(Answered) CO - Spare Parts for Mechanized Infantry

[pheonixstorm]

p24

Would the spare parts for mechnized infantry be calculated at the rate for a vehicle (.1 percentage of weight and 8000 c-bills) or for infantry (1 percent of weight and 10000 c-bills)

Or provided as an example
Tracked Mechanized platoon 28 tons
28 X .01 X 10,000 = 2800 c-bills in spare parts calculated as conventional infantry
28 X .001 X 8,000 = 224 c-bills calculated as a vehicle

Which would be correct?

[pheonixstorm]

Please disregard, I missed the section of Conventional Infantry in the pdf but noticed it once I obtained a print copy.

pg 24

Conventional infantry consume 1 percent of a squad infantry
compartment’s mass

As defined by TW Conventional Infantry are Foot, Jump, and Motorized.

derp

This can be closed as answered.

[pheonixstorm]

Disregard my disregard.

One clarification on the infantry spare parts issue.

For cost of spare parts do mechanized infantry count as infantry or vehicles?

28 X .001 X 8,000 = 224 c-bills calculated as a vehicle
28 X .001 X 10,000 = 280 c-bills calculated as infantry

[cray]

Disregard my disregard.

One clarification on the infantry spare parts issue.

For cost of spare parts do mechanized infantry count as infantry or vehicles?

28 X .001 X 8,000 = 224 c-bills calculated as a vehicle
28 X .001 X 10,000 = 280 c-bills calculated as infantry

Erk. I bet going with the higher cost is probably better. After all, with mechanized/field artillery you've got a lot more personnel to keep in fighting trim than with just one vehicle.

[pheonixstorm]

So just to make sure we are on the same page.

Conventional Infantry are calculated as so: Using 1%
Foot         3 x .01 x 10000 = 300
Jump        4 x .01 x 10000 = 400
Motorized  6 x .01 x 10000 = 600

Mechanized as implied currently: Using .1% (1/10th) and vehicle parts cost
Tracked 28 x .001 x 8000 = 224

Based on this rule thread: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56260.msg1295505#msg1295505
Tracked AC/5 Field Gun 55 x .001 x 8000 = 440
Tracked Sniper Artillery 49 x .001 x 8000 = 392
Motorized Field Gun 33 x .001 x 8000 = 264


Which brings me back to the question you answered, hoping understanding I used the vehicle percentage and the infantry parts cost in the bottom example. After looking at the actual cost for conventional infantry though I wonder if the percentage value for the parts should be smaller. It is kind of insane to see the  spare parts for a 6 ton motorized infantry platoon at the same level as a 60 ton mech.

As it stands conventional infantry are more expensive to maintain than mechanized infantry or any other unit. CI are supposed to be cheap to maintain (according to fluff) but based on the current rules are not.

Based on this I think the percentage may need to be in line with everything else, .001. This would change the above to:
Conventional Infantry are calculated using .1%
Foot         3 x .001 x 10000 = 30
Jump        4 x .001 x 10000 = 40
Motorized  6 x .001 x 10000 = 60

This would keep the implied "vehicle cost" at a normal level in line with everything else and would not need tinkering.

Thoughts? Did I make this more confusing?

[cray]

So just to make sure we are on the same page.

Conventional Infantry are calculated as so: Using 1%
Foot         3 x .01 x 10000 = 300
Jump        4 x .01 x 10000 = 400
Motorized  6 x .01 x 10000 = 600

That's correct. The underlying idea was that if you were going to have spares for infantry - and they do need spare parts for their gear - they shouldn't vanish into fractions of a C-bill because infantry are so light. However, that higher multiplier appears to be causing problems. For example:

It is kind of insane to see the  spare parts for a 6 ton motorized infantry platoon at the same level as a 60 ton mech.

Yes. Two alternative approaches come to mind to cut through these issues:

1) Treat mechanized (and/or motorized?) infantry units plus towed artillery as vehicles for spare parts
2) Separate infantry from their vehicles. Give infantry units some flat spare parts rate based on their number of personnel, then a tonnage-related fee based on their equipment.

Do you think that would simplify spare parts for infantry, or just make calculations messier?

[pheonixstorm]

For mechanized infantry and field guns/artillery. Treat them all as vehicles regardless of motive type. This would mean a motorized sniper platoon or motorized AC/5 would use the same calculations as a Mechanized Tracked rifle platoon.

So I guess the wording could go:

Mechanized infantry and Field Guns/Artillery are calculated as vehicles regardless of motive type.

Weather you go on to add that they use the infantry parts cost or not... Your call.

As for conventional infantry I think I found the issue.

Conventional infantry consume 1 percent of a squad infantry
compartment’s mass (even foot infantry: they have equipment
that sees wear and tear).

This rule if taken as written would give the following costs per platoon:
Foot     .75 x .01 x 10000 = 75
Jump  1.33 x .01 x 10000 = 133
Motor 1.50 x .01 x 10000 = 150

If the above rule is written to mean that each platoon is to calculate its spare parts based on the squad mass and not the platoon mass it would mean that the example is incorrect which looks likely. The above figures look more reasonable but if correct means the wording is confusing unless the rule writer also wrote the example/worksheet on p26. In which case the best percentage to use would likely be .002 or .003 which gives 60/80/120 and 90/120/180 for parts costs respectively.

Best guess there are between 4-7 lines that can be added in total before running into the next sections layout.

[cray]

unless the rule writer also wrote the example/worksheet on p26.

Er...force creation and operation were pretty much all drafted by me. Next time your eyes bleed reading them, just think "Cray."

For mechanized infantry and field guns/artillery. Treat them all as vehicles regardless of motive type. This would mean a motorized sniper platoon or motorized AC/5 would use the same calculations as a Mechanized Tracked rifle platoon.

Seems like a handy simplification.

In which case the best percentage to use would likely be .002 or .003 which gives 60/80/120 and 90/120/180 for parts costs respectively.

Rounder numbers are gooder. :)

[pheonixstorm]

So I would think the best way to handle the CI is tonnage x .2 percent (.002) x 10,000. Unless you would rather use .3 percent

The way it was originally written would have led to some really odd amounts given how the men/squad per platoon can be created using the construction rules in Tech Manual and Tact Ops.

Think that about settles it now?

[cray]

So I would think the best way to handle the CI is tonnage x .2 percent (.002) x 10,000. Unless you would rather use .3 percent

0.2%

[pheonixstorm]

Thanks again Cray!