Battletech: Mass Infantry Attack List

I’m honored to be a part of your gaming life, and I hope my content and tactica have given you some new ideas for your next game. Support for my continued TH-cam and blog content can be directed here: ko-fi.com/warg...
See you on the tabletop!

[@spamuraigranatabru1149]

There is no god because I have been put on this green earth to do only the best lists in battletech accomplishable for the narrative. This is that list.

[@trilit2]

"The grate thing about battletech is the worst thing about battletech."
I just had an urbie in sunglasses flash before my eyes for a moment.

[@goodbodha]

The more I play the more I want combined arms to be the usual and not the exception. Im not saying folks should go heavy into it, but I think every good sized game should have a few stands of infantry and a few tanks on the field. Im not a huge proponent of aerospace fighters simply because its a layer of rules that many people aren't familiar with.
So to that end I think everyone should have several stands of infantry, a few tracked tanks, a few hovertanks, and perhaps 1 or 2 vtols in their collection. You dont have to play them all the time, but playing infantry when you are on the defensive is a fun experience. Playing with heavily armored tracked tanks and watching them grind to a halt but keep firing makes for an exciting game. Hover tanks running down the flank or zipping out to rail someone with a bunch of srm or a big AC is just fun to watch.

[@Magermh]

A standard lance of infantry is three platoons. Likely your going to have SRM but I run a more standard list of one rifle, MG, and SRM wheeled mechanized units. All three of my units are 202 BV as anti-mech is useless for mechanized units and you can leave it at 8. That is a lot of infantry. For management sake I try to have a unit cap at 18 as that is two companies of infantry. Mechanized infantry normally have the same restrictions for their motive type as vehicles. I play motorized unit normally but that is tons of infantry. When ever that comes to mind how am I going to get them to a fight or objective to be useful BV. Their are lots of infantry types that many plays have never played with or against. And most of their weakness is in tear gas SRMs. That tells me your going to have to up your BV for XCT suits over stealth suits.
...
Lets say your running my normal mechanized "mech" and motorized "motor" infantry "inf" line. Your ending up with 3 mech inf MG, SRM, Rifle, 3/8 ,202 BV. Three heavy hover APC 4/4 207 BV each. With three motor inf Rifle AA, MG, Gauss rifle, anti-mech trained, at 4/4 are 304 BV. And filler of a Savannah Master, 2/3, BV 361. That is a 1489 BV lineup that could keep pace with a Locust. Your able to slot in any lance of heavy tanks and slow medium to fast heavy mechs. Forgive the details but I would never run pure infantry. As infantry are stronger with the other units. My biggest issues with infantry is transports.

[@kamilpawlowski6576]

Brining all infantry allows you to exploit the heck out of the initiative system and will probably make your opponents never want to play with you again. You spend 3/4 the time just moving your dudes. But if you are going to do it: mechanized infantry jump infantry and field guns are a must.

[@Beatnik59]

A lot of good takeaways in this video, especially about the "compression" angle. Indeed, no other unit type in BattleTech is better at denying the enemy the ability to maneuver than conventional foot infantry. They are great on the defense, when the enemy has to come to you. If you have to get to the enemy...well...that's a challenge, as infantry is both slow and generally short ranged. If a player is advancing infantry columns over a hex map or more, those units are going to get decimated before they are even in a position to fire their first shots.
Now there are infantry options a player can take that are faster than foot infantry, things like jump infantry and mechanized platoons. But they get that speed by sacrificing a lot of the robustness of the foot platoons, while doing nothing to offset the range problem. Anyway you slice it, infantry assaults are going to have to get close, and the closer the better.
You could put BV into specialized transports, things like APCs, to get platoons closer. Fritz likes using VTOLs like the Karnov to get infantry close. It's fast, but fragile, and it's going to have to find a safe place to land if it wants to deploy the 28 man foot platoons. You can jump infantry out with jump packs, so it doesn't need to land, but these platoons are less robust than the foot platoons. I like using heavy hover carriers like the Maxim to deliver platoons. Very expensive, but they can take a few hits, and they are more survivable. They aren't as fast as the airlift, but they can use cover to shield their approach.
There are tradeoffs for any transport option, but whatever option you choose, understand that these are probably going to be high priority targets for most players who will try to take it out before the drop can be made. If you can find some corner of the map, something that is unoccupied, this might be a better drop point than one right in the heart of the enemy lines. That way, your platoons can compress from two fronts, instead of just one.

[@hraughr]

A Crossbow with 16 AP Gauss rifles walks in to a bar...

[@edwardclay7551]

I recently picked up an Infantry regiment.... with enough spare to run a Clan Binary or Trinary on top

[@MrFleem]

Pretty damn unwieldy on the tabletop, but it's doable in Megamek, since the computer handles the bookkeeping for you. The last game I played on megamak was actually an 800 bv infantry vs infantry battle. Went pretty well, but we didn't have time to finish.

[@Logajam.]

It would be a shame if someone brought some thermobaric artillery shells and ruined your whole day.
Which is why I don't go heavily into infantry anymore. Too vulnerable to artillery.
Also bring pike support vehicles instead of the ppc carriers. Triple ac-2 will draw enemies in closer faster then triple ppcs

[@Gib01]

Are those shells allowed by the Ares conventions?

[@Logajam.]

@@Gib01
Based on what is probably in appendices I through L, assuming they're similar to the Geneva Conventions, Probably.
Based on Addendum II. There is nothing legally preventing you from using them.

[@shermanhightower7658]

Long winded opinions but you say nothing.