I don't really get the way the maintenance cycle works in Campaign Operations

[Mostro Joe]

Hi all.
I hope someone that has the luck to play Battletech campaigns more often than me can give some advice here.

In pag. 154 of the Campaign Operations book it is said that units can be repaired, salvaged and manteined with a "Repair" order given during a strategic turn. I think that's pretty clear, even if it is not said how many hours can be used. I suppose we are talking about 8 hours, because in the following dedicated chapter this is the usual duration of the cycle. But it is not specified.

Later, in pag. 190 it is said that a maintenance/repair cycle is anyway automatic every day! So there would not be the necessity of an order. Or it means that giving an order "doubles" the cycle? So you have a Mant/Rep cycle due to the order and, after that, you can execute another cycle because this last one is anyway "automatic" for the day?

Not only that: the same paragraph says that a mantainance must be done after each scenario, between the games. If it is not done, 'mechs can have failures. But in the immediately following page, 191, it is said that maintenance should be done just once per week while on the field! So a 'mech must be manteined after every battle, or it is sufficient to make a cycle just once per week? It is not clear!

[Gribbly]

It is not clear!

No, it's almost deliberately obtuse. There's little sign that the chapter was proofread or play tested.

A single eight hour cycle for one team is rarely enough to repair mechs after a battle, though eight hours per day for a week makes repairs fairly easy. Maintenance cycles of one week, following the maintenance rules strictly as written, results in a high proportion of mechs rapidly becoming combat ineffective as soon as they step outside of a transport bay.

Even with generous pay a military unit can't really sustain weekly battles without going bankrupt - unless the scenarios are pathetically easy and a small fraction of the unit is fighting each time. If the unit survives long enough to get a high reputation factor the economics get really out of hand.

I'd recommend creating your own simple framework and scheduling scenarios as you see fit. One month maintenance cycles are reasonable. Having high tempo periods within a contract separated by longer periods of relative inactivity works well. For example, each three month period might start with two to four scenarios with 2d6 days in between each one, then skip forward around two months. Adjust the frequency based on difficulty, player feedback, contract type and proportion of the unit fighting in each scenario.

[AlphaMirage]

This is why I like the old Mercs Handbook rules better.
Each vehicle requires a certain hour count (and incidental expenses) for general maintenance (44-60 for mechs, double for aerospace, 21-40 for tanks) per week. Then you add more for repairs.

Each tech can generate x (20-50) effective hours of work per week based on their experience and specialty (Mechanics can do MechTech work but less effectively, etc...) You can run your people overtime during a mission (with diminishing returns) but have the pay them more. Also you can give them additional duties such as Admin or Medicine for extra pay while in garrison.

Before you go on mission hire on some contract AsTechs to reattach lost armor panels and reload ammo and then off you go, once the mission is done everyone gets paid (hopefully) and goes along their merry way.

This way allows for just one really good Tech to maintain a mech, a decent Tech and some help, or a pair of less skilled Techs that will eventually mature into decent techs.

[Mostro Joe]

No, it's almost deliberately obtuse. There's little sign that the chapter was proofread or play tested.

I have another exemple of a rule that seems odd, and perhaps not proofread. I am making another thread for that.

A single eight hour cycle for one team is rarely enough to repair mechs after a battle, though eight hours per day for a week makes repairs fairly easy. Maintenance cycles of one week, following the maintenance rules strictly as written, results in a high proportion of mechs rapidly becoming combat ineffective as soon as they step outside of a transport bay.

I don't know any real military tech to ask, so I cannot say how the real manteinance of miltary hardware is managed and what can be the realistic cyclic for that. But yes, it seems that mechs can stop functioning if you don't care for them jut for a few days. But as I say, perhaps I'm wrong on this matter. 

I'd recommend creating your own simple framework and scheduling scenarios as you see fit.

You have interesting ideas here. I anyway have never thought that house ruling should be an ideal solution. I know that sometimes is neede, and I know that a lot of persons really like to hiuserule their games. I'm not that kind of player, but you have nice ideas.

When the original Combat Operations came out, in 2003, there were immediately confused rules for campaigns. I hope the new Mech Commander Handbook can deliver a solid rulesystem this time.

[Lanceman]

I don't know any real military tech to ask, so I cannot say how the real manteinance of miltary hardware is managed and what can be the realistic cyclic for that. But yes, it seems that mechs can stop functioning if you don't care for them jut for a few days. But as I say, perhaps I'm wrong on this matter. 

I was an Abrams crewmember, and I will tell you that basic maintenance consumed a huge portion of our time, and letting it lax for even a little bit often resulted in failures or problems. Combat vehicles are maintenance hogs, and helicopters and modern fighter jets are even worse. Real life militaries are never 100% combat effective, something is always down because of maintenance issues.

We had one track that we had to keep the gun chained down to the back deck because it was liable to start moving on its own if the turret power was on. I witnessed another tank's engine destroy itself in a glorious fireball after a relatively short road march. 

All that to say, the rate of unit's crapping out due to maintenance issues is annoying, I would dare say it's not fun or engaging gameplay (for me at least), but for better or for worse, it's realistic.

[dgorsman]

That level of failure might be a little TOO into the realism side for a game.  Also kind of goes against the idea of Mechs being literally walked out of old hangers after years or decades of non-use.  There should be a happy medium where it does have some impact on campaigns, but only seriously if it's very neglected or meticulously paid attention to (and no, I'm not referring to generic warchest points/Chaos Campaign type generalizations).

[abou]

Granted, I haven't served in the military, but it seems to me that 'mechs are uniquely resilient. I know we describe them as walking tanks, but considering you have a single 'mechwarrior they seem more comparable to modern jet fighters -- which need immense amounts of work to stay airborne. But maybe that isn't even the whole story.

Do correct me if I am wrong, but I think I read somewhere that only about half of fighter planes are ready to go at any time. With preparations for war that number can be higher, but not 100%. Lanceman can probably say whether it is similar with combat vehicles. That a whole regiment of 'mechs can land on a planet and be ready for combat is incredible. That a 'mech can last for centuries puts it more in line with steam locomotives.

It may be worth considering ditching the 8 hour maintenance cycle as a hard target and using narrative or other limitations to push the plot forward in a campaign. So you have as long as you need to complete maintenance and repair as safely as possible, but may miss out on an opportunity. Maybe an enemy attack means that you blew your chance to fix your armor and don't have time to fix it again.

[Mostro Joe]

I was an Abrams crewmember, and I will tell you that basic maintenance consumed a huge portion of our time, and letting it lax for even a little bit often resulted in failures or problems. Combat vehicles are maintenance hogs, and helicopters and modern fighter jets are even worse. Real life militaries are never 100% combat effective, something is always down because of maintenance issues.

That is an interesting tell, thanks! Never read first'hand experiences, at least here, for what I am concerned.

Anyway, aside the fact that 8 hours can or can't be sufficient for manteinance (let's suppose they are), I am taking about how the rules are written.

Manteinance must be done every week? Once every scenario? And if scenarios are held once per day, I have to mantain equipment once per day then? And what if I issue a "repair" order during a strategic turn: the repair cycle is doubled in that case (once for the order and once for the automatic daily cycle)?

[Kilderkin]

Isn't maintenance for a mech about 45-90 minutes depending on the weight class? Which in an 8 hour repair order or 14 hour if you push your techs. Still gives you about 7 hours of repairs on top of a maintenance check. So don't think you need to double up repair orders.

Also I guess it's down to operations tempo. Your mechs need a once a week check if they don't engage in combat and if they do then they would need a checking over anyway post battle.

I guess the issue is the word of MUST have a check. As it's written you couldn't skip it with guaranteed maintenance failure to attack again the following day, which might mean you can't push an advantage/gives your opponent a turn to move. But then again, your opponent also needs to do a forced maintenance check.

[drjones]

Do correct me if I am wrong, but I think I read somewhere that only about half of fighter planes are ready to go at any time. With preparations for war that number can be higher, but not 100%. Lanceman can probably say whether it is similar with combat vehicles. That a whole regiment of 'mechs can land on a planet and be ready for combat is incredible. That a 'mech can last for centuries puts it more in line with steam locomotives.

Well, I believe the B-52 (bomber) is predicted to have a service life of over a century, so some relatively modern military technology can push into that range too.

The amount of maintenance time available during a campaign has confused me as well. I've wondered if operations would look somewhat like an airline, with the equipment in use during the day and maintained at night. In BT this would have the technicians working at night to repair equipment between battles (while the warriors rested). However, in this case a repair order wouldn't make a ton of sense unless you had spare maintenance personnel or were pushing the techs hard. (If I were a late Succession Wars MechWarrior, I'm not sure I'd want to see what a sleep deprived technician could do to my largely irreplaceable family owned 'mech...)

[klarg1]

Isn't maintenance for a mech about 45-90 minutes depending on the weight class? Which in an 8 hour repair order or 14 hour if you push your techs. Still gives you about 7 hours of repairs on top of a maintenance check. So don't think you need to double up repair orders.

Also I guess it's down to operations tempo. Your mechs need a once a week check if they don't engage in combat and if they do then they would need a checking over anyway post battle.

I guess the issue is the word of MUST have a check. As it's written you couldn't skip it with guaranteed maintenance failure to attack again the following day, which might mean you can't push an advantage/gives your opponent a turn to move. But then again, your opponent also needs to do a forced maintenance check.

It also seems reasonable to expect repair crews to be turning in more than 40hrs/week during high tempo combat operations. It makes sense for that to have long term costs in terms of readiness and productivity, but it’s better than having half your unit down at the peak of battle.

I think it also fits a lot of the fiction. A lot of the major campaigns are described with days between significant engagements, rotating units to and from the front lines, etc..

[Wrangler]

Isn't the free Chaos Campaign /Warchest rules book easier / clearer version what ultimately ended up in Camp Operations?

[Lanceman]

Isn't the free Chaos Campaign /Warchest rules book easier / clearer version what ultimately ended up in Camp Operations?

Campaign Operations has multiple options for running a campaign, including Chaos Campaign and a more granular repair/maintenance/salvage section for those that want more detailed bookkeeping.

[Lanceman]

I'd recommend creating your own simple framework and scheduling scenarios as you see fit. One month maintenance cycles are reasonable. Having high tempo periods within a contract separated by longer periods of relative inactivity works well. For example, each three month period might start with two to four scenarios with 2d6 days in between each one, then skip forward around two months. Adjust the frequency based on difficulty, player feedback, contract type and proportion of the unit fighting in each scenario.

This is the whole intent. Your maintenance cycle is dictated by your campaign/GM/operations tempo. The book defaults to an assumed tempo of one scenario/day, but immediately makes note that that might not be the case in your campaign.

You also aren't always intended to deploy your entire force all the time. The Chaos Campaign section recommends building a unit one step higher than what your typical deployment force will be (so if you do matches with lances, make a company, if company then battalion, etc.) and I think it's a good rule of thumb across the board. You'll be able to respond to multiple scenarios while also rotating some formations off duty for repair and refit.

 

[Kojak]

I was an Abrams crewmember, and I will tell you that basic maintenance consumed a huge portion of our time, and letting it lax for even a little bit often resulted in failures or problems. Combat vehicles are maintenance hogs, and helicopters and modern fighter jets are even worse. Real life militaries are never 100% combat effective, something is always down because of maintenance issues.

We had one track that we had to keep the gun chained down to the back deck because it was liable to start moving on its own if the turret power was on. I witnessed another tank's engine destroy itself in a glorious fireball after a relatively short road march. 

All that to say, the rate of unit's crapping out due to maintenance issues is annoying, I would dare say it's not fun or engaging gameplay (for me at least), but for better or for worse, it's realistic.

In total fairness, I'm not sure the American military's propensity for combat vehicles that have high maintenance requirements is necessarily analogous to the BattleTech universe, where 'Mechs are kept operational for decades or even centuries. There are other military models (the old Soviet one comes to mind) that prefer equipment that's low(er) maintenance and has a longer shelf life, which I think is closer to the BattleTech paradigm.

[Wrangler]

If you are little savy, you could try using MegaMekHQ.  While it's not necessary need actually run the game itself (campaign via MegaMek main game) it can be used to do book keeping and you can adjust damage/repairs / personnel using it.  It been plugged into with essentially all the rules (I know of anyways) from sourcebooks/rules manuals.

[Mostro Joe]

I guess the issue is the word of MUST have a check. As it's written you couldn't skip it with guaranteed maintenance failure to attack again the following day, which might mean you can't push an advantage/gives your opponent a turn to move. But then again, your opponent also needs to do a forced maintenance check.

That if the defender is employing a different unit.

Not every unit is supposed to gight every day.

If in my campaign I deploy a company, the three lances will rotate in their advance. Or they could be deployed in different areas.

But that's the problem with the way rules are written. If I have to stop after a fight to make a manteinance, the day after I can be counterattacked by a different enemy unit while techs are around the mechs.

I can see when they say "you have to make a manteinance once a week while on the field", but the following indication "you have to make manteinance between each scanrio" is a problem. Someone says "let's make a scenario once a week and you are done" but why? The default is one day/one scenario. I should be free to choose the tempo of my campaign.

Rules are contradictory.

I see that perhaps I am the only one that want to use the mant/rep chapter, because it seems everyone skip that and just go for a campaign where they fight scenario after scenario without having problems for the logistics.

[Gribbly]

I see that perhaps I am the only one that want to use the mant/rep chapter, because it seems everyone skip that and just go for a campaign where they fight scenario after scenario without having problems for the logistics.

As written the chapter doesn't work. CamOps is not the first (or last) book covering rules for this, it's been baked into BT for decades.

Every campaign I've run over the past several years has included both long and short term logistic problems of various kinds. Many people use MekHQ for long term campaigns using maintenance, supply, repairs, healing, recruitment, finance, training, transportation etc. for both high and low intensity situations.

'Everyone' else isn't skipping these ideas. 'Everyone' else is coming up with their own ideas and solutions.

[Mostro Joe]

As written the chapter doesn't work. CamOps is not the first (or last) book covering rules for this, it's been baked into BT for decades.

Every campaign I've run over the past several years has included both long and short term logistic problems of various kinds. Many people use MekHQ for long term campaigns

The chapter Is Indeed chaotic, and sometimes contradictory. Rules should be clean and solid instead.

I Will follow the advise and use MekHQ, I downloaded It days ago but was unable to install It on my Linux PC. Will try on the laptop, It runs with Windows 10.

I Hope the incoming Mech Commander Handbook Will make some order.
I prefered the FM:Mercs system, but I am open to new rules if they make Sense and are written clearly.

[mbear]

Given Lanceman's statement, I wonder if the era when the equipment was used would affect the maintenance time. For example does a WW2 M4 Sherman require the same amount of maintenance as an M1 Abrams? I assume that the Sherman requires more maintenance just because older technology is generally less reliable/harder to support.*

Assuming that Abrams maintenance time is less than the Sherman's maintenance time, and that improvement took place over 50 years, then it seems to me that moving 1000 years in the future would consistently improve (reduce) the maintenance times.


*I could be (and probably am) wrong but it's useful for me.

[Elmoth]

I am quite sure the abrahams is NOT easier to maintain thsan the sherman at all.

[dgorsman]

I Will follow the advise and use MekHQ, I downloaded It days ago but was unable to install It on my Linux PC. Will try on the laptop, It runs with Windows 10.

I Hope the incoming Mech Commander Handbook Will make some order.
I prefered the FM:Mercs system, but I am open to new rules if they make Sense and are written clearly.

MekHQ can be run using either the FM: Mercs (revised) or Campaign Operations systems.  You can even switch back ad forth during the campaign.  Keep in mind that the Campaign Operations implementation is based on the first printing rather than the updated version, and isn't properly implemented in a number of areas such as contract type generation and the ship search.

[Wrangler]

MekHQ can be run using either the FM: Mercs (revised) or Campaign Operations systems.  You can even switch back ad forth during the campaign.  Keep in mind that the Campaign Operations implementation is based on the first printing rather than the updated version, and isn't properly implemented in a number of areas such as contract type generation and the ship search.

Is the updated version have less issue that version Mostro Joe ran into?

[Colt Ward]

I was an Abrams crewmember, and I will tell you that basic maintenance consumed a huge portion of our time, and letting it lax for even a little bit often resulted in failures or problems. Combat vehicles are maintenance hogs, and helicopters and modern fighter jets are even worse. Real life militaries are never 100% combat effective, something is always down because of maintenance issues.

We had one track that we had to keep the gun chained down to the back deck because it was liable to start moving on its own if the turret power was on. I witnessed another tank's engine destroy itself in a glorious fireball after a relatively short road march. 

All that to say, the rate of unit's crapping out due to maintenance issues is annoying, I would dare say it's not fun or engaging gameplay (for me at least), but for better or for worse, it's realistic.

*during road march* "Hey, 2-2 is on fire again."
"Left side or right side?"

[Colt Ward]

In pag. 154 of the Campaign Operations book it is said that units can be repaired, salvaged and manteined with a "Repair" order given during a strategic turn. I think that's pretty clear, even if it is not said how many hours can be used. I suppose we are talking about 8 hours, because in the following dedicated chapter this is the usual duration of the cycle. But it is not specified.

To me the Chaos Campaign misses some of the narrative fun of running your own merc unit.

First, yes you need to accomplish the objectives to get paid . . .
 . . . BUT you need to do it in a way that keeps you viable.

This means you cannot play the same way you do for a lance on lance Last Man Standing slugfest.  You get a leg opened up, side torso open, or a gyro crit and now it is about protecting that mech to get it out of the AO.  Did you go into battle with reloads for your ammo?  Or do you need to salvage some enemy equipment to get the ammo type you are short on?

Second, you have parts & ammo but time is always the most valuable.

If you can get more of your force back into the field to strike before your opposition can get their stuff back in shape, you can force a battle that is in your advantage.  I had a topic I posted years ago for a campaign, I spent hours (b/c I used FM Mercs [R]) to repair the moderately damaged, reload ammos, ignored minor armor damage, and then I had a chunk of hours left in my repair budget before the planned sortie for the next morning to crush the forces that fell back to their FOB after failing to break out.  I had three mechs that could be repaired- use a salvaged UAC/5 off a Cataphract to replace a heavily damaged one on a heavy; rebuild the side torso of a Zeus 9S that had IS in single digits, or I think re-attach a leg or something on another heavy.

Third, salvage is too simplified . . . I am trying to kill that Supernova by blasting it's side torsos off to salvage the cERLLs in the arms.

[Mostro Joe]

The idea of managing the damages of your units is Indeed a fun matter, at least for me.

That s why I found the contradictory rules of CO frustrating.
I have some posts that have been transferred in the rules question area. Without official answers still.

I have another question about CO, that has not to do with the repairs of the units bit with the strategic orders. Will post it as soon as I have time.

[SCC]

So I think you've been tripped at, at least in part, by the rules (such as they are, so seem to be more some spit-balled ideas) having two terms and not clearly delineating between them.

The Maintenance/Repair Cycle: This is the 8 hours working day, the primarily assume that you'll be using the suggested abstract time keeping system and there is one of these between each engagement.

The Maintenance Cycle: This is however often equipment needs routine maintenance, it defaults to every day.

[Mostro Joe]

So I think you've been tripped at, at least in part, by the rules (such as they are, so seem to be more some spit-balled ideas) having two terms and not clearly delineating between them.

The Maintenance/Repair Cycle: This is the 8 hours working day, the primarily assume that you'll be using the suggested abstract time keeping system and there is one of these between each engagement.

The Maintenance Cycle: This is however often equipment needs routine maintenance, it defaults to every day.

No the two thing are clear. I see that each day there's a mant/rep cycle.

But pag. 191 IN THE SAME SECTION says at the second paragraph that maintenance must be done after every scenario, while in the last paragraph says that it must be done once per week while in the field and once every four weeks while on garrison.

Now, the question is: are they both true? Because it's not clear and I think that one of the two is a leftover from a previous draft of the rules.

If both are true, it means that maintenance during an active campaign must be done once per week AND after every scenario. So perhaps, in certain conditions, it must be done even, let's say, 2 or 3 times per week if the unit sees action during a particular week.

But that's unclear (as many other details of the chapter).

[Aotrs Commander]

No the two thing are clear. I see that each day there's a mant/rep cycle.
If both are true, it means that maintenance during an active campaign must be done once per week AND after every scenario. So perhaps, in certain conditions, it must be done even, let's say, 2 or 3 times per week if the unit sees action during a particular week.

That sound very realistic. Especially in a campaign where you are NOT abstracting away all individual combat engagements.

[Mostro Joe]

That sound very realistic. Especially in a campaign where you are NOT abstracting away all individual combat engagements.

It could. But is an elaboration, it's not clear by how the rules are written.