Comprehensive database or source of manufacturing and component production info?

[theagent]

Once upon a time, we had a resource that let us know not only where our favorite 'Mechs were built, but also let us differentiate between the one-stop manufacturing facilities (like Nimakachi's Spider facility on Tematagi) versus final-assembly facilities that depended on imports (like Independence Weaponry's Victor facility on Quentin, which needs MPLs & SRM-4s from Marduk, Jump Jets, TTS & Comms from Luthien, & Gauss Rifles from Atreus).  Unfortunately, this gave us only a snapshot; nothing after TRO 3050 (original) was included, including any changes due to Clan forces taking over planets.


Merton Pryde dud a lot of work to update & correct the material (http://www.pryderockindustries.com/pryderockindustries/industries/), but the work is long overdue for an update (14 years now), & only incorporated through part of TRO Project Phoenix.  And while the newer Objectives PDFs provide at least a glimpse at general information (i.e. Styk & St. Ives still manufacture Victors), we don't have even the details of which models are built where.

This would be fine, as we could always follow Medron's example & pour through TROs to find that detail. But what we're missing are some more exact details...like when regular components were replaced by the more advanced components. For example, when did the Victory Heartbeat MPL replace the Victory 23R ML in production on Marduk, or did they continue producing both?  Or where did Independence get its Pontiac 100 AC/20s for its VTR-9B production?

Thoughts or comments?

[worktroll]

Such information is never likely to exist to the level you're looking for.

Attempts - such as Medron's, or others - serve to expose the inconsistencies, discrepancies & gaps in this sort of information. Which isn't that suprising, given names of MPLs exist purely for fluff reasons, and have no involvement in anything else in the game universe. There's no master list of equipment or manufacturers anywhere in existance - it's likely the authors either a) crib from past work, b) crib from past work and change a model designation, or c) make something up that sounds good.

As you note, the newer Objective books give general, high-level information. This appears to be as far as the game developers are prepared to go, given the vast and incoherent mass of fluff out there. Trying to fill those gaps isn't going to provide any enhancement to anyone's game of Battletech or Alpha Strike.

Interstellar Operations, still to be released, provides an even higher level abstraction of strategic output intended to let players game at that vast strategic level. Because I've done some work on the Inner Sphere at War system, I can tell you that it's entirely possible to work out the cost to raise an entire regiment of individually-specified 'Mech designs, and for you to have the stats to play it at the BattleTech, Alpha Strike, BattleForce, ACS, SBF etc levels. But it's not going to tell you where that Pontiac autocannon came from.

There are many - such as Medron and others - who enjoy taking the scattered datapoints and working out interpolations that suit them. Others, like me, are happy enough to talk about third-party merchants, end-user certificates, and the nature of interstellar trade in a universe with porous borders and multi-state corporations. The developers are happy for us to do that, and that lets them work on product that's going to make some profit & keep CGL happy ;)

Cheers,

W.

[Atlas3060]

And while the newer Objectives PDFs provide at least a glimpse at general information (i.e. Styk & St. Ives still manufacture Victors), we don't have even the details of which models are built where.

I'm okay with this level the Objectives gave us.
Sure tell us what system creates a 'Mech, but not down the component level.

The reason why I enjoy a little bit, but not a lot, of detail comes from both gameplay and stories.
If kept at a decent level of abstraction, the players can still have thing like supply lines but not to a level which bogs down play.
Also it allows GMs the ability to whip up new objectives without someone pulling out "The Big Tome of Facts" and saying that (this system) doesn't create (insert component here).

Yes a 'Mech is created on St. Ives, but did you know the guns that are used on that thing are made on this system I just made up?
It's true, so here's your raiding mission, have fun!

From a writing and story PoV it goes pretty much those same reasons.
If I could have it my way, the factories and systems mentioned in the big list are just the big fish of the manufacturing game.
There's plenty of small one-off worlds that make things like 3rd SW tech Enforcers or APCs, just don't expect them to make a lot nor anything with fancy technology.
That way writers and gamers alike could play in those worlds not written up enough, but still not fear the dreaded "oh god I broke canon" feeling.

[worktroll]

Agreed, but that doesn't invalidate the interest some folk have in that low-level stuff.

Unfortunately, working down to that level, and trying to keep things consistent, just ain't profitable (sales of the Objective Raids pdfs were, I gather, not stellar).

And at the end of the day, the writers & developers like to be able to feed their families ;)

[Atlas3060]

Agreed, but that doesn't invalidate the interest some folk have in that low-level stuff.

Oh I agree on that part.
I had a guy come to our table once and wanted a simple request from FASA/FanPro/CGL.
It was a Battletech where the scale goes from Regiments of 'Mechs all the way down to the nuts, bolts, and bullets of the soldier.

If they weren't going to do that, he saw it as his own personal challenge to do so.
All I could do was blink, say "Well enjoy your Cthulhu level madness", and wished him good luck.

I'm not saying people that want that are wrong.
All I'm saying is if you plan on incorporating FASAconomics of logistics to Battletech and make it reasonable you'll either be chugging down aspirin or torching the whole lot of it and making up your own universe.

[The Purist]

...
I'm not saying people that want that are wrong.
All I'm saying is if you plan on incorporating FASAconomics of logistics to Battletech and make it reasonable you'll either be chugging down aspirin or torching the whole lot of it and making up your own universe.

While I love the addition of logistics in campaign games I agree they need to be kept 'generic' and avoid so many tons of this, so many of that. Better to just have a supply chain defined and some potential rear echelon targets whose loss can make life difficult for the force 'stressed' by lack of logistics support. Or throw in a target factory that produces 'mech components' that yields 'supplies' rather than actuators or ER Lasers also adds the feel for logistics without the usual millstones to a campaign.

[theagent]

Mmm... that's about what I was afraid us.

I was approaching it more from the "design fluff" perspective -- I blame Solaris7.com for that, as it taught me that a "killer" BattleMech design with generic or crappy fluff (including the sourcing of the parts) was a much poorer design than a "flawed" one with a fully-fleshed-out background.  And yes, reviewers could dock you points if your Taurian custom, for example, depended heavily on Davion parts (especially major items like engines & chassis) to be built.

I'm not so worried about the actual production numbers, as that's always been a crap shoot anyway.  Although I did think it was interesting that, based on the original House Handbooks, the production numbers for 3025-3028 for Marik & Liao essentially meant that they could completely replace all of their 'Mechs with brand-new models...if they were willing to take 10 years to do so, & only rely on the specific models (i.e. no more Victors, Cyclops, Banshees, Chargers, Thunderbolts, or Dervishes for the FWLM units).  Not to mention that assumes they don't have to replace any combat losses during those 10 years...

[worktroll]

And that's the problem. Those numbers from the original house books never made sense. One might theorise that they were pulled out of thin air, as so much else. Hence the impossibility of making any coherent structure, given uncoordinated invention of a zillion so-called data points.

[skiltao]

Actually, that level of attrition works very well with "family" Mechs being inherited, and other aspects of the setting.

theagent, have you looked at https://isatlas.teamspam.net/ ? I don't know how comprehensive or updated it is, but I've found it useful.

[pheonixstorm]

Yeah the original production figure were great but only really fit pre 4th SW 3025 play when mechs were rare and no one wanted to see a CT cored (though I do wonder if they would have just repaired it for that design frame).

I do like a lot of detail from the fasa days such as the original Galtor Campaign, but if CGL were to continue this (which would be nice) I would think only major worlds such as New Avalon, Tikonov, St. Ives, etc would get such high level treatment while unknown worlds such as Zilif (Combine world near Outworlds border) would get only the minimum possible. Would also love to see insane detail for those SL worlds that are dead such as Lockdale, Tyrfing, or Lone Star.

[theagent]

Actually, that level of attrition works very well with "family" Mechs being inherited, and other aspects of the setting.

theagent, have you looked at https://isatlas.teamspam.net/ ? I don't know how comprehensive or updated it is, but I've found it useful.

I was not aware of that resource, but I will definitely check it out.