mudekk
09/28/13 01:19 PM
64.53.216.145
|
Why does a vehicle, such as a tank, need a crew of 2 or more people, where as a battlemech or aerospace fighter needs only 1 pilot? Is it simply the limited visibility of a buttoned up armored tank or is there more to it? I mean, they must have auto-loaders for the weapons, and computers to help with the targeting and driving. What am I overlooking?
And, if it does really require more than 1 person, then how many? Driver, gunner, & optional commander? I would think two could easily handle the task, no?
Appreciate the feedback.
|
Karagin
09/28/13 02:51 PM
24.243.178.124
|
Tanks normally have more then one crew member to operate them, since they complexity of things makes it a bit hard for the driver to man the gun, run the radio and command the vehicle.
A mech has the advantage of the neruohelemet which allows a single pilot to do things like make it walk, run etc...which frees him or her up to then fight the mech in battle. A dual cockpit for a mech pretty much borrows from the gunner/pilot of the attack helicopters, where as one worries about flying and such and the other worries about weapons and counter measures etc...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Shadrak
09/29/13 12:54 PM
98.227.214.21
|
Quote:
Why does a vehicle, such as a tank, need a crew of 2 or more people, where as a battlemech or aerospace fighter needs only 1 pilot? Is it simply the limited visibility of a buttoned up armored tank or is there more to it? I mean, they must have auto-loaders for the weapons, and computers to help with the targeting and driving. What am I overlooking?
And, if it does really require more than 1 person, then how many? Driver, gunner, & optional commander? I would think two could easily handle the task, no?
Appreciate the feedback.
The rules outline how many, it is basically 1 minimum, with a requirement of 1 per 15 tons or fraction thereof.
As Karagin said, the battlemech has systems that better enable the mechwarrior to multi task, but there are also other factors at play. Namely, the battlemech has a purpose built cockpit and many of the battlemech's functions are handled by battlemech's computers. I don't think it would be inappropriate, however, to reduce crew requirements for additional construction cost.
You are right, it doesn't make a lot of sense for some larger vehicles to require crews on par with a medium sized dropship. Additionally, how does an individual "load" an autocannon or a PPC? The autocannon is firing a minimum of 5 rounds and at the AC/10 end each one would weigh 20kg (44lbs) each...load 5 of those in 15 seconds? Unlikely.
Page 218 of Tactical operations does give a rundown of the benefits of having larger crews, though. Specifically, larger crews can more easily target multiple targets.
|
Cray
09/29/13 12:55 PM
71.47.122.85
|
The assumption is that vehicles use more primitive user interfaces than 'Mechs and fighters. The baseline rule for vehicle crews is "1 person per 15 tons of vehicle, rounded up." A 100-ton tank uses a crew of 7 by default.
There are benefits to the larger crews, though. As discussed in Tactical Operations, a vehicle with a multi-person crew can do things a 'Mech or fighter cannot: clear jams in most weapons, engage extra targets without penalty, etc.
On the flip side, you can reduce vehicle crew sizes. If you want your 100-ton tank to have just a driver, commander, and gunner, you can do that. You'll just have 'Mech-like penalties against multiple targets and won't be able to unjam weapons. See Tactical Operations for rules.
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.
|
Shadrak
09/29/13 01:09 PM
98.227.214.21
|
Quote:
The assumption is that vehicles use more primitive user interfaces than 'Mechs and fighters. The baseline rule for vehicle crews is "1 person per 15 tons of vehicle, rounded up." A 100-ton tank uses a crew of 7 by default.
There are benefits to the larger crews, though. As discussed in Tactical Operations, a vehicle with a multi-person crew can do things a 'Mech or fighter cannot: clear jams in most weapons, engage extra targets without penalty, etc.
On the flip side, you can reduce vehicle crew sizes. If you want your 100-ton tank to have just a driver, commander, and gunner, you can do that. You'll just have 'Mech-like penalties against multiple targets and won't be able to unjam weapons. See Tactical Operations for rules.
Cray, I know you would know this, but where does it say you can reduce crew? I would have recommended playing that as a house rule, but if it is in the official rules it would be interesting to note.
|
ghostrider
09/29/13 02:20 PM
66.74.188.151
|
I know the fiction writing in some of the tech guides have said such, like adding in an auto loader for the cannons, (I think the original demolisher had something like this). I dont think there were any canon rules published in the older books.
As for the number of crewmen needed, only units like the savanha master, rotunda and a few others like that are single crew members. Those are basic, point the front crosshairs at the target and fire while moving towards it. Other tanks, like the hunter should be the same with the lrm 15, but use more crew. Think they operate things like more complicated comms/sensor nets, as well as regulate the loading of ammo. I can definately see a turret adding more confusion if only one person is trying to use it. Multiple weapons would be almost impossible for multi targetting as well. Trying to drive, avoid objects such as incoming fire and such would make it almost impossible to fire at anything unless another person was doing it, especially when the target is outside the front arc.
Most mechs being set up so you point your arm towards a target would make it a one person crew.
|
Karagin
09/29/13 02:34 PM
24.243.178.124
|
Level 3 rules allowed you to reduce the crew and thus gain back the weight they take up but you lose the benefits that having the crew members would give.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Shadrak
09/29/13 02:37 PM
98.227.214.21
|
Quote:
Level 3 rules allowed you to reduce the crew and thus gain back the weight they take up but you lose the benefits that having the crew members would give.
Do you have where that is at? I am thinking that I may not own that book. I bought the newest ones about 8 months ago, but the way they are set up it is a little harder to find specific information.
|
Karagin
09/29/13 02:58 PM
24.243.178.124
|
Max Tech should have and the rules before the Core rule books should have it as should the Core Rule books and if all else fails check the old Tactical Handbook.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
09/29/13 04:31 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
Quote:
The assumption is that vehicles use more primitive user interfaces than 'Mechs and fighters. The baseline rule for vehicle crews is "1 person per 15 tons of vehicle, rounded up." A 100-ton tank uses a crew of 7 by default.
There are benefits to the larger crews, though. As discussed in Tactical Operations, a vehicle with a multi-person crew can do things a 'Mech or fighter cannot: clear jams in most weapons, engage extra targets without penalty, etc.
On the flip side, you can reduce vehicle crew sizes. If you want your 100-ton tank to have just a driver, commander, and gunner, you can do that. You'll just have 'Mech-like penalties against multiple targets and won't be able to unjam weapons. See Tactical Operations for rules.
Cray, I know you would know this, but where does it say you can reduce crew? I would have recommended playing that as a house rule, but if it is in the official rules it would be interesting to note.
pg218 Tactical Operations.
The base number of crewmen is tonnage / 15, rounded up (p. 218).
Single crew vehicles can only attack one target a turn. If the turret or weapons jam, the vehicle can't move while those items are un-jammed.
Two crew vehicles operate normally.
Multiple crew vehicles can attack multiple targets more easily. For each crew above two, an additional target may be attacked without to-hit penalty.
You're welcome to pilot your 100-ton tank with a crew of 1. See above for the rules limits on that.
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.
|
Shadrak
09/29/13 08:43 PM
98.227.214.21
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The assumption is that vehicles use more primitive user interfaces than 'Mechs and fighters. The baseline rule for vehicle crews is "1 person per 15 tons of vehicle, rounded up." A 100-ton tank uses a crew of 7 by default.
There are benefits to the larger crews, though. As discussed in Tactical Operations, a vehicle with a multi-person crew can do things a 'Mech or fighter cannot: clear jams in most weapons, engage extra targets without penalty, etc.
On the flip side, you can reduce vehicle crew sizes. If you want your 100-ton tank to have just a driver, commander, and gunner, you can do that. You'll just have 'Mech-like penalties against multiple targets and won't be able to unjam weapons. See Tactical Operations for rules.
Cray, I know you would know this, but where does it say you can reduce crew? I would have recommended playing that as a house rule, but if it is in the official rules it would be interesting to note.
pg218 Tactical Operations.
The base number of crewmen is tonnage / 15, rounded up (p. 218).
Single crew vehicles can only attack one target a turn. If the turret or weapons jam, the vehicle can't move while those items are un-jammed.
Two crew vehicles operate normally.
Multiple crew vehicles can attack multiple targets more easily. For each crew above two, an additional target may be attacked without to-hit penalty.
You're welcome to pilot your 100-ton tank with a crew of 1. See above for the rules limits on that.
Hmmm...that's what I was referencing...to me it implies that you must have 3+ crew for vehicles above 31 tons. "Large vehicles (31 tons and heavier) have three or more
crewmen, some of whom act as loaders or additional gunners to
allow the vehicle to attack multiple targets more easily." I took this to mean it was a requirement.
"Unlike ’Mechs, which are piloted by a single MechWarrior,
all but the smallest vehicles are controlled by a crew of two or
more."
I would agree that your interpretation makes more sense, and you are a developer--maybe this language should be adjusted in future editions? And can we get a developer to put a note in a canon document?
|
Cray
09/29/13 10:18 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
I would agree that your interpretation makes more sense, and you are a developer--maybe this language should be adjusted in future editions? And can we get a developer to put a note in a canon document?
I'm a writer, not a developer. If you want an official answer (since, per my .sig, my answer here doesn't count), there's official rules question forums:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,83.0.html
The answers there eventually get bundled into errata to the books.
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
09/30/13 06:30 AM
208.54.83.240
|
This is news to me. I have always gone with its a way for mechs to cheat over all other units. Like all of the other rules that are to benefit mechs over other units.
I have never seen the rule that multiple crewed vehicle can engage more than one unit with out a penalty.
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!!!
|
Shadrak
09/30/13 07:31 AM
174.255.82.88
|
Exceeding acrew of 5 doesnt make a lot of sense at any weight unlessthey are exceptionally large,and technology should allow for the reduction of crew size, but i figured this was an oversight or something to incentivize battlemechs
|
ghostrider
09/30/13 11:49 AM
66.74.188.151
|
Though I didnt think it was a cheat, I have alway thought like him that all secondary and beyond targets had a +1 to hit. I can see the penalty if targets are in a seperate arc from the primary targets, since moving the body/turret is required.
As for not being able to unjam a weapon unless they remain stationary with only one crew member was something I havent seen. Very possible i glossed over that reading rules, or it was clearified in later books.
Now I do have a question about a tank that should only need one crew member that is a medium vehicle.
The salandar (spelling). It is a 35 ton hovertank with a single weapon (ac20) mounted in the body of the tank. There are more, such as the one hover with a gauss rifle in a turret (dont remember the name at the moment).
How would the salandar really benefit from more then 1 crew memeber? Someone to run comms? Sensor operator? Gaining some weight on this would definately be good for adding armor.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
09/30/13 03:47 PM
172.56.9.92
|
.09 tons only adds 1.44 points of standard armor. In the scheme of things a very minor drop in the bucket for a 35 ton vehicle.
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
09/30/13 06:30 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
I have never seen the rule that multiple crewed vehicle can engage more than one unit with out a penalty.
The rule was first published in Maximum Technology 8 years ago, and is almost word-for-word identical to the more recent TacOps' verison. I could be wrong that MaxTech had the first copy of the rules; something like Tactical Handbook or BattleTech Compendium might've had it. I just remember MaxTech has it and predates TacOps by some years.
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.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 161 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 disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 9581
|
|
|
|
|
|
|