, open your BMR and look at the SRM infantry rules. Karagin only proposed for his "rocket launcher infantry" what's already done with SRM and LRM infantry: fixed damage. He is sticking to the infantry rules. By going to random numbers of missile hits, he would be introducing new rules.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Karagin
02/25/03 03:53 AM
68.21.149.120

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yes I am trying to keep this with in the rules of the infantry...though the idea of random results isn't a bad one...I think I will keep it in mind for something else.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Vapor
02/25/03 07:12 AM
202.123.139.187

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
All I'm saying is that giving a platoon a secondary, single-use weapon that is more powerful than their standard weapon is stretching the idea a little. Why give them rifles or smg's at all, if they can have a supply of these missiles and basically be SRM troops. I just feel like there has to be more of an element of chance involved than a simple to-hit roll. But that's just me. I still like the idea.
"For those about to rock, we salute you." - AC DC

"The evil that can come, from the heart of a man, must be answered in kind 'till it disappears, and we're safe." - Kansas
Karagin
02/25/03 08:29 AM
68.21.149.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In the real world, yes I know this is a game, the secondary weapons an infantry platoon has are normally more powerful then their primary weapon the assault rifle...they have things like the LMG, MMG, HMG, ATGM etc...as well as one shot throw away AT weapons...all of which do more damage then their rifles.

Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
02/25/03 03:22 PM
68.21.149.101

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Would the idea of given the infantry heavy weapons like four Recoilless Rifles or something similar a good idea? They wouldn't have other weapons, well beyond side arms, so their primary job would be to man the RRs...

Anyone have any ideas on this one? I think four would work out 7 men per gun, keeping it into account of the BT numbers here...what do you folks think?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
02/25/03 05:47 PM
65.32.253.120

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Arguably, not every man in an SRM platoon or laser platoon packs a laser or SRM (which may be either support lasers or heavy SRMs, crew-served weapons rather than individual weapons). In light of MW3 RPG's treatment of infantry-scale weapons (which allow weapons with an AP of 5 and over to damage mechs, and on a really good role, a single weapon can do 5 mech scale points of damage), you certainly do not need every man in a platoon to hit with an anti-mech weapon to deliver the platoon's/squad's average damage.

Therefore, depending on how you look at recoilless rifles (variant SRMs or a new weapon), you may simply be recreating the SRM infantry type, or you may be creating the new "RR" infantry.

Mind you, neither of those is a bad thing. As an inventor of "MRM infantry," I'm particularly in favor of new infantry types and would love to see stats for RR infantry.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Karagin
02/25/03 06:09 PM
68.21.149.158

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So which way should I go though...I follow you on the part that not everyone is needed to man the RRs...some will be there to protect the crew of the RRs...but the setup of the platoons in BT as it stands leaves us with a delimia...

This gives me something to ponder during my lovely 14 hour flight overseas in two weeks...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Vapor
02/26/03 01:33 AM
202.128.73.130

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
14 hour flight? Where're you going? Tokyo? That flight lasted forever.

About your idea for the recoilless rifles, though. How does that compare to the platoons taking a field piece into battle with them? I remember reading something about the ability of a platoon to take, say, a wheeled large laser, or gauss rifle, into the battle with them. I can't recall the exact rules for it, though. I'm just wondering if your rifles would fall in line with those, or if you are thinking of something entirely different.
"For those about to rock, we salute you." - AC DC

"The evil that can come, from the heart of a man, must be answered in kind 'till it disappears, and we're safe." - Kansas
CrayModerator
02/26/03 02:28 AM
65.32.253.120

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In reply to:

This gives me something to ponder during my lovely 14 hour flight overseas in two weeks...



My sympathies. I did a non-stop Paris-St. Louis flight once. Was a little under 14hrs.

Anyway, I'd recommend going with the new "RR" infantry approach, though I suspect the stats will be similar to SRM infantry.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Karagin
02/26/03 04:29 AM
68.21.149.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Istanbul...or Kuwait City...

The RRs are a lot smaller then field pieces...they are man portable along the idea of carrying a medium size telephone pool around...4 or some men can break it down and carry it.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Sherherazade
02/26/03 05:40 AM
62.172.147.221

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
To some extent, something like that already does take place - each squad is assumed to have one or two support weapons that do a consistent 0.4 or 0.5 damage. As some units already do damage in double figures at full strength, adding some sort of LAW equivelent isn't inconceivable (but I imagine doing so would pack a killer BV hit)
* * * * * * * * * * *
Chris Hartford
KamikazeJohnson
02/26/03 11:17 AM
142.161.128.92

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If the stats come out too close to SRM infantry, you could always throw in a little twist...such as the "missile hit" roll as discussed, or allocate damage in 2 point groups or some such. That would give you a significant difference from SRM.

Actualy, that could work...you mentioned 4 weapons, each manned by 7 men...so allocate the damage from each weapon separately, i.e. 4 groups for a full platoon, 2 groups for half, etc.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Karagin
02/27/03 12:04 PM
65.129.165.209

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Cool I will add this to my notes...thanks for the idea!
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
TJHairball
02/27/03 09:11 PM
152.10.182.229

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
A single shot LAW/VLAW etc that acts a whole lot like SRM for first turn makes perfect sense to me... although you may want slightly different ranges. It would be an honestly reasonable way for your military to get a bit more punch out of infantry. (you may even consider a SS system that acts lke LRM infantry shot, or somewhere between the two.)

If you're trying RR squad weapons out (NARC w/SRM infantry ranges are standard L3 gear) you might consider the stats offered for RR in the unofficial battle armor design rules I downloaded (by David L McCulloch)... gives:

Light Recoilless Rifle 2/4/6 1 dmg; medium 2/5/7 2 dmg; heavy 3/5/9 3 dmg; he also has them deal extra damage to infantry (1d6 per). Don't know where he got them, but you may wish to adapt them in.

For randomizing LAW/VLAW damage... you might also consider saying 1d6 per intact squad or something along those lines...
Vapor
02/28/03 03:34 AM
202.128.69.122

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Now you got me thinking about using mortars in an infantry platoon. I haven't worked out all the details yet, though I think it would be better to use this as the platoon's primary weapon, rather than as a support weapon, with a max range of 3 (maybe more, but I don't want to get too far).

As far as damage goes, I'm not quite sure yet. I was thinking probably 14 points of damage for a full platoon, like the SRM platoons.

Attacks against buildings hit automatically, and the platoon is capable of indirect fire. I was also thinking that the mortars could be targeted at a specific hex, with the capability to damage multiple units in that hex, instead of just one if they target a single unit. I've never used the artillery rules, though, so I'm not too clear on them, or on if they would even apply in this case.

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?
"For those about to rock, we salute you." - AC DC

"The evil that can come, from the heart of a man, must be answered in kind 'till it disappears, and we're safe." - Kansas
Karagin
02/28/03 05:59 AM
65.129.167.195

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I like...infact that is close to what my group uses already...damn things are great for laying down smoke rounds...

And they do have decent use against enemy infantry and while not perfect against mechs they do tend to slow down the enemy has the stop to consider things and adjust their plans.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Vapor
02/28/03 06:02 AM
202.128.69.122

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
What kind of range do you give them?
"For those about to rock, we salute you." - AC DC

"The evil that can come, from the heart of a man, must be answered in kind 'till it disappears, and we're safe." - Kansas
Karagin
02/28/03 06:05 AM
65.129.167.195

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
For the light mortars we had the ranges similar to the medium lasers...since this one would be in the thick of the fighting.

For the Med. Mortar we have the range at what the AC5 has.

And the heavy mortar had a range the range of the AC2.

Though we thought about reversing this to keep with the BT idea of ranges but never got around to it...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Vapor
02/28/03 06:08 AM
202.128.69.122

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I didn't even think about different size mortars. That's a brilliant idea. Though I would probably have reversed the ranges. What kind of damage do you use for your different sizes? I had originally thought of doing 28 points of damage for a direct hit, but thought it might be a bit too much for a platoon to be able to do.

I like the smoke rounds idea, though.
"For those about to rock, we salute you." - AC DC

"The evil that can come, from the heart of a man, must be answered in kind 'till it disappears, and we're safe." - Kansas
Karagin
02/28/03 07:21 AM
65.129.167.195

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Roughly the damage was 2 points a mortar for light, 4 points for medium per tube and 6 points for the heavies per tube...

Damage was treated similar to missile attacks but each shot that hit got a roll to see where it hit...

We also went with the mass firing roll on the missile table idea as well.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Vapor
02/28/03 07:26 AM
202.128.69.122

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That sounds similar to what I had in mind. How many tubes did you have per platoon, though? I was thinking 7 tubes, each with a 4-man crew. I wasn't sure exactly how to do that with the infantry rules, though, so I just said 14 points of damage. I suppose I will have to go over those rules again more carefully.
"For those about to rock, we salute you." - AC DC

"The evil that can come, from the heart of a man, must be answered in kind 'till it disappears, and we're safe." - Kansas
Karagin
02/28/03 07:36 AM
65.129.167.195

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think we used 6 or 7, notes are at home, but I am not...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Vapor
02/28/03 07:47 AM
202.128.69.122

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
7 would make sense since it makes even crews. It's a little difficult to split up 28 men into 6 mortar crews.
"For those about to rock, we salute you." - AC DC

"The evil that can come, from the heart of a man, must be answered in kind 'till it disappears, and we're safe." - Kansas
Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)

Extra information
0 registered and 8 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, mattbuck, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 4691


Contact Admins Sarna.net