Maintenance of weapons

[deathfrombeyond]

Players generally prefer laser weapons over ballistics weapons because there’s no ammunition to worry about with energy weapons. Most of the time, Battletech rules only cover the cost of purchasing equipment, but rarely goes into the c bill cost of maintaining equipment.

What do you think are the costs to maintain an energy based weapon over a missile based weapon? Energy vs ballistic?

[Nastyogre]

I would guess that power lines, cooling systems lenses etc need maintenance for lasers. Plasma chambers, power feeds, cooling for PPC's etc. So that there is probably a significant amount of cost to maintain them. Perhaps not so much for an individual battle, but during a campaign probably.

I understand "real life" has little meaning in Btech, often anyway. But think of modern weapons. The more precise and advanced the weapon, the more care it requires. Fighter jets require constant maintenance. Tanks, quite a bit. Even a M4 carbine requires cleaning and lubrication.

Compare those to simpler weapons like AK's and mortars, the more advanced weapon requires more care. It might not be an actual cost from a materials standpoint. Gun oil and materials are much cheaper than the ammunition. It is probably more a matter of time to check things and such.

The lore states that items ammo for LRMS and SRMS is relatively advanced and expensive and is a limiter for some units and smaller realms. They don't really say that about Autocannons. IIRC (I don't have my books handy) the tech level of Autocannons is lower than for other weapons. So an energy based unit has to have access to the maintenance equipment. Fighting on a backwater planet or if you don't have access to the warehouses and factories of a world, I could see where all those lasers begin to have problems on a long campaign without supply. A laser that has been knocked out of focus or that has burned up their power cable is not much use against a "weak" AC 5 that just needs to be loaded and cleaned occasionally.

A campaign system should probably account for the time and cost of maintenance for more advanced weaponry.

[Daryk]

Campaign Ops (page 24) throws that under "Spare Parts", and it's based on the unit the weapons are installed in.

[dgorsman]

That should come in when using the detailed maintenance and repair rules, with lasers and PPCs being higher tech level have a higher penalty than ballistic weapons.  But you don't see that unless you get down to the AccounTech level.

Also, having more slots should make the ballistic weapons less likely to be completely destroyed.

[Maelwys]

Its kind of debatable if there would be much difference in the way of maintenance costs for most weapons. Sure, there would be a little bit for fluff perhaps, but most "modern" BT weapons are tech E or F, and I'd expect any real difference in maintenance costs to be because of their level of technology, rather than what they are (Ballistic, missile, etc).

On the other hand, I just happen to have ATOW open today, working on a random character, and just came across the page with maintenance kits, and for small arms atleast, the Energy Weapon kit costs 850 c-bills and has a restocking fee of 160, while the slug thrower maintenance kit has a c-bill cost of 100, with a restocking fee of 20.

So energy weapons might require more expensive tools to work with. On the other hand, the large scale repair kits only has a "Weapon" repair kit, and isn't broken down by type.

[AdmiralObvious]

There's a lot of factors that probably would go into this, especially depending on how many rules you tie into the mix, and how much margin of error there is.

Autocannons are probably going to be easier to maintain, but it's ultimately going to depend on who manufactured the gun itself. The autoloader, at least in the real world is an extremely finicky and sensitive piece of equipment, you break that and you basically have to replace the whole gun.

Lasers on the other hand are probably more complex to actually put together, I can actually see them as a relatively low maintenance type of weapon, assuming your parts are of any good quality. With lasers, you just have to make sure the mirrors and lenses focus properly, and then plug it in. Once you get into actually taking them apart and putting them back together though, that's probably when the price is going to go up significantly.

My opinion is that Autocannons will need more frequent maintenance, especially if they've been used a lot. Lasers will tend to need the same level of maintenance, regardless of how much they are used, and will only really need to be disassembled if something goes wrong.

It's also worth noting that if something goes wrong with an Autocannon, odds are that something is going to go REALLY wrong. Lasers, unless stupidly designed (like the Hyper Laser) will generally not want to blow up on you, they'll just heat up.

[Orin J.]

energy vs ballistics mantainance i would assume is a matter of if you want to pay in small chunks or large ones. ballistics need fairly consistent "Day-to-day" work to maintain them, while the more fragile parts of energy weapons like lasers and particle projectors would be in sealed vacuum components for maximized efficiency so all those would be is checking the mountings and seals for the most part.

of course when those sealed parts do go, you're replacing a much more expensive component (or if you're truly boned on materials, trying to build a clean room to reseal them- don't fancy that) than you are if you were forced to replace parts of the autocannon, which you might even be able to hand-machine yourself with the right worktable.

but then there's the mangnetic acceleration coils of a gauss rifle....just running diagnostics on those might be a serious hassle, especially if you don't trust any internal diagnostics- i doubt there's any built-in diagnostics computer that could withstand the kind of EM-field those coils must be working under, which might mean you need to open the entire gun to connect testing feeds to check for a fault that will blow out the capacitors- which might cause the gauss round to fly right through the side of the gauss rifle.

in the end, i'm guessing the biggest cost is ongoing training of technical staff as it seems like most groups replace the different models of their weapons like they're identical just because they meet the same performance specs. senior techs might be better force commanders than the 'mechjocks they service!

[deathfrombeyond]

So I’ve heard a lot about energy versus ballistics...what about energy versus missiles?

[Apocal]

So I’ve heard a lot about energy versus ballistics...what about energy versus missiles?

I worked on missiles in real life. Most missiles are wooden rounds (i.e. sealed, with no maintenance requirements once issued) and I'd assume this trend continued into the 31st century because it just makes sense. Mounts and launchers can have serious maintenance requirements, but they shouldn't be eating parts or going through loads of consumables much, so all you're looking at is the tech's time, not an actual expenditures. You might have a big DC motor to give it some play or what have you, but its mostly just dealing with shock's effect on wiring and connectors that cause actual issues. And on the newer stuff, with fibers, even most of that goes away.

So missiles should be next to nothing maintenance-wise.

I technically worked on lasers as well but  not in anything comparable to BT. For what it is worth though, everything laser, except lens/alignment stuff, was pop-and-swap with extremely minimal maintenance required.

I will say that fifteen minutes of tech-time to load out a bin of autocannon ammo in the field with minimal support equipment is quite impressive, regardless of maintenance costs.

[grimlock1]

I worked on missiles in real life. Most missiles are wooden rounds (i.e. sealed, with no maintenance requirements once issued) and I'd assume this trend continued into the 31st century because it just makes sense. Mounts and launchers can have serious maintenance requirements, but they shouldn't be eating parts or going through loads of consumables much, so all you're looking at is the tech's time, not an actual expenditures. You might have a big DC motor to give it some play or what have you, but its mostly just dealing with shock's effect on wiring and connectors that cause actual issues. And on the newer stuff, with fibers, even most of that goes away.

So missiles should be next to nothing maintenance-wise.

I technically worked on lasers as well but  not in anything comparable to BT. For what it is worth though, everything laser, except lens/alignment stuff, was pop-and-swap with extremely minimal maintenance required.

I will say that fifteen minutes of tech-time to load out a bin of autocannon ammo in the field with minimal support equipment is quite impressive, regardless of maintenance costs.

One big difference between IRL and Btech is that their missile reuse the same launch tubes, over and over again.  All that exhaust can't be good for the tubes and the ammo feed system.

[Kovax]

The real cost of maintaining large cannons would probably out-strip that of maintaining a laser, because friction of the rounds against the rifling grooves or barrel walls WILL wear the gun out, and it WILL need to be either re-lined or replaced.  Most of the old battleships were only good for a few hundred rounds per barrel before requiring gun replacement.  The old railroad cars with the enormous siege guns used in WWI and WWII had individually numbered rounds that had to be fired in order, because each one was a few mills larger than the previous to account for barrel wear and expansion due to stress.

Lasers would be more likely to burn or char certain components over time, like power feeds, lenses, and capacitor banks.  The enormous amounts of energy passing through them for split-seconds would create incredible stresses and temperatures for those brief moments, and would almost inevitably cause long-term degradation.  That would likely result in frequent replacement of such components, as opposed to the massive occasional cost of barrel replacement for a ballistic weapon.

Things get really funky when you start pushing the envelope on materials.

[Colt Ward]

On the other hand, I just happen to have ATOW open today, working on a random character, and just came across the page with maintenance kits, and for small arms atleast, the Energy Weapon kit costs 850 c-bills and has a restocking fee of 160, while the slug thrower maintenance kit has a c-bill cost of 100, with a restocking fee of 20.

So energy weapons might require more expensive tools to work with. On the other hand, the large scale repair kits only has a "Weapon" repair kit, and isn't broken down by type.

Yeah, that is probably going to come down to things like power-meters and other calibration items for energy based small arms.  Restocking a slug thrower is buying cleaner, oil, q-tips and patches . . . and stealing "that guy's" in the platoon's toothbrush for scrubbing to pass around among everyone else.  Mech techs (or armor) are already going to have the electronics tools as part of their basic kit to  work on mechs.

I think it will come down to . . . guns are going to require frequent small amounts of maintenance (make sure the timing & head spacing on that MG is right once a week/month) as well as inspecting ammo, energy weapons are going to be low/no maintenance for most of their service life but will be lots of time required WHEN work is needed along with impact/shock alignment calibration (did the lens get knocked at all loose?), while missiles are going to be sort of similar to guns EXCEPT there will not be bores & breaches to clean with the rounds typically sealed up to fire (see MLRS pods).  Guns & Missiles both leave behind heat, toxic gases, pressure waves, residue, and other effects like jammed brass or missiles hung on rails.

IMO, costs year to year are going to be the same- for all the gun barrels you are replacing you will also have to replace lenses, lasing chambers, and other energy components that will get burned out.

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

 Costs and maintenance are handled by assigning tech/hours, etc. Wear and tear is based on the tech rolls...or failed rolls. 

[Caedis Animus]

Yeah, that is probably going to come down to things like power-meters and other calibration items for energy based small arms.  Restocking a slug thrower is buying cleaner, oil, q-tips and patches . . . and stealing "that guy's" in the platoon's toothbrush for scrubbing to pass around among everyone else.  Mech techs (or armor) are already going to have the electronics tools as part of their basic kit to  work on mechs.

I think it will come down to . . . guns are going to require frequent small amounts of maintenance (make sure the timing & head spacing on that MG is right once a week/month) as well as inspecting ammo, energy weapons are going to be low/no maintenance for most of their service life but will be lots of time required WHEN work is needed along with impact/shock alignment calibration (did the lens get knocked at all loose?), while missiles are going to be sort of similar to guns EXCEPT there will not be bores & breaches to clean with the rounds typically sealed up to fire (see MLRS pods).  Guns & Missiles both leave behind heat, toxic gases, pressure waves, residue, and other effects like jammed brass or missiles hung on rails.

IMO, costs year to year are going to be the same- for all the gun barrels you are replacing you will also have to replace lenses, lasing chambers, and other energy components that will get burned out.

Makes me think of exactly how many maintenance (Or otherwise) related failures could possibly occur in the third SW and more. You'd have to be insane to play with that many random-chance problems.

"Oh, looks like your thirteenth LRM tube hung onto the missile-roll to see if it explodes in the tube, putters out, or just slips out and drops. Oh, it puttered out? Roll to see if the computer caught the jam in time." or "Your Medium Laser's lense cracked. Roll to see how badly it brok-oh, it now does small laser damage at 0 hex range with a +5 to hit. Oh, that sucks."

[AdmiralObvious]

Makes me think of exactly how many maintenance (Or otherwise) related failures could possibly occur in the third SW and more. You'd have to be insane to play with that many random-chance problems.

"Oh, looks like your thirteenth LRM tube hung onto the missile-roll to see if it explodes in the tube, putters out, or just slips out and drops. Oh, it puttered out? Roll to see if the computer caught the jam in time." or "Your Medium Laser's lense cracked. Roll to see how badly it brok-oh, it now does small laser damage at 0 hex range with a +5 to hit. Oh, that sucks."

I mean during the SW, eventually the quality of basically everything you've got left is going to be next to none. You're probably essentially replacing laser optics with poor quality glass by the time of round three, unless you were lucky enough, and savvy enough to keep a rather significant cache of supplies around "just in case".

[Apocal]

One big difference between IRL and Btech is that their missile reuse the same launch tubes, over and over again.  All that exhaust can't be good for the tubes and the ammo feed system.

IRL missiles can reuse the same tubes (or cells) again and again. Launching doesn't do that much, if anything: wipe clean and it is fine. You don't even really need to wipe clean, as long as the rail/launcher interface is fine. Now, if you're talking about the more exotic liquid propellant or something, I wouldn't know. But those are (were) mostly huge missiles with ranges of dozens or hundreds of miles.

I mean during the SW, eventually the quality of basically everything you've got left is going to be next to none. You're probably essentially replacing laser optics with poor quality glass by the time of round three, unless you were lucky enough, and savvy enough to keep a rather significant cache of supplies around "just in case".

Lasers are incredibly sensitive to that sort of thing. There isn't much "play" between 'fine', 'mostly fine' and 'this thing don't work.' I imagine what tech did survive the Succession Wars would be a whole lot of pop-and-swap assemblies, made by lights-out factories, that techs aren't forced to spend much time worrying over. All the bespoke stuff should be gone.

[Colt Ward]

IRL missiles can reuse the same tubes (or cells) again and again. Launching doesn't do that much, if anything: wipe clean and it is fine. You don't even really need to wipe clean, as long as the rail/launcher interface is fine. Now, if you're talking about the more exotic liquid propellant or something, I wouldn't know. But those are (were) mostly huge missiles with ranges of dozens or hundreds of miles.

The rails maybe fine for mounting the tube/cell, but that exhaust is still going to deposit residue along with the heat.



Where you can see bare metal is where they ground off the residue from the latest live fire in the motorpool . . . and you can also see the previous green paint before everything ended up tan.  A little bit of the top, but all of the bottom of the launcher has to be ground off.  They do check the rails and sometimes have to grind inside the SPLL to remove residue.  Launcher is probably at least 15 years old in this picture since I see the ACUs in the background, which means it went through at least one qualifying live fire a year and may have participated in Desert Storm for lots of firing.


You can even see the discoloration on one that made it on TV with everyone's favorite Marine (sniff sniff) with what is probably dummy pods loaded- basically fired pods that have some concrete in them for weight & balance to reflect live pods and a sim panel.  The rockets are solid propellant based which IIRC matches BTU description.

[grimlock1]

Lasers are incredibly sensitive to that sort of thing. There isn't much "play" between 'fine', 'mostly fine' and 'this thing don't work.' I imagine what tech did survive the Succession Wars would be a whole lot of pop-and-swap assemblies, made by lights-out factories, that techs aren't forced to spend much time worrying over. All the bespoke stuff should be gone.

We're on the same page, I think.
If a laser is designed with battlefield maintenance in mind, it should be require relatively minimal labor time for a lot of failures.  Granted I'm picturing a "medium laser on a bench," scenario.  Getting to the CT mlas on an old Zeus must have been a pain. Most subsystems should be a self contained module, that can be yanked, replaced and diagnosed on the bench. And given the amount electronics required to make a laser work, it would be pretty easy to build in diagnostics.  Put a thermocouple on the frame of every optical element, and you can get a lot of useful data.  "Hmmm, temperature warning from the 3rd stage focusing assembly.  Temperature during firing is spiking 34% above normal.  Looks like it started at 13:44:19...  What did that damn mechjock do to my mech at 13:43?" 

Depending on the tolerances and how well the system was designed, made, adjusting the focusing elements could either be relatively painless or a brutal misery, with little middle ground. I've done work like this, and it's either a breeze or it will drive you to drink.

[deathfrombeyond]

IMO, costs year to year are going to be the same- for all the gun barrels you are replacing you will also have to replace lenses, lasing chambers, and other energy components that will get burned out.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this statement, but I have a hard time believing that the maintenance costs for an autocannon is going to be the same, over time, as a laser.

[RifleMech]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this statement, but I have a hard time believing that the maintenance costs for an autocannon is going to be the same, over time, as a laser.

It's like Autocannons are like older cars and Lasers are newer ones. Older cars go into the shop more than newer ones but when a new one does go into the shop it costs more to be fixed so the price ends up equaling out.

[Apocal]

The rails maybe fine for mounting the tube/cell, but that exhaust is still going to deposit residue along with the heat.

Where you can see bare metal is where they ground off the residue from the latest live fire in the motorpool . . . and you can also see the previous green paint before everything ended up tan.  A little bit of the top, but all of the bottom of the launcher has to be ground off.  They do check the rails and sometimes have to grind inside the SPLL to remove residue.  Launcher is probably at least 15 years old in this picture since I see the ACUs in the background, which means it went through at least one qualifying live fire a year and may have participated in Desert Storm for lots of firing.

Oh, I wasn't saying the residue wasn't there. It just didn't impact the system's firing any. We cleaned it off, maybe touched up paint in spots where it had been too burned to come fully clean, as a long-term corrosion control measure. The rails and cell interiors handled launch(es) fine and obviously the missile itself was expended. It wasn't like gun maintenance where you're dealing with tight mechanical tolerances, being worried about whatever carbon or dirt actually gunking up the works and causing a malfunction.

Now actually reloading was where you would lose time, because that was just... ugh, nah.

Getting to the CT mlas on an old Zeus must have been a pain.

Imagine pulling the AC20 off an Atlas with nothing but the BTech equivalent of a hoist.

[Col Toda]

What you get with ammo using weapons is short term throw weight of damage . With 10 Double Heat sinks you can flywheel an ER PPC and ER med laser . With the same 20 heat dissaption you get 2 Arrow IV launchers in an O Bakemono . For Inner Sphere tech quite literally double the damage and area effect .With C3 ; TAG ; and Veteran gunners will get you a horrific 12 -16 cimbat turns and if you do not kill outright most of the opposition Energy Boats in that time you lose the battle but even then may win the strategic war of attrition .

People will maintain whatever units that best represents theirown playing style.

[dgorsman]

It's like Autocannons are like older cars and Lasers are newer ones. Older cars go into the shop more than newer ones but when a new one does go into the shop it costs more to be fixed so the price ends up equaling out.

An autocannon can be maintained with a sledgehammer, pair of pliers, and a welding torch.  Energy weapons, not so much.

Personally, I'm willing to wave off agressive barrel wear with a combination of advanced materials, low friction sabots, and so on.

[Orin J.]

An autocannon can be maintained with a sledgehammer, pair of pliers, and a welding torch.  Energy weapons, not so much.

Personally, I'm willing to wave off agressive barrel wear with a combination of advanced materials, low friction sabots, and so on.

autocannons having barrel sleeves rather than being a single piece would be reasonable for them. the main matter if maintenance for them is probably cleaning, and i dunno how much that costs aside from astech man-hours and they can do that whenever there's nothing pressing.

also isn't the lasers on the Zeus fluffed as being built with fiberoptic cabling to make it more compact and easier to fit into that space on the torso?

[Colt Ward]

It's like Autocannons are like older cars and Lasers are newer ones. Older cars go into the shop more than newer ones but when a new one does go into the shop it costs more to be fixed so the price ends up equaling out.

Pretty much that type of example . . .

I will use a Zeus as an example as the original mounts the basic mix . . . my tech is going to spend a hour a week inspecting and giving fresh lube to the breech/slide/action of my AC/5, swabbing the barrel, inspecting the loading mechanism, cycling the mechanisms (dry firing), or cleaning the ejection ports.  Once a month he will be checking the alignment for the laser's aiming mechanism (sort of like bore-sighting for a ballistic) with that test will take 4 hours for set up and function testing.  So while autocannons may require frequent work, its probably going to be small amounts of time- also by their nature they are a bit easier to work on; moving parts and magazine wells or breech areas with recoil has a lot of open space where you can get to their parts.  Energy weapons without moving parts are going to end up crammed in a space with just enough room for the  unit, so working on them might be harder- think of some of the more convoluted ways you had to replace headlights on a car, especially a modern car where they are shrinking & cramming everything in as small a space as possible.

PCMS has daily, weekly, monthly, semi-annual and annual tasks . . . so while a task may have to be performed once a week, its usually something short.  Tasks that are required once or twice a year tend to take longer- our annual task for the M1068s was a all day affair for the crews (1st level tech care) and had to be signed off on by the actual mechanics who gave your work a quick inspection.

[massey]

My view of it will probably not align with whatever is in Campaign Operations or any of those other giant tomes.

I think coolant flushes are expensive, and an all-laser mech is going to need a lot more of those than a ballistic or missile mech.  There would be a reason why people build something besides energy boats, that reason just doesn't come up in standard Battletech gameplay a lot.

Autocannons are probably easier to build, easier to repair, and easier to maintain.  If your AC-5 gets hit with a crit, it won't work anymore, but depending on where that crit is, you might be able to repair it in a machine shop.  If your PPC gets critted, good luck.  That thing is a far more complex piece of machinery.  If nothing goes wrong, lasers are probably about the least maintenance intensive weapons you can have.  But if it gets broken, it's trash.  And if you try to operate without any maintenance, your coolant is going to get less and less effective.  This isn't something you'd notice over a handful of games, but you would notice in a long campaign.

You need techs anyway, so a lot of maintenance work on ACs or missile launchers would get done during their downtime.  They aren't always repairing battle damage.  Your costs aren't going to go up appreciably just because the guy has to change the oil and check the headlight fluid.

[grimlock1]

My view of it will probably not align with whatever is in Campaign Operations or any of those other giant tomes.

I think coolant flushes are expensive, and an all-laser mech is going to need a lot more of those than a ballistic or missile mech.  There would be a reason why people build something besides energy boats, that reason just doesn't come up in standard Battletech gameplay a lot.

That's a good point. 

Oh, I wasn't saying the residue wasn't there. It just didn't impact the system's firing any. We cleaned it off, maybe touched up paint in spots where it had been too burned to come fully clean, as a long-term corrosion control measure. The rails and cell interiors handled launch(es) fine and obviously the missile itself was expended. It wasn't like gun maintenance where you're dealing with tight mechanical tolerances, being worried about whatever carbon or dirt actually gunking up the works and causing a malfunction.

But Btech missiles are a lot like cannons, themselves.  There is a launch tube, that is loaded from the rear, or even the side  Even if each missile is in its own self contained cannister, you need some kind of sealing mechanism to keep the exhaust from going back into the feed system.  If the missiles are in self contained cannisters, you need to deal with the empties before you load the next one.  Then there's the feed mechanism and the magazine.  The closest analog I can think if is the  old Mk 26 missile launchers.

[RifleMech]

Pretty much that type of example . . .

 :thumbsup: 

That was my thinking. They get more maintanance but it doesn't cost as much. Plus they're easier to repair. Energy weapons not so much.

Wouldn't energy weapons that have barrels need to have them checked for wear do to all the heat traveling though it? And wouldn't those without need to have the lenses cleaned, polished and alligined?

My view of it will probably not align with whatever is in Campaign Operations or any of those other giant tomes.

I think coolant flushes are expensive, and an all-laser mech is going to need a lot more of those than a ballistic or missile mech.  There would be a reason why people build something besides energy boats, that reason just doesn't come up in standard Battletech gameplay a lot.

Good point. Its something most mechs would need but energy boats more so. Especially if they're using DHS-Ps with the toxic chemicals. (Is that still a thing)

[Colt Ward]

A laser 'barrel' IIRC should really be a vacuum tube so you do not get heat bloom or diffusion through particles.

[Orin J.]

the point where the lens makes contact with air though, that's gonna need to be watched like a hawk, lens and seal holding it in place both. not to mention whatever is translating the juice from the fusion reactor into the right amps for the weapon is probably getting a heck of a workout being plugged into THAT. i'd assume that's part of the weapon and not the engine since an astech missing that part and plugging a weapon in naked only needs to happen ONCE before there's some serious changes made.