Author Topic: Are maintenance checks excessive?  (Read 6711 times)

ArtieAnole

  • Guest
Are maintenance checks excessive?
« on: 22 November 2011, 23:39:42 »
I'm running a mercenary battalion at the tail end of the 3rd succession war.  According to the rules, a maintenance check is required every maintenance/repair cycle.  Tech teams get 8 hours of work time per cycle.  You can have the cycle be every day or every week, but no matter how long it is, the techs only get 8 hours per, correct?

So say I have a tech team assigned to an assault mech, they're regular (TN 7) with a +5 modifier (Tech rating D +1, Quality rating C +1, Era Modifier Merc 3SW +3).  To make it as sure a thing as possible, they take quadruple the time (-3) for a net +2 and that takes them 6 hours. And that's only if they're in their transport bay.  So I gotta roll at least a 6 every day if I don't want the thing turning to suck.  And that's only if you've got the mech nuzzled it's transport bay.  It gets even worse if it's in transit between planets, most dropships don't allow tech teams to be together in transit.  So basically your AWS-8Q will fall apart by the time you get to the drop zone.

I know the rules are there so that you can get the bailing wire and bubblegum feel of the succession wars... but isn't this a bit excessive?  Am I reading the rules right?  You basically need a second tech team for every mech to repair just the damage from failed maintenance checks since you'll most likely be down to quality B in a hurry.  The initial tech team can't really do a whole lot with 2 hours with any high likelihood of success.

Wildonion

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 741
  • I'm just a few onions short of a patch.
Re: Are maintenance checks excessive?
« Reply #1 on: 23 November 2011, 00:39:59 »
All right, so I think I see where you got a little mixed up, so here is my take on it. The section on time says that, if you are measuring time in something other than a single day between scenarios, “...then each day provides eight hours of productive work.” (Page 160, Strategic Operations) So you will have an eight hour work day for every day between your missions and, at some point during that period of time, you are going to have to take time for maintenance; most likely after finishing repairs and replacements. The total amount of time, whether one day or one year, is one Maintenance/Repair Cycle and so you are only going to need one of these rolls. At least, that is how I understand it.

ArtieAnole

  • Guest
Re: Are maintenance checks excessive?
« Reply #2 on: 23 November 2011, 03:26:07 »
If that's the case, explain the mothball rules.  If one maintenance/repair cycle can be one day to a year, explain how it takes either two days or two years to put a 'Mech into mothballs. (it takes two entire maintenance/repair cycles)

soshi

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 286
  • reed'n be fun four da mentals
Re: Are maintenance checks excessive?
« Reply #3 on: 23 November 2011, 11:26:19 »
I believe those rolls are meant for combat usage  not for when they are in storage or just on guard duty.    I  treat it as the real world equivalent as a NASCAR  pit crew,  while the race is on  only so much they can do and even between days of the race or between races  their is only so much they can do.  Though I generally just follow FM:mercs revised for maintenance/repair(much simpler for a company or more) but I do use the quality rolls once before combat, once for every week of combat once after combat -  but i double the maintenance costs for those rolls.      And double the maintenance costs  every time I want to try to improve the quality of the mechs (whether it works or not).   Its cheap for heavy mechs and those with TSM/MASC  but pricy for light mechs with level 1 stuff.  trade off for an easy fast simple way to do it.  (you can use HM pro to get the costs for different parts)

Wildonion

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 741
  • I'm just a few onions short of a patch.
Re: Are maintenance checks excessive?
« Reply #4 on: 23 November 2011, 17:54:46 »
If that's the case, explain the mothball rules.  If one maintenance/repair cycle can be one day to a year, explain how it takes either two days or two years to put a 'Mech into mothballs. (it takes two entire maintenance/repair cycles)

The best I can think of is if the unit in question is going to be undergoing shipping over a period of time in which it can't receive any sort of maintenance. Of course that doesn't help much if a cycle can be called a year and you make the roll before the trip. In the end, it falls to the group/GM to decide what is an acceptable Repair/Maintenance Cycle (which really should have a set amount of time) and when you have to resort to mothballing.

guardiandashi

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4828
Re: Are maintenance checks excessive?
« Reply #5 on: 24 November 2011, 11:40:55 »
my understanding is that technically a maintenance cycle is 1 week (always)
however it kinda works like changing the oil in your car, depending on the oil you use the filter you use, and the condition of the motor, and amount of oil in the system...  the recommended cycle may be something like:

use blah oil change the oil every 5000 miles, change the filter every other oil change.

some people will change the oil and filter every 3000 miles
others will follow the reccomendation to the letter
others will use a "better" oil and push it to 7000 miles between changes but change the filter every time.
etc

my point is elswhere in the maintenance rules it says you can miss like 1-3 maintenance cycles without having to check to see if there are spontanious breakdowns of systems.

additionallty if a unit is not being actively used there could be some variation in the length of the maintenance cycle allowed, IE if the mech is locked in its bat on a transporting dropship mabie the maintenance cycle can be stretched to 1x/month instaid of 1x/week.

"mothballing" the unit is actually configuring it for long term storage, in the case of a car it might involve things like disconnecting the battery, draining the fuel (or adding a fuel stabalizer) adjusting the pressure in the tires and/or blocking the axels up so the weight of the vechicle is not on the tires, etc.  basically making it so it can be ignored for a significant period of time, but in order to actually use it you will need to undo the mothballing treatment.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Are maintenance checks excessive?
« Reply #6 on: 01 February 2012, 08:08:58 »
Combat vehicles are EXTREMELY unreliable, even the most reliable ones.  Roughly 10% of modern mechanized forces break down for every 100km traveled.  As a former tank commander I can totally accept that.  Every time we stopped we'd have to jump out, run around the vehicle checking the track, temperature, fluid levels, etc, etc.

For every combat scenario those rolls make total sense, as vehicles are pushed harder.  When moving without combat those rolls make sense every week.  When the vehicle is sitting in a motor pool not doing anything, it still needs to be started weekly.  If you miss a few weeks of maintenance, there should definately be a roll.

According to the rules, each day provides 8 hours of productive work, but you can get 12 out of them (makes sense, mechanics in the field either work/sleep/eat).  It doesn't matter how long your "turns" are, you get those 8-12 hours per day.  This is the last paragraph on page 168 of SO.

Maintenance checks are between scenarios, and covered under maintenance on P169.  This is in line with what I mentioned on how in combat situations, stuff breaks down, and breaks down often. 

However SO doesn't mention maintenance checks over time when combat or mothballs aren't involved.  I would recommend a check per week per vehicle if no combat, or per scenario is there is combat, even if there are 2+ scenarios in a day a roll between each scenario (but still only 8-12 hours a day to fix it).

I really think they should have provided a modifier for mobility types on vehicles though, wheeled vehicles require less than tracked, VTOLs more than tracked, etc as well.  Maybe they thought this was included within tech ratings or something.  I'd think Wheeled -2, Hover +1, Tracked +0, WiGE +2, VTOL +3, Fixed-Wing/conventional fighter +2, Naval -1, Submarine/Hydrofoil -1, Satellite -4, Airship +1, Rail -3, superheavy vehicles +1, superheavy mechs +1, etc.  Hopefully something like this will be In IO or ATOW Companion, as there should really be a difference in maintaining a tech rated D "Apache" and "HMMWV", and perhaps even a time modifier.  This was hinted at on page 172, but I think they tried to keep things simple or more likely just ran out of space, as the maintenance rules are pretty comprehensive.

I also think that the status tables on page 173-174 are a bit flawed, just a bit.  For example if a vehicle fails maintenance by far the most common thing that is going to go wrong is the vehicle becomes "immobilized", or "deadlined" in military terms.  The vehicle has some mechanical issue that simply prevents it from driving.  I think I would replace the "1d6 armor damage" to "vehicle immobilized" like a critical instead, though its more catastrophic, it makes more sense logically.  Reductions in speed are fine, stuff like "I'd keep it under 20, or you'll probably throw track or overheat".  I'd also change weapon destroyed to weapon damaged, but with a 50/50 chance you simply don't know until you shoot it.... so, perhaps instead of weapon destroyed, it jams on a '2', adding +1 each time you get that same roll. 

But yes, maintenance *IS* excessive, more so today than 100 years ago for sure.  If the first gulf war would have lasted over a week, the US Army would have had a SERIOUS shortfall in spare parts.

Some interesting stats from James Dunnigan's "How to Make War" on this:
2% of combat aircraft lost each year in peacetime, in wartime its closer to 50%.
Rarely more than 90% of vehicles are in a running condition at any given time
2% to 20% of vehicles are lost per hour of movement from maintenance (long marches can easily hit 50% breakdowns)
Tank losses are 5-6x personnel losses in heavy combat, though 60% of those losses are non-combat and can be repaired
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.

mechwarriorgarya

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 371
  • Commanding man and machine since '94
Re: Are maintenance checks excessive?
« Reply #7 on: 01 March 2012, 09:23:53 »
I too found that I was spending way too much time book-keeping-wise with the mant. checks, so I revised it for my games by making them 'combat mant. checks'. Everytime a unit is involved in combat it will be required to make a combat mant. check, in addition to normal repairs. If no check is made before going into combat again=then follow normal rules for have foregone mant. checks ie. 'battlefield breakdowns'.
"The heavy laser wasn't broke when you came back from the field last time so I didn't bother to check it, sorry it failed to work when you had that Atlas bearing down on you..." -tech right before being fired

By doing this it makes for less time spent book-keeping especially when your managing a mixed battalion of mechs, armor, infantry, AS fighters, and attending dropships. Any regular non-combat mant. needs are simply assumed to be handled as part of a technical teams regular duties.
"Hey boy, if your only job right now is just standing there then you new job is to check the actuators on that Valkyrie over there!" -chief tech to astech taking a holiday in the mant. bay
One Species, One Realm - translation: Live by The League or Die by The League
Between the fall of the ancient Star League and the rise of the heirs of Steiner Davion there was an age undreamed of...

Sir Chaos

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3176
  • Artillery Fanboy
Re: Are maintenance checks excessive?
« Reply #8 on: 02 March 2012, 10:40:00 »
I also think that the status tables on page 173-174 are a bit flawed, just a bit.  For example if a vehicle fails maintenance by far the most common thing that is going to go wrong is the vehicle becomes "immobilized", or "deadlined" in military terms.  The vehicle has some mechanical issue that simply prevents it from driving.  I think I would replace the "1d6 armor damage" to "vehicle immobilized" like a critical instead, though its more catastrophic, it makes more sense logically.  Reductions in speed are fine, stuff like "I'd keep it under 20, or you'll probably throw track or overheat".

How about "Every turn the vehicle moves at flank speed, roll 3+ on 2d6 to prevent the vehicle from getting immobilized; the target number increases by 2 for each consecutive turn of flank speed"? That would work something like MASC failure rolls.
"Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl."
-Frederick the Great

"Ultima Ratio Regis" ("The Last Resort of the King")
- Inscription on cannon barrel, 18th century

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Are maintenance checks excessive?
« Reply #9 on: 08 March 2012, 17:58:53 »
How about "Every turn the vehicle moves at flank speed, roll 3+ on 2d6 to prevent the vehicle from getting immobilized; the target number increases by 2 for each consecutive turn of flank speed"? That would work something like MASC failure rolls.

That'd work fine, 6 minutes "flooring it" in many vehicles I was on was a sure bet you'd be calling maintenance and pulling pack (engine).  Only if the maintenance failed though, if maintenance passed the chances would be low enough to not need a die roll.

Also, some vehicles are just "better" than others.  For whatever reason, you could get 2 vehicles from the factory, and one would never break, the other all the time, yet they are the same "quality".  There should be some lemon quirk that gives some vehicles a +2 or so to maintenance checks, and others a -2, on top of easy/difficult to maintain I think.
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.

Minerva

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 212
Re: Are maintenance checks excessive?
« Reply #10 on: 09 March 2012, 03:54:46 »
Main problem with realistic maintenance is that treating BattleMech as a jet fighter (which it really is) causes all kinds of rule repercussions.

A Mech Company with 12 light Mechs should have about 250 men working. This company cannot even fix battle damage which is actually treated in Mech Battalion (which has 1500 men overhead of additional men for this and other tasks). The maintenance rolls themselves are simply show/no show rolls where unit is either capable of going to combat stays to be a hangar queen.

In my games no destroyed/damaged component/mech cannot be fixed in the duration of campaign but existing spare system can be used to replaced destroyed/damaged component. This means that typical Mech company soon fields about 3-4 mechs after 2-3 battles where enemy actually shoots back.

I do play my rpg campaign with above mentioned way makes my game army both more "hyper realistic" yet also strangely more romantic as it stresses importance of those leaders who do manage to go out and units are much smaller and easier to handle yet also cumbersome and you get sense of cast of thousands (so vital to emotional feeling of space fantasy).

Thatguybil

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 500
Re: Are maintenance checks excessive?
« Reply #11 on: 12 March 2012, 21:13:14 »
Main problem with realistic maintenance is that treating BattleMech as a jet fighter (which it really is) causes all kinds of rule repercussions.

A Mech Company with 12 light Mechs should have about 250 men working. This company cannot even fix battle damage which is actually treated in Mech Battalion (which has 1500 men overhead of additional men for this and other tasks). The maintenance rolls themselves are simply show/no show rolls where unit is either capable of going to combat stays to be a hangar queen.

In my games no destroyed/damaged component/mech cannot be fixed in the duration of campaign but existing spare system can be used to replaced destroyed/damaged component. This means that typical Mech company soon fields about 3-4 mechs after 2-3 battles where enemy actually shoots back.

I do play my rpg campaign with above mentioned way makes my game army both more "hyper realistic" yet also strangely more romantic as it stresses importance of those leaders who do manage to go out and units are much smaller and easier to handle yet also cumbersome and you get sense of cast of thousands (so vital to emotional feeling of space fantasy).

Funn quote about a modern armor force.
"Fists of steel with Feet of clay and a glass jaw."

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11992
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Are maintenance checks excessive?
« Reply #12 on: 12 March 2012, 21:42:31 »
I'm not sure why anyone would want to try and inflict 20th/21st century maintenance realities on 31st century technology.  It's not even a matter of saying "it's just a game" (though that's a valid response too).  It's like saying that experience as a World War I tank mechanic means such a veteran is being reasonable when he says that no Sherman tank could possibly last that long in the field.  Why would anyone with experience today claim to "know" what things are going to be like long after their grandchildren's grandchildren are dead?

Even ignoring this, we know as a matter of canon that one of the hallmarks of the Battlemech is its incredible durability, with mechs being dug out of storage after not being used for three centuries and then driven into battle.  The very fact that the Succession Wars could continue even after technical knowledge had become scarce means that these things have to be relatively easy to maintain.

The last thing I'd do is increase maintenance checks.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Jackmc

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2681
    • How I pay the bills
Re: Are maintenance checks excessive?
« Reply #13 on: 12 March 2012, 22:34:08 »
Not to mention that the maintenance rates aren't universal.  During both Gulf Wars, the British armor forces projected mechnical losses on par with US estimates but then only experinced a small fraction of the isuses expected.  On the flip side, I beleive that during the Occupation of Iraq, US armor forces actually saw  far higher instances of major mechancial failure than projected.

-Jackmc


Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11992
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Are maintenance checks excessive?
« Reply #14 on: 12 March 2012, 22:57:46 »
I think a system more in keeping with Battletech's ethos would be something that makes routine maintenance extremely easy (only fail on a critical, or no possibility of failure at all), providing the proper parts, facilities, and trained techs are available.  Only if these are not available should a check be required.  The mechanical failings of the Third Succession War seemed to be a matter of a lack of spare parts more than anything else.  Even then, the ability of mechs to be jury-rigged when the proper parts are unavailable speaks to their robustness.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Thatguybil

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 500
Re: Are maintenance checks excessive?
« Reply #15 on: 13 March 2012, 18:41:46 »
I think a system more in keeping with Battletech's ethos would be something that makes routine maintenance extremely easy (only fail on a critical, or no possibility of failure at all), providing the proper parts, facilities, and trained techs are available.  Only if these are not available should a check be required.  The mechanical failings of the Third Succession War seemed to be a matter of a lack of spare parts more than anything else.  Even then, the ability of mechs to be jury-rigged when the proper parts are unavailable speaks to their robustness.


That would explain all the stories about finding misplaced cache mechs that are 300 years old and in better then perfect working order... :)