TABLE #1 INFANTRY PLATOON TO-HIT PERCENTAGES (UNMODIFIED) Type RANGE (in hexes) 0 1 2 3 Rifle 100-000 91.667 72.222 - MG* 100-000 91.667 72.222 41.667 Flamer 97.222 91.667 72.222 - Laser 100-000 91.667 72.222 41.667 As any experienced urban MechWarrior would testify, infantry has a useful - but decidedly secondary - role on the 31st Century battlefield. Yet the modern-day infantryman often has his best chance of surviving when surrounded by the protective structures of a city. Line-of-sight evasion and obstructing cover, two interrelated keys to longevity, give the unarmored foot soldier a slim - but nevertheless real chance to survive multi-story BattleMechs and equally fearsome armored vehicles. This opportunity rarely exists for the lowly infantryman in open terrain. In determining their approximate effectiveness in combat, infantry platoons armed and equipped with various weapons have different point values, measured in terms of "tonnage". (the 'INFANTRY UNITS TABLE' on pg 36 of CityTech, shows each unit's relative worth in the 'Cost/Tonnage' column.) Compared to BattleMechs, it is clear that infantry - or at least most types of infantry - or at least most types of infantry have low values and presumably, little combat worth. To quote Col L.R. "Butch" Leeper: "In the 31st Century, life is cheap, but BattleMechs aren't." Are all infantry units created equally, however? Are they all a poor bargain, or more to the point here, are certain types of infantry platoon more cost-effectives than other types? This article examines the overall effectiveness of each type of conventional infantry platoon in terms of movement, weapon type, damage potential, and range, and determines the best choices in terms of overall combat value per unit cost in "tonnage". Hitting the Target As with any other military unit or vehicle, the infantry platoon must have weapons with enough range to strike its target. The only difference is that infantry weapons in general have a far shorter range than vehicle-mounted weapons (as much a reality in the 31 st Century as it was a millenium ago). Information in the 'TO-HIT NUMBER OF INFANTRY WEAPONS' table from page 35 of CityTech, reproduced here by permission of the FASA Corporation, indirectly demonstrates the effectiveness of each platoon weapon at various ranges, unmodified by terrain or movement modifiers. By calculating the percentages at each range for each weapon, we can see more clearly just how effective the weapon is (see Table # 1). Note that flamers and SRM missiles may not always strike their targets automatically, even at point-blank range (again, no modifiers are taken into consideration) To-Hit Numbers of Infantry Weapons Type Weapon Range in Hexes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rifle 2 4 6 - - - - MG 2 4 6 8 - - - Flamer 3 4 6 - - - - Laser 2 4 6 8 - - - SRM 3 4 4 6 6 8 8 This table from CityTech is reproduced by permission of the FASA Corporation. Inflicting Damage As we have seen, on the average a platoon will hit a target at a certain range a certain percentage of the time. That platoon, upon hitting its target, will also inflict a certain amount of damage (back to the to-hit table, under 'Maximum Damage'). For purposes of all calculations, let's assume that all platoons are at full strength (i.e., either 21 or 28 men, depending on the type of platoon). By multiplying the To-Hit percentages (in Table #1) by the full-strength damage potential, we can then calculate the mean (average) damage points per platoon attack. The hits and misses are averaged together mathematically, with the results appearing in Table #2. Naturally, a jump platoon armed with a particular weapon will cause less damage than a non-jump platoon with the same weaponry because the jump unit possesses fewer men. TABLE # 2 MEAN DAMAGE POINTS PER PLATOON ATTACK Type Weapon Range in Hexes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rifle Foot 7.000 6.417 5.056 - - - - Mech* 7.000 6.417 5.056 - - - - Jump 6.000 5.500 4.333 - - - - Machine Gun Foot 10.000 9.167 7.222 4.167 - - - Mech 10.000 9.167 7.222 4.167 - - - Jump 7.000 6.417 5.056 2.917 - - - Flamer Foot 9.722 9.167 7.222 - - - - Mech 9.722 9.167 7.222 - - - - Jump 6.806 6.417 5.056 - - - - Laser Foot 14.000 12.833 10.111 5.833 - - - Mech 14.000 12.833 10.111 5.833 - - - Jump 11.000 10.083 7.944 4.583 - - - SRM Foot 13.611 12.833 12.833 10.111 10.111 5.833 5.833 Mech 13.611 12.833 12.833 10.111 10.111 5.833 5.833 Jump 10.694 10.083 10.083 7.944 7.944 4.583 4.583 *In these tables, 'Mech' refers to 'mechanized infantry', not to BattleMechs Damage Per 'Ton' Now that we know the mean amount of damage inflicted by each platoon at each range, we can divide the damage by that platoon's original cost in 'tons'. This gives us the mean damage of each unit's relative worth. For example, since a foot rifle platoon costs 7 points and averages 5.056 points of damage at an attack range of 60 meters (two hexes); it inflicts 0.7222 points of damage for each point of unit cost. On the other hand, when a jump rifle platoon costs 30 points and averages 4.333 damage points at the same range, it only produces 0.1444 points of damage for each point of unit cost. Based on this alone, the foot platform is four times more efficient than the jump platoon! To some, this might seem like the final answer. Each platoon does so much damage per ton, so the wise infantry commander always selects foot rifles, machine guns, or lasers, and consistently gets the most for his 'money'. First, though, we have to make sure we aren't leaving anything out. Tangibles vs. Intangibles In combat, four battlefield-tangible characteristics make up an infantry unit's combat effectiveness: attack strength, attack range, defense strength, and movement. Morale is the result of combat losses, availability of ammunition, reductions due to attrition or lack of supply, and other less tangible factors are generally not taken into immediate consideration (and where they are deemed important, special guidelines are presented). Let's examine each of the four combat effectiveness factors to find out which are variable and which remain more or less constant. Except for casualty loss, the unit attack strength is a relatively fixed attribute, regardless of the tactical situation, nature of attacker, composition of target, or range. In general, a 10-point hit is a 10-point hit, period. This is partly because weapons effectiveness does not vary between target types. The defense strength rating is another constant. The unit's defensive strength is exactly the same for all units of the same size; protective cover modifies each unit by the same factor. Therefore, the unit's cost factor has no relationship to the defensive prowess of the unit. However, the unit's movement and attack range are another matter. As we have seen in Table #2, the attack range has a direct effect on potential for damage, but because the weapons have different hit probabilities at different ranges, the result is not simple multiplication. For example, a combat unit with a range of four hexes is not intrinsically twice as effective as a unit with a two-hex range; say, 50 percent more effective, perhaps. Finally there is the factor of the unit's movement. In general, movement for infantry units had three primary effects. One, the greater the movement, the faster the unit can enter (and exit) battle. Two, the greater the movement, the better chance the unit can survive to reach protective cover (more favorable terrain or a more powerful friendly unit). Three, the greater the movement, the better chance the unit has to get in range to conduct its attack. The question remains: which one of these effects is most important? After all, in most infantry-related battles the fastest infantry unit is slower than the slowest noninfantry unit (usually it will also be a much weaker combatant). After some thought, we can ignore the first effect. the infantry platoon is probable in the area already, and it seems unlikely that the movement factor of an infantry unit marching from off-board would play a major role in any combat engagement. On the other hand, if the unit is trying to exit, there's a good chance that something big and nasty would demolish it before it could escape. (An analogy from ancient Terran history may be helpful: the life expectancy of a lieutenant leading his World War I [early 20-Century European] Western Front trench and going 'over the top' was something on the order of 90 seconds -- or the time now required to fire nine BattleMech salvoes. I suspect few infantry platoons engaged in 'head-to-head combat against AFV's or 'Mechs would ever last that long.) The second effect goes back to the unit's defensive strength. A pile of protective rubble just within movement range of a mechanized infantry platoon may help keep the unit alive when it might have been destroyed had it been foot infantry. Chances are, however, that the unit is merely prolonging the inevitable. This leaves the third effect: getting into range to attack. (The following description is given in terms of the CityTech infantry combat simulator game for ease of explanation). The sequence of play in CityTech has movement taking place before combat. This means a unit that is just out of range may move into range and then attempt an attack (assuming that its target does not move back out of range during its own segment of the movement phase). In some cases, the platoon's attack range is so short that 'running assaults' may be the only viable tactic. For example, afoot rifle platoon is provided with its choice of stationary targets at various ranges. The unit (with an attack range of two hexes) may or may not move during its movement phase. If the unit is three hexes away from the desired target, it may move its limit of one hex, making it two hexes away and now within attack range. Thus, targets that were three hexes away before the movement phase was completed may be attacked by a foot rifle platoon with a range of two hexes. By the same token, targets at point-blank range or one hex away (before movement) may be attacked at point-blank range (after movement). TABLE # 3 MEAN DAMAGE POINTS PER PLATOON 'TON' (not adjusted for movement) Type Weapon Range in Hexes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rifle Foot 1.000 .9167 .7222 - - - - Mech .3333 .3056 .2407 - - - - Jump .2000 .1833 .1444 - - - - Machine Gun Foot 1.000 .9167 .7222 .4167 - - - Mech .3333 .3056 .2407 .1389 - - - Jump .2500 .2292 .1806 .1042 - - - Flamer Foot .9722 .9167 .7222 - - - - Mech .3241 .3056 .2407 - - - - Jump .2431 .2292 .1806 - - - - Laser Foot 1.000 .9167 .7222 .4167 - - - Mech .5000 .4583 .3611 .2083 - - - Jump .3333 .3056 2407 .1389 - - - SRM Foot .9722 .9167 .9167 .7222 .7222 .4167 .4167 Mech .4861 .4583 .4583 .3611 .3611 .2083 .2083 Jump .3241 .3056 .3056 .2407 .2407 .1389 .1389 This effect of infantry movement can significantly improve the unit's chances of making a high-percentage attack. Obviously, the greater the infantry unit's movement, the farther away the target maybe and still come under fire after the infantry unit's movement is complete. Table #4, adapted from Table #2, shows the mean damage per platoon 'ton' after each unit's maximum movement is taken into consideration. For a faster long-range unit such as a jump SRM platoon (with a movement of two hexes and a range of six), targets starting as far away as eight hexes could be attacked during a single movement-combat turns, and any target within two hexes might be 'close-assaulted' at at range of zero. TABLE # 4 MEAN DAMAGE POINTS PER PLATOON 'TON' (adjusted for movement) Type Weapon Range in Hexes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rifle Foot 1.000 1.000 .9167 .7222 - - - - - Mech .3333 .3333 .3333 .3333 .3056 .2407 - - - Jump .2000 .2000 .2000 .2000 .2000 .1833 .1444 - - Machine Gun Foot 1.000 1.000 .9167 .7222 .4167 - - - - Mech .3333 .3333 .3333 .3333 .3056 .2407 .1389 - - Jump .2500 .2500 .2500 .2500 .2292 .1806 .1042 - - Flamer Foot .9722 .9722 .9167 .7222 - - - - - Mech .3241 .3241 .3241 .3241 .3056 .2407 - - - Jump .2431 .2431 .2431 .2431 .2292 .1806 - - - Laser Foot 1.000 1.000 .9167 .7222 .4167 - - - - Mech .5000 .5000 .5000 .4583 .3611 .2083 - - - Jump .3333 .3333 .3333 .3333 .2407 .1389 .1389 - - SRM Foot .9722 .9722 .9167 .9167 .7222 .7222 .4167 .4167 - Mech .4861 .4861 .4861 .4583 .4583 .3611 .3611 .2083 .2083 Jump .3241 .3241 .3241 .3056 .3056 .2407 .2407 .1389 .1389 A Few Good Warriors While all the numbers are being crunched, it only makes sense to take a quick look at the damage inflicted by eachperson in the platoon. The modern Art of War places little emphasis on the individual infantry-warrior, except as a small box to be checked off as casualties mount and offensive firepower decreases. Still it seemed worthwhile to look at how well each warrior performed. The number in Table #5 are based on the total mean damage by platoon attack (Table #2) divided by the number of men in each full-complement platoon. TABLE # 5 MEAN DAMAGE POINTS PER MAN (not adjusted for movement) Type Weapon Range in Hexes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rifle Foot .2500 .2292 .1806 - - - - Mech .2500 .2292 .1806 - - - - Jump .2857 .2619 .2063 - - - - Machine Gun Foot .3571 .3274 .2579 .1488 - - - Mech .3571 .3274 .2579 .1488 - - - Jump .3333 .3056 .2408 .1389 - - - Flamer Foot .3472 .3274 .2579 - - - - Mech .3472 .3274 .2579 - - - - Jump .3241 3056 .2408 - - - - Laser Foot .5000 .4583 .3611 .2083 - - - Mech .5000 .4583 3611 .2083 - - - Jump .5238 .4801 .3783 .2182 - - - SRM Foot .4861 .4583 .4583 .3611 .3611 .2083 .2083 Mech .4861 .4583 .4583 .3611 .3611 .2083 .2083 Jump .5092 .4801 .4801 .3783 .3783 .2182 .2182 Some interesting conclusions can be drawn from this as well. In most - but not all - cases, individual warriors in the jump platoons outperformed their foot and mechanized counterparts. It can be presumed that these warriors are more highly trained and more expensively equipped, which should add to their effectiveness as it seems to here. The least effective warriors, man for man were those equipped with rifles, though they remain among the most cost-effective in terms of 'tonnage'; an interesting, but not surprising, contradiction. This result leads to "Freeman's Favorites". The damage-to-cost rations and rankings in Table #6 were obtained by adding up all the number on Table #4 for each type of infantry platoon, then dividing by nine (for zero through eight hexes, inclusive), to get the overall mean based on every possible range for each unit. The units with the longest effective range adjusted for movement could attack a target eight hexes away, thus setting the standard by which all other units were compared. If the unit could not attack a target that far away, tough! For what it's worth, my pick for the best overall infantry platoon is the foot SRM platoon, with a tie for second place between the foot laser and the foot machine gun platoons. Keep in mind, however, that just because these may be the best overall infantry units does not mean they will be available. Equipment shortages and inadequate training remain relatively common in the 31st Century, and weapon limitations should reflect this in simulation. Many times (now as in the past) the 'poor bloody infantry" has had to use second best. There will also be tactical situations where one platoon weapon is advantageous over another, regardless of relative efficiency. If I had to start a forest fire, I wouldn't choose rifle platoons no matter how cheap or cost-efficient they were. Likewise, flamers aren't much use in shooting down AeroSpace Fighters. Common sense must prevail in these instances. All in all, though, Table #6 shows that a foot SRM platform is three times as effective as a mechanized machinegun platoon, four times as effective as a jump machine gun platoon, and so on. Incidentally, now that movement has been taken into consideration, the foot rifle platoon is only 174 percent more efficient than the jump rifle platoon, not 400 percent as described earlier! One last observation: the jump infantry platoons, as a whole, do not fare well in terms of overall combat efficiency. This is because they are quite expensive (as can clearly be seen) for the amount of damage they inflict. Insufficient information has been compiled on the role, purpose or advantages of such platoons in combat, or detailing what the individual factors are which make them cost so much. Therefore they could not receive the special treatment here which they would undoubtedly deserve if more specific details were known about them. TABLE 6: OVERALL DAMAGE-TO-COST RATIO (adjusted for movement) aka FREEMAN'S FAVORITES 1. SRM Foot Infantry Platoon .6728 2. (tie) Laser Foot Infantry Platoon .4506 2. (tie) Machine Gun Foot Infantry Platoon .4506 4. Rifle Foot Infantry Platoon .4043 5. Flamer Foot Infantry Platoon .3981 6. SRM Mech Infantry Platoon .3904 7. Laser Mech Infantry Platoon .2809 8. SRM Jump Infantry Platoon .2603 9. Machine Gun Mech Infantry Platoon .2243 10. Rifle Mech Infantry Platoon .2088 11. Flamer Mech Infantry Platoon .2047 12. Laser Jump Infantry Platoon .1872 13. MG Jump Infantry Platoon .1682 14. Flamer Jump Infantry Platoon .1536 15. Rifle Jump Infantry Platoon .1475 Back to BattleTechnology 8 Table of Contents Back to BattleTechnology List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 1989 by Pacific Rim Publishing. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com