engine prices and tables

Pages: 1
ghostrider
09/15/14 01:03 PM
67.49.101.109

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The engine prices needs to be adjusted.

Ran into a few idea while trying to get some sleep and came up with a few things.
How much does say a 300 rated engine cost when bought as a spare?
The price includes weight of the mech and I believe speed as well.
This is garbage since this engine can be found in 50,60, 75, and 100 ton mechs.
What causes this wide variety of pricing for a non installed engine?

Now another biggie for engines. What is the price difference between an engine with standard heat sinks vs one with double heat sinks?
The double sinks are more expensive, and I doubt the manufacturer would be willing to eat the cost.
Also, wouldn't double heat sinks take up more room in the engine as well?

I still have not seen why a 60 rated engine in say an urban mech is the same size as the 400 rated engine, yet the 400 hides more heat sinks then the 60.
This would be like saying a camaro with a 173 chevy engine takes the same amount of room as a 454 engine under the hood.
skiltao
09/15/14 02:59 PM
75.7.195.213

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You can't just stick a 300-rated reactor in an UrbanMech and expect it to go fast. You've got to redesign the legs, use more robust joints (and whatever other mechanical features) and add myomer. The "engine" isn't just a reactor, these other things add mass and cost too.

A 60-rated engine might occupy the same number of slots as a 400 rated engine, but that doesn't mean they're the same size... a medium laser is a little smaller than an AC/2, an AC/5 is the same size as a large laser, and a leg has half as many slots as an (often smaller) arm or side torso.

People don't buy spare reactors. They'll buy spare shielding (20,000 CB per point, according to the first RPG). 'Mechs with severely damaged reactors usually get shipped off to a repair depot.
ghostrider
09/15/14 04:59 PM
67.49.101.109

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If I find a mech that has the engine destroyed, but otherwise intact, how would I go about putting in an engine to get it running?
For mercs, shipping it off to the nearest house depot isn't really an option. Especially if I am not going to report it to the employer as alot do, especially if the mech wasn't battled in this contract.

I understand not being able to pop a 300 engine in an urban mech. I was pointing out that they all take the same space (normal, not xl and such) no matter the rating of the engine.
The 300 rated engine is a good example since they have them in multiple weight mechs, and not a change. The price should not reflect the myomers and actuators needed to move the heavier/faster units.
A good example would be the maraurder/orion for this. Both are 75 tons with a 4/6 move. The marauder should have more expense since it doesn't walk normally, and should require more myomers/actuators.

Now the examples of how different things are different sizes is a little off. I understand you are saying they are not one size fits all. A medium laser is larger then a small, though both take up one critical. Comparing an ac 5 to a large laser is apples and oranges. The ac 5 is heavier and uses more criticals then the large laser does. Don't let the barrel housing fool you into thinking they are the same dimensions.

And how do people tinker with units if they don't buy a reactor that isn't mounted?
skiltao
09/16/14 12:00 PM
108.95.156.241

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Why not have myomers etc reflected in the price? They're all part of a single game effect (how fast the 'Mech goes) so it's convenient to lump them together.

Quote:
Ghostrider writes:
Now the examples of how different things are different sizes is a little off. I understand you are saying they are not one size fits all. A medium laser is larger then a small, though both take up one critical. Comparing an ac 5 to a large laser is apples and oranges. The ac 5 is heavier and uses more criticals then the large laser does. Don't let the barrel housing fool you into thinking they are the same dimensions.



I'm not just saying they're not one size fits all, I'm also saying that critical slots do not equate to volume. At most they're a compromise between surface area and fragility. Look at the Rifleman: don't let the boxy upper arm fool you into thinking the AC uses significantly more space than the laser--there's just not enough room for that between the barrels and the shoulder.

Quote:

how do people tinker with units if they don't buy a reactor that isn't mounted?



Most technicians don't have the training needed to "tinker" with fusion engines. Plus, they'd need factory equipment to do it. So engines rarely get "tinkered" with outside of factories. (Or Solaris VII, whose workshops would have to be similarly equipped.)

The reactor is not destroyed unless the Center Torso is completely destroyed. The six engine slots on the record sheet are just engine *shielding*. If you find an intact 'Mech with all six slots damaged, those six slots of shielding can can be replaced or repaired in the field.


Edited by skiltao (09/16/14 12:03 PM)
ghostrider
09/17/14 06:23 AM
67.49.101.109

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The ac does use more space then a large laser, hence the critical spaces it uses. Otherwise, looking at a mechs for examples, the ac 20 on the hunchback looks smaller then any ac 2 I have seen. Hell, it is smaller then most missile launchers.

Now as for tinkering, you got the idea wrong. I was not saying tinker with the engine components, but swapping out engines entirely. Like the combine did with the charger. Normal field techs do that at times.

And last I knew, 3 hits tended to blow up fusion engines.
If the 6 points is all shielding, then something is wrong.
And that is not true for all units that use fusion engines. Vehicles with fusion engines lose the engine on the first hit. So would that mean the vehicles don't have shielding?

And myomers have their own cost, but I still have not seen a good explaination why the same fusion engine cost a different amount depending on the mech it is put it. To my knowledge it should put out x amount of power. A good example would be a chevy 350. It costs the same amount to put in any chevy, but the lighter the car, the easier it handles pulling it. The transmission can do wonders, and that is how you can help heavier vehicles with the same power. The engine does not change in price. (barring name brands, ie camaro is more expensive because its a camaro.)

And if the myomers are different, why can't I buy the larger ones to make my unit go faster. My understanding is power (electric) is used to cause them to contract. except the tsm, there is not difference in size from the beserker (100 ton 4 move mech) to the urban mech (30 ton 2 move mech).
Weight is a factor. But why would a faster unit with the same engine and myomers cost any different from the slower heavier unit with the same package?
And yes, I do know they cost is different for the different wieghts, but that opens up even more cans of worms.
skiltao
09/17/14 11:39 AM
108.88.166.141

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The Hunchback's AC/20 is larger than almost every other weapon I've seen. Blackjack's, Vulcan's and JagerMech's AC/2s included. (Big missile racks bigger, but they also tend to require more surface area.) That aside, what makes you think that critical spaces equate to volume?

Are there any examples of field techs swapping engines entirely? The only example I've seen is a single, exceptional, maximally Elite (and maximally prepared) Master Technician in BattleTechnology, and I don't think it says he did it in the field. Swapping a reactor for another of the same rating is sometimes done, because it can be faster than repairing shielding.

I don't think you can add myomer without restructuring the legs, and you'd probably need to add extra power to make them worthwhile... I guess you could swap in a bigger powerplant without adding myomer or restructuring the legs, but if you do, you're gonna snap something. A friend of mine put a big engine in his car, powerful enough that it needed a governor; but he didn't get the governor. Then he went too fast and now the engine (or maybe the transmission) needs more expensive work done.

Quote:
And last I knew, 3 hits tended to blow up fusion engines. If the 6 points is all shielding, then something is wrong.


Ah, my apologies. My 1987 Rules of Warfare and 1990 Compendium do say the third hit destroys the engine. I guess this also blows the 'Mech up (rendering it unsalvageable). The Master Rules (or maybe the rulebook before it) changed that in the mid '90s; now, the engine is only blown up (rendered unsalvageable) when the center torso is destroyed by an artillery strike or an ammo explosion.

I guess it's possible to find a 'Mech without a reactor; in that case (as with Avanti's Angels in Double Blind) you have to find a reactor of the correct rating.

Quote:
Vehicles with fusion engines lose the engine on the first hit. So would that mean the vehicles don't have shielding?


It means their shielding isn't as good, or that their internal structure doesn't take damage as well as a 'Mech's does. It isn't the only way vehicles are inferior to 'Mechs.

Quote:
And myomers have their own cost


Sure, but there are myomers in the arms and torso which don't contribute to speed.
ghostrider
09/20/14 02:39 AM
67.49.254.234

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
at this moment, I can only give the examples of houses doing engine swaps, like the banshee and charger. There is other examples of merc units doing it, but i don't have those books with me at this time. I want to say there are some examples in the tros, but cant think of the names. Most of the swaps are a single mech, not a series, but they have been done.

As for the artillery strikes and ammo explosion, I was under the impression that is the only way to completely destroy the center torsos structure into unusable scrap. Not the engine itself.

The example of the riflemans arms saying the large laser in it is the same size as the ac is what brought up the ac 20 comparison. Just because it looks the same does not mean it is the same size.
If critical spaces taken isn't equated to size or volume taken up, then what is?
Why would the ac 5 take 4 spots while the large laser takes 2?

Now as for vehicles engine shielding not being as good. The engine shielding is the same for both vehicles and mechs. They constantly say vehicle engines were stripped for use in mechs. But you did sum it up. The designers wanted to make vehicles inferior. Having the engines destroy themselves on the first hit makes that more likely then not.
skiltao
09/22/14 11:35 AM
108.95.156.234

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I've researched this at least twice in the past; prior to the Jihad series, Stuart Bell's "Challenger" refit (from BattleTechnology) is the only case I can find where engine rating was changed outside a factory. (People sometimes point to the Stalker's lightened variants, but those aren't actually supposed to change their engine ratings; or to the Dragoons' Marauder II, which was created under factory conditions.) If you ever come across another (pre-Jihad) case of an engine rating being changed outside factory conditions, I would be very interested to hear of it.

The rules changed how the 3rd engine hit works--it no longer destroys the engine, it merely shuts the engine down. (Extra engine hits have no additional effect.) Therefore, the only way to destroy the engine is to completely destroy the Mech. (If the center torso was destroyed by something other than artillery or ammo explosion, the repair rules allow a 1/6 chance for the engine to be reparable.) I basically agree with you about vehicle engines, but I think vehicle construction is vague enough that we can't say for sure that their shielding is (or is always) identical to Mech engine shielding.

For construction and combat, you mostly need to know how much surface area a piece of equipment has, its silhouette with respect to the shooter, and its general fragility. (Basically, how hard is it to armor effectively.) Any or all of these factors can be wildly out of whack with volume; the AC/5 may be simply twice as fragile as the large laser.

I think the most useful thing, to help keep Mechs in scale with each other, is treat the Mech's overall volume as being equivalent to its overall tonnage. (Without applying the same principle to individual pieces of equipment, since mass may be distributed throughout the 'Mech--that AC/5 and large laser have ammo and power feeds running through the torsos, even though they don't have any critical slots there.)
ghostrider
09/22/14 08:42 PM
75.80.234.37

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
you are going to make me re read the entire set of books I have.

I do understand they may increase the size of the housing for a weapon to make it balance out with other weapons, such as the enforcer. The ac 10 is a lot heavier then the large laser.

As the weight of the mech is definitely an indication of it's size. Locust verse atlas would be a prime example. I agree that lasers would all have power lines running thru the torso, but now that you mention it, I don't know of any canon mechs that have ammo stored in the arms. That is for the mechs up to clan invasion. I think some of the jihad mechs did, but never really studied them.

Problem I am having with some of this is not remembering if it was in the novels or tech books.

I would think the engine comes in one form only. Each manufacturer would have a few different brackets, but they should be the same thing in tanks, mechs and fighters. Tanks need a transmission equal to half the fusion rating, so that would point to not being set up for use in a tank. This might be implying information that isn't there. I will grant that.
skiltao
09/24/14 07:43 PM
192.203.223.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Another problem with weapon size is that the amount of armor seems to play a role in the location's size, too. (The Ost Mechs and the Jenner, whose arms are armored poorly, have very short arms.)(P.S.: Dervish has ammo in its arms, making the 'Mech super explodey; that's the only one I can remember off the top of my head.)

Are you thinking of the Von Luckner? Its entry in the old TR:3025 says that most other fusion-powered vehicles have had their reactors removed for use in BattleMechs. House Liao apparently had a House-wide initiative stripping the Von Luckner's 225-rated engine for use in 'Mechs, but that (being a high-level initiative) presumably used factory equipment to install the engines in 'Mechs. (I remember one fan theory that they were used in the VND-1AA "Avenging Angel" Vindicator variants.) There's no indication that either Liao or the other Houses have transplanted the 225 under field conditions. (There's also no discussion about how efficient this is, whether you waste mass, or other practical details like that.)

Heh, I'm not trying to push you into rereading your library; just, in whatever future year you happen to wander across another example, feel free to post it.


Edited by skiltao (09/24/14 07:47 PM)
skiltao
10/10/14 12:16 PM
108.86.36.229

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
When I said "feel free to post it," I meant "I am very interested, so please post it somewhere I'm likely to see it." Sorry if that didn't come across right; I didn't mean to kill the thread.
ghostrider
10/12/14 02:12 PM
75.80.234.110

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
been too lazy to go thru garage to look for it. Also kinda hoping someone else would weigh in as well.
As for killing the thread, just haven't though much on this that wouldn't be rehashing most of what is here. Not wanting to spam it just to make it look like I start the major conversation pieces. I just add some controversy to them.

Though technically factory condition swaps do not mean they are house sponsored or even the master techs doing the work. Yes, most if not all engine swaps are done in a well stocked repair or factory bay, it does not mean they are researched or approved by the owners of said bays.
Any unit with the resources could swap any engine out, without blueprints done up for the unit.

But going back to the 300 since it is easy to relate to, why would the stronger myomers in an atlas not propel the unit to a speed of 4, yet the weaker ones used in a marauder do so?
Same engine putting out the same output. Yet why would the engine price change?
Now it would also make you wonder if a unit uses just ballistic weapons, why they couldn't use a smaller engine for the same speed, since it isn't pulling as much power as energy weapons, excepting the gauss rifle?

I know part of this is ease of game mechanics. And I still haven't seen anything about engines costing more for double heat sinks.
skiltao
10/13/14 02:00 PM
75.7.192.74

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
With blueprints and the right tools, sure, any reasonably skilled unit could probably do an engine swap. But those blueprints still need to be made by someone, and that's not a common thing.

If the Marauder has 300-rated myomers, and the Atlas has 300-rated myomers, why are you saying the Atlas' leg myomers are stronger?

Isn't the price of double heatsinks counted separately from the engine?

You're right, engine mass isn't dependent on the power needs of your weapons. That seems like a good argument for the reactor itself being a relatively small part of the "engine" mass.


Edited by skiltao (10/13/14 02:03 PM)
ghostrider
10/13/14 04:40 PM
75.80.234.110

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You would not need blueprints for swapping out engines so much as the right brackets. Granted there may be brackets already designed and made to do the job, but most of what is implied is jury rigging. I am also including just swapping the same sized engine out but made by a different manufacturer. I will assume an 300 made in the combine has different mounting brackets then the federate suns. Even for the same mech. I would go as far as saying even different manufacturers in the same region of space, not including recently conquered planets. This would force people to buy from them. Sounds stupid, but it happens even today.

Depending on how you look at it, the atlas myomers should be stronger as it is moving 100 tons over 75 tons, but the same could be said the other way since they are moving the 75 tons faster. Then you add in the 60 ton units moving 5 or 50 tons moving 6. I would partially agree if someone said the weight is what causes them to move faster. But that would mean the same price for all of them, not depended on weight or speed.

How many people actually buy the heatsinks hidden by the engine? Everyone I have talked with about this say those are included with the price of the engine. I could see where they shouldn't be.

I hadn't really thought about it, but the reactor ratio to the casing might cause some major problems when looking at it. The variants such as the xl increases the size dramatically, but how much of that is just casing and how much is an actual increase it the reactor core?

But this does bring up part of a point I was trying to make. An engine produces x amount of power. Period. Why is the price of the speed of the unit included in the engine? It will produce the same amount in any unit it is installed it. I use the 300 since it is in the 50,60, 75, and 100 ton units. Nice wide variety of weights.
skiltao
10/22/14 05:56 PM
68.77.109.151

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The way TechManual describes the "integral" heatsinks, they don't work the same as regular heatsinks, so it would make sense to include them in the price of the engine. Older sources describe the "integral" heatsinks as being regular heatsinks in a "hot box" next to the engine, though, and in this case I think it makes sense to buy them separately.

I was assuming the reactors might very in shape as well as volume, such that a "smaller" reactor might not fit into your engine compartment. XL engines, as I understand them, have to do with the reactor shielding rather than the reactor. Have you seen the engine "superchargers" from Maximum Tech or Tactical Operations? They mass 10% of the engine and work like MASC (but apply crits to the engine instead of to the legs). I think that may be a good guideline for how much the reactor weighs by itself, and for what happens when you put in a more powerful reactor without upgrading anything else.

Power = Work / Time
Power = (Force * Distance) / Time
Power = ((Mass * Acceleration) * Distance) / Time
Power = (Mass * Acceleration) * Cruise MP
Power = Engine Rating * Acceleration

So, if the engine costs were based solely on the power of the reactor, the equation still has acceleration (which has to be related to Movement Points, given how short turns are, and how quickly 'Mechs can start and stop).


Edited by skiltao (10/22/14 05:57 PM)
ghostrider
02/04/15 10:10 AM
75.80.238.47

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I have found the big loop hole in this issue of why the engine price is determined by weight and speed of the unit.

Towers.
The engine that is used in powering defense towers do not move, nor worried about weight of the unit, but is determined by the weapons used in it.
With that being said, you could buy power plants for towers and stick them in a mech. It would make them sooooo much cheaper then buying one for say a spider.

I know this is sounds like looking for a way to cheat the system. But the math does not hold up, like it should.
skiltao
02/08/15 02:07 PM
68.77.108.242

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
240-rated Tower power plant and shielding: X C-bills
Tower fittings for power plant: Y C-bills

240-rated Spider power plant and shielding: X C-bills
240-rated myomers and motive system: Z C-bills

You raise an interesting point with engine rating being based on weapon mass... I wonder what vehicle has the worst "energy weapon : engine rating" ratio.


Edited by skiltao (02/08/15 02:12 PM)
ghostrider
02/08/15 06:42 PM
75.80.238.47

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Using the 300 rated engine since it is common in alot of units, why should the 300 engine costs change with the speed of the unit? Or even the weight of it?

The example of the 240 rated engine is usable to. Why would the engine cost more to put in a spider mech, then a tower?
It isn't a couple thousand c-bill difference.

And the engine rating based on weapons mass is part of another discussion. But it can be opened on it's own as well. Why isn't there any issues in mechs and tanks for this idea?
Shouldn't tower ratings be less since they do not need to move the unit on top of turret/weapons issues?

I can understand actuators and myomers being more costly for heavier and faster units.
That is part of what they are for.
Akalabeth
02/10/15 02:30 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think arguing reality with regards to Battletech is a very slippery slope on the hill of sanity. Fact is there are a great many things about Battletech that don't make sense, probably because was it never really built with realism in mind. My understanding is that it was originally a "beer and pretzels" game, was supposed to play second fiddle to FASA's larger Renegade Legion line, but became their bread and butter when it unexpectedly took off.

At this point so much work has been done on the foundation of the rules that it would be ill-advised to change something major about the game. I too was a proponent of changing some of the base concepts, but after a while I realized that my energies to reform this game would be better spent creating a game of my own.

To the argument at hand, with regards to how much space an engine takes up. The larger issue is not how much a space a given engine or gyro requires, the larger issue is that a 20 ton mech has the same amount of space as a 100 ton mech. And perhaps also the concept that space is a limiting factor in the first place.

How much room a mech or vehicle takes up is ONLY relevant with regards to transport. A unit could be as bulky as possible as long as there is a dropship with bays large enough to transport.

Weight itself is not much of a limiting factor either. More mass means larger components to move the machine but as long as those components can be built there's no limiter for how large it can be. And if in Battletech they can build a leg to support a dropship thousands of tons in weight you'd think they could build a leg to support a battlemech a few tons more.

Similarly, engines one would think are simply a factor or weight and size but not limited by any sort of "rating" beyond what is available. Why can a mech not use multiple engines to achieve the same level of power?


Battletech however was deliberately design with a "plug and play" design system. It's meant to be quick and easy, grab some numbers off a chart, grab some pre-made weapons, and throw them together. That ease has been reduced with the sheer number of options available and interactions to look out for, but the basic concept is the same.
ghostrider
02/10/15 08:32 PM
75.80.238.47

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
There has been several things that have changed that have really affected the game. How infantry takes damage is a good one to start. But that is another thread.

As for size of mechs, there is a problem with that. Alot of the fiction and fluff leans towards heavier mechs being larger, with light mechs around 12 meters tall while things like the atlas are around 18 meters tall. i agree that all mechs seem to possess the same number of criticals, which doesn't make that much sense, but at the same time, fusion style engines hide so many heat sinks based on their rating size. And with your example of building more massive (wider/taller/thicker) units, why would an xl engine require more of those critical spots?
I know game balance and to limit just how much stuff can fit on said unit, but it still is an issue.

But I have yet to see a good reason why an engine costs are based on the speed of a unit. Towers don't move. They don't require additional shielding. And if you buy a fusion engine as a spare for a mobile unit, why it would cost you a huge chunk of funds to have it and have to order it for a unit.
If they are special orders for the unit, then a 300 out of an orion would not work in a marauder, or atlas, or anything else.
ghostrider
02/17/15 01:56 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Guess this is as good of a thread to ask as any..

Do they have any sort of charts or tables explaining how much energy is needed for moving a mech a certain size and speed?
I am not talking engine rating table.
Also is there any table showing how much power a said weapon uses?

I know they are trying to keep some things simple, but the thought struck me that you need x engine to move y tonnage mech/vehicle z speed.
They give you what sized engine is needed for weapons in a tower.
Yet there is no where that I know of that they add in fusion engine power to power weapons in the unit soaking up power to move the unit.

We now .1 ton of amplifiers will power 1 ton of energy weapons when using ICE engines. This is the same for vehicles and I believe ICE powered mechs.
The engine rating is equal to the tonnage of the energy weapons for towers.
But I am puzzled on power usage for movement of units with all engine types.
This also begs for an answer on how many ampls can a certain size engine run?
With movement/without movement?

And still have not seen why an engine in a tower cost soooo much less then the same size one in any mobile unit.
Pages: 1
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 enabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 12144


Contact Admins Sarna.net