CincyBattletech

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Reactor: Online.  Sensors: Online.  Weapons: Online.  All systems nominal.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10

Author Topic: Force Creation Discussion  (Read 27271 times)

Death or Glory

  • Showers
  • Command Master Sergeant
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: Force Creation Discussion
« Reply #60 on: July 31, 2013, 09:55:06 PM »

Potential Transport Assets:

Zibler Strike Tank (Pros: fast omni hovercraft, has two C3 slave variants.  Cons: no actual infantry bay, so it can only transport mechanized battle armor).
Cardinal Transport (RAF) (Pros: VTOL with a 12 ton infantry bay.  Cons: no useful electronics, we probably don't have access to it as it seems to be used mainly by the DCMS, LCAF, and RAF).
Trireme Infantry Transport (Pros: VTOL with a 36 ton infantry bay.  Cons: support vehicle, we may not have access to it).
Musketeer Hover Tank (3080 Upgrade) (Pros: TAG.  Cons: infantry bay is only four tons, no C3).
Morningstar CCV (Pros: C3 Master.  Cons: 5/8 wheeled vehicle, infantry bay is only four tons, over 50 tons)
Manteuffel Attack Tank (Pros: multiple C3 variants, can fulfill multiple roles within our force, omnivehicle.  Cons: 5/8 movement speed, only configuration with an infantry bay forgoes the C3, over 50 tons).
Karnov UR Transport (BA) (Pros: VTOL, 8 ton infantry bay, ECM.  Cons: no C3, no TAG).
Maxim Heavy Hover Transport (C3S) (Pros: C3 Slave, TAG.  Cons: infantry bay is only four tons).
Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard) (Pros: 12 ton infantry bay, TAG.  Cons: no C3).

Conclusion:  There really isn't any unit that fits exactly what we're looking for.  There doesn't appear to be a VTOL out there that features both an infantry bay of at least four tons and has at least a C3 slave.  If you want a VTOL with a large carrying capacity, then the venerable Karnov UR Transport (BA) is probably our best bet.  If you're okay with using fast hovercraft instead of VTOLs, then the Maxim Heavy Hover Transport (C3S) or Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport look to be our best option depending upon whether you value a large infantry bay or C3 capabilities more.  If we take primarily mechanized battle armor, then Ziblers become a possibility.  Also, I'm liking the multi-role capability of the Manteuffel.

I think the following could work as our vehicle force:

Squad 1 (artillery):
Schiltron Mobile Fire-Support Platform Prime
Schiltron Mobile Fire-Support Platform Prime

Squad 2 (transport/spotting, actual selection depends on how many squads of heavy suits we take):
Maxim Heavy Hover Transport (C3S)
Maxim Heavy Hover Transport (C3S)
or
Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard)
Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard)
or
Karnov UR Transport (BA)
Karnov UR Transport (BA)

Squad 3 (LRM fire support):
JES II Strategic Missile Carrier
JES II Strategic Missile Carrier

Squad 4 (multi-role tanks):
Manteuffel Attack Tank C
Manteuffel Attack Tank Prime

Let me know what you think.
Logged

Death or Glory

  • Showers
  • Command Master Sergeant
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: Force Creation Discussion
« Reply #61 on: July 31, 2013, 10:38:08 PM »

With 32 tons of transport capacity available (each suit counting as 1 ton), I'd look at two platoons, each integrated to work among themselves:

1 Squad, 1 Platoon: x4 Hauberk (LRM5)
2 Squad, 1 Platoon: x4 Hauberk (LRM5)
3 Squad, 1 Platoon: x4 Hauberk (LRM5)
4 Squad, 1 Platoon: x4 Grenadier (HunterKiller)

1 Squad, 2 Platoon: x4 Cavalier (MG)
2 Squad, 2 Platoon: x4 Cavalier (Flamer)
3 Squad, 2 Platoon: x4 Cavalier (SRM - Infernos)
4 Squad, 2 Platoon: x4 Infiltrator Mk II (magnetic or Puma)

1st Squad works as a support unit, essentially creating 2 mobile LRM20s, and the Grenadiers act as a close-range "bodyguard" force to screen them and make anybody who comes after them really, really regret it (that's an SRM20 right there).

2nd Squad ends up being a more "traditional" BA force, more centered around anti-infantry and anti-BA duty and functions as a general-purpose unit.  The Infiltrators either ease our logistics burden by mounting MagClamps, which allow them to hitch a ride on any Mech (or tank, maybe...I'm not sure), or allow us to do more "spec-ops" style stuff if we use the parafoil-equipped Puma model.

Finally, I would murder a First Prince to get our hands on a platoon of Kopis Battle Armor.

1st Platoon looks good to me.  Do you want to to go with the the Grenadier Hunter-Killer variant with the Magshot or the one with the Compact Narc?  I think two squads of Hauberks and two squads of Grenadiers might work better than a 3 and 1 mix.  For 2nd Platoon, unless I'm missing something, I really don't see a compelling reason to take machine gun or inferno Cavaliers over flamer Cavaliers.  Two squads of magnetic Infiltrators will help lessen our transport burden, although I kind of like the spec-ops potential of the Infiltrator variant with advanced sensors and a parafoil, however I'm not sure how often that would actually come up in game play.
Logged

Death or Glory

  • Showers
  • Command Master Sergeant
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: Force Creation Discussion
« Reply #62 on: July 31, 2013, 11:07:02 PM »

Rob, unless you really want to use VTOLs, then I think our best options for a transport squad is one Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard) and one Maxim Heavy Hover Transport (C3S).  This gives our transport squad the capacity to transport four squads of battle armor.  In addition, both units in the transport squad have TAG and one of the units in the transport squad has a C3 slave.  However, this does mean the Cavaliers and Infiltrators will have to hitch a ride on omnis.

Dan and Steve, do you guys have any input on vehicle or battle armor selections?  I don't think I've heard anything from either of you yet.
Logged

Riegien

  • Unicorn Clan Triumphant
  • Administrator
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 482
    • View Profile
Re: Force Creation Discussion
« Reply #63 on: August 01, 2013, 01:13:37 AM »

Quote
The Infiltrators either ease our logistics burden by mounting MagClamps, which allow them to hitch a ride on any Mech (or tank, maybe...I'm not sure)
pg 228: battle armor can mount standard battlemechs and vehicles as though they were omni units.

Quote
Two squads of magnetic Infiltrators will help lessen our transport burden, although I kind of like the spec-ops potential of the Infiltrator variant with advanced sensors and a parafoil, however I'm not sure how often that would actually come up in game play.
In the Terra campaign you guys coated a tarmac with fire retardant foam and set up ammunition mines to defend an area.  I am kinda afraid of what you could come up with for stealth flying commando powerarmor guys.  I'll be open to innovative ideas on the board and before scenarios hit.  No guarantees that things will constantly come up though.

Logged

Darrian Wolffe

  • Hazen
  • Administrator
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
    • View Profile
Re: Force Creation Discussion
« Reply #64 on: August 01, 2013, 03:24:26 AM »

Rob, unless you really want to use VTOLs, then I think our best options for a transport squad is one Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard) and one Maxim Heavy Hover Transport (C3S).  This gives our transport squad the capacity to transport four squads of battle armor.  In addition, both units in the transport squad have TAG and one of the units in the transport squad has a C3 slave.  However, this does mean the Cavaliers and Infiltrators will have to hitch a ride on omnis.

I don't think that making the Maxim a C3 variant is going to help us, given that we already have a 4-tank C3 net assembled in the other platoon. 

Also, the reason to make the Cavalier Squad carry infernos is because of what infernos do to Battle Armor.  It's heinous; look it up.

So, I'd put our prospective TO&E about like this:

ARMOR ASSETS
1 Platoon, 1 Squad:
-Manteuffel Attack Tank C (Master)
-Manteuffel Attack Tank Prime (slave)

1 Platoon, 2 Squad:
-JES II Strategic Missile Carrier (slave)
-JES II Strategic Missile Carrier (slave)

2 Platoon, 1 Squad:
-Schiltron Mobile Fire-Support Platform Prime
-Schiltron Mobile Fire-Support Platform Prime
OR
-Paladin Defense System (TRO 3145 Davion, BV 1624)
-Paladin Defense System

2 Platoon, 2 Squad:
-Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard)
-Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard)

BATTLE ARMOR ASSETS
1 Platoon, 1 Squad:
-x4 Hauberk (LRM5)

1 Platoon, 2 Squad:
-x4 Hauberk (LRM5)

1 Platoon, 3 Squad:
-x4 Grenadier (HunterKiller)

1 Platoon, 4 Squad:
-x4 Grenadier (HunterKiller)

2 Platoon, 1 Squad:
-x4 Cavalier (Flamer)

2 Platoon, 2 Squad:
-x4 Cavalier (Flamer)

2 Platoon, 3 Squad:
-x4 Infiltrator Mk II (Puma)

2 Platoon, 4 Squad:
-x4 Infiltrator Mk II (Magnetic)


AREOSPACE ASSETS
A Squadron, 1 Flight:
-Dagger Prime (keep the option to swap these into Dagger Cs open)
-Dagger Prime

A Squadron, 2 Flight:
-STU-K10 Stuka
-STU-K10 Stuka
OR
-CHP-W7 Chippewa
-CHP-W7 Chippewa



Conclusions:
1) We need to make a decision ASAP on whether we're using Stukas or Chippewas. 
2) We need a ruling on legality of the Paladin (it's strictly better than the Schiltron with 2 Long Tom tubes)
3) Can we all agree to put everything else EXCEPT points #1 and #2 to bed?
Logged

serrate

  • Howe
  • Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 1853
    • View Profile
Re: Force Creation Discussion
« Reply #65 on: August 01, 2013, 10:19:42 AM »

Conclusions:
1) We need to make a decision ASAP on whether we're using Stukas or Chippewas. 
2) We need a ruling on legality of the Paladin (it's strictly better than the Schiltron with 2 Long Tom tubes)
3) Can we all agree to put everything else EXCEPT points #1 and #2 to bed?

Sure, until we start talking about Battlemechs. :)

Btw, since Vees/Aero were somewhat picked via consensus, I'd say we need to divide up the mech selection a little more evenly. We've got 20 mechs, 6 players, so that's 3 mechs each with a couple extras to fill out. I'd suggest everyone picking their mechs, and then working to allocate them into the most useful lances afterwards.

I'll post my 3 mechs by the end of the day.
Logged

Death or Glory

  • Showers
  • Command Master Sergeant
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: Force Creation Discussion
« Reply #66 on: August 01, 2013, 01:25:23 PM »

I don't think that making the Maxim a C3 variant is going to help us, given that we already have a 4-tank C3 net assembled in the other platoon.

Each Schiltron has a C3 master, which means that we have the potential to put all of our vehicles into one C3 net.  Hell, my proposed battlemech lance from a few pages back is entirely C3 capable, so we could potentially get a company sized C3 net set up.

Also, the reason to make the Cavalier Squad carry infernos is because of what infernos do to Battle Armor.  It's heinous; look it up.

That is pretty heinous, however I don't think it'll be super effective when they're only carrying a one tube SRM launcher.

So, I'd put our prospective TO&E about like this:

ARMOR ASSETS
1 Platoon, 1 Squad:
-Manteuffel Attack Tank C (Master)
-Manteuffel Attack Tank Prime (slave)

1 Platoon, 2 Squad:
-JES II Strategic Missile Carrier (slave)
-JES II Strategic Missile Carrier (slave)

Vehicle platoon 1 looks fine to me.

2 Platoon, 1 Squad:
-Schiltron Mobile Fire-Support Platform Prime
-Schiltron Mobile Fire-Support Platform Prime
OR
-Paladin Defense System (TRO 3145 Davion, BV 1624)
-Paladin Defense System

At 130 tons, I don't think Paladins fit onto our dropship.

2 Platoon, 2 Squad:
-Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard)
-Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard)

I personally would prefer one Maxim Heavy Hover Transport (C3S) and one Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard) as that allows us to put all of our heavy suits in transports while still giving us a fast C3 capable hovercraft, but if you don't think that's worth sacrificing the 8 tons of transport capability for, then I'm fine with taking two Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard)s.  Basically, its your call, but I think the potential to expand our C3 net beyond platoon size is worth considering.

BATTLE ARMOR ASSETS
1 Platoon, 1 Squad:
-x4 Hauberk (LRM5)

1 Platoon, 2 Squad:
-x4 Hauberk (LRM5)

1 Platoon, 3 Squad:
-x4 Grenadier (HunterKiller)

1 Platoon, 4 Squad:
-x4 Grenadier (HunterKiller)

Battle Armor Platoon 1 looks good to me, however I'm still not sure which of the two Grenadier (Hunter-Killer) variants you want to take.  Record Sheets 3075 contains both a Grenadier (Hunter-Killer) (SRM/Magshot) and a Grenadier (Hunter-Killer) (SRM/Narc).

2 Platoon, 1 Squad:
-x4 Cavalier (Flamer)

2 Platoon, 2 Squad:
-x4 Cavalier (Flamer)

2 Platoon, 3 Squad:
-x4 Infiltrator Mk II (Puma)

2 Platoon, 4 Squad:
-x4 Infiltrator Mk II (Magnetic)

In terms of parafoil equipped Infiltrators, I like the Infiltrator Mk II (Sensors) a lot more than the Infiltrator Mk II "Puma".  I think a machine gun and improved sensors are more useful than just a magshot.

AREOSPACE ASSETS
A Squadron, 1 Flight:
-Dagger Prime (keep the option to swap these into Dagger Cs open)
-Dagger Prime

A Squadron, 2 Flight:
-STU-K10 Stuka
-STU-K10 Stuka
OR
-CHP-W7 Chippewa
-CHP-W7 Chippewa

If this helps your decision any, according to the MUL, the Stuka STU-K10 has an availability rating of "extinct" for the Republic Era.  The Stuka STU-K5 is available though.

Conclusions:
1) We need to make a decision ASAP on whether we're using Stukas or Chippewas. 
2) We need a ruling on legality of the Paladin (it's strictly better than the Schiltron with 2 Long Tom tubes)
3) Can we all agree to put everything else EXCEPT points #1 and #2 to bed?

1.  I'm concerned about Chippewas getting shot down too easily if we take them, but I can count on one hand the number of times I've played Aerotech, so I'll support whatever decision you make.  The Vulcan VLC-8N has two large pulse lasers, two light gauss rifles, and is decently armored, so it might be worth considering as well.
2.  It requires a super heavy vehicle bay and we only have heavy vehicle bays, so I don't think it'll fit on the dropship, but if Travis lets us get away with it, then I'm all for taking them.
Logged

Darrian Wolffe

  • Hazen
  • Administrator
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
    • View Profile
Re: Force Creation Discussion
« Reply #67 on: August 01, 2013, 03:12:08 PM »

-What's the effect of a C3 system on artillery fire?  That should tell us whether it's worth taking the C3 spotter for the Schiltrons.

-I'm still not used to superheavies being common.  Never even occurred to me to check the Paladin for that.  Never mind then, Schiltrons it is. Issue closed?

-Those should be the Grenadier HKs with Magshots.  Forgot about the Narc version completely (I normally see that one listed as Grenadier [narc]).  Issue closed?

-Infiltrator Mk II (sensors) is fine with me.  Issue closed?

-K10 Stukas were listed b/c that's what Travis "assigned" us above.  Mike likes Chippewas.  We can make the Vulcans work, if that's what people want.
Logged

Death or Glory

  • Showers
  • Command Master Sergeant
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: Force Creation Discussion
« Reply #68 on: August 01, 2013, 03:38:19 PM »

-What's the effect of a C3 system on artillery fire?  That should tell us whether it's worth taking the C3 spotter for the Schiltrons.

I don't think it has any effect, but the C3 masters in the Schiltrons can be used to tie the C3 in the Maxim to the C3s in the JES IIs or any other C3 equipped units we have, which could be quite useful.  If you don't think a fast C3 spotter for the JES IIs is worth giving up 8 tons of infantry space, then I'm fine going with two Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard)s.  I just want to make sure you're considering its usefulness in larger than platoon size C3 networks.  That being said, given the amount of ECM that's likely to show up in this campaign, C3 might turn out to be completely useless anyways.

-I'm still not used to superheavies being common.  Never even occurred to me to check the Paladin for that.  Never mind then, Schiltrons it is. Issue closed?

Issue closed.

-Those should be the Grenadier HKs with Magshots.  Forgot about the Narc version completely (I normally see that one listed as Grenadier [narc]).  Issue closed?

Issue closed.

-Infiltrator Mk II (sensors) is fine with me.  Issue closed?

Issue closed.

-K10 Stukas were listed b/c that's what Travis "assigned" us above.  Mike likes Chippewas.  We can make the Vulcans work, if that's what people want.

If Mike likes Chippewas, then I'm fine going with Chippewas.
Logged

agustaaquila

  • Backstabbing Capellan
  • Lieutenant J.G.
  • *****
  • Posts: 1376
    • View Profile
Re: Force Creation Discussion
« Reply #69 on: August 01, 2013, 09:06:42 PM »

Chippewas it is, the other issues are closed.   

Now for the Mechs, a couple of things to keep in mind.  We are a fast raiding group that may be independent of supply chain for periods of time.  Bring 3 mechs that you want to play, we will divide into lances later.  Any other issues to consider before picking units
Logged

ItsTehPope

  • Pontificus Rex
  • Administrator
  • Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 1823
    • View Profile
Re: Force Creation Discussion
« Reply #70 on: August 01, 2013, 10:06:04 PM »

I'm getting married in two weeks and have had to let life totally take over any gaming time.  Its not helping theres a LOT of goalies out hurt right now.
Logged

Death or Glory

  • Showers
  • Command Master Sergeant
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: Force Creation Discussion
« Reply #71 on: August 02, 2013, 12:31:53 AM »

Rob and Mike, I've stated my case, what's the final verdict on our transport assets?
Logged

Darrian Wolffe

  • Hazen
  • Administrator
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
    • View Profile
Re: Force Creation Discussion
« Reply #72 on: August 02, 2013, 12:56:33 AM »

Rob and Mike, I've stated my case, what's the final verdict on our transport assets?

My vote is for standards, because having two of them will allow us to transport the ENTIRE Platoon of Grenadiers/Hauberks in one huge lump.  Given how that platoon *really* wants to work together, and desperately needs transport (it can't hitch rides on Omnis), I feel the use of Standard Maxims outweighs the benefit of having a few more C3 units (I view the Manteuffels as spotters which only need close to medium range to help out the JES's).

I'd love to set up a company-level network if we ever get the capacity for more vehicles, but ensuring that our BA is capable of getting where it needs to be outweighs the need for extra C3 spotters in my mind.
Logged

agustaaquila

  • Backstabbing Capellan
  • Lieutenant J.G.
  • *****
  • Posts: 1376
    • View Profile
Re: Force Creation Discussion
« Reply #73 on: August 02, 2013, 09:26:55 AM »

Rob and Mike, I've stated my case, what's the final verdict on our transport assets?

My vote is for standards, because having two of them will allow us to transport the ENTIRE Platoon of Grenadiers/Hauberks in one huge lump.  Given how that platoon *really* wants to work together, and desperately needs transport (it can't hitch rides on Omnis), I feel the use of Standard Maxims outweighs the benefit of having a few more C3 units (I view the Manteuffels as spotters which only need close to medium range to help out the JES's).

I'd love to set up a company-level network if we ever get the capacity for more vehicles, but ensuring that our BA is capable of getting where it needs to be outweighs the need for extra C3 spotters in my mind.

I agree with Rob.
Logged

Death or Glory

  • Showers
  • Command Master Sergeant
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: Force Creation Discussion
« Reply #74 on: August 02, 2013, 09:43:50 PM »

Okay, it looks like we have our vehicles, battle armor, and aerospace fighters selected.  On to battlemechs then.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10