Author Topic: 1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?  (Read 4635 times)

Wolf72

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3068
1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?
« on: 31 October 2012, 19:26:05 »
right then, this is my first try at any BA/PA(L).  Not to concerned with overall effectiveness, since it's meant to represent an early combat armor ... and iirc you can fit four of these in a 1 ton BA bay (at least I read that somewhere ... I thought)

Strider Powered Armor
Mass: 250kg
chassis: 80kg

Ground Movement: 2 [60m] @ 25kg
Armor Factor: 2 @ 100kg

Slots: RA/LA 2/2, body 2
RA: Armored Glove
LA: Armored Glove, Support Weapon Mount (3.5 kg = 50% of weapon weight)

Equipment
RA: Sonic Stunner (.07 dmg) @ .6 kg,
      3 Ammo [20] @ .9 kg

LA: Infantry LMG-support weapon (.49 dmg) @ 7kg
      3 Ammo [45/3] @ 6 kg
      Needler Rifle (.11 dmg) @ 1.5 kg
      2 Ammo [30] @ .48 kg

Body: RL-1 @ 25 kg

remaining weight is .02 kg
"We're caught in the moon's gravitational pull, what do we do?!"

CI KS #1357; Merc KS #9798

"We're sending a squad up."

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6959
Re: 1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?
« Reply #1 on: 01 November 2012, 02:40:13 »
As I understand it, after all the errata and counter-errata, infantry weapons don't count as weighting anything at all, but you can only fire one per turn, and you can only carry one in armored gloves, no matter if you have one or two of them.

Also AFAIK the "advanced" transport rule doesn't count the exact weight of the BA, only the weight class. So a 400 kg PA(L) requires the same weight to transport as a 250 kg one.

Wolf72

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3068
Re: 1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?
« Reply #2 on: 01 November 2012, 15:06:46 »
so you could carry something, but it wouldn't count against your weight?

in my above example the LMG (a medium infantry support weapon) would still count since it's mounted, but the other two weapons wouldn't since their just some handheld ones?
"We're caught in the moon's gravitational pull, what do we do?!"

CI KS #1357; Merc KS #9798

"We're sending a squad up."

Lazarus Jaguar

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2823
  • Stop! Hammer Time!
Re: 1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?
« Reply #3 on: 01 November 2012, 15:20:10 »
Also, with armored gloves, since you're carrying the weapon in your hand, you've never been required to specify what weapon is carried when designing it (that gets chosen by the player at the start of the scenario).  But, you also only get one, since you're using your hands.  Sorry, no dual wielding.
You know, I love that every day in Japan is like a very peaceful game of RIFTs. - MadCapellan

around here, April Fools day is Serious! Business!

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6959
Re: 1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?
« Reply #4 on: 01 November 2012, 15:29:08 »
so you could carry something, but it wouldn't count against your weight?

in my above example the LMG (a medium infantry support weapon) would still count since it's mounted, but the other two weapons wouldn't since their just some handheld ones?
OK, missed the SSWM. Yes, weapons in a SSWM does add weight - and only "BA-scale" weapons can be mounted in a SSWM. Also the SSWM itself doesn't weight anything, the mounted weapon's weight is halved (you only carry one weapon for the whole squad).

The legal design would look something like this:

IS PA(L) (80 kg), 2 ground MP (25 kg), 2 standard armor (100 kg), 2 armored gloves, LMG in SSWM LA (40 kg, 2 slots), RL/1 body (25 kg, 2 slots), one hand-held infantry weapon.

Total 270 kg, 2 slots left.

Wolf72

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3068
Re: 1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?
« Reply #5 on: 01 November 2012, 18:17:39 »
maybe I've read to much at once ... what's the difference between a support weapon mount and AP Mount? ... AP mounts cost 5kg right? but also mean that the weapon itself takes up no slots.

no dual wielding, makes sense, ... are they allowed to carry those other weapons ... say as another back up?
"We're caught in the moon's gravitational pull, what do we do?!"

CI KS #1357; Merc KS #9798

"We're sending a squad up."

Wolf72

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3068
Re: 1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?
« Reply #6 on: 01 November 2012, 18:50:09 »
alright ... hold on a sec.

AP weapon mount at 5kg ... can hold any light or medium infantry weapon.  Need not be mounted in pairs
MWM (standard) at 10kg ... holds a standard BA weapon (better than using the infantry model ... which can be used in the AP mount if you really want?)

A Squad Support Weapon Mount -SSWM is required of all BA in the unit, but only one trooper holds the weapon.  How deal with the weight issue (right, it's halved for Inner Sphere).  Does that single suit of BA actually get a different construction than the others?
"We're caught in the moon's gravitational pull, what do we do?!"

CI KS #1357; Merc KS #9798

"We're sending a squad up."

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6959
Re: 1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?
« Reply #7 on: 02 November 2012, 05:49:18 »
With a SSWM the weight of that single weapon is doubled and then spread across all the troopers in the squad. So no, they are all constructed identically.

Wolf72

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3068
Re: 1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?
« Reply #8 on: 02 November 2012, 15:03:34 »
I shouldn't post after teaching 8th graders all day ... brain no work-y anymore  :o


ok so SSWM is for groups that want a bigger weapon but they're to small to really mount one ... PA(L)

APM mount is for BA that wants to mount an anti-personnel (aka infantry, right?) weapon(s)

MWM is for standard BA weapons

the detachable missile mount is for missile weapons (but not required)
"We're caught in the moon's gravitational pull, what do we do?!"

CI KS #1357; Merc KS #9798

"We're sending a squad up."

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6959
Re: 1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?
« Reply #9 on: 02 November 2012, 20:06:29 »
The only mount that is actually required for a weapon is the APWM (with armored gloves counting as one "free" APWM), regular BA weapons only need a specialized mount if they are to be easily replaceable (MWM, configurable turret) and/or reduced weight (SSWM, DWP). Detachable missile mount is, AFAIK, technically just a MWM mounted on the body. I can't swear to that, thought - I've read different interpretations. :-\

To make an extreme example:

IS medium BA, mounting:

fixed LMG (75 kg, 1 slot)
MWM with LRR (175 kg, 2 slots + 10 kg, 1 slot for MWM)
SSWM with OS-LRM2 (40 kg (half of 80), 3 slots + 1 slot for SSWM)
APWM with assault rifle (5 kg, 1 slot, weapon free)

This means a squad of 4 has:

4xLMG
4xLRR
4xAssault rifle
1xLRM2(OS)

Wolf72

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3068
Re: 1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?
« Reply #10 on: 03 November 2012, 05:05:08 »
so in your above example the IS medium armor there does not have an armored glove, and therefore uses an AP mount ...

ok, I thought if you had the AP mount you were still paying for weight of weapon.
"We're caught in the moon's gravitational pull, what do we do?!"

CI KS #1357; Merc KS #9798

"We're sending a squad up."

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6959
Re: 1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?
« Reply #11 on: 03 November 2012, 06:01:33 »
so in your above example the IS medium armor there does not have an armored glove, and therefore uses an AP mount ...

ok, I thought if you had the AP mount you were still paying for weight of weapon.
It could have armored gloves, there is no limit to carrying more than one infantry weapon - you just can't use more than one at a time.

And correct, the weight of infantry weapons are never counted.

Wolf72

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3068
Re: 1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?
« Reply #12 on: 03 November 2012, 14:53:08 »
i'm getting there! ...ty for all the feedback

I think my next few designs are going to be various sizes for a 'droid destroyer' ... obviously no wheeled/ball movement.  but a 2 MP BA with either 2 SL or 2 SPL ... maybe both versions.  One medium, one heavy or assault.

... next goal, tackle infantry and make a laser battledroid platoon of 30 droids.
"We're caught in the moon's gravitational pull, what do we do?!"

CI KS #1357; Merc KS #9798

"We're sending a squad up."

sillybrit

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3939
Re: 1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?
« Reply #13 on: 06 November 2012, 02:32:38 »
Detachable missile mount is, AFAIK, technically just a MWM mounted on the body.

Detachable Missile Packs are a mechanism standing on their own, not directly related to MWMs. They're just a method to jettison a missile launcher and can be fixed to the chassis or mounted themselves on a MWM, and can be on arms or the torso.

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6959
Re: 1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?
« Reply #14 on: 06 November 2012, 05:56:54 »
Detachable Missile Packs are a mechanism standing on their own, not directly related to MWMs. They're just a method to jettison a missile launcher and can be fixed to the chassis or mounted themselves on a MWM, and can be on arms or the torso.
Ah, thanks. I got real confused by a long discussion a few years ago... :-[

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7173
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: 1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?
« Reply #15 on: 15 January 2013, 20:47:10 »
OK, I'm going to engage in some minor thread necromancy since I was wondering something directly along the lines as Wold72's questions in this thread.

An AP weapons mount or armored gloves on a battlesuit allow you to use any light or medium infantry weapon. In fact, man-pack PPCs are specifically mentioned in the description of AP mounts in Tech Manual. Are there no longer restrictions on AP mount/armored gloves based on crew requirements of the infantry weapon?
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25668
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: 1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?
« Reply #16 on: 15 January 2013, 21:15:33 »
IIRC, basic manipulators let a BA wield any infantry weapon with a crew of 1 or 2.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

sillybrit

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3939
Re: 1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?
« Reply #17 on: 16 January 2013, 00:37:18 »
Basic manipulators cannot be used to wield any infantry weapon. Armored gloves are the only type of manipulator that allows this, and with at least one glove you can wield any non-Melee infantry weapon with a crew requirement of 1 or 1E, as per TM errata v2.2 p6.

APWMs also changed in the TM errata. As per p12 of the v2.2 errata, only Standard type weapons may be mounted on an APWM, so that's any of the non-Melee & non-Support weapons on TM p349 to 351.

MP PPCs aren't legal for APWMs because they're Support type weapons, nor can they be wielded by suits with armored gloves, because they have a crew requirement of 2.

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7173
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: 1st BA design attempt ... did I do this right?
« Reply #18 on: 16 January 2013, 01:34:24 »
Basic manipulators cannot be used to wield any infantry weapon. Armored gloves are the only type of manipulator that allows this, and with at least one glove you can wield any non-Melee infantry weapon with a crew requirement of 1 or 1E, as per TM errata v2.2 p6.

APWMs also changed in the TM errata. As per p12 of the v2.2 errata, only Standard type weapons may be mounted on an APWM, so that's any of the non-Melee & non-Support weapons on TM p349 to 351.

MP PPCs aren't legal for APWMs because they're Support type weapons, nor can they be wielded by suits with armored gloves, because they have a crew requirement of 2.

Damn.  No way to mount one on a standard weapon mount and pay the mass for it, is there?  It kind of annoys me that the bigger support PPC gets a BA version, but the man-pack doesn't.
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"