21 replies to this topic

[Seabear]

I would like to explore specific tactics and combat doctrines with other FWL players who plan on pusuing the Commander's role. There is much on the forums about the relative effectiveness of one mech against another or one weapon against another, but little about specific tactics that might be used in combat situations. Obviously, any tactics developed must be refined or altered once game play begins as "no plan survives contact with the enemy" but by looking at specific instances, we can figure out problems before they crop up on the battlefield, giving us a possible solution.

The first instance to consider is how a lance of heavy/assault mechs can keep a group of light mechs from exploiting the light mechs speed to get in position for rear shots. This scenario assumes that the other lances are unavailable due to their mission or other reasons, meaning that our heavy/assault lance must defend itself while advancing on an objective.

I would sugguest a variation of the "Thatch Weave" developed in WWII to allow the slower Wildcats and SBDs to counter the faster, more agile Zeros. If our 4 mechs are advancing in a line abreast when a light postions itself on one our mech's 6 o'colock, that mech and the one adjacent to it turn toward each other and converge as fast as possible. At the last moment before collision, each pilot puts in a slight right torso twist (since most mechs have a right hand bias as to weapons) and breaks left just enough to clear the oncoming mech. As soon as the mechs clear, a quick shift back to the right puts our second mech face to face with the pursuer. As weapons come on target, an alpha strike reduces the light to scrap. Our mechs the turn back onto the previous line of advancement and continue on with our order rearranged.

Since most players tend to have target fixation when it seems they have the advantage, I think such a tactic would work, suckering about half the light pilots into their worst nightmare. Even against a foe who realises what is happening , this should work as it forces him to breaks off the attack or fight an Asssualt mech face to face.

Any one interested in the commander's role , feel free to give your solution or propose another scenario for consideratio.

[Ilithi Dragon]

First off, I really like the idea of this thread. Once we get a proper Marik site set up (the Enjin site we currently have is a stop-gap, The Justicar is working on a new site; if you have any ideas in that regard, send him a message), we should definitely have a section reserved entirely for tactics education and discussion.

I really like your adaptation of the Thatch Weave maneuver, and I think we could very easily put it to good use in-game. We should also look at other formations and maneuvers, for tanks as well as planes, and see what we can adapt to battlemechs.


A key difficulty that we will all face in implementing them will be formation discipline. It's one thing to put together formations and maneuvers that can be used to defend against various mechs in various situations, but it's an entirely separate matter to get players to actually execute them, let alone execute them effectively.

I would really like for MWO to have the ability to create a training match, for players to practice, not just targeting, but formation discipline and various maneuvers. If we have that, then getting formation discipline won't be much of a challenge, just a matter of lance and/or company commanders running training sessions now and then. Without it, we'll have to look to other options, either training on-the-job in general matches, or perhaps rigging something up with MW4 Mercs strictly for formation practice.

Another thing we'll need to work on is target discipline. Spotting targets and concentrating fire on a single target. Clustering together and not getting separated from the group. Currently those two things make or break a match.

Edited by Ilithi Dragon, 31 July 2012 - 08:00 AM.

[Seabear]

Thanks. for the good words,

Targeting will be a major consideration. Often the mech one needs to be shooting at is not the one shooting at you. As we develop our lances and companies, that will be a great problem.

[Ilithi Dragon]

Yeah, target discipline will be a challenge. Once you get guys grouping together regularly, though, it shouldn't be too hard. Even with random pugs, if they get a lance-based in-game VOIP system put together, that alone will make a huge difference and you won't have a whole lot of trouble in getting at least basic target discipline.

[Terin]

I don't want to be ordered around by Ilithi Dragon. He is a jerk.
Well there are other general tactics that can be practiced too. These are things you gain knowledge of with every drop you go into. Experience > Tactics because more often than not you have to have experience to have tactics.

[Ilithi Dragon]

No, I'm not a jerk, I'm a dirty rat *******. There's a difference! } ; = 8 P

[Hyper nova]

I'd like to see some discussion about map tactics. As we get more and more used to the available maps, and are dropping as teams. We should start to develop some effective team tactics and variants for each map. Having a thread for discussion will allow us to desiminate this information and train each other to be better mechwarriors.

I think under the NDA we can not discuss specifics yet on this forum thread. Maybe we can find a place to have a discussion where we are safely within the NDA ?

<edit grammar/>

Edited by Hyper nova, 31 July 2012 - 10:11 AM.

[Seabear]

Not being in BETA, I'm just interested in general tactics in those situations that one can reasonably expect in combat. That is not a violatation of NDAs., just common sense and forethought. Tactics are tactics without being tied to any testing, just look at the multitude of posts related to mech v mech or weapon v weapon. I think it's time to look at how our mechs are going to be seployed and used in combast. If you are in BETA, please do not post anything that might get you in trouble!

Edited by Seabear, 31 July 2012 - 11:08 AM.

[Skyjay]

Interesting idea about the weave Seabear, this would likely work if the pursuer is a heavy or assault class mech, but not so much a light. Issue here is translation, wherein a perusing aircraft is attempting to A. catch up, and B. use the element of surprise to down one or two of the formation before engaging in combat. Unlike a light mech, the aircraft has little choice but to commit as aborting would result in the squadron being on him on a 4v1 fight, so he's in. A light mech coming up on a line of other mechs (if he's got some brains in his skull) won't try to catch them by surprise with a light attack.
This maneuver could be adapted however! If say, a mech was targeted, have him take hits and proceed on course, and let the attacking mech get a lil bound up thinking he might have an easy kill while the flanking mechs on each side (if he attacks center) or one side (if he attacks a side) loop around. For this to work, one mech needs to stay with the target, and provide cover for the damaged mech during the counter-attack.

I do like these ideas, we should have a whiteboard to discuss tactics, makes it a lot easier to discuss.

[Stingr4y]

I will say that even though formation discipline is crucial, the Thatch Weave was developed for wide open encounters with little to no cover. I can see this working in the Caustic Valley, but might not work to well in Frozen City. Hyper Nova hit it on the head with MAP tactics. Once we have a good Private House Community location, then I would like to discuss individual map tactics. New maps will be introduced, and we will have to test and trial all of these.

I do know that they will be coming out with an Urban map, and there will be more to come. There are tactics that work in each map, but we have to adjust several optional tactics for each map depending on the encounter.

And as Terin said, experience trumps tactics. Running formations are great, but if one member is constantly behind because lack of heat discipline and overheats, formations tend to crumble. Once you have the experience, tactics become much more useful.

[Seabear]

Good points have been made and a good beginning. I hope to get discussion on general tactical doctrines By thinking of what we are likey to face on the field I'm hoping to devlop a resource for those considering the command tree for the FWL. If our developing commanders have some source of information to give them an advantage in combat, we will do much better than those who are just dropped into it. Of course, none of these are set in stone but serve as a springboard for further thought. Also, I would like the chance to talk team work and possible responses to logically occurring situations rather than which mech is "better" or why this weapon is "superior".

I would like to know who among FWL adherents is considering choosing the command tree as his/her first specilization. Just knowing who will be leading various companies and lances will help our organization by allowing us to learn more about how each of us thinks.

One element of company combat I would like to hear discussed is how each one would organize a company's 3 lances for general patrol scenarios where one is advancing to meet an enemy force whose exact position is unknown. While we may not have control of lance makeups at launch, what would you like to in your company if it were in your control and what general responsibilities would you assign to each lance? Would you prefer fire support of LRMs or other weapons. Since terrain is a major factor, be sure to specifiy its nature.

Does any one have any specific books that might be helpful . I would recommend THE ART OF WAR and Mirmoto Mushai's BOOK OF THE 5 RINGS

[Lightomoro]

I am of the opinion that the basics is more important for now.

[Oni Storm]

Seabear, on 01 August 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

Good points have been made and a good beginning. I hope to get discussion on general tactical doctrines By thinking of what we are likey to face on the field I'm hoping to devlop a resource for those considering the command tree for the FWL. If our developing commanders have some source of information to give them an advantage in combat, we will do much better than those who are just dropped into it. Of course, none of these are set in stone but serve as a springboard for further thought. Also, I would like the chance to talk team work and possible responses to logically occurring situations rather than which mech is "better" or why this weapon is "superior".

I would like to know who among FWL adherents is considering choosing the command tree as his/her first specilization. Just knowing who will be leading various companies and lances will help our organization by allowing us to learn more about how each of us thinks.

One element of company combat I would like to hear discussed is how each one would organize a company's 3 lances for general patrol scenarios where one is advancing to meet an enemy force whose exact position is unknown. While we may not have control of lance makeups at launch, what would you like to in your company if it were in your control and what general responsibilities would you assign to each lance? Would you prefer fire support of LRMs or other weapons. Since terrain is a major factor, be sure to specifiy its nature.

Does any one have any specific books that might be helpful . I would recommend THE ART OF WAR and Mirmoto Mushai's BOOK OF THE 5 RINGS

I for one plan on going into a Command Role with in our illustrious order and by Blake that's what I will do.

My first suggestion would be a reorganization of our units from 4 four man squads down to 2 six man squads. This allows both for superior numbers and fire support on a global scale compared to most standard lances. Also even if surrounded by two standard lances it allows for the Heavy/Support lance to concentrate fire upon one lance and punch a hole through for a controlled re-positioning of that force while the Scout/Sweeper lance rushes back to help or flanks the surrounding force. In essence the two lances would be designed according to mission roles but lets say that we put down a standard here first.

Heavy/Support Lance Scout/Sweeper Lance
1 to 2 Heavy or Assault requiring Jump Jets & LRMs 3 Medium or Lights requiring Jump Jets & LRMs
2 to 3 Heavy or Assault with LRMs and at least 4 medium lasers 2 Medium to Lights with High maneuvering speed for Tagging
2 Heavy or Assault with High Speed & Laser weaponry 1 Medium high speed with torso Laser weaponry and AC 10


The Scout/Sweeper Lance; actually has the hardest role in this design as they are required to find the enemy and Tag them, harassing til the Hailstorm of missiles arrive. However, their design is also such that in a moments notice they can split into two units of 3. The 1st using jump jets to quickly cavalry charge back into the action of the Bigs if so needed. Otherwise if they are on task they simply fire away with missles and jump clear of any enemies that might get too close. The AC unit's job is protection of the LRM mechs, without them the mission objective and ranged attacks are mostly useless. The 2 Taggers jobs are simple enough, spot and get clear, skirting the combat just enough to let the missiles do their damage. This 2nd unit continues on to any designated targets or acts as a clean up unit behind the cavalry, destroying or harassing what is left in their wake.

The Heavy/Support Squad; All units continue forward at the same set pace. Positioning themselves just behind ridge-tops or in a circular advancing pattern arranged in such that the Heaviest Jump capable Mech is at the six o'clock tail end position facing and marching backward. This mech will usually be piloted either by the most experienced combatant or squad level commander. The primary role of this unit is to both provided flak covering and response to direct threats to it's squad via the jump capability of the unit. The units that are required to have at least 4 medium lasers would go into the 5 and 7 positioning respectively; here they are the guardians of the squad able to wheel when necessary and facing forward to meet oncoming threats from the get go. The lasers mean they will be in the fight til the end and it allows for plenty of splash damage over a constant barrage. The High Speed units are meanwhile the frontal units of the formation coming in at the 2 and 10 position; this allows them to quickly engage any targets foolish enough to close or show themselves to the forward or sides and yet instead of pursuing immediately they will be back-peddle firing and getting into position along with their brothers providing quick response to heavily damaged or downed mechs with a quick closing, finish and return to previous position.

NOTE: this first "standard" formula is meant for attack actions and in no way should be used as a basis for defense missions.

[Ilithi Dragon]

Well, reducing the definition of Lance from four mechs to two is like reducing the definition of an armored platoon from four tanks to two. The definition of a Battlemech Lance being a unit of 4 Battlemechs is far too well-established to change it on a minor tactics planning whim.

A better solution would be to establish a smaller sub-unit of the Lance. A 'fire team' or perhaps 'lance arm'?

[Paladyne]

Pursuit lance is defined as med/light high speed well armored mechs. Panthers are not pursuit mechs, mechs such as javelin, phoenix hawk, and valkyrie and griffin. 80kph speed minimum, generally larger weapons. These mechs are high enpough speed for scouting operations and enough firepower to hurt larger ones.

Their primary role is flanking/finishing off those that are retreating. But they are fast enough to scout as well, they would be a good fit in this game.

The second Lance that is multi role that would be good here is a Heavy Fire lance. This Lance is a combined arms lance usually consisting of examples of each heavy mech that fits a given criteria. Such as 60kph across the lance minimum speed, cata c1, bl6knt, cataphract, and on1n. This mix provides decent fire support and better then average close in fire.

Either lance is sucestible to falling to a good "pure" lance, however played well together they can perform all roles as well as anyone else.

[Oni Storm]

Ilithi Dragon, on 01 August 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

Well, reducing the definition of Lance from four mechs to two is like reducing the definition of an armored platoon from four tanks to two. The definition of a Battlemech Lance being a unit of 4 Battlemechs is far too well-established to change it on a minor tactics planning whim.

A better solution would be to establish a smaller sub-unit of the Lance. A 'fire team' or perhaps 'lance arm'?

umm there is no reduction of four mechs down to two, quite the contrary this formation ups a lance to 6 mechs and reduces the total number of lances from 3 to 2. This provides as well a more stable operating platform for a lance commander and an XO per group of six. In addition to providing extra armor and firepower to each lance.

Edited by Oni Storm, 02 August 2012 - 12:11 AM.

[Oni Storm]

Paladyne, on 01 August 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:

Pursuit lance is defined as med/light high speed well armored mechs. Panthers are not pursuit mechs, mechs such as javelin, phoenix hawk, and valkyrie and griffin. 80kph speed minimum, generally larger weapons. These mechs are high enpough speed for scouting operations and enough firepower to hurt larger ones.

Their primary role is flanking/finishing off those that are retreating. But they are fast enough to scout as well, they would be a good fit in this game.

This I whole heartedly agree with, however since we won't be seeing the Valkyrie, Pheonix Hawk, shadow hawk, or Griffin, we shall have to grab from amongst the starts of the Jenner, Cicada, Dragon, Hunchback / (Swayback), Spider, Centurion and Raven. If we look only to speed factors that cuts out the Hunchback and Centurion. So then we must decide by survival rate.

Hence why I suggested the reorganization of units at least for my company. Blake has given me a sign, and in his name I shall persevere to listen to the codes and the souls of the machines and what they shall do to deliver us to our most sacred and righteous place of rest and peace. That we might all know what it is to lay down our arms and enjoy our own worlds.

Edited by Oni Storm, 02 August 2012 - 12:09 AM.

[ShoveI]

I was actually thinking along the same lines of splitting 4 man lances into two teams of two. Basically a lead mech and it's wingman, for example a brawler assault/heavy with a med brawler or light skirmisher and a second team with a fire support paired with another fire support or med jack of all trades.

Ideally they would all work together in focusing targets down but would be flexible enough that you could switch a team to support another lance/team if needed. Since the most we're gonna have is 12v12, the way I see it, the more flexible your team, the better your range of tactics.

Another possibility for 12v12 are to have four 3-man teams. If the enemy commander sees 3 lances how much of a problem would it be to suddenly find a 3 man recon team at his back door wreaking havoc

[Citizen Rat]

A support lance of lrm boats has proven to be massively effective. Particularly with good fire discipline, i.e one target at a time.

When combined with effective scouting this will win battles.

[Ilithi Dragon]

Oni Storm, on 01 August 2012 - 11:36 PM, said:

umm there is no reduction of four mechs down to two, quite the contrary this formation ups a lance to 6 mechs and reduces the total number of lances from 3 to 2. This provides as well a more stable operating platform for a lance commander and an XO per group of six. In addition to providing extra armor and firepower to each lance.

Ah, I misread.

Nevertheless, my point still stands. A "Lance" in Mechwarrior has been well established as being a unit comprised of 4 battlemechs. It's too well-established to change now, especially since the game will probably base any in-game squad structures and tools on a four-mech Lance. We should design any tactics around that to work best with the tools we will be given in-game. If the in-game tools allow for extended lances, that's fine, but I don't think we need to go about changing well-established unit structures.

Now, we can design tactics for engagements with extended lances, or lances that are separated into sections, but we should also design tactics for engagements in 4-mech lances as the default, especially since we know that will be the base unit numbering system that PGI is going to base their team sizes on (2 lances of 6 will work on a 12-player team, but it will not work well on an 8-player team, or a 16-player team).