Lefric
02/02/09 12:21 PM
216.120.184.66
|
OK, I recently started my first campaign using the Jihad scenerio books. Leaving aside the plot line, I have a couple of comments.
1) Does the fact that mechs are very, very hard to kill (At least in a universe with CASE) bother you like it does me? I mean, as written, there are only two ways to kill mechs: Ammo explosion and artillery destroying the CT. Since arty has little use (at least that I've seen) in most B-tech games (beyond fluff write-ups), and with CASE, very few mechs die this way, it is well-nigh impossible to kill a mech. This means that the stories, as written, don't follow the game mechanic - i.e. as long as you can get parts, you can fix a mech. Therefore, it follows that all these stories of units being at "35% strength" are bogus. As there is very little chance of a mech being "truly" destroyed" and only a slightly higher risk of pilot death, why would a unit EVER be that far understrength, or understrength at all, for that matter? No matter what the level of damage, reapir has to be cheaper than purchasing new. Further, how would you guys come up with a more realistic system of killing a mech?
2) On a related note, the jihad books "warchest" system, while making good scenarios, is horribly weak on the fluff side. In other words, there a mech is either destroyed, or is fixed using support points. Further, all support is abstracted.
My question is: Is there a set of rules out there that goes in the middle between the Warchest system, and those in the merc books, where you need to keep track of tons of armor, etc, in your stockpile? I want more detail, but not one whre I need to spend two hours after a scenario updating my roster, making repair rolls and scrounging rolls, and tracking how many tons of FF armor I have?
Thanks for any comments in advance!
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm." -George Orwell
|
Kovax
02/02/09 03:22 PM
75.146.193.46
|
I was under the impression that any 'Mech with the entire CT structure destroyed was not fixable. You could use it for parts, but not rebuild it. Destruction by ammo explosion without CASE or by artillery resulted in the 'Mech being totally unsalavagable. "Destroyed" versus "truly destroyed".
Besides, there's a point where the cost of the replacement parts and repair labor exceeds the cost of a whole new 'Mech, to say nothing of having to stock all that. It's more expedient on a campaign to cannibalize one heavily damaged 'Mech to fix three others than to wait 2 months for parts.
|
Lefric
02/03/09 09:13 AM
216.120.184.66
|
AFAIK, any mech not "truly destroyed" is fixable, provided you have enough time, techs, and resources. So, in saying that it is more expedient to salvage one mech to fix three, you are absolutely correct.
But that misses the point of my argument: why are mechs so hard to destroy? At the risk of starting the old armor argument again, were you to throw the amount of firepower needed to kill, say, a Rommel heavy tank (baring crits) at an M1, there would be nothing left of save a pile of very small debris.
And mechs are harder to kill than vehicles by far, as we all know.
Thus, back to the point(s). 1) Arn't mechs to hard to kill in the game, and as such, why are units always talked about as taking years to rebuild, at 35% strength two years after a campaign, etc. 2) Does anyone know of / have created a set of rules for the game where I can have a more realistic system of death and salvage than the warchest rules without tracking how many points of FF armor I have in stock for re-armoring my merc battalion?
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm." -George Orwell
|
Kovax
02/04/09 10:15 AM
75.146.193.46
|
The problem with "survivability" in BT is that the weaponry doesn't keep pace with the rest of the technology. You're still using early 20th century style cannons, tiny unguided missles, and marginally more "advanced" lasers (which mysteriously stop at a certain distance) that either scratch or melt the surface over a large area rather than punch straight through it.
If you take a ton of SRM ammo and multiply the number of "shots" by the size of the missle rack, you get an astounding 100 missles per ton, and LRMs at roughly 120 per ton. That makes them 20 lbs. each (less for LRMs), most of it propellant, which leaves an abysmally small warhead, akin to WWII bazooka or Panzershrek rounds or even less, for something that's supposed to kill a massive armored target. Other weaponry is similarly underpowered for the job, which is probably why a 'Mech needs to mount 4 or more weapons systems to even begin to cope with the prospect of "killing" another 'Mech in anything short of 20 game turns. An AC/20 is about the only weapon in the "credible" damage category: capable of killing a light opponent with one well-placed shot, or inflicting sufficient damage on a heavier target to be a real deterrent. The only thing that the BT universe's weapons have going for them is their rapid rate of fire.
A "realistic" armor-piercing cannon round might only do light internal critical damage, but should punch through 20 points of armor like a proverbial "hot knife through butter". HE rounds might be stopped by most typical 'Mech armor, but would probably knock the machine off its feet and damage any exposed sensors and other fittings. A modern TOW missle should effectively take out a body section on a 'Mech, and that's a modern light vehicle mounted weapon, not a futuristic heavy weapon for a massive combat machine. To illustrate the point further, it's just about as effective to punch as to shoot in this game. Where in real life does a punch do as much damage as a shot?
I won't even try to go into detail on the similarly nerfed weapon ranges, but a typical modern rifle bullet in real life should be able to hit targets with at least poor odds at the ranges which BT uses for vehicle-mounted lasers and autocannons, NOT a 2-3 hex maximum (60-90 meters), and any mid to late 20th Century light AA gun would probably consider 20-30 hexes to be "medium range".
In spite of the unrealistic weapon mechanics, I find the game fairly well balanced, tactically challenging, and enjoyable. It just needs to be taken "with a grain of salt", if not the entire shaker.
|
Lefric
02/04/09 11:55 AM
216.120.184.66
|
All of what you say is very true, Kovax, and said better than I can say it. Thanks. I had never thought about SRM's, etc, as being the equivalent of WW2 bazooksa. Very good point.
But while that answers the first part of my first question, it doens't answer the first: If mechs are using such "whimpy" weapons, why are mech _units_ always so understrength? In other words, if it's so hard to kill a unit/mech, shouldn't the inner spehere literally be swimming in mechs after a few hundred years of succession wars? That's what I'm really trying to get at.
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm." -George Orwell
Edited by Lefric (02/04/09 12:03 PM)
|
Cray
02/04/09 01:13 PM
64.202.50.196
|
Quote:
The problem with "survivability" in BT is that the weaponry doesn't keep pace with the rest of the technology. You're still using early 20th century style cannons,
Except for their muzzle velocities, which is tens of kilometers per second. 
Quote:
tiny unguided missles
LRMs and SRMs have some sort of guidance. I don't know what that guidance does, but when you remove it you can drastically shrink missile size (see: MRMs and RLs) or nearly double warhead size (see DFMs).
Also, those dinky little missiles do have very high velocities, as evidenced by their space combat flight times.
Quote:
A "realistic" armor-piercing cannon round might only do light internal critical damage, but should punch through 20 points of armor like a proverbial "hot knife through butter". HE rounds might be stopped by most typical 'Mech armor, but would probably knock the machine off its feet and damage any exposed sensors and other fittings. A modern TOW missle should effectively take out a body section on a 'Mech, and that's a modern light vehicle mounted weapon, not a futuristic heavy weapon for a massive combat machine. To illustrate the point further, it's just about as effective to punch as to shoot in this game. Where in real life does a punch do as much damage as a shot?
Let's do a comparison between real world munitions and BT munitions.
An Abram's "Silver Bullet" APFSDSDU M829A2 has a 12.5kg penetrator that flies at 1,700m/s (rounding up.)
A BT gauss rifle fires a 125kg slug at a hard minimum of 6,000m/s (it has 1 turn to fly 20 hexes in space: 60 seconds to cover 360km), and most likely 24,000 to 36,000km/s (because even a Behemoth or Aegis can dodge by tens of kilometers if given a whole minute to avoid incoming fire.) At a minimum, the GR slug delivers 125 times the kinetic energy of an Abrams M829A2, and perhaps over 4500 times the kinetic energy (for a 36km/s flight).
(Odd part: the GR slug disappears suddenly after a few hundred meters in the air.)
Now, there's some even more interesting differences. Armor across a BattleMech is no more than a few centimeters thick (because you only have 2 to 20 tons of materials of known density to cover a huge surface area), and quite often millimeters thick. It's much thinner on large spacecraft - battleships only have foil-thick armor. This material is able to stop the equivalent of hundreds or thousands of M829A2 penetrators despite being that thin.
Have you ever calculated the energies of Naval Autocannons or Naval Gauss Rifles, especially when fired by ships passing during system transits? It's funny when you think about the foil-thickness of DropShip and WarShip armor halting those impacts, which deliver the equivalent of megatons of TNT of energy.
Incidentally, the Rifle (Cannon) of Tactical Operations was meant to imitate early 21st Century tank cannons.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Frabby
02/04/09 03:41 PM
87.164.230.33
|
One thing I always wondered is how/why space-borne weapons could be considered the same as 'Mech weapons. The point is arguable for AeroSpace fighters if you assume guided ammunition even in the ACs, but downright silly in the naval category. I refuse to calculate the velocity of a gauss slug from naval weapons; these just cannot be similar to the 'Mech sized ones.
That said, back to the original question:
No, I would not say 'Mechs are too hard to destroy. They are an engineering marvel with an incredible extent of modularity, easy enough to patch together that an entire scavenger culture arose in the dark days of lostech.
It's relatively easy to put a 'Mech out of commission on a tactical level (in a fight), but literally destroying all its components so that nothing remains left for salvage is almost impossible (except through a reactor fireball).
At the same time this means that single hits will not usually decapacitate a 'Mech and they stay operable even after incredible punishment (on top of a warranty that has expired for 500 years, and poor maintenance). A unit operating at 35% strength is badly shot up, and only the fact that they're 'Mechs is what keeps the unit alive at all.
So those stories are not bogus, but rather spot on imho.
To add, "destroyed" is not the same thing as lost. If both legs are shot out under an otherwise fully functional 'Mech then whoever claims the field at the end of the day will salvage it. Plenty of opportunity to lose one even without it being destroyed. Similarly, one with a destroyed gyro isn't going anywhere for now but can be put back into action with relatively little effort (by 3050 standards) once retrieved.
Finally, my own GMin experience. We once had a Thunderbolt that had nothing left except 2 internal structure points in center torso and the complete head assembly. No arms, legs or side torsos remaining - but not a single critical hit to center torso! They dragged the remains off the battlefield and later spent lots, lots and lots of salvage and supplies on patching it up in a 'Mech garage back on Galatea because this paticular 'Mech now had an aura of invincibility. We chuckled at the immortality of the beast. On the other hand, the player unit had to decommission a Phoenix Hawk and a Warhammer for scraps as one had its engine destroyed (3 crits), the other the gyro (2 crits) and neither had a replacement available.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/04/09 04:12 PM
24.5.141.133
|
Quote:
Now, there's some even more interesting differences. Armor across a BattleMech is no more than a few centimeters thick (because you only have 2 to 20 tons of materials of known density to cover a huge surface area), and quite often millimeters thick. It's much thinner on large spacecraft - battleships only have foil-thick armor. This material is able to stop the equivalent of hundreds or thousands of M829A2 penetrators despite being that thin.
Have you ever calculated the energies of Naval Autocannons or Naval Gauss Rifles, especially when fired by ships passing during system transits? It's funny when you think about the foil-thickness of DropShip and WarShip armor halting those impacts, which deliver the equivalent of megatons of TNT of energy.
Incidentally, the Rifle (Cannon) of Tactical Operations was meant to imitate early 21st Century tank cannons.
You're just proving his last point. Reality went out the window so the game would be playable.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/04/09 04:30 PM
24.5.141.133
|
When a unit is at your 35% strength, only 35% of the combat strength of the unit is able to go into combat that that moment. The other 65% is either destroyed or is down for repairs. Its not surprising for a regiment do take two years to repair 70 battle mechs that have been damaged. You can only do so much with what you have on hand and with the people you have to work with it.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Cray
02/04/09 04:32 PM
64.202.50.196
|
Quote:
You're just proving his last point. Reality went out the window so the game would be playable.
Sure. I'm just quibbling over the technical details. 
Quote:
One thing I always wondered is how/why space-borne weapons could be considered the same as 'Mech weapons. The point is arguable for AeroSpace fighters if you assume guided ammunition even in the ACs, but downright silly in the naval category.
Same brand names and models of components is the giveaway between mechs and fighters, as are the rules (same damage values to the same armor.)
And if they're not the same, you have to wonder "Why not use hyper-velocity aerospace fighter weapons that weigh the same and take the same space as mech-mounted weapons?"
Quote:
I refuse to calculate the velocity of a gauss slug from naval weapons; these just cannot be similar to the 'Mech sized ones.
Yep. Capital weapons are an entirely differently matter. However, you can use their damage output (in points of armor damage) to make some translations.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Zandel_Corrin
02/04/09 06:06 PM
123.2.140.247
|
Your missing one good point here about the under strength units..... AMMO.... if a unit is out of ammo and can't afford to buy more then all there ammo weapons are no longer effective.... thus even tho you have all 12 mechs of your company fully up and running you may not be able to use all of them due to ammo constraints OR you do but they have half (or worse) weapons avaliable.
Between ammo, armour points and not having all the arms / legs / other parts to repair damage it is obvious as to why they are under strength for so long....
Merc units simply don't have the cash and house units are just not funded enough to keep up with major losses / damage. Some are however and they seem to be back to full strength within months but some stay out for years or take so much damage they are never reformed.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/04/09 06:36 PM
24.5.141.133
|
Quote:
Quote:
You're just proving his last point. Reality went out the window so the game would be playable.
Sure. I'm just quibbling over the technical details.
So, how many angles can fit on the tip of a pin?
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Cray
02/04/09 09:06 PM
64.202.50.18
|
Quote:
So, how many angles can fit on the tip of a pin?
Degrees or radians?
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/05/09 02:19 PM
24.5.141.133
|
Radians.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Kovax
02/06/09 10:14 AM
75.146.193.46
|
I checked my copy of the Master Rules for the details. It's not clearly spelled out as to all of its possibilities and implications, but under the Scavenging and Repair section it clearly states that if all of the internal structure in a location is destroyed, all equipment in that location is destroyed as well, and that the section cannot be repaired, it must be replaced. For a CT location, that means you need a new 'Mech torso, which is NOT available as a seperate repacement "part". Any remaining sections of the 'Mech could be scavenged for parts, though.
It MAY mean LT and RT as well, which would mean that any 'Mech with a destroyed torso side could NOT be repaired to full status. That would pretty much make CASE useless, since the 'Mech would be mostly junk anyway, despite the effect of CASE limiting the damage. I personally interpret it a bit more loosely to mean that you would be able to replace the torso SIDE with "generic" torso parts, unless the 'Mech was XL equipped, in which case you'd have to dismantle it for parts. A blown out CT is still an unrepairable 'Mech, any way you read the rule.
With destroyed torsos figured into the equation, it's easily understandable how units could be at 33% strength.
|
Lefric
02/06/09 11:04 AM
216.120.184.66
|
OK, I missed that point about destroyed CT as I missed the BMR (going right from the '93 hardcover compendium to TW). That does make more sense.
Even so, how many mechs have the entire torso destroyed before they are mission kills? I just finished a massice battaltion vs. batallion engagement, and of the 21 mechs "destroyed" (out of 74 involved), only four of them had destroyed CT's - and all fouur of them were light mechs (A Wasp, a Puma, an Uller, and Griffon IIC). More mechs died from headshots! Killing a CT is A LOT of damage for any medium + size mech to take before crits kill it.
Now, if the rule applies to destroyed LT/RT, then I buy the 35%. But then, as you said, CASE becomes a useless / pointless system. And in an L1 era, that isn't an issue at all.
So we are back to square one, I suppose. Mechs are still too hard to destroy - in game - as opposed to the "flavor text," at least.
At any rate, good discussion. Thanks!
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm." -George Orwell
|
Kovax
02/06/09 12:57 PM
75.146.193.46
|
Given my abysmal record of inflicting crits, about 1/2 of the "kills" I make are due to the opponent running out of CT. On the other hand, only around 1/4 of the 'Mechs I lose, or less, are due to that, since I tend to suffer a disproportionate share of engine and gyro crits on otherwise undamaged 'Mechs.
|
Christopher_Perkins
02/10/09 10:25 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
All of what you say is very true, Kovax, and said better than I can say it. Thanks. I had never thought about SRM's, etc, as being the equivalent of WW2 bazooksa. Very good point.
actually, the SRM is closer to the TOW or Dragon missile systems while the Streak SRM is equivelent to the Javlein.
Quote:
But while that answers the first part of my first question, it doens't answer the first: If mechs are using such "whimpy" weapons, why are mech _units_ always so understrength?
The most dangerous weapon that a modern day tank can face is infantry portable missiles...
While a Tank can easily kill another tank they have the same mobility restrictions and cover ability...
Infantry, on the other hand can hide very easily..... and these light weapons are designed to OSOK the tank
so, what happened is that battlemechs fire the equivelent of Modern Day infantry weapons at each other...
Quote:
In other words, if it's so hard to kill a unit/mech, shouldn't the inner spehere literally be swimming in mechs after a few hundred years of succession wars? That's what I'm really trying to get at.
1: BattleMechs are not all that cheap to repair...
Even a "mostly dead" battlemech commonly winds up in a scrap yard way far away from the battlefield
2: Lots of ammo explosions, Lots of Artillery Strikes... Etc
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Christopher_Perkins
02/10/09 11:02 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
If you take a ton of SRM ammo and multiply the number of "shots" by the size of the missle rack, you get an astounding 100 missles per ton, and LRMs at roughly 120 per ton.
Right, the size of modern Day infantry missiles...
Quote:
An AC/20 is about the only weapon in the "credible" damage category: capable of killing a light opponent with one well-placed shot, or inflicting sufficient damage on a heavier target to be a real deterrent. The only thing that the BT universe's weapons have going for them is their rapid rate of fire.
Some AutoCannons fire Hundreds of shots in a Second, others fire one shoot every 2.5 Seconds
1980's Era 105 mm Armour Piercing rounds that were capable of piercing 300 mm of standard tank armour.
A "realistic" armor-piercing cannon round might only do light internal critical damage, but should punch through 20 points of armor like a proverbial "hot knife through butter".
Quote:
HE rounds might be stopped by most typical 'Mech armor, but would probably knock the machine off its feet
exactly what is in the rules with 20 pts damage in 10 seconds causing a mech to stumble and then possibly fall
Quote:
A modern TOW missle should effectively take out a body section on a 'Mech, and that's a modern light vehicle mounted weapon
Rough equivelent... 700 mmm of penetration = 2 points damage...
Quote:
Where in real life does a punch do as much damage as a shot?
There ar esome armours that cannot be penetrated easily by a bullet, but a thrust from a knife goes right in... similar principle...
the Crystal Latice of A Mechs armour functions similar to a net, transforming a hit that would have penetrated into Modern Day Tank Armour is stopped at meere armour damage.
Quote:
I won't even try to go into detail on the similarly nerfed weapon ranges, but a typical modern rifle bullet in real life should be able to hit targets
Hitting doesnt mean Spit... The Metric that matters is being able to Penetrate/damage 24th Century Armour...
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Lefric
02/11/09 01:06 PM
216.120.184.66
|
OK, I had been hoping to avoid the whole armor discussion, as I feel that that is where the battletech "pseudo-physics" breaks down the most quickly. So while I agree that hitting isn't the part that matters, penetrating is, I will only say this one thing: Battle Tech armor is ablative, and thus penetration is much, much less relavent than for present-day tank armor.
In other words, it may be able to stop a DU sabot round, but it can be damaged by falling over. So it's really not all that good, is it?
That being said, Your telling me that a mech with a what mission kills most mechs (legged, gyro, lost engine shielding, etc) makes it cheaper to buy a new mech than it does to fix an existing one? No way. No Way At All.
That's like telling the Isrealis that is wouls be better to buy a few thousand new tanks rather than to roll out the recvoery / reapir vehicles during the '73 war (just one very good example off the top of my head).
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm." -George Orwell
|
Christopher_Perkins
02/11/09 09:44 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
OK, I had been hoping to avoid the whole armor discussion, as I feel that that is where the battletech "pseudo-physics" breaks down the most quickly.
Mainly Because it has all but never been Really Discussed, In fact it was only Once discussed in the article about the Battle Mech Test run which had four Aincient Tanks used as live fire drones for a battlemech... These Merkavas, and IMO they would have been assumed in the writers mind to be the Then Current tank with its 105 mm APFDS shells...,
The second time is really only from inference with the Mercenaries Supplemental II rules limiting Pre-2439 vehicles to SUV tech C and Bar 7 Armour...
Beyond that they have not touched on the issue...
so... they could not fail at something that they have not even attempted
[Quote:
So while I agree that hitting isn't the part that matters, penetrating is, I will only say this one thing: Battle Tech armor is ablative, and thus penetration is much, much less relavent than for present-day tank armor.
I did not say Penetrate... i said Damage.
a M2 AP Shell fired from a M2HB has a 50% chance of penetrating 19 mm of WWII Rolled Homogenous Steel armour (RHAe) at 500 Meters and a 50% chance of penetrating 10 mm of RHAe at 1,200 meters...
The same shell can ppenetrate 46% of the way through a point of "Standard" Armour, or BattleTech Tech D Barrier Rating 10 Armour at up to 90 Meters (ignored for the most point in the game... follow on damage to the EXACT same spot is very hard to do with the accuracy ... iirc .8 mils?) of even a vehicle mounted MG)... 23 of them can damage 2 points of the same "Standard" armour.
Quote:
at the same time,
In other words, it may be able to stop a DU sabot round, but it can be damaged by falling over. So it's really not all that good, is it?
10 mm {IIRC} diameter (120 mmm is the shell, the diameter of the penetrator is only 10 mm to concentratee the force) 9.5 kg {IIRC} shell moving at 4,000 m/s hitting what could be a contiguous piece of Lattice work Armour made up of Ferro-Ceramic (and possibly diamond fiber interweave) that is about 5m^2 in area can penetrate an unstated Thickness of Armour... (I range between 2 Points worth and 20 points worth depending on what formula i am pulling out of my * this week... but most often i use 5 pts... or the possible equivelent of 1250 kg of Steel Armour)
Quote:
That being said, Your telling me that a mech with a what mission kills most mechs (legged, gyro, lost engine shielding, etc) makes it cheaper to buy a new mech than it does to fix an existing one? No way. No Way At All.
With the number of units that die a fiscal death due to repair and maintenence costs, the "death" of mechs due to mission killls is not as rare as you appear to think...
I am not saying that it would be cheapper to retire a mech than to buy a new one...
merely that not all units that have technicly Repairable mechs can Afford to...
Quote:
That's like telling the Isrealis that is wouls be better to buy a few thousand new tanks rather than to roll out the recvoery / reapir vehicles during the '73 war (just one very good example off the top of my head).
assuming that the organization in question could afford to do either
also... Large organizations have been known to have more pristie units on hand than thye have adequate spare parts necessary to do a full rebuild of all the mechs on hand, let alone multiple times...
then there is also the time factor....
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Kovax
02/12/09 10:37 AM
75.146.193.46
|
Repair is always more costly than new construction. Not only do you have to remove the damaged pieces first, and assess the condition and usability of each piece, but you generally replace them in a different order than they were originally designed to be put together, by someone who may know a lot more about 'Mechs overall than the original assembly line worker, but nowhere near as much about that one particular operation. The original builder also had all of the proper specialized tools at his/her disposal, while a field technician will be using more generic tools in less appropriate surroundings. Then there is the reliability issue of a rebuilt unit versus a new one.
The cost of transporting and storing repair parts over long distances and for extended time periods adds to the repair price tag. A skilled Tech will also cost more in total upkeep (not just pay) for a military unit than an equivalent civilian factory worker will earn.
I've been involved in electronics and/or electronic repair for longer than this game has been around, and it's always been an issue of extensive repairs costing far more than the original product. This has become even more pronounced with increases in automation, and it would be logical to assume that the trend would continue with more advanced technologies.
Years ago, a study was done about automotive repair parts, and determined that building a car from spare parts would cost between double and triple what a new one would run, NOT INCLUDING the higher assembly costs due to using manual labor instead of production line automation and efficiency.
If you can replace a 'Mech for 5 million C-bills, or repair it for 11 million, what would you do? If you've got 3 other 'Mechs waiting for parts, and that "repairable" 11 million C-bill money-pit has those parts, how much time are you going to waste thinking about it, before you order your Techs to yank the needed parts from the wreck? If you've got an opposing force breathing down your neck and one 'Mech has the parts to put 2 others back into combat, even if that one 'Mech isn't too badly damaged, are you going to risk defeat to try saving it? Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it's a good idea.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/12/09 06:24 PM
24.5.141.133
|
Two to three times the cost. Where are you finding parts at that price? I would love to get spare parts at such a bargain rate.
The last trucking company that I worked for would ship there own wrecked trucks back to there main terminal and strip out any needed part from them, to save money from buying parts. The fact that they only ran flat bed trailers helped a lot in doing that. they had some thirty or more totaled trucks that they could strip parts from.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Lefric
02/13/09 11:15 AM
216.120.184.66
|
OK, I concede to your superior knowledge about spare parts. But I stand by my example of recevered tanks. If it was cheaper to build new AFV's (or mechs) why would such a high priority be put on recovery? Even assuming that most of the destroyed AFV's are only used for parts, far more of them are salvaged and re-used than the current game mechanics alow for - especially vis a vis the current flavor text.
In other words, if a house or merc unit is gaining all this salvage in terms of mostly intact mechs, they *(the units) are still gutted far more often in the flavor text than the game mechincs allow for. All units should be awash in salvage, and thus patchwork mechs.
Of course, this also means that units would not be composed of as many types of mechs as they are in the current game - you would have no more than a couple to allow for parts salvage. It's like a modern tank company consisting of 3 M1's, a pair of Challanger II's, a Leopard V, a Lepord IV, 3 T-80'sm a T-72, etc. If the unit was really as dependant on salvage of damaged units for spare parts, you would have as few different types for maximuim usabilty of whatever salvaged spare parts you would come across.
If I'm wrong on this, I'll shut up now, but I stand by my opinion.
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm." -George Orwell
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/13/09 01:24 PM
24.5.141.133
|
Quote:
OK, I concede to your superior knowledge about spare parts. But I stand by my example of recevered tanks. If it was cheaper to build new AFV's (or mechs) why would such a high priority be put on recovery? Even assuming that most of the destroyed AFV's are only used for parts, far more of them are salvaged and re-used than the current game mechanics alow for - especially vis a vis the current flavor text.
In other words, if a house or merc unit is gaining all this salvage in terms of mostly intact mechs, they *(the units) are still gutted far more often in the flavor text than the game mechincs allow for. All units should be awash in salvage, and thus patchwork mechs.
Of course, this also means that units would not be composed of as many types of mechs as they are in the current game - you would have no more than a couple to allow for parts salvage. It's like a modern tank company consisting of 3 M1's, a pair of Challanger II's, a Leopard V, a Lepord IV, 3 T-80'sm a T-72, etc. If the unit was really as dependant on salvage of damaged units for spare parts, you would have as few different types for maximuim usabilty of whatever salvaged spare parts you would come across.
If I'm wrong on this, I'll shut up now, but I stand by my opinion.
A lot of parts could be universal. In modern large pick up trucks there are lots of parts that are used by the different truck manufacturers. There are truck parts that Ford, Chevy, and Dodge use because its just to costly to build there own part. The reason is that so few heavy trucks are built that it really drops the cost when you use a common part.
A lot of tanks and mecks could use universal parts. That would make building and repair a great deal easier and cheaper.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Edited by His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey (02/13/09 02:11 PM)
|
Zandel_Corrin
02/15/09 05:37 PM
123.2.140.247
|
You also can't buy new mechs in the middle of a major campaign.... thus you need to salvage and keep as much of your force going as possible...
Also just cause it's cheaper to buy new doesn't mean that you can... you might not have the cash.... or the supplier might not have the mechs...
Consider that most mechs are built by hand for the most part.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Christopher_Perkins
02/16/09 11:54 AM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
Repair is always more costly than new construction. Not only do you have to remove the damaged pieces first, and assess the condition and usability of each piece,
Especially since all Armour and Internal Structure factory replacements will be done using
Armour Plates that are cut and formed from Flat Bar Stock,
Internal Structure that is formed or bent from Round Bar Stock
Quote:
but you generally replace them in a different order than they were originally designed to be put together, by someone who may know a lot more about 'Mechs overall than the original assembly line worker, but nowhere near as much about that one particular operation.
Not so much of an issue for most mechs... the battlemech is large enough that people can crawl around in them
Quote:
The original builder also had all of the proper specialized tools at his/her disposal, while a field technician will be using more generic tools in less appropriate surroundings.
The Basic Metric for a successful repair is to have a Repair Platform with the proper tools
0: Radiation Sheilding
1: Fusion Engine Repair Kit
2: Cutting Kit for Armour & IS
3: Joining Kit for Armour & IS
4: Sensor repair kit
5: Electronics Repair kit
you do get a bonus for having a factory facility... but IIRC that is covered adequately in Tactical Operations (or is it Strategic Operations?)
Quote:
Then there is the reliability issue of a rebuilt unit versus a new one.
right, some machines develop quirks when they are damaged...
However, the major factor is the difficulty of repair... if some one fails in a repair, you can only have a better technician go in behind them to make the repair... and you are also out all the time ... if each pip of armour and IS costs 15 min to repair/replace and consumes a certain amount of resources... well... shall we say that a Concept called Triage comes in...
Quote:
Years ago, a study was done about automotive repair parts, and determined that building a car from spare parts would cost between double and triple what a new one would run, NOT INCLUDING the higher assembly costs due to using manual labor instead of production line automation and efficiency.
wow, good info
Quote:
If you can replace a 'Mech for 5 million C-bills, or repair it for 11 million, what would you do? If you've got 3 other 'Mechs waiting for parts, and that "repairable" 11 million C-bill money-pit has those parts, how much time are you going to waste thinking about it, before you order your Techs to yank the needed parts from the wreck? If you've got an opposing force breathing down your neck and one 'Mech has the parts to put 2 others back into combat, even if that one 'Mech isn't too badly damaged, are you going to risk defeat to try saving it? Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Former Computer Tech Here.... i still keep my hand in, but hard to keep up when you cannot afford to buy the latest and greatest and work with it...
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Prince_of_Darkness
02/17/09 10:33 AM
205.202.120.139
|
Quote:
Consider that most mechs are built by hand for the most part.
Only on solaris 7 buddy- most machines used in fights today are factory-built.
|
Zandel_Corrin
02/17/09 05:34 PM
123.2.140.247
|
Yes by hand in factories....
The parts are made by machines but they are put together by hand....
Ever wonder why it takes so long to build a new mech?
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Prince_of_Darkness
02/17/09 09:52 PM
205.202.120.139
|
Quote:
The parts are made by machines but they are put together by hand....
Oh heck no. You have seen how car manufacturing lines work? Most people there are only for the real delicate stuff- and barely 20% (not even, in some cases) of the final product. Remember- the house lords have thousands, if not tens of thousands, of battlemechs at their disposal. This is even more improved with the Star League tech that went into some plants (like Hesperus II when the WoB occupied it) that made them almost completely automated.
Quote:
Ever wonder why it takes so long to build a new mech?
You are looking at level one stuff then. While a 'mech won't take as long as today's cars, you can expect one (if your shipping remains constant and on-time) to be fully constructed every week- but when you remember that this is a factory line, it's more like several completed every day- while it takes a week to fully construct, that doesn't mean 5 others aren't in production at the same time.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
1 registered and 78 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 17041
|
|
|
|
|
|
|