Author Topic: Strategic Operations - 6 June 2016 (v2.1)  (Read 12547 times)

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7815
  • Professor of Errata
Strategic Operations - 6 June 2016 (v2.1)
« on: 02 July 2011, 18:37:40 »
This thread is for all issues and problems with Strategic Operations.

Product Link: http://bg.battletech.com/?wpsc-product=strategic-operations

Current errata version is 2.1, and can be found here:
http://bg.battletech.com/errata/

There are two prints of Strategic Operations.  Be sure to cite which release you're working from:
2009 - first printing.
2011 - second printing.

Please remember to follow the errata report template when reporting issues.  Thanks.



Developer-Level Errata
In case of any contradiction, developer-level errata takes precedence over the current errata document.

Page 103, Orbit-to-Surface Fire, after the sixth bullet point insert the following new bullet point:
If the attack misses, the distance scattered is equal to the MoF x 2 hexes.

Page 150, Additional Crew table:
Remove the Mobile Field Base entry.

Page 158, Advanced Aerospace Unit Structural Costs And Availability Table:
Change Introduction date of Standard Core from 2107 to 2300.
Change Introduction date of Compact Core from 2300 to 2107.
« Last Edit: 10 April 2017, 12:54:57 by Xotl »
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Revanche

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 537
  • Fanah’s Fangs (formerly of the Talitha Division)
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #1 on: 02 July 2011, 19:50:52 »
So minor, as to seem inconsequential, but it would be good to clear up if it is meant to be a single cycle or multiple:

Pg175 (DTF)/"175" (PDF), MOTHBALLS
  Error: "...To remove a unit from mothballs again requires the services of a full Technical Team for the duration of a Maintenance/Repair Cycles."
  Corr: "...To remove a unit from mothballs again requires the services of a full Technical Team for the duration of a Maintenance/Repair Cycle."
        or 
  Corr: "...To remove a unit from mothballs again requires the services of a full Technical Team for the duration of # Maintenance/Repair Cycles."


Hope this helps,
Rev

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 920
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #2 on: 03 July 2011, 02:25:03 »
Page 333, second printing, PDF, Aggregate Experience By Force table:

The WB row Trinary numbers add up to 16, instead of 15.
The Really Green row Trinary numbers add up to 16, instead of 15.
The Green row Trinary numbers add up to 16, instead of 15.
The Regular row Trinary numbers add up to 17, instead of 15.
The Veteran row Trinary numbers add up to 16, instead of 15.
The Legendary row Trinary numbers add up to 16, instead of 15.


Errata Coordinator: edited for clarity
« Last Edit: 03 July 2011, 02:49:18 by Xotl »
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13052
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #3 on: 08 July 2011, 05:04:40 »
PDF (Copyright 2011, Origins Award Cover)
Page 55, Nova Cat Light RAT

References to AF1 Arctic Fox are for RS/TRO3067.  The Arctic Fox is in RS/TRO3060.

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13052
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #4 on: 08 July 2011, 05:08:56 »
PDF (Copyright 2011, Origins Award Cover)
Pages 54-55, Minor Powers 'Mech RATs

Some other references are wrong on the RATs, not just Unseen and Reseen.  All of them I found are noted below, with reference by year to the appropriate Unabridged record sheet volume.  A handful of incorrect designators were also found and noted.

Outworlds Alliance, Light
WSP-1A - 3039
STG-3R - 3039
LCT-1V - 3039

Outworlds Alliance, Medium
PXH-3K - 3085P
WVR-6R - 3039
WTH-1 - 3039
SHD-2H - 3039
GRF-1N - 3039
WLF-1 - Should be WFT-1 Wolf Trap (Everything but the designator says Wolf Trap.)

Outworlds Alliance, Heavy
MAD-3R - 3039

Free Rasalhague Republic, Medium
GRF-6S - 3085P
WVR-8K - 3085P

Free Rasalhague Republic, Heavy
ARC-2K - 3039

Magistracy of Canopus, Light
WSP-3L - 3085P
STG-6L - 3085P (both occurrences)
LCT-5V - 3085P

Magistracy of Canopus, Medium
PXH-4L - 3085P
SHD-7M - 3085P

Magistracy of Canopus, Heavy
OSR-4L - 3085P
MAD-5L - 3085P

Magistracy of Canopus, Assault
LGC-12C - 3085P

Marian Hegemony, Light
LCT-1V2 - 3085P (both occurences)

Marian Hegemony, Medium
PXH-1 - 3039
WHT-1H - Should be WTH-1H Whitworth
WVR-6M - 3039

Marian Hegemony, Heavy
MAD-3R - 3039
WHM-8D - 3085P
TDR-9M - 3085P
ARC-8M - 3085P

Marian Hegemony, Assault
GOL-2H - 3085P
LGB-12C - 3085P
MAD-4H - 3085P

Mercenary, Medium
GRF-6S - 3085P
SHD-2H - 3039
WVR-8K - 3085P

Mercenary, Heavy
RFL-3N - 3039
MAD-9M2 - 3085P
WHM-8D - 3085P
ARC-8M - 3085P

Mercenary, Assault
MAD-4A - 3039

Nova Cats, Light
Jenner IIC 4 - 3055

Nova Cats, Medium
WVR-8K - 3085P

Nova Cats, Assault
Warhammer IIC 4 - 3085P

Pirates, Light
LCT-1V - 3039
STG-5R - 3085P
STG-3R - 3085P
LCT-5M - 3085P
WSP-3L - 3085P

Pirates, Medium
GRF-1N - 3039
PXH-1 - 3039
WVR-6R - 3039
WHT-1H - Should be WTH-1H Whitworth

Pirates, Heavy
TDR-9M - 3085P
OSR-2C - 3039
WHM-8D - 3085P
MAD-3R - 3039
ARC-2R - 3039
OTL-6D - 3085P
ARC-8M - 3039

Pirates, Assault
GOL-2H - 3085P
LGB-0W - 3039
BLR-1G - 3039
MAD-4H - 3085P

Taurian Concordat, Light
STG-5R - 3085P
WSP-3L - 3085P
COM-2D - 3039
LCT-5V - 3085P
VLK-QD1 - 3085P

Taurian Concordat, Medium
PXH-4L - 3085P
SHD-7M - 3085P

Taurian Concordat, Heavy
TDR-5S - 3039
ARC-6W - 3085P
MAD-5L - 3085P
WHM-8D - 3085P
OSR-4C - 3085P



PDF (Copyright 2011, Origins Award Cover)
Page 57, Nova Cat Heavy Aerospace RAT

The EST-R3 Eisensturm is marked as an OmniFighter.  Either this fighter is incorrectly marked or this is a reference to the statistically identical EST-O Eisensturm.  I do not know which is the case.



PDF (Copyright 2011, Origins Award Cover)
Page 50, Random Assignment Tables, 3rd paragraph

As Phoenix Upgrades has been replaced by 3085 Unabridged: Project Phoenix, the reference should be changed to that product.  Appropriate changes to the RATs were already marked above.
« Last Edit: 08 July 2011, 06:18:28 by Moonsword »

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7815
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #5 on: 12 July 2011, 20:25:15 »
Minor note: the version number of the current errata document has been changed to 2.0, to reflect the fact that this errata is present in the second printing.  No other changes have been made - version 1.3 is the same as 2.0 except for the version number.

This pattern will be followed for future errata updates.


EDIT: PDF, 2nd print, p. 351, PNT entry, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence:
Chenge "it’s damage" to "its damage"
« Last Edit: 21 May 2012, 10:14:17 by Xotl »
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5494
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #6 on: 15 July 2011, 18:05:47 »
Page 125, missing word (coughinmywritingcough):

"A recharge station can quick-charge your
JumpShip, but doing so can fry the drive, too. Solar sails at
bright stars, or in positions closer to stars than standard jump
points, can also fry the drive. You’ve got to watch that inverse
square law about sunlight. Example: a habitable planet for
a yellow is about ten times closer to the star than the jump
points."

"yellow" should be "yellow star"

Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading." --Thomas Jefferson, or not

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.

Jackmc

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2680
    • How I pay the bills
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #7 on: 26 July 2011, 17:02:29 »
I think the Robinson in the Moving Cargo/Aerospace Units example on p. 41 has a major error in it.  The example forgot to include the six free refueling points the Robinson has due to it's 36 asf/small craft cubicles (rule on SO p. 35 "In-Space Refueling).  This brings the total points to 10 and reduces the offload time to just over 4 hours.

-Jackmc


cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5494
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #8 on: 01 September 2011, 13:02:21 »
Herb has a firm "no time travel" rule for BT. However, there's a quirk in jumping rules that allows a signal into the past:

StratOps pg118: "The formula to determine jump duration is provided on page 89, though the unit's IR signature is detectable for double the jump time prior to the unit's appearance in addition to the jump's duration."

That jump time is noted on pg 89: "The elapsed time in seconds is: [light years traveled / 2] x maximum number of DropShips the JumpShip can carry."

Before the jump occurs, the KF core runs some software calculations: pg 89: "Once a unit has committed to a jump, it takes 10 minutes for the program to initialize."

For a typical JumpShip, this means that the jump signature starts forming at the destination prior to the completion of jump initialization. In the case of ships with many docking collars making long jumps (e.g., a Potemkin making a 30-light-year jump), the IR signature begins forming before the Captain hits the "commit" button (12.5 minutes vs. 10 minutes). This is an exploitable window to "talk into the past" for observers with HPGs.

Noting that, a quick fix would be to change the statement on pg118 to the following, which avoids any "time travel."

StratOps pg118: "The formula to determine jump duration is provided on page 89. This is the period for which the unit's IR signature is detectable prior to the unit's appearance."

Alternately, if the "double the duration" is important, then the following might be more suitable:

StratOps pg118: "The formula to determine jump duration is provided on page 89. The unit's IR signature is detectable at the beginning of the unit's jump and continues to be radiated for twice the duration of the jump."

This latter phrasing moves any extension to after the jump, rather than preceding it.



As noted by Roosterboy, there is this example of canon example of the old "time travel" behavior:

Quote
Specifically, chapter 30 of Patriots and Tyrants, which has:

The only inexplicable disparity was that the subjective time of a jump seemed instantaneous, while infrared signatures gave a warning twice as long as the actual jump procedure. In an example every first-year spacer knew, an Invader-class JumpShip making a maximum hyperspace jump would seem to take only a few seconds to someone on board the ship. In actuality, roughly forty-five seconds passed between disappearing from one jump point to reappearing at another. But the IR signature showed up ninety seconds before arrival—or forty-five seconds before the JumpShip ever engaged its KF drive.

So changing StratOps to avoid the risk and headaches of time travel would invalidate a fluff paragraph in a novel.
« Last Edit: 01 September 2011, 14:06:56 by cray »
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading." --Thomas Jefferson, or not

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.

roosterboy

  • Site Maintenance
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5074
  • like a wet cigar
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #9 on: 01 September 2011, 14:49:28 »
So changing StratOps to avoid the risk and headaches of time travel would invalidate a fluff paragraph in a novel.

Well, the whole chapter, really, which is built around the idea of the tension of an anomalous IR signature signalling the imminent arrival of... something nasty.

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5494
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #10 on: 01 September 2011, 17:13:42 »
Well, the whole chapter, really, which is built around the idea of the tension of an anomalous IR signature signalling the imminent arrival of... something nasty.

That part wouldn't change in either of my suggested erratas. Big, extended IR signatures would indicate big, nasty WarShips. Or super-long jumps.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading." --Thomas Jefferson, or not

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.

Freak

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 163
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #11 on: 30 November 2011, 10:50:49 »
On Page 373 the example for converting the Conqueror Warships stats lists that it's heat levels require it's damage to be adjusted but the values for the ships maximum heat generated are different in two different lines of the example as presented and neither value is correct per the stats listed in TRO 3067. Please explain/recify
The only guarantee in life is that it ends.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28849
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #12 on: 22 December 2011, 14:55:07 »
StratOps pg?? (I'd guess pg103 or 104): Rules describing how far missed orbit-to-surface shorts drift from their target hex are completely missing, aside from listing that Capital/Sub-capital missiles drift for half the distance.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
Battleforce Space is too bulky. I vote we start calling it BattleFace.

Styker

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 379
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #13 on: 30 December 2011, 22:02:23 »
Strategic Operations p.49

I have been looking at the Battle and Raid tables for linked scenarios and I believe that they are incorrect.  The only way to get a Base Attack scenario is for the attacker to have a campaign score of +5 or greater and the defender to have a campaign score of -5 or less.  If the players had the scores during the order writing phase, the difference in scores is 10.  This would be an automatic win for the attacker based on the third campaign victory condition of outperforming the opposition.

The +5/-5 error would actually apply to both tables.  In any case where the players have scores of +5/-5 no battle would take place.  I believe that both tables should end at scores of +4.5/-4.5 and have the scenarios readjusted accordingly.  I am posting this both here and in the rules question section.  If I am incorrect could someone please explain where I am mistaken.

Thank you.

Styker

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 379
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #14 on: 29 January 2012, 21:18:03 »
   I believe that the tables in StatOPs on pages 168 (Support Personnel Experience Table) and 187 (Support Personnel Experience Table) are in error.  On the table on p. 168 the table lists a "Green" technician as being 9+.  A technician of skill 10 would be "Ultra-Green".  I believe this should read 8-9 for a "Green" technician.  A "Regular" and "Veteran" tech requires skills of 7+ and 6+ respectively.  I believe these should be 7 and 6 not 7 and above and 6 and above.  An "Elite" tech is listed as 5+.  I believe this should be 5 or less.  The same problem occurs with the doctor column.  I am basing the scores on page 143 of Mercenaries Supplemental.

   Assuming the above is correct p. 189 says that 5 completed scenarios are required to move from "Green" to "Regular".  But if you have a technician with a score of 9 (Green), how many scenarios are required to move to 8 (also Green)?  The same problem occures at the end of the table.  If you technician has a score of 5 (Elite), how many scenarios are required to move to a skill of 4 (also Elite)?  Or are there only 4 technician skill levels now (9,7,6,5)?  Are "Elite" techs now capped at 5?

   I am posting this here in case I am misreading this.  If so please let me know how to properly interpret the table.  I am also posting this in the Rules section in case I'm simply misreading these tables.

Neufeld

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2538
  • Raven, Lyran, Horse, Capellan, Canopian, Bear
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #15 on: 08 February 2012, 20:40:19 »
Strategic Operations, PDF, Corrected Second Printing (2011), p. 359:

Under Autocannon/LRM/SRM:
The following sentence contains an omission: "This applies only to Light and Standard autocannon
(not LB-X, Rotary, Ultra, and so on), and Standard SRM, MML,
and LRM launchers (not Artemis-enabled, Improved One-Shot,
One Shot, Streak, and so on).", since it does not mention NLRMs, which according to pages 326-327 of Tactical Operations are able to use special ammo.

Suggested solution:
Correct the sentence to:
"This applies only to Light and Standard autocannon
(not LB-X, Rotary, Ultra, and so on), and Standard SRM, MML, NLRM,
and LRM launchers (not Artemis-enabled, Improved One-Shot,
One Shot, Streak, and so on)."
Change bolded.

"Real men and women do not need Terra"
-- Grendel Roberts
"
We will be used to subdue the Capellan Confederation. We will be used to bring the Free Worlds League to heel. We will be used to
hunt bandits and support corrupt rulers and to reinforce the evils of the Inner Sphere that drove our ancestors from it so long ago."
-- Elias Crichell

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 920
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #16 on: 20 February 2012, 02:21:37 »
On the Expanded Critical Hits Table, Page 285, the ‡ beside Dropships on the heading states "Includes Satellites and Small Craft".  However, for the note beside Jumpships the ** states "Includes Warships, Satellites, and Space Stations".  I don't know which one should be correct, but I'm thinking the the dropship one based on critical hits.




Sorry this is so long, feel free to snip once ya'll verify:
Page 349 FLAK (FLK X/X/X/X):
"Conversion: Calculate heat-modified damage for LB-X AC and/or HAG weapons both as part of base damage and separately; as with the Indirect Fire (IF) special ability.  The numeric rating for this ability is the final damage for these weapons."

Page 349 INDIRECT FIRE (IF#):
"Conversion:  LRMs (including ELRMs and NLRMs), MMLs, Thunderbolts or ’Mech Mortars. If an Element mounts these items, it will have the Indirect Fire ability. The numerical rating for the ability is equal to the final damage for all these weapons. Aerospace Elements and Fixed-Wing Support Elements do not get this ability, regardless of their weapons."

Damage Values, Page 360:
<snip> Then adjust this damage based on the heat generated (if applicable). Finally, divide the modified total for each range by 10 and round up to the next whole number to find the final Damage Value for that range. <snip>

Recommendation is just to change the sentence in both of those paragraphs (its identical):
From:
"The numerical rating for the ability is equal to the final damage for all these weapons."
To:
"The numerical rating for the ability is equal to the final damage for all these weapons, except rounded normally."
« Last Edit: 20 February 2012, 02:33:43 by Bad_Syntax »
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 920
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #17 on: 27 February 2012, 01:56:36 »
Quirk tables, Page 194 and 197.  Both have a "§Includes Satellite" entry at the bottom, but that '§' symbol isn't on either table anywhere.  I think it may belong by the "Jumpship/Warship/Space Station" column, but was truncated. 

On those same tables, Airships aren't listed, they should probably fall in with Fixed Wing support vehicles under the "‡Includes Fixed-Wing Support Vehicle" note at the bottom, changing it to "‡Includes Airships and Fixed-Wing Support Vehicles"

Just for clarity, nowhere could I find it specifying that buildings, mobile structures, and conventional infantry platoons could not specifically have perks, though it makes sense that some could apply to any of them.  Buildings/Structures could have inaccurate weapons, or platoons could have inaccurate field guns, as examples.  If MS/BLDG/CI can't use them at all, it should probably be noted somewhere.  At the bottom of those tables would be fine, just *somewhere*.

Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 920
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #18 on: 02 March 2012, 20:03:38 »
Corrected 2nd Printing PDF.
Page 145
Under space, it says:
"For Space Stations and WarShips, this limit is 20 weapons per each of the unit’s 6 arcs."

However, both Warships and Space Stations also have the Broadside arc, so it should probably say "... 8 arcs." instead.

Page 157, the McKenna missile count isn't correct.  There are 6 AR-10 launchers, 2 each on the FR/FL arcs, and 2 in the rear.  It has 30 Barracuda's and 5 per launcher, which is correct, however the missile counts in the right middle of the page for the Killer Whales and White Sharks are half what they should be.  The last line of that paragraph that says "The total weight for all this ammo comes to 3,300 tons (600 [500 NAC/40 shots] + 900 [30 Barracuda Missiles] + 800 [20 White Shark Missiles] + 1,000 [20 Killer Whale Missiles] = 3300" Should instead read:


"The total weight for all this ammo comes to 3,300 tons (600 [500 NAC/40 shots] + 900 [30 Barracuda Missiles] + 1,600 [40 White Shark Missiles] + 2,000 [40 Killer Whale Missiles] = 5,100".

TRO 3057R also got the total incorrect, but had the same missiles per launcher listed, so I'm pretty sure modifying the tonnage is the proper result.  This also requires changing the cargo tonnage on p159 to 253,576.5 Tons and the ammo to 5,100 tons.

« Last Edit: 03 March 2012, 05:15:00 by Bad_Syntax »
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 920
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #19 on: 08 March 2012, 05:17:43 »
Corrected 2nd Printing PDF.
Page 156.

The Alliance math at the very end (left column) ends up with a cargo capacity 2,000 tons over what it should be.  It says "86,652.5 tons - 11,906 [weapons and equipment] - 2,772 [quarters] - 420 [lifeboats] = 73,554.5 tons)."   It SHOULD have cargo equal to 71,554.5 tons.   

Page 159, the very last part of the McKenna construction, in the last paragraph it says "-1,031 [quarters]", yet right above that it shows the total as 1,111 tons (which is correct).  This doesn't change the final outcome however, though my previous errata on the missile weight being off would.

Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 920
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #20 on: 24 March 2012, 19:35:55 »
There is no limit whatsoever to the count of bays (cargo or unit) on a unit.  Since bays aren't just fluff, and get affected individually by critical hits, there probably needs to be some arbitrary limit placed on them.

Perhaps add the note "Each bay must have at least 1 door of any type assigned." needs to be added somewhere on page 155 under Transport Bays and Doors, or even just as a note under the maximum doors table.

That note wouldn't break any design ever published, and would put a maximum upper cap on bays at 41, same as doors, for a 2,500,000 space station (33 for a warship, 17 for a JS).  Without that note, bays can be divided up to the point (tens of thousands even) where critical hits have no significant affect on a unit.

I had a thread on this here http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=16894 and it was recommended this be a better place to bring up the oversight.
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6717
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #21 on: 29 March 2012, 02:43:29 »
First printing, 2009
Both Autocannons and AIV (Clan) are given the AC designation, while AIV (clan) is formally ARTAC, this may fall through in checking, and on the MUL any search to autocannons will also yield AIV (Clan)

BritMech

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 375
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #22 on: 14 April 2012, 21:39:22 »
2009 book pg 301, Advanced Force Distribution Table

The Clan section says that a SuperNova Trinary contains 5 Stars, 3 Mech and 2 Battle Armor (25). Everything else I have ever read says that a SuperNova Trinary contains 6 Stars, 3 Mech and 3 Battle Armor (30).

All subsequent entries in this section are then thrown off by the calculation of a SNT being 25 and not 30.

US Cluster should be 20-60,
Regular Cluster 30-90,
Reinforced Cluster 40-120,
Strong Cluster 50-150.

And so the Galaxies should be amended:

US Galaxy 40-300,
Regular Galaxy 60-450,
Reinforced Galaxy 80-600,
Strong Galaxy 100-750

NOTE: This is incorrectly and incompletely covered in the Errata, which lists this as:

Change the entry for "Supernova Binary" to "6 Stars [3 Mech and 3 Battle Armor] (30)" Emphasis mine. The correction changes the Binary, not the Trinary; it doesn't cover the knock-on effect of the miscalculation.

BritMech

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 375
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #23 on: 14 April 2012, 22:37:08 »
2009 book, Advanced Aerospace Construction, pg 155 onwards

Suggestions and corrections here. I figure one post for the whole section is easier.

First, pg 155, Transport Bays and Doors. The food calculations for Bay Personnel would be much easier if the Bay Personnel Table (TO, pg 202) was either reproduced here or at the very least referenced in the calculation descriptions. Finding it is not easy, as it is not in the Compiled Tables of TO either, and only found referenced in a footnote of the Transport Bays Status Table (I will post this in the TO Errata shortly).

Also, the food calculations mention a calculation for people transported in the cargo bay, but the Transport Bay table in TM (pg 239) makes no mention of Cargo, Passengers. The two closest are Cargo, Standard for Bulk Items; or Cargo, Livestock for Animals. If either is to be used, a conversion chart for how to work out the number of Cargo Passengers would be useful. NOTE: The Errata changes the food consumption for people in cargo bays from 1 ton per 10, to 1 ton per 5. Still no mention of how many people can travel per ton of Cargo space, or if they are classified as Bulk Items, Livestock or need a new section.

Second, also pg 155, Transport Bays and Doors. This is an expansion of what Bad_Syntax has alluded to above. The text states "Designers of advanced aerospace units must assign a minimum of 1 bay door to any unit with a transport bay, to allow for entry and egress from the unit." and further on "A transporting unit's launch rate (per turn) for onboard fighters or other launch-capable units with appropriate cubicles (Small Craft, 'Mechs and ProtoMechs) is equal to twice the number of functioning bay doors associated with its launch-capable units."

The wording is a little unclear as to the mechanics. From the first part of the text, provided the Unit (taken to mean JumpShip, WarShip or Space Station) has a single Bay Door, any number of Transport Bays can make use of it. The launch rate would be limited, but possible.

The second part of the text uses the word "associated", which given certain examples is vague. It sounds like a Bay Door could be used by several Transport Bays, as in the example on pg 157, the McKenna. "An additional 16 Small Craft bays are added as well...but not assigned doors (they will simply launch through the fighter bays when needed).

The Alliance example on pg 156 also adds a wrinkle when "Joel assigns [the Bay Door] to the Front facing" as no mention of assigning Bay Doors to any facing has been mentioned.

Now, all this combined with the wordings of the Bay Door (TM, pg 209) and Transport Bay (TM, pg 239) makes for quite a mess. My solution is as follows, and I will explain with quotes. The rules can obviously be written into the text to make sense.
  • Every Transport Bay MUST be assigned at least 1 Bay Door. (TM, pg 209 reads "...should have at least one bay door per transport bay.") This limits the number of Transport Bays to the maximum number of Bay Doors, avoiding designs that Bad_Syntax mentions would break the spirit of the rules.
  • Every Transport Bay MUST be assigned 1 Type. (TM, pg 239 reads "...must separate any and all transport bays by type...") Add an exception that Fighters can dock in Small Craft cubicles, since existing designs make use of this mechanic already. Small Craft, however, cannot dock in Fighter cubicles. Fitting 150 tons in 200 is easy, whilst fitting 200 tons in 150 is not so much.

A rewrite of the section to differentiate between a Transport Bay and a Cubicle would help. There are plenty of instances with phrases like "An additional 16 Small Craft bays are added" which would be more accurate and illustrating if the word bays read as cubicles. A WarShip has Bays, the Bays contain Cubicles, the Cubicles contain Fighters/Small Craft.

Generic cargo could still be re-configured, and so all unused Bay Doors should be allocated to it. None of this prevents the Transport Bays being reconfigured, provided they are done so within these new rules.

A clarification on assigning a Bay Door to a facing would be useful. If we don't need to do it, excellent. If we do, then I think some explanation as to the consequences is needed. Are they likely to be damaged, and if so does that prevent craft landing/launching? Does their placement affect launching Fighters?

These changes could likely render some published designs illegal, necessitating Errata for them.
« Last Edit: 14 April 2012, 22:53:13 by BritMech »

BritMech

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 375
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #24 on: 23 April 2012, 08:58:54 »
pg 155, McKenna example text

"An additional 16 Small Craft bays are added as well (at 200 tons apiece), but not assigned doors (they will simply launch through the fighter bays when needed)."

This is an illegal design, as per Paul here: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,16894.msg385278.html#msg385278

It can easily be rectified by adding Bay Doors, as the design is nowhere near the limit.

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7815
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #25 on: 04 July 2012, 05:47:44 »
Second Release, PDF, FrankenMechs:

p. 189:
Move the second paragraph of this section ("The engine does not have to...") so that it becomes second paragraph of the Engine subsection instead.

p. 190, Internal Structure Distribution Table:
change "Clan Endo Steel" to "Clan Endo Steel/IS & Clan Endo-Composite"
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7815
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #26 on: 26 September 2012, 22:04:14 »
For future errata integration: **

What class refit is moving around (non-destroyable) crits?

Treat the class as a step down from installing the item in question.  For example, armour becomes C, TSM becomes D, and endo-steel/endo-composite becomes E.  It's not as complicated as completely replacing the system in question, but it's easier to move armour crits than it is to rework part of the internal structure.
« Last Edit: 28 September 2012, 13:25:56 by Xotl »
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7815
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #27 on: 07 October 2012, 13:41:14 »
Note for future errata:

Change "Mobile Field Base**" to "Field Workshop**"

Changes will have to made throughout the book to differentiate when Field Workshops are in play vs. the TacOps Mobile Field Base.
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

jymset

  • Infinita Navitas
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1328
  • the one and only
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #28 on: 20 October 2012, 19:12:40 »
From Jellico:

P30. (remembering that a fighter squadron cannot overheat when firing bays)

This contradicts with P29 Fighter squadrons that lack sufficient heat sinks to fire all weapon bays may still overheat.

P29 is correct.
On CGL writing: Caught between a writer's block and a Herb place. (cray)

Nicest writing compliment ever: I know [redacted] doesn't like continuity porn, but I do, and you sir, write some great continuity porn! (MadCapellan)

3055 rocks! Did so when I was a n00b, does so now.

Revanche

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 537
  • Fanah’s Fangs (formerly of the Talitha Division)
Re: Strategic Operations - 2 July 2011 Update
« Reply #29 on: 21 November 2012, 23:49:51 »
More for errata to Strategic Operations Errata 2.0 (10/26/2011) vice the 07/02.2011 update, and very minor at that:

In the Engine section, in the second (added) paragraph:

Error: The engine does not have to come from the 'Mech torso parts being used on the
FrankenMech, and there are no restrictions on its type and rating (other than the standard engine
restrictions for Industrialmechs or Battlemechs) as long as it grants at least one Walking MP to
the final 'Mech.

Correction: The engine does not have to come from the 'Mech torso parts being used on the
FrankenMech, and there are no restrictions on its type and rating (other than the standard engine
restrictions for IndustrialMechs or BattleMechs) as long as it grants at least one Walking MP to
the final 'Mech.

 

Register