OBT Forum

Sure...

http://battletech.equals5.com/

Here you go - PM if you want something else.

*-Edit

Oh, its under e-pubs.

Quote from: JPArbiter on November 24, 2012, 12:51:44 PM

XTRO Dead Ends- a series of serviceable but ultimately failed military designs.

I believe they've already made that. It was called the DC sections of most TROs.

I was thinking of a series of Mechs that were the equivalent to the Real Life F-20 Tigershark Fighter.  Privately commissioned by defense contractors, but ultimately never purchased by anyone.  that alone would have been a great hook for an un named fan product.

Me.
 It's not so much a sourcebook, but a missed opportunity in them. I am a 80s gamer who came up through the historical side playing you guessed it! Endless games in multiple systems of what happens when the Big Bad Russian Bear crossed into the Fulda Gap! (You gotta capitalize the Big and Bad and use the exclamation here!). I still have my copies of Isby's books about NATO and the Soviet Army.

  So, where does this lead with Battletech? Well, to me, they missed the opportunities to really define doctrine for the IS armies? How do each of them approach what the Soviets would have called the Operational Art? (Yes, it's what they called it and when you look at what they did to the Wehrmacht in WWII? They were artists as time went on).

   For example, a Steiner recon doctrine is going to be different than a Marik one, and a Davion different than either. The army capabilities are different, and the way they approach them are different. Trust, me, a US division commander and a Soviet division commander aren't going to approach taking an objective in the same manner. Hell, even definitions of the principles of military science are different. For example, the US thinks of surprise as a principle, and sees deception as part of that principle. The Soviets? They saw them as different principles, and planned accordingly, and built their army to match.

   Sure, I doubt Battletech players are going to be running battalions on the table that often (other than using quick strike rules) but it adds something to understanding those armies besides "Oh, it's a Steiner Lance, guess no Hermes then". Furthermore, they could have done a rewrite of Battleforce that incorporated these "softer" factors (I thought the Command Chit was too, too random) and really captured the essence of the armies at that level.

    Yes, I know...shut up Panzer, you are boring us silly.

I'd love to hear more Panzer!

Well,
 Color me surprised and honored! I am happy for the response. Usually when I propose this, it's the reaction mentioned at the last sentence of the effort.

  The way I saw it was thus. Each nation got a section that went over it's history, the structure of the army, and how it had evolved over time and moreover, how it saw the various threats to it's national sovereignty.  We'd then move on to how it approached military science and operational doctrine (Company to Regimental level) in the attack, defense, and special situations. Structure would be a lot like David Isby's Armies of NATO's Central Front.

  I'd love to base it in the 3049 time frame, but to be honest, then I'd have to do the Clans, and that's where the difficult part comes in. The Clans are great warriors to be sure, but they're kinda lost at the operational level when staff work becomes important, look at Tukayyid. Kill three mechs right out of sibko? Congrats, you're a Star Captain. So writing such works for the Clans would be fun, but I know I'd be ripping the Clans up one end and down the other....


   

I realise it's not quite the same thing but the way the Successor State armies clung to the old SLDF organisation always griped me. Even if they all adopted it during the SL and the ex-SL shipping was set up for it, it'd make sense for them to have each gone their own way during the Succession Wars e.g. a DCMS regiment is 125 mechs strong divided into 5 companies, each of 5 lances of 5'Mechs would fit their fondness for that number and for swarming Panthers and Jenners across the battlefield.

The CCAF, on the other hand, might structure their forces around permanent battalions with four companies of 12 each and a command lance (for 52 total) and group them in administrative brigades of varying sizes. So the Sian Reserves, instead of being two regiments of 2 battalions each, would be a single brigade of four battalions. This would fit their traditional reluctance to give military officers too much power.

On the gripping hand, the LCAF with its rank-heavy tendencies would probably retain a complex set-up of brigades and divisions to create enough 'command slots' for huge numbers of Generals.

This is some really interesting stuff guys. Anyone want to start a dedicated thread for development? We could always limit it to the InnerSphere.

Drakensis you make some very interesting points for BattleTech Shattered Dawn to exploit.