Col_Green
01/23/13 08:41 PM
99.9.128.106
|
In my campign with my unit me and my GM are at odds over a very techincal rule. I recently have the ability to purchase either a Mololith J/S or a 2750 Essex W/S with heavy damage. I also have access to a drydock for making modifications oor repairs. The questions lies with how modifications work when trying to add or remove the docking ports on the J/S or W/S. My GM is telling me that any of the modifications that i make require a completely new designed K-F spacific to the modifications and that it's impossiable therefor to make these modifications. I say this isn't teh case and that from all the rules I have read is the K-F drive is a drive and that it has additional componets accross the ship for it to work the way it does and that removing those componets is where I would get be able to get addiotnal tonnage to make the modifications I want to my Monolith J/S. As you would know the Monolith J/S comes standard with 9 docking ports for D/S. I want to remove 5 docking ports MAX the armor add weapon bays and a hanger bay for defense ect ect which im willing to pay the C-bills for....I knwo this question has many moving parts but any help will greatly be helpful.
|
Karagin
01/23/13 10:51 PM
72.178.85.122
|
One thing I get from your posting is that you are mixing your knowledge with what your character may or may not know. I can fully understand the GM not wanting to allow your group to do this kind of thing based off my first comment. Others may not agree with this but that is my opinion.
Second comment, is of the nature of HOW did your group get the ability to have the money to purchase either of these ships given how rare they are. What I am driving at is that more information could help us help you out on this.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Col_Green
01/24/13 12:50 AM
99.9.128.106
|
I have been playing Mechwarrior since I was 15 im now 33..lets just leave it at that we are still playing by MW2 rules we also use heavy metal pro vee and areo. You are correct that as a mech commander my charater would no nothing of it...however I have a charater tech that does by MW2 rules...with that being said the other stuff is irrelavant. So all I need is someone to either verify that the system for this type of thing is flawed or is there a link ot something we missed refering to how modifications are really made and what it actually takes...
P.S there are many differant ways to become rich in MW/BT if you know what your doing and take risks...just saying weather or not the GM who has been gaming and Game mastering much longer then I have been gaming, is being very tough <which he was>.
Karagin I would like to say that im a vet also my last duty station was FT. Hood we live in dallas and would like to extend a offer for you to come down or us come down one weekend we have off for a gaming session then you coudl see and answer alot of your own questions.
Edited by Col_Green (01/24/13 12:55 AM)
|
Karagin
01/24/13 06:17 AM
72.178.85.122
|
Thank you for the offer, I will see what I can do about meeting with you and your group.
Having the tech does make things different. I am sure the ability to mod the craft or the rule about it is there somewhere. I know it has come up before. Have you checked one of the compainion books that go with MW2?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Col_Green
01/24/13 06:37 PM
99.9.128.106
|
I tried sending you a PM, but im not use to this site yet and for some reason it didn't go thru.
|
Cray
01/25/13 02:37 PM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
In my campign with my unit me and my GM are at odds over a very techincal rule. I recently have the ability to purchase either a Mololith J/S or a 2750 Essex W/S with heavy damage. I also have access to a drydock for making modifications oor repairs. The questions lies with how modifications work when trying to add or remove the docking ports on the J/S or W/S.
Removing docking collars is relatively simple - you're just removing 1000 tons of hardware and truncating some KF core connections, which the KF drive controller will work around. Adding collars, however, is a nightmare and probably impossible without an all new drive.
Quote:
I say this isn't teh case and that from all the rules I have read is the K-F drive is a drive and that it has additional componets accross the ship for it to work the way it does and that removing those componets is where I would get be able to get addiotnal tonnage to make the modifications I want to my Monolith J/S.
The collars are an integral part of the drive, which extend "KF Booms" into DropShips to ensure that the KF drive's hyperspace field properly extends around a DropShip. Hence, any modification involving them collar is not trivial. However, KF drives operate all the time without all their collars filled. Removing a collar and telling the drive's controller, "don't extend the field through this KF boom and collar."
Adding collars to an existing drive? I'd call that impossible.
Unfortunately, Strategic Operations (pg188) doesn't address WarShip/JumpShip customization (just repairs, pg185).
You could get a more official answer on the formal BT website. Strategic Operation rules questions are handled here:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,45.0.html
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.
|
Col_Green
01/25/13 09:10 PM
99.9.128.106
|
Well in all the Tech manuals they have a MAX listing for docking collers...that is why this question has been raised in our group. This doesn't make sense if the ship itself lists a MAX of lets say 5 docking collers but only comes with 3..then one would think you could add two more with no pently...or changing out the K-F drive...
|
Cray
01/26/13 10:31 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
Well in all the Tech manuals they have a MAX listing for docking collers...
Er...that doesn't mean JumpShips often have a variable number of collars within a given model. It's rather saying, "That's the maximum number of DropShips that can be carried on a fixed number of collars."
Only extremely rare variants of JumpShips have less than the listed number of collars. Usually, those are the variants with lithium-fusion batteries.
Also, where are you seeing, "Max listing"? In the big aerospace Technical Readout, TR:3057, JumpShips and WarShips simply state, "Docking Collars" or (in other TROs) "DropShip Capacity," not "Max Docking Collars."
Quote:
then one would think you could add two more with no pently...or changing out the K-F drive...
Nope. Speaking as the writer behind the latest description of KF cores in Strategic Operations, ADDING collars takes a whole new core. I can give you an official statement to that effect if you ask on the "Ask the Writers" or "Ask the Lead Developers" forum of the formal BT website:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/
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.
|
Col_Green
01/26/13 11:17 AM
99.9.128.106
|
Ok you are right the MAX is what the allowed carrying would allow since some DS require more then one coller in order to dock to a ship. THAT made a WHOLE lot of sense and I did overlook that aspect. Thank you for helping clear this up with the links the BT fourm helped alot.
|
Col_Green
01/26/13 11:20 AM
99.9.128.106
|
Also, where are you seeing, "Max listing"? In the big aerospace Technical Readout, TR:3057, JumpShips and WarShips simply state, "Docking Collars" or (in other TROs) "DropShip Capacity," not "Max Docking Collars."
I was actually refering to heavy metal aero....which im sure is where or why im getting confused I now understand after more research that the heavy metal software is VERY out of date and alot of it is wrong.
|
Cray
01/26/13 03:41 PM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
I was actually refering to heavy metal aero....which im sure is where or why im getting confused I now understand after more research that the heavy metal software is VERY out of date and alot of it is wrong.
The difference between HMA and the current rules is pretty small, a few tweaks here and there that won't matter in most games. The stats on ships provided with HMA are close enough to the current rules to use in just about any game except the most anal-compulsive tournament.
For example, the Merchant-class JumpShip provided in the book "DropShips & JumpShips" was 120,000 tons and had 2 docking collars. These features were repeated in Battle Space, Aerotech 2nd edition, Heavy Metal Aero, Aerotech 2nd edition Revised, and the current core books.
The only place where you'd find out-of-date stats (particularly armor) is in Aerotech 1st Edition, DropShips & JumpShips, and TR:2750's aerospace section. HMA post-dates all of those and is much more correct.
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.
|
Col_Green
01/26/13 08:39 PM
99.9.128.106
|
I have only played in a few tournamants...and that was a LONG time ago....HMA actually to us seems like it has more conflicts with current rules then you claim...at least from what we have researched. However I do see the old TR that you talk about and current. Mike you seem to know yoru stuff and ill be honest I was old school slash and hack in MW/BT I now took the advise of my GM and for about 3 years have finnially read all the books :P....I find myself asking alot of questions that many of you have been dealing with im sure for MUCH longer :P
|
Cray
01/26/13 11:04 PM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
I have only played in a few tournamants...and that was a LONG time ago....HMA actually to us seems like it has more conflicts with current rules then you claim...
HMA gets the structural masses correct, the engines correct, the armor correct, the weapons correct, the heat sinks correct, the fire control tonnages correct, the bay masses correct, the gravdecks correct, the docking collars correct, etc. Its issues tend to be with crew calculations and battle value calculations, the latter being a problem for even the authors - there's a whole dedicated team of BV calculators trying to sort out that problem.
Anyway, if you build a large spacecraft with HMA, the errors will be so small that should be easily subsumed within the cargo tonnage of the ship. It's not like building an assault 'Mech and finding you added 3 too many UAC/20s because you forgot the engine. 
Quote:
I find myself asking alot of questions that many of you have been dealing with im sure for MUCH longer :P
Feel free to keep asking. That's what the forums are for.
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.
|
Col_Green
01/27/13 07:35 PM
99.9.128.106
|
Man it's weird everyone I talk to in real life and on fourms all say the HM program is good but falwed with the calculations when building a mech. Now it has been a VERY long time since i took a scratch mech sheet and built a mech ground up. Use to do it all the time before we had HM program.
|
Cray
01/27/13 09:08 PM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
Man it's weird everyone I talk to in real life and on fourms all say the HM program is good but falwed with the calculations when building a mech. Now it has been a VERY long time since i took a scratch mech sheet and built a mech ground up. Use to do it all the time before we had HM program.
'Mech building errors are also trivial in HMPro, mostly a case of being a bit behind on the latest rules. Chances are a 'Mech you make HMPro will be perfectly fine except for maybe small quirks, like BV2 calculations.
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.
|