Jump to content

12-Man Lance Configurations

Tactics

9 replies to this topic

#1 SethAbercromby

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 1,308 posts
  • LocationNRW, Germany

Posted 26 July 2014 - 09:29 PM

Lances are often underrated in their improtance in less competetive areas. First off, I am by no means a competetive player, but I like to think that I know a thing or two about field tactics.

Okay, the whole principle of Lance configuration falls into the model of role-warfare (which according to some may or may not exist in this game, but that's for another topic). The overall principle bedind this is pretty straigtforward. Each Lance specializes for a specific set of tasks and then use a coordinated approach to take the win by tactical superiority. The executuion, of course, takes a competent team that knows how to adapt on the battlefield as well as trusting your teammates to fulfill their respective roles.

Three configurations as well as a few compatible tactics came to my mind that I'd like to share. Add in any configurations as well as tactics to hopefully make this one large encyclopedia of lance-based tactics for coordinated 12-man teams in and outside of a competetive environment.

But before that, here's two terms I'll be using, that I'd like to clarify beforehand: Link-in and Link-out.

When using the term Link-in, I'll be referring to a 'Mech integrating itself into a Lance to act as a part of it.

Link-out is the exact opposite of that. It referrs to a 'Mech disconnecting from it's current Lance. This can for example be the 'Mech extending further from its Lance than usual for an individual task, or to link into another lance.

In my personal opinion, a Lance should never exceed the number of 5 'Mechs, or fall below the number of 3. So when the number of 'Mechs reaches 9, a desirable distribution would be 3/3/3, then 5/3 (leftovers from 3rd Lance assimilate into (next) heaviest Lance), then 4/3, then 3/3, then 5 (1st and 2nd Lance merge).

The three configurations are sorted by ascending complexity.

The weight-centered configuration:
Spoiler

This configuration is extremely straighforward, but can still operate quite efficiently.

The Assault Lance operates as the central pivot of combat, while the Light and Medium Lance operate around it in a certain radius. It provides a strong fortification both Lances can savely fall back to, which makes it very durable, but limits the range of operations and makes them very centralized. Three Assaults in one spot can dominate a position while a Heavy Sniper provides additional fire support to take down any advancing targets.

The Medium Lance acts as a flanking force and reinforcement to the Assault lance, providing adaptive fire support. It need a decent amount of speed to be able to quickly relocate to any position to provide the best fire coverage. Its main goal is to keep the Assault Lance alive for as long as absolutely possible and eliminate any crippled 'Mechs in the vicinity.

The Light Lance acts as recon squad and rapid-response team. The Medium is intended to move some distance behind the Lights to prevent ambushes to the vulnerable Lance and securing an escape path. It should equip weapons with a decent range to slow down any pursuers, be fast anough to quickly follow behind the Lights once they entered the escape route and have enough torso twist to still be able to shoot at pursuers until they get out of range. The roles for this Lance include scouting, harassment, as well as flanking and ambushes. They usually operate on the opposite side to the Assault Lance than the Medium lance to provide a large area of awareness on enemy movements to avoid any nasty surprises for the Assault Lance.

Since this configuration usually has little need for linking, Lance commanders will usually be enough to control the flow of combat and direct the individual Lances for high efficiency.

A role-centered configuration:
Spoiler

This configuration is still pretty straigforward in terms of team-wide tactics. Each Lance takes a very specific set of roles, which decentralizes the range of operations, but makes the overall composition a bit more vulnerable.

The composition of the Recon Lance as 2/2 rather than 3/1 makes the Lance slighly less vulnerable at the trade-off of reduced mobility. The Lance does still operate very much the same, but uses the Support Lance as its operational pivot and covers the area opposite to the Striker Lance.

The Support Lance fulfills two primary roles: Bridging the gap between the Striker and Recon Lance and acting as a second line support to the former. The Support Lance acts as a mobile safe haven for the Recon Lance. Whenever possible, the two Lances should position themselves in a way that allows the Recon Lance a fast and secure path of retreat, while the Support Lance can still assist the Striker Lance with cover fire or providing reinforcements via the linking tactics. However, at least one Assault and Heavy should always be present to ensure a secure retreat for the Recon Lance and deny the enemy the possibility to push them back to seperate the other two Lances. The composition intends the Assault to secure the position, while the Heavy 'Mechs provide heavy support fire for the Striker Lance. The Light acts to pick off any crippled 'Mechs in the vicinity. In case the front line of combat shifts to their position, rather than the Striker Lance, Linking in an Assault from the Striker Lance and adding the Light to their ranks effectively switches their positions without the need of a large logistical effort (due to its centralized position, the Support Lance needs to act as a fortification, while the Striker Lance becomes a flanking force).

The Striker Lance is the frontline Lance. It's composed for durability and staying power to draw enemy attention. This Lance acts as the pivot of the combat line. When they advance, the Support follows. If they need to retreat, the Support covers them before falling back themselves. One of the tasks of the Striker Lance on the advance is to open a path for the Support Lance and to secure positions where the Support Lance can offer as much fire support as possible. The Two Assaults can easily control choke points while the Heavy Sniper deals severe direct fire damage to the same targets. The Medium uses its agility to strike from blind spots, to hunt isolated targets and to identify and secure escape routes. This way, the Lance can adapt very quickly to changes at the front line both to their own or to their enemies' favor.

Lance commanders will usually suffice for sucessful Lance coordination, but having a field commander to direct the linkings could be desirable, depending on the scale and range of operations.

Special mention:
As most are aware, the Cicada is in a lot of ways a slighly heavier Light 'Mech. Because of that, a Cicada should not be used as a Vanguard when it can be avoided to do so. It does however make an excellent Flanker.

The Omni-task configuration:
Spoiler

When looked at only from the lance configuration and name, this whould appear to be a simple structure, that allows each lance a broad spectrum of tasks to fulfill, but lacks specialization. However, using the ideas of Link-in and Link-out, this structure becomes increasingly complex and offers a huge amount of freedom on the field.

This configuration operates very centralized to allow its members to quickly respond to changes on the field. It allows the team to mimic almost any functional configuration to adapt to any scenario due to its very short configuration times. It even offers a quick way to establish a 4th Lance to increase the range of operations and then collapse the one furthest away from combat to the front line when needed. This makes it unpredictable to the enemy and extremely flexible.

This configuration is extremely potent in the hands of a chess-master type field commander, but it is very difficult to manage and coordinate.


Phew, that's quite a bit to swallow. Tell me what you guys think and share your own ideas and input. I'm very interested what others have come up with and where I might be wrong (since I'm not a competetive player, I haven't really seen any of these established in an actual combat scenario).

#2 John1352

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,025 posts
  • LocationConnecting....

Posted 26 July 2014 - 10:52 PM

In the group queue, I find that the deathball is a devastating tactic on maps with some cover. It is pretty simple, everyone groups up, ideally under ECM, and you push towards the enemy, preferably in a position where you have a local numerical advantage. It is also fairly easy to coordinate when playing with other small groups. A lance can die extremely quickly when faced with 12 mechs.

#3 SethAbercromby

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 1,308 posts
  • LocationNRW, Germany

Posted 27 July 2014 - 04:27 AM

The deathball has nothing to do with lance-based tactics. Besides, the whole idea of lance coordination is proximity to the other lances, chosing locations where the support lance has a direct field of fire on approaching 'Mechs and being able to replace lost 'Mechs in the front line Lance. A deathball can be effective when it rolls through an unsuspecting and less coordinated team, but when shot at from multiple sides by two or more lances, the formation usually falls apart fairly quickly.

#4 JigglyMoobs

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,445 posts

Posted 30 July 2014 - 11:54 PM

View PostJohn1352, on 26 July 2014 - 10:52 PM, said:

In the group queue, I find that the deathball is a devastating tactic on maps with some cover. It is pretty simple, everyone groups up, ideally under ECM, and you push towards the enemy, preferably in a position where you have a local numerical advantage. It is also fairly easy to coordinate when playing with other small groups. A lance can die extremely quickly when faced with 12 mechs.


By a death ball you mean like this?

http://www.twitch.tv...754?t=03h13m30s

:)

JK, more seriously, I think lances work great on some maps in some game modes but on other smaller maps it may not work as well because you don't have enough time to react. Seth put forth some good concepts. Just keep in mind that actual implementation is very fluid and situational.

The game before that we faced a much tougher team and there was definitely a moment where we formed a temporary "heavy lance" to spearhead the push:

http://www.twitch.tv...754?t=02h57m30s

Edited by JigglyMoobs, 30 July 2014 - 11:55 PM.


#5 Kin3ticX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • The People
  • 2,926 posts
  • LocationSalt Mines of Puglandia

Posted 31 July 2014 - 01:34 AM

Some thoughts, feedback

In the 12s queue, for a good while, a typical baseline configuration was 8 Cataphracts and 4 Jenners. Before the 3/3/3/3 limit came along this configuration was essentially scaled up or down depending on whatever self-imposed tonnage/class rules took place. Yeah, you probably guessed it, 8 Highlanders and 4 Jenners, or 8 Shadowhawks and 4 Jenners.

Now with 3/3/3/3, the same thing is still pretty much going on except you have a bit more variety. If encountering a serious team today, you may run into 3 Dragonslayers, 3 Timbers/CTFs, 3 SHDs, and a mix of Jenners and Embers totaling 3.


Regarding the tactics suggested, I think you spark some curiosity but I am also skeptical your tactics paint a realistic picture.
  • Are any lance leaders saying "Hawk leader, this is Fire Leader, Code Red"?..........probably not.....
Unfortunately, lances and role warfare don't play an awful large part in this game but some improvements have been made.




For example, regarding lances, typical teams don't really manage themselves by lance beyond spawning in groups of 4 and meeting up. After that its really just a 12-man force. AFAIK, most teams have organically gone with managing their 'Mechs with a drop commander and a light leader if only to cut down on chatter.

Regarding role warfare, what you really see is the stacking of metabuilds to achieve best possible "decks" without much consideration in role warfare. Focused themes tend to trump generalist themes.

This is why you might opt for 4 direct fire "meta" 'Mechs rather than a NARC/spotter and 3 LRM bracket mix builds. While both can be devastating one includes a lot more situational risk then the other(buildings, cover, bad map, ecm, etc can render LRM tonnage a dead weight) The main difference now being the NARC isn't complete worthless garbage anymore.

Sorry this got so long.....

Somebody from a comp team did make a 12s guide of their own, its right here in case anyone is curious

http://www.reddit.co..._12s_seriously/

Edited by Kin3ticX, 31 July 2014 - 01:45 AM.


#6 JigglyMoobs

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,445 posts

Posted 31 July 2014 - 03:25 AM

One thing to keep in mind is that the better players know to self organize into de facto lances for different situations. In a push, people will form up into loose stacks with assaults in front, then the mediums and the heavies will break out in support while the lights run in a pack. A lot of this is done via situational awareness without explicit instructions from the leadership. Voice comm is reserved for communicating intent, priority targets and urgent intel.

The results look disorganized but is actually just organized enough to win without being overly rigid and constraining on individual initiatives.

Quote

One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine, is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine...
- From a Soviet Junior Lt's Notebook


Quote

"The reason the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices it on a daily basis."
- from a post-war debriefing of a German General


#7 SethAbercromby

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 1,308 posts
  • LocationNRW, Germany

Posted 31 July 2014 - 04:01 AM

View PostKin3ticX, on 31 July 2014 - 01:34 AM, said:

Regarding role warfare, what you really see is the stacking of metabuilds to achieve best possible "decks" without much consideration in role warfare. Focused themes tend to trump generalist themes.

This is why you might opt for 4 direct fire "meta" 'Mechs rather than a NARC/spotter and 3 LRM bracket mix builds. While both can be devastating one includes a lot more situational risk then the other(buildings, cover, bad map, ecm, etc can render LRM tonnage a dead weight) The main difference now being the NARC isn't complete worthless garbage anymore.

I'm not disagreeing that most people don't really take much into role-warfare, but there are some teams that would prefer a more tactical approach. Also, you might have noticed that I completely excluded specific builds from the descriptions. You could apply these tactics to any build cofiguration as long as the roles are effectively distributed. If an LRM boat is an effective Striker in your configuraration, awsome. If the the words fire support made you think I meant LRMs: I think that any 'Mech that primarily operates in the second (direct or direct/indirect hybrid) or third (indirect) line can be considered fire support. A Striker usually operates in the second line as well, but has the ability to shift int the first line for limited periods of time. Assaults have trouble operating as Strikers due to their lack of speed, which is why I excluded them for the sake of simplicity.

View PostJigglyMoobs, on 31 July 2014 - 03:25 AM, said:

One thing to keep in mind is that the better players know to self organize into de facto lances for different situations. In a push, people will form up into loose stacks with assaults in front, then the mediums and the heavies will break out in support while the lights run in a pack. A lot of this is done via situational awareness without explicit instructions from the leadership. Voice comm is reserved for communicating intent, priority targets and urgent intel.

The results look disorganized but is actually just organized enough to win without being overly rigid and constraining on individual initiatives.

Absolutely. I do not consider these proposed tactics as "the true path to winning" or anything like that. They are simply intended to be additive tactics and some food for thought players and teams that into that kind of thing.

I didn't really build upon that point, but the Lance itself serves more as a center of operation for the 'Mechs within it. When looking at it this way, these tactics don't really change the field tactics used by the individual players, but instead serves to decentralize the formation to add more flexibility.

#8 Cion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 750 posts

Posted 01 August 2014 - 07:32 PM

View PostSethAbercromby, on 26 July 2014 - 09:29 PM, said:

... Le EPIC post on Lance tactics...


This is fascinating, thanks for posting. I'd love to see competitive groups use these in campaign style games (or even maybe death match).

Curious, where did all that knowledge come from?

#9 John1352

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,025 posts
  • LocationConnecting....

Posted 01 August 2014 - 08:13 PM

Last night I experienced the "Everyone shut up except commander, light/fast med commander, and scouts." for the first time. We won every game except one I think. The configuration we used was usually between 2 - 10 and 4 - 8, with the small group being 100+ km/h mechs which were used to split groups off the enemies and do a fair bit of damage with PPCs.

The main thing that seemed to make it work was everyone following commander orders, some of the positions we used were pretty poor IMO, but there were no stragglers. The coordination needed to get similar results with lances would be much higher, but I could see it working.

#10 SethAbercromby

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 1,308 posts
  • LocationNRW, Germany

Posted 02 August 2014 - 02:38 AM

View PostCion, on 01 August 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:


This is fascinating, thanks for posting. I'd love to see competitive groups use these in campaign style games (or even maybe death match).

Curious, where did all that knowledge come from?

Most of what I've learned comes from a lot of different games, genres and books. I use the concepts and ideas that were introduced to me and try to translate them into something that is compatible with the game in question.

I suppose the biggest question I wanted to solve for myself with this was "What makes Lances such a successful concept in BattleTech literature and what can be applied into the game?"

I would also love to see such things used in competitive play to see where they work well and what needs to be improved.

And of course thank you guys for all the feedback.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users