The Commander Series Forum

Anyone tried making it so that IFVs and the infantry units they carry fight as a single group? I ask because I've recently seen some people basing their mechanized infantry with their carriers on a single base and I quite liked the visual appeal of it. Would it just be a matter of working out the stats, do you think?

I'm not sure it's so easy with *Commander series rules... although if you make a decision and stick to it at least everyone is "equal"

I'd be tempted with FWC (as it's on old style single attack, no AP/AT split) to say give mech infantry decent hits but at best an average save, and say they only take suppression from weapons that are only hard or soft target capable?

That way not-Orks with their soft target only rifles can only suppress and drive off mech infantry, and the same for Smart Missiles but all round capable troops can efficiently target both the vehicles and infantry at the same time?

Not given it much thought, please discuss

Are they based together for visual aspect (and then replaced by 2 bases if troops dismount) or using them as a single fighting unit?

Not quite sure I get what you are intending but then maybe we view IFVs and their passengers differently.

IFVs are just fighting transport. How you would work out the stats for a combined would depends on what you are really trying to achieve. The great thing about IFVs is that the troops can fire out of them and the IFV takes the hits when shot at in an assault and then the troops pile out.

Do you want more fire power for the IFV come infantry unit? More hits?

I have infantry figures mounted on the base of some of my IFVs very much for the visual aspect, but I can't see why I'd want the proper passengers on one base with the IFV and be one unit. The whole point is the infantry can dismout and go where the IFV may struggle.

Infantry inside the IFV of course do move with the the IFV if mounted but as 2 seperate units they count 2 to morale and break etc... If you have 1 unit you do yourself down units and reduce the capability of the army.

You may find it easier just to make up nice bases and have seperate bases as spare for when troops dismount.

Mostly, it's visual appeal, but I was curious whether they could be made into a single "mechanized infantry" unit that fought together, or whether that might defeat the purpose. I'm thinking it is probably stretching the system too far to do it that way. As you say, keeping he infantry as a separate unit lets it go places the carrier can't go.

The genesis of all this is really the fact that I'm working at 3mm scale, with a base representing a platoon. With the infantry I have been using they come in little five-man squads that clip apart into a two and a three. However, I've found other units that can be clipped apart individually, for a more realistic look, and so for fun I tossed together a scenic base with infantry dismounting their carrier, and liked how it looked. I've also seen other people basing that way recently. Which made me wonder if it could be used as a set unit in the game. I'm already kind of tinkering with the freedom of the system by tying it to a TO&E, and keeping track of which carrier is attached to which squad has been a bit of a chore. Plus, infantry at this scale are the hardest and most tedious to base, and present the lowest visible profile, especially next to tanks and such.

What I lean towards at the moment is group basing for "loaded" troops, with separate, possibly different-shaped bases for "dismounted" troops. Combinations like this might break the game a bit unless carefully managed. Though on the other hand that IS what mechanized infantry is supposed to do: fight close to their carriers and act as hard-hitters. I'll just have to think and play test a lot.

Spearhead handles it very well, IMO, treating them as combat teams where you treat them as infantry in cover and as armoured vehicles in the open; however they'll get creamed unsupported against tanks.

But the core of Spearhead lies in the target priority system - so long as you've got them supported by tanks, enemy tanks have to engage the armour first before cherry picking apart the thinner IFVs...

You'd probably need something like that grafted on or give combat teams unusable high stats to prevent them getting blown away immediately?

The logic I'd like to follow is this (and tell me where I'm off the rails). Here, I contrast in my thought process Mecahnized Infantry, attached to their carriers, and Motorized Infantry, carried in battle taxis, trucks, etc.

ARMOR
Pro: High Firepower, long range, heavy armor at range, high mobility
Con: Susceptible to strong point attacks (esp. Smart missiles), mediocre in assault

MECHANIZED INFANTRY
Pro: High mobility, high assault, less susceptible to anti-infantry weapons
Con: Expensive, susceptible to anti-armor attacks, less flexible in rough and dense terrain

MOTORIZED INFANTRY
Pro: Good mobility, flexibility, dismounted infantry can take advantage of terrain, low profile, inexpensive compared to Mechanized Infantry
Con: APCs are susceptible to anti-armor attacks, loss of carriers limits mobility, must deploy infantry before it can be of use in combat

INFANTRY
Pro: Low profile, flexible, high assault, advantage in terrain, inexpensive
Con: susceptible to anti-infantry weapons, slow, vulnerable in open terrain, lacks heavy anti-armor attack unless upgraded.

This is just the basic stuff, too. There's also advanced units to consider: Hovercraft will feature heavily in the game campaign I'm setting up, as well as powered armor, airborne, etc. too much to consider. And motorized infantry is not going to feature too heavily I don't think - the setting is mostly Mech Infantry-centric. I'm close to finding a solution I can play test, I think. Spearhead is a good example of the direction I'm tending.

FWC to my mind is a bit too low scale to worry about - I can visualise it more as one model is one real world vehicle, or even at one is a platoon it's all close enough the mech can operate independent to the boot (like BMPs in Afghanistan).

Spearhead is a bit higher level and I think ican visualise it better with them combined...

Shouldn't stop you fiddling about to achieve what you want though, an I'm all ears for the results

Ah, I get it now.

I don't know Spearhead but agree you may struggle to reflect what you want in the FWC mechanics.

At 3mm scale I'd be tempted to just knock up exta bases in case you wish to split some. In all the games I've had mechanised infantry never really end up far from their IFV so double base, explain to your opponent and enjoy your vignettes.

Pictures please!!

This type of basing caused us endless problems with spearhead, as it has 2 attacks AI/AT which did you use.

IanS

MSH and ICT's - never found them complex? Been a while since I played it, but if the ICT is the target, it's treated as using its AI Def if in cover or its AT def in the open.

If it's doing the shooting it's only got one set of attacks as normal (and applies what ever is relevant to the target it's shooting at), plus possibly an ATGW attack.

If you permanently dismount the vehicles and send them to the rear then you drop back to using foot infantry stats of the appropriate type.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled Commander Series talk!