FASA 1680 BattleSpace MPV

Pages: 1
tmr01750195
11/04/18 01:05 AM
76.121.197.44

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Evening all from WA,

My review of BattleSpace has given me an understanding of how to use the construction rules at least for the examples used. Unfortunately determining MPV, the number pilots, non-engineering crew, and engineering department did not go so well.

The example used was Clan DropShip Carrier which the Maintenance Table p. 59 lists the following:

Structure MPV = 30,875
Life Support MPV = 16,850
Weapons MPV = 7,508
Total MPV = 55,233

The Crew Requirements Table p. 63 has the DropShip Carrier breakdown as

Pilots = 2
Engineers =5
Secondary Engineers = 10
Avg. Support Points Produced = 57,000

My calculations are
Structure MPV = 30,881
Life Support MPV = 17,100 using the 17 crew members shown on p. 63.
Weapons MPV = 7,696

FASA BattleSpace p. 57 notes that there is 1 Engineer for every 5 Secondary Engineers with a Master Engineer/Chief of Engineering in command.

I have not found how to determine the number of pilots or other non-Engineers like the Captain and First/Executive Officer.

Using a crew of 12 plus the 20 pilots and technicians I can match the Life Support MPV of 16,850. My efforts to figure out how to match Structure and Weapons MPV has not worked out.

Does anyone know of a MPV example that can walk me through the calculations?

Tom Rux
ghostrider
11/04/18 02:30 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I don't have battlespace, but there is a question about the numbers given.
It states 1 engineer for 5 secondaries, yet the requirement table has 5 engineers and 10 secondary. Should that be 2 engineers?
That would free up 3 people for other positions.
Just a thought here.
tmr01750195
11/04/18 05:40 PM
76.121.197.44

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Hello ghostrider,

Quote:
I don't have battlespace, but there is a question about the numbers given.
It states 1 engineer for 5 secondaries, yet the requirement table has 5 engineers and 10 secondary. Should that be 2 engineers?
That would free up 3 people for other positions.
Just a thought here.



Here is the wording used describing the required Engineers for DropShips, JumpShips, and Warships on BattleSpace p. 57.

"The engineers of each craft are divided into two groups. Secondary engineers make up the largest group on each craft, but have Tech Skills of Level 3 or below. The second group, engineers, usually act as team leaders, commanding a group of up to five secondary engineers. Engineers usually possess at least on Tech Skill at a level from 4 to 7, with an average Skill Level 6. One engineers on each ship commands all the rest. This Master Engineer (or Chief of Engineering) possess Technician Skill Levels of 6 and above. One average, the crew mean of Clan vessels have an additional 2 levels in appropriate skills, with secondary engineers possessing average skills of Level 5 or below, engineers having an average Skill Level of 8, and chief engineers having an average Skill Level of 8+."

I agree with the assessment that by the information suggests that 2 Engineers and 10 Secondary engineers make up the total department. Of course one of the three other personnel might be the Chief of Engineering.

BattleSpace pp. 62 are the details for DropShip, JumpShip, and Warship crews. For DropShips and JumpShips the crew consists of between 1 and 3 pilots with the number of Engineers and Secondary Engineers being based on meeting the craft's weekly maintenance requirement.

Warship crews are composed of Pilots/Non-Engineers, Engineers, and Secondary Engineers. Warships have 1 non-engineer per 50,000 tons of the craft.

To be honest I have no idea of how to calculate the bodies needed to fill the engineers, pilots, and non-engineers.

Without more information and/or a good example to follow I have no way of verifying if the crew numbers are right or not.

Personally, DropShips and JumpShips have a Captain and First Officer in addition to the pilots. From there I would look at real world real world ship organization to figure out the non-engineers needed to run the a ship.

Thank you confirming that by the directions the requirement was two Engineers versus the five listed.

Tom Rux
Karagin
11/04/18 08:36 PM
72.176.187.91

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You may want to go to the main Battletech forums and address these questions to the Line Developer, or check at CGL's Battletech pages for errata sheets that may indeed have updated information. Also Battlespace has been superseded by Interstellar Operations, I believe that is the right Core rule book.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
tmr01750195
11/04/18 11:27 PM
76.121.197.44

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Evening from WA Karagin,

Quote:
You may want to go to the main Battletech forums and address these questions to the Line Developer, or check at CGL's Battletech pages for errata sheets that may indeed have updated information. Also Battlespace has been superseded by Interstellar Operations, I believe that is the right Core rule book.



I've checked other BT forums and my searches have not been helpful with the FASA and FanPro material. In fact one of the links I had has gone away.

Yes, CGL IO does cover DropShip, JumpShip, and Warship construction that appears to follow the construction and crew requirements found in FASA AT2 and FanPro AT2 Revised.

Thank you for the suggestion.

Tom Rux
Karagin
11/05/18 09:55 AM
72.176.187.91

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?board=82.0

Link right to the official errata page
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
tmr01750195
11/05/18 01:44 PM
76.121.197.44

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Morning from WA Karagin,

Quote:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?board=82.0

Link right to the official errata page



The link to CGL IO is one that I have book marked and I have tried to locate errata for BattleSpace without success. Of course the reason is probably due to not inputting the right criteria.

Looking at the progression BattleSpace was replaced by FASA AT2 which got replaced with FanPro AT2 Revised and all three have been superseded IO.

Thank you for the link to the errata.

Tom Rux
Karagin
11/05/18 02:18 PM
72.176.187.91

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So if it has been superseded, then it would be best to go with the new rules, since the older stuff is not no longer official, however if you group is using older rule sets, then there should be errata out there on one or more of the fan pages covering Battletech, I would try Merdon's Pride Rock Industries page or one similar to that for the older stuff. Also I am sure if you dig around here at Sarna, or in the Wiki, you will find the older errata or a link to it.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
tmr01750195
11/06/18 11:47 AM
76.121.197.44

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Hello Karagin,

Quote:
So if it has been superseded, then it would be best to go with the new rules, since the older stuff is not no longer official, however if you group is using older rule sets, then there should be errata out there on one or more of the fan pages covering Battletech, I would try Merdon's Pride Rock Industries page or one similar to that for the older stuff. Also I am sure if you dig around here at Sarna, or in the Wiki, you will find the older errata or a link to it.



IIRC the information that CGL IO superseded BattleSpace was mentioned in an earlier reply. Also, there still appear to be members here that are still using bits and pieces of the FASA and FanPro rule sets.

One of the forum members posted a challenge to redesign the Hollander as a LAM. Per CGL IO LAMs use the standard systems found in the construction rules of the Introductory Boxed Set. Of course I also put my foot in my mouth up to the knee with my opinion that the FASA and FanPro LAM construction rules limited them to standard no frill BattleMechs.

I did find two BattleSpace design aids on Merdon's Pride Rock Industries one of which is compatible with Excel and I downloaded a while back forgetting that I had it. Thank you for reminding me about the site.

I've done searches on BattleTech sites I've found and here on Sarna and the Wiki. The results have not so far turned up BattleSpace material.

Thank you for your help.

Tom Rux
GiovanniBlasini
02/15/19 02:04 PM
68.111.145.247

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I suspect no such rules clarifications or errata exist for BattleSpace. FASA was not big on publishing errata, and BattleSpace had been deprecated under FASA itself when Aerotech 2 was published, which had significantly different rules from BattleSpace.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
tmr01750195
02/16/19 08:12 PM
76.121.197.44

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Hello GiovanniBlasin,

Quote:
I suspect no such rules clarifications or errata exist for BattleSpace. FASA was not big on publishing errata, and BattleSpace had been deprecated under FASA itself when Aerotech 2 was published, which had significantly different rules from BattleSpace.



I was hoping that FASA might have accidentally published errata for BattleSpace. Do you or anyone else know of an unofficial site?

Tom Rux
Pages: 1
Extra information
0 registered and 28 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: 712


Contact Admins Sarna.net