DireMage
Sergeant Major
Reged: 02/17/03
Posts: 264
Loc: Imperium Of Man
|
A new reason to keep infantry
#123578 - 01/08/06 10:50 PM (66.229.193.94)
|
|
|
Battlearmor! Yes, I know it's been discussed before, but I think that even after all the recent changes to the game battlearmor would be a greatly beneficial addition to Neveron.
Movement: 0/0/3 Because they're infantry, they can be stuck inside an APC as normal for infantry.
Armor: 9 mech armor, plus one point representing the pilot inside, per person. Units have 4 people, for a total of 28 armor and 4 person hit points. All weapon attacks are randomised between the four troopers; if one of them is killed excess damage to that trooper in that turn is wasted.
Weapons: Each person mounts a single anti-mech weapon, either a flamer, a small laser, or a machine gun, depending on which variant is researched.
Because these are IS battle armor, they don't get SRMs. Alternately, because this game is only loosely based on battletech, SRMs, LRMs, and even additional armor capacity could be a viable, if tedious, research option.
Research requirements: Infantry heavy armor, Infantry Jump Packs, MG or SL or Flamer
Tactical notes: These infantry, although packing less of a punch than regular infantry, have 40 hit points instead of the usual 28 and aren't susceptible to anti-infantry weapons OR vehicle crits. This makes them exceedingly tough. Furthermore, while their upkeep should obviously be high, there's no reason not to have them be very cheap to research.
--------------------
- Live for honor
- Die for battle.
- Strive for light.
|
sdog
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 09/01/03
Posts: 1791
Loc: europe
|
Re: A new reason to keep infantry
[Re: DireMage]
#123606 - 01/09/06 10:26 AM (139.174.165.124)
|
|
|
don't we already have to much of this munchkin clan stuff?
and those are even worse killers then normal inf on ABR.
it would be damn great if we could fight some Mech vs. Mech battles
|
Uziel
Sergeant
Reged: 10/10/05
Posts: 124
|
Re: A new reason to keep infantry
[Re: sdog]
#123610 - 01/09/06 11:30 AM (87.115.225.70)
|
|
|
sdog, BA isn't clan. I can think of a lot of IS models...Cavaliers, Fenrirs, Kanazuchis, Fa Shihs, Purifiers, Infiltrators....
Anyway, thats not the point. It sounds pretty good. And guys, notice, beam weapons would actually damage them. one PPC hit would kill a battle armour trooper, 1/4 of the unit gone, rather than 2 damage to the unit like you get against normal inf.
Edited due to my inability to type >.<
--------------------
Edited by Uziel (01/09/06 11:36 AM)
|
cbtgod
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 1813
Loc: IN A BOX UNDER A HOUSE
|
Re: A new reason to keep infantry
[Re: Uziel]
#123780 - 01/12/06 01:07 AM (71.100.240.191)
|
|
|
i already did a post about this a few weeks ago and got slammed but i agree they should be added and in cbt they do have ba that can take a 15 point hit and live from a er ppc, as it is now all i use is jump infa and if used the way they should, they are very nasty its a good idea but i dont think it will be allowed by randy tech.
--------------------
yes its a toad, if you didnt know that you dont know anything about cbt
|
Toontje
Colonel
Reged: 01/18/04
Posts: 2578
|
Re: A new reason to keep infantry
[Re: cbtgod]
#123785 - 01/12/06 01:43 AM (84.24.165.226)
|
|
|
Nasty, but $$$$$.
For a jump platoon you can get a good tank, for a jump lance a light-medium 'mech.
--------------------
Rather to blow up, then.
|
sdog
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 09/01/03
Posts: 1791
Loc: europe
|
Re: A new reason to keep infantry
[Re: Toontje]
#123804 - 01/12/06 06:09 AM (139.174.165.124)
|
|
|
but those BA where introduced only after the clan invasion. with clan tech. not in classic battletech.
and where do you get a munchkin ER PPC in CBT?
ps.: i'll plan not to post in this forum for 1 month! it's taking way to much time now. maybe it's an addiction already.
--------------------
I realised soon that the fun part of playing a military game is that we have lots of lifes and in the end knowone dies, ...
- Skaven, ArmA modding community
|
CaBhaal
Lieutenant
Reged: 10/11/04
Posts: 599
|
Re: A new reason to keep infantry
[Re: DireMage]
#123837 - 01/12/06 04:01 PM (24.32.87.123)
|
|
|
Before you suggest things like this, ask yourself just one question:
"Will this make the game more fun?"
For those of us who already LW constantly, we will tell you that more infantry is a bad thing. It gets old fighting people who refuse to commit a *real* force to the field. Instead they rely on cheap, time wasting units like infantry and jeeps.
Neveron done *not* need more of the same.
~CaBhaal
|
cbtgod
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 1813
Loc: IN A BOX UNDER A HOUSE
|
Re: A new reason to keep infantry
[Re: CaBhaal]
#123850 - 01/13/06 01:16 AM (71.100.240.191)
|
|
|
well cabhaal you are right about people using cheap crappy units to defend with, it goes great with the crappy ai? every one i know in this game has some horry story about some pos vech that took down their mech while they slept due to the crappy ai or over abundance of super lag which has im sure cost every one a unit or 2 in this game. bottom line fix the bugs and people will have to change with using more mechs and less crappy units because the ai wont allow one vech to take down a mech.
--------------------
yes its a toad, if you didnt know that you dont know anything about cbt
|
Nahte
Sergeant
Reged: 05/20/05
Posts: 101
Loc: Usa
|
Re: A new reason to keep infantry
[Re: cbtgod]
#123856 - 01/13/06 06:38 AM (71.29.216.170)
|
|
|
I think first. Fix the !@^*$% ai first and then work on other things.
--------------------
A will gets more than a gun.
A hero is only a man who is brave five minutes longer.
"Death solves all problems. No man, no problem." Joseph Stalin
|
cbtgod
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 1813
Loc: IN A BOX UNDER A HOUSE
|
Re: A new reason to keep infantry
[Re: Nahte]
#123887 - 01/14/06 03:56 AM (71.100.240.191)
|
|
|
sdog the answer to your ? is page 116 in the battletech master rules
--------------------
yes its a toad, if you didnt know that you dont know anything about cbt
|
Malachi
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 369
|
Re: A new reason to keep infantry
[Re: cbtgod]
#123926 - 01/15/06 05:42 PM (172.216.6.21)
|
|
|
screw inf, more mechs= more fun. We don't need new unit types we need a rethink of how the ones we have are used.
|
Nahte
Sergeant
Reged: 05/20/05
Posts: 101
Loc: Usa
|
Re: A new reason to keep infantry
[Re: Malachi]
#124053 - 01/18/06 06:40 AM (216.96.70.106)
|
|
|
hear hear
--------------------
A will gets more than a gun.
A hero is only a man who is brave five minutes longer.
"Death solves all problems. No man, no problem." Joseph Stalin
|
Oni_Ryo
Newbie
Reged: 01/19/06
Posts: 7
Loc: South-East Florida
|
Re: A new reason to keep infantry
[Re: Nahte]
#124673 - 01/30/06 01:11 PM (172.175.95.228)
|
|
|
Hmm reading this Protomechs come to mind. Nev is based on BT, not rigidly copy/paste from BT. Protos would be a mid point between full mechs and inf at a decent price (according to HEavy Metal Lite, the highest BV one is under 1 mil c-bills).
As far as all the level 2 tech related to them, as i said before, nev is based on BT, not a copy/paste so nothing says they have to have the same weapon systems (ie: normal Med Laser instead of ER Med Lasers) and such.
Any way, just thought i'd toss it out as an alternative to battle armor inf units if any one wanted to play with the idea of putting in 'economic mechs' to the game.
|
Toontje
Colonel
Reged: 01/18/04
Posts: 2578
|
Re: A new reason to keep infantry
[Re: Oni_Ryo]
#124675 - 01/30/06 01:28 PM (84.24.165.226)
|
|
|
nononononoprotosnonono
--------------------
Rather to blow up, then.
|
mattbuck
Eeyore
Reged: 02/13/04
Posts: 3285
Loc: Nottingham, UK
|
Re: A new reason to keep infantry
[Re: Toontje]
#124679 - 01/30/06 02:40 PM (128.243.220.21)
|
|
|
The reason low end mechs are expensive is because empires buy them to use as trainers for larger mechs. Screw ptotos. They'd still cost about 20mil by my reckoning.
--------------------
Haha, you people think admins still look at these forums.
Visit the Platonian! Updated! Stuff! Things! Click!
|
Oni_Ryo
Newbie
Reged: 01/19/06
Posts: 7
Loc: South-East Florida
|
Re: A new reason to keep infantry
[Re: mattbuck]
#124682 - 01/30/06 04:38 PM (172.175.95.228)
|
|
|
Unless of course protos got their own skill (since even by what they say in TROs, Protomechs are piloted MUCH differently than standard mechs making a new skill for proto-pilots make sense) at which point they would actually be perhaps usful as a cheap substitute for mechs (ie: 10-15 mil perhaps pending on which model exactly) without just being a new cheaper 'trainer' mech.
|
Aunduril
Sergeant Major
Reged: 01/21/05
Posts: 386
Loc: In my Whammy
|
Re: A new reason to keep infantry
[Re: Oni_Ryo]
#124686 - 01/30/06 07:59 PM (209.86.37.1)
|
|
|
I can't seem them as being useful, they would probably just become cannon fodder for vehcs. I just think this would be another addition at the cost of more important things.
--------------------
"What we do in life echos into eternity. " - Maximus - The Gladiator.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
