Retry
05/18/18 04:21 AM
174.70.184.145
|
I've been posting some of my designs to both this forum and the official Battletech forum, for the purposes of extra exposure, input, and I don't think I run into enough arguments here. Well, I was dumb enough to get into one over there. Basically, I fluffed the Wyvern as a mediocre attempt to reduce logistical cost by trying to replace most airframes (In this case Federated Suns Warriors, Cavalries, Martens, Cargo Transports and BA transports like Karnovs and Cobras, etc) with a single, standardized, low-maintenance chassis that can fulfill as many roles as possible, although in many cases not particularly well.
One character adamantly disagreed with the point to the extent that he claimed that not only would such standardization not help with logistics, it would actually hinder logistics, maintenance, and needlessly burden the supply lines. That doesn't make any sense to me (why would only maintaining 1 chopper chassis and its parts for X roles create higher logistical requirements than maintaining X chopper chassis, and all their different and often non-compatible parts for X roles?). I'm not sold on his perspective but some of the claims are interesting, and I don't have enough knowledge of what the various books and rulebooks actually say on how the logistics of these things work, just some general ideas.
The following contributions are greatly appreciated:
1.Book or Lore explanations with fluff that provides some insight to an answer of the question.
2.Rulebook citations and explanation on how logistics and maintenance works. I know Strategic Operations has some stuff on this but I'm not sure if there's more sourcebooks, or just something I overlooked.
3.Thoughts, opinions or reasoning from a real life perspective or examples. Probably not as authoritative as a rulebook explanation but they're interesting to hear.
4.Other questions on the logistics of Battletech, as I am not omniscient and I also intend this to be a general discussion of the in-universe logistics of Battletech.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Q1:How significant is fuel?
My claim: In Battletech, Fusion engines on ground vehicles is a good idea if you want to lighten the logistical load. Fuel Cells use hydrogen, have a short combat radius, and the fuel can be expensive unless you use a Fusion engine to power electrolysis on water, and ICE engine fuel costs can also add up and there's no guarantee that they'll be compatible with the same fuel type.
The Counterclaim:
Let's get something perfectly clear here: Fuel is a negligible cost, it's not a scarcity item, it's not even a particularly complex item, this isn't the 1970's. anywhere you've got enough infrastructure to HAVE a garrison, is going to have plentiful fuel. (hence the popularity of ICE vehicles).
This would be news to me. One of the biggest advantage of Fusion engines was their fuel independence, or so I thought. Surely ICE's are popular simply because they don't cost much so the average joe can often afford one, as opposed to because fuel's upkeep cost being insignificant. If this turns out to be true, then something like a Fuel Cell Engine would actually be superior to a Fusion Engine (on vehicles) unless you really want a big energy weapon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q2:How significant are the Easy & Difficult to Maintain quirks when actually playing on the strategic scale?
Q3:What's the logistical footprint and maintenance differences between combat-grade Fusion Engines, ICE engines, and Fuel Cell Engines?
This one comes from folowing claim:
Second "Easy to maintain quirk" is relative to other units of equal tech. a fusion engine that's 'easy to maintain' is still going to be more expensive to upkeep than a fuel cell or ICE engine of the same rating. In this case, "easy to maintain" is relative to another Omni-VTOL with a Chin Turret.
I don't disagree that it's relative to other units, but I disagree with the upkeep costs.
IIRC, Standard Fusion engines and Fuel Cell engines both have a Technology Rating of D, while ICEs are tech rating C. (Needs confirmation though, I haven't been able to find any references to it in, say, Techmanual). If this is true, according to Strat Ops Pg.170, the tech rating D has a +1 modifier for maintenance checks while the tech rating C has a +0 modifier. If that's the case, shouldn't the fuel cell engine be just as difficult to maintain as the fusion engine (before considering fuel consumption)? If the Easy-to-Maintain quirk is applied to a fusion engine vee which gives a -1 modifier for maintenance checks, wouldn't that make the fusion engine easier to maintain than the Fuel Cell, and on the level of the ICE engine (since the -1 nullifies the +1 penalty for being a rating D technology, bringing it down to C level)?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q4:Does using a few omni-units create a heavier logistical strain than multiple standard units?
My Claim:If you use a single Omni-unit to replace several Omni-units of the same role (Ex: Using a single Medium Omnimech with configurations for long-range fire support, artillery support, missile boating, scouting, and urban warfare to replace multiple standard Battlemech designs), you can reduce your logistical footprint.
The Counterclaim: Third, "Changing roles on the fly" requires the pods-which are a logistical cost-when not in use, you have to have them on hand, and while they're not in use, they still require maintenance and upkeep, still require warehouse space, still require shipping space. Further, it requires being able to move a repair site rapidly so that your 'change' can happen quickly enough to justify the expense, which requires more specialized assets to move your unused pods around the battlefield or close to it, which also requires guarding forces for the technical crew, ordnance, equipment, convoy guards, convoy vehicles...and this is above-and-beyond standard ammo and fuel convoys too, since the cargo isn't 'immediate use'. Plus administrative costs tracking all those pods and getting the right ones to the right positions.
Surely none of this is actually new: Even when there were standard battlemechs, your quartermaster would want replacements for damaged components like spare Autocannons and lasers and LRM tubes in the event that they get damaged in combat, so all that'd really change is that you're using 1 (or a few) chassis to mount all your spare equipment instead of 20 mutually exclusive frames, which should only help logistics.
Perhaps I'm wrong and there's some rule or fluff explanation somewhere that says otherwise.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q5:Do Omni-unit pilots and technicians need more training than standard unit pilots?
This one comes from the following claim:
fourth, since you can 'change roles' by changing equipment, you still have to either send your techs through constant refresher training to keep up, or have a larger ground crew organization to keep those pods in shape to be used. additionally, your pilots have to go through more varied, less focused, training to be able to USE those additional features. These all drive your costs upward as you lose the ability to focus training-your crews, if they're the same size, aren't going to be as well trained and efficient, and damage/losses in training roles are going to be higher. Alternately, to have the same efficiency in operation will require pilots to have hundreds (if not more) additional hours requalifying with each configuration you are using, and a signifcant additional manpower cost to have enough repair trained personnel to upkeep the additional pods.
I just don't see how an Omni-Vehicle changing its loadout is that much different from a Vehicle pilot upgrading from switching from a Warrior H-7 variant to a H-7A or H-7C variant, or from an Atlas pilot upgrading from their AS-7D to the AS-7Dr variant, or even changing over to a new 'Mech like the Fafnir. There's no real special penalty that I'm aware of for a pilot changing equipment or even to a new Battlemech, and surely the Omnimech would have an advantage over switching from two different standard 'Mech models (like the Atlas->Fafnir example) since the chassis and control layout is the same and familiar, it's only armament that changes. Nor am I aware of any "requalifying" penalty for Crewmen or Astechs. In fact, the generally quicker and safer weapon swaps that an Omnimech with Omnipods can do should be an indication that any such "requalifying" is actually much easier to do with an Omni than a normal (or 20 different normal) vehicles.
And besides, if you're replacing some guy's Karnov with an Omnivehicle, nothing says you have to train that guy for every single combat configuration, you could just give him 1 or 2 Cargo-hauling configurations and call it a day. If you replace someone's Goblin Infantry Support Vehicle with some sort of Omnivehicle, you don't necessarily have to train him for the Artillery configuration or the AA configuration or the Fire-Support configuration if you just want him to use 2 or 3 infantry-carrying or support configurations.
I don't know of any real basis for these claims grounded in rules, and it seems counter to the fluff of omni-vehicles in general too.
|
AmaroqStarwind
05/18/18 12:41 PM
108.255.82.176
|
"ICE engine" = "Internal Combustion Engine engine". Let me just put in my PIN number in the ATM machine to get th the cash you need for your fuel :P
As for your questions, I'm afraid that I don't actually have any answers.
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus
The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable. |
wolf_lord_30
05/18/18 01:24 PM
74.214.54.153
|
Q4: Your answer lies with the clans. And you have the right of it. Having an omni chassis with pods will significantly decrease the logistical strain of an army. The clans would refit their mechs in such a short amount of time and rearm when necessary, it was a significant advantage that they were stated to have. Wish I could remember exactly where I read that. Try TRO 3050, that might have some good info on omni mechs.
And since this seems to be a sore point for the other person, look at it like this (which you already seem to be). 4 chassis for a lance, multiple arms and weapon pods. Now it can perform any role. The non omni lance has 4 mechs, or vehicles, all specialized. With extra equipment to have on hand. Oh wait, you need a striker lance, you need 4 different units with their own equipment.
That is a lot less hangar space needed for the omnis.
Or, this one had an weapon destroyed. Now you have to get into the arm and repair or replace. An omni pod, it would pop off and you could replace it with the same configuration or a different one if that is what was on hand in time for the next mission.
Like you said, maybe it won't perform as well as a specialized unit, but it will do alright, especially considering it can be outfitted for multiple roles. Maybe it won't be as heavily armored as a brawler ought to be, but then again, it might be better armored than most fire support as well.
Q5: I don't see them needing extra training. It's weapon systems, not a whole new unit. It's not like it is a LAM where you need to know how to pilot a mech and fly the aero. If your pilot can't figure out how to shoot lasers from autocannons or missiles, then you need a new pilot. A simple field refit with an ordinary machine would be enough to throw that pilot through a loop. So no, it isn't harder to train an omni pilot versus a regular one.
|
ghostrider
05/18/18 01:36 PM
66.74.61.223
|
The use of a single transport unit, like a plane, would be great, if things are average. Having a unit that can move 15 tons of things, when you only need 5 is a waste. But generally, overhead for parts drops if you use one unit for all.
First question about fuel. Over the long term, it would be more efficient, but the cost of the fusion over the ICE is one consideration. The abundance of fuel for the ICE, as well as cost is not close to nothing, but is low enough to fudge some of the numbers. The supposed lack of fusion engines is supposed to be why ICEs are still around. On the invaders side, you simply take the fuel you need. One last point, the ICE is easier to train techs to work with then the fusion. So maintenance costs need to be figured in.
Q2. Unless you are actually dealing with maintenance, they are pretty useless. The hard is free points when you don't use it.
Q3 It is easier to work on ICE, then it is to try and work on a small nuclear reactor in the field, and even in the camp bays. Having simple parts like rubber hoses and coolant for ICE is more likely then anything the reactor has, and need replacement. And the reactor needs to be done right. A small unsecured line may well cause the reactor to fail or worse, start pushing its molten plasma out of the area. Might be a better example of a prop plane verses a jet engine. Jets are simple in use, but have quirks you just can't get around. Damaging just one blade on a jet can cause it to self destruct. So time and effort to inspect it every single time is a pain.
Q3 They are accurate about having to keep supplies there, but it is not nearly as much as having to keep several mechs on hand to deal with different roles. Omnis are made to have weapons loads changed out on the fly. I believe it is 15 minutes per pod. Now having stocks of ammo, and even spare weapons is where the omnis shine. Running out of lrms for an omni, means changing out a pod to remove the weapon. A standard mech means going without the weapon. Figure what that does to an Archer. Running some omnis, if you use the same mech and configuration, having a few spare pods is easier them trying to replace a broken weapon in a normal unit. Repairs are done while the mech is returned to duty, not keeping it tied up in the repair bays hoping they can get it fixed.
But I guess those saying they are worse never worry about having the lrm 15 in stock for a crusader, and not remember then lrm 20 used in the Archer does not work. You can't cut out 5 tubes.
Q5 Until they came out with the specific weapons in the role playing games, you had mech gunnery. That means all weapons mounted on a mech were covered. You should be able to use anything on the mech without additional training. Otherwise, you would have to train every warrior on a specific mech. Last I knew of training facilities, they did not do anything like that. And I don't hear of anyone taking a penalty for using a unit that they were not trained on. Unit being anything you can use. The mech in the beginning was an example. A prime example is the marauder. The 3R had dual ppcs, yet the marik version uses large lasers. Yet anyone can use both equally. The awesome is another one. One version has the lrms on it. No additional training needed.
Now specialized training in say recon may be an argument for additional training, as you need to understand what you are looking for.
As for layouts of control equipment, that is very much a pain for none standardized units. The prop plane verse the jet is a good example of that. The flight stick is different, and even prop planes have quirks you have to know before you fly. The original ones used in WWI had to turn on and off the engine in order to land. They had two speed. Full and stop. So even that is something that has to be dealt with. A jet cargo plane is not going to handle like a fighter jet, even though they have the same control.
Initial training is supposed to deal with all forms of combat. Next time, ask them if the fighter jets in use today have to retrain their pilots when they go from fighter to bomber in the same plane. I want to say the F15 drops bombs as well as dogfights. I don't think they pull the pilots out of the air for that.
And that would mean a pilot from a chenook transport chopper, would not be able to fly an apache without special training, so the argument can be used against them.
The basis for the claims is people don't want to admit the omni aspect makes most dedicated units obsolete. It costs far less to have one main chasis, then configure it, verses having to have loads of unused units sitting in storage, and taking them out once in a blue moon. That in itself helps destroy their needing more space for things. I bring along enough vehicles to use, not too much, and most sits until you need the special one for a single mission, then it goes back into storage for months.
|
ghostrider
05/18/18 01:51 PM
66.74.61.223
|
Here is a real life example for this.
I used to rebuild cylinder heads for gas engines.
Having one engine used in all the vehicles meant only needing a few specific parts for them all.
That hasn't happened that much among on manufacturers product, like GM.
The 305, 307, 350, and 400 small blocks has basically the same valves, though not always exactly. The diameter of the valve stem for the exhaust came in two sizes, and the intakes face size had 3. For just the heads. That meant 2 different seals for them as well. The 454 used something else. And this is before they got into all the high tech things like swirled combustion heads.
Ford changed their heads like every 3 to 5 years, with enough change to force you to have stocks for the different years.
And this is only the heads. Pistons and such really change with them.
So if they want to say it is easier and cheaper to keep logistics for different size engines, from different manufacturers, have them go into any autoparts store and try to get parts for different year products from different manufacturers.
It seems the think all units use the same parts, since the game doesn't force you to have parts specific to VOX, or VLAR or the other engines as well as having parts for Holly, Federated, or Magna missile launchers. All manufacturers use different specs, but to keep the game simple, they just generalize them.
Edited by ghostrider (05/18/18 01:52 PM)
|
AmaroqStarwind
05/18/18 04:50 PM
108.255.82.176
|
"No, my fire control system cannot use the Lord's Light PPC with its current drivers. I need a Magna Hellstar."
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus
The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable. |
Retry
05/20/18 03:57 PM
174.70.184.145
|
Well I did find some extra stuff regarding fuel.
According to Strat Ops, typical fuel costs 1k C-Bills per ton for petrochemicals, and 15k C-Bills per ton for hydrogen. You can make the latter for free with a fusion engine, but the same isn't true for the former.
Anyways, combat vehicles are assumed to have fuel allocated equal to 10% of their engine mass. By the support vehicle rules, an ICE has a range of 100km per 1% of fuel mass, so ICE combat vehicles have 1000 km maximum combat ranges in an ideal setting unless they specifically add extra tonnage to fuel.
A 30 ton Karnov's ICE weighs 15 tons, so it has 1.5 tons of fuel. If the engine runs on petrochemicals, it's burning 1500 C-Bills per tank. Since these vehicles are going to be operational for decades, if not centuries, not only are fuel costs not insignificant, you may very well save money with a fusion engine in the long run.
Edited by Retry (05/20/18 08:22 PM)
|
AmaroqStarwind
05/20/18 07:37 PM
108.255.82.176
|
Quote:
According to Strat Ops, typical fuel costs 1k C-Bills per ton for petrochemicals, and 15k C-Bills per ton for hydrogen. You can make the latter for free with a fusion engine, but the same isn't true for the latter.
*Former
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus
The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable. |
Retry
05/20/18 08:22 PM
174.70.184.145
|
No, latter. Hydrogen can be extracted from water via electrolysis using the Fusion engine as your power so-
Oh, I see. Fixed.
|
Karagin
05/20/18 08:53 PM
72.176.187.91
|
This is an issue that ALL the owners of the game have dropped the ball and my biggest issue with the last plot point, the economic and logistical system of Battletech is a game of hand waving and one book countering another book. Prime example Objective Raids, awesome book, tells us a lot, and they did NOTHING with it.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
05/20/18 11:34 PM
66.74.61.223
|
What do you mean the salvage team can't fit on the leopard with 4 mech and a pair of fighters? It has 5 tons of space.
I can fit the atlas and three archers in there. 
I can understand some of not wanting to get into logistics as a player, but those in charge should damn well be using them.
The whole history of the game is based on taking worlds, yet there are some things that just don't work.
Invading planets that have atmospheres that are unhealthy to people. Well we just stick some atmospheric jets to guard it. Oh wait, no oxygen to power the normal jet fuel. Or using a Karnov to evac units in a void.
Dropping a regimental combat team on a world, and saying all your supplies fit in the units dropship, yet there is no space for medical personell, or even the support vehicles to be used. And worlds that have to import all fuel yet nothing is brought in sounds fishy. Might be magic.
Even the idea of a single dropship supplying a world with it doesn't work. But then the resource poor universe that is the game, making you think it is the dark ages (midevil times not the stone era), yet popping crap out that no one can do but their storyline.
The problem with bigger and badder enemies and weapons, is sooner or later, the pcs get it. Then they don't work?
Sounds like a lot of video games I have played. Hmmm..
|
Maurer
05/23/18 06:27 PM
174.212.9.141
|
A lot of that just sounds like pointless arguments.
One of the benefits of Omni-units was their flexibility, which came at an increased cost to build and maintain. This is mentioned quite a few times in the various books. The benefits of the flexibility in Omni-technology outweigh the costs of it.
Replacement of parts and tech training were not that difficult, as it is describe to have a plug-n-play ability - this might be more difficult for the Inner Sphere than the Clans primary frontline Omnimechs, as I wouldn't doubt the the Clans would have factored in the ability to interchange most parts (but not all) between a Fire Moth and Mad Dog.
No matter the type of unit, there would be a spare medium laser to replace a damaged medium laser as quickly as possible to get the mech back out on the field. Than, when the techs have time, they would attempt to repair that damaged medium laser to use as a replacement as soon as another medium laser was damaged.
As I mentioned, the only real down side to Omni-technology was the cost. Flexibility, repair time, multiple load outs on the same chassie are the benefits. You can look to modern day military needs as an example. The military is attempting to replace older specialized vehicles with fewer units that are more multi-role capable, with these new units costing into the billions to develop and millions to build. But these are expected to (barring destruction) last several decades with planned upgrades before replacement.
"Captain! We're completely surrounded on all sides." - Kiff, Futurama
..."Excellent, then we may attack in any direction." - Zapp Brannigan, Futurama
"A fool fights a war on two fronts; only an idiot defends on one." - Fusilier
|
ghostrider
05/23/18 10:09 PM
66.74.61.223
|
Initial costs would be an issue, but the ability to send a unit back into the field quickly by changing out a pod is far better then having to keep say an Archer in the bay, trying to replace a 20 pack.
So suggest the maintenance of the omnis is so much greater then normal stock mechs is wrong. Fielding a company of omnis will cost more for the initial buy as the omni ability is paid for then and there. Customizing the unit to fit roles greatly outpaced the specialized units that are stock. No matter how you want to say it, you can not really do recon with an archer. Ambush at point blank range. Yeah, sure. Great for long range fire support and that is about it.
And unless you are running a full unit of the same mechs, the overhead of parts just to keep them running is far greater then a mix-matched unit of omnis. Only the fixed things like engines for different sized units, and such having to have stocks to repair them all.
Which is something alot of people forget with engines in the IS. Originally, there were 4 different manufacturers for the 300. A very popular engine. Each manufacture would have their own quirks to making them work in a unit, like odd sized coolant lines, or engine mounts, just to make sure people did not run out and buy a competitors engine and try to make it work.
The issue with using real life research is the fact they are over charging for every thing they can. The bs of costing billions to come up with something new, stems from the fact CEOs and stock holders make more then the rest of the company combine. If in a time of war, you can bet those researchers would be doing it for a lot less, especially if their butts were in the invasion areas. And kickbacks are making it so those that will do it right and cheaper aren't even in the running. I believe it was the F35 was approved before it could land vertically without pulling off armor in order to let the down thrust work right. The one competitors did so without needing to remove anything. But the one company got the deal.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 89 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: 5323
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
