Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST

[theagent]

http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/748/crusader-crd-2r

Something I just noticed (& brought up in my post http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56239.0).  I'm not 100% sure about the Alpha Strike calculations for the CRD-2R.

It's possible that it's just because of a carryover from the BattleForce calculations (at least from what Solaris Skunk Werks says should be the BattleForce figures), or perhaps I'm just reading Alpha Strike Companion wrong, but I think the Attack Values and Overheat value might be off.

From what I can tell from the tables, Base damage (before adjusting for heat) should be:

• Short:  0.6x2 (LRMs) + 0.4x4 (Streaks) + 0.5x2 (MLs) + 0.2x2 (MGs) = 1.2 + 1.6 + 1.0 + 0.4 = 4.2
• Medium:  1.2x2 (LRMs) + 0.4x4 (Streaks) + 0.5x2 (MLs) = 2.4 + 1.6 + 1.0 + 5.0
• Long:  1.2x2 (LRMs) = 2.4

Maximum heat should be 26 (5x2=10 for LRMs, 2x4=8 for Streaks, 3x2=6 for MLs, & 2 for Movement; 10 + 8 + 6 + 2 = 26).  Heat dissipation is 20 (10 double heat sinks).  The formula in ASC (p. 115) says Heat Modified Damage is Base Damage x Heat Dissipation / (Max Heat -4); or, in this case, Heat Modified Damage = Base Damage x 20 / 22.  When I plug that into the calculator, I get:

• Short:  4.2 x 20 / 22 = 3.818181, which rounds up to 4 (this matches the Alpha Strike card)
• Medium:  5.0 x 20 / 22 = 4.545454, which rounds up to 5 (this does not match the Alpha Strike Card, which lists a "4" instead)
• Long:  Since only the LRMs have an Attack Value at this range, & the maximum heat (10 + 2 = 12) is less than the heat dissipation, there's no adjustment for heat at this range.  "Modified" damage = Base Damage = 2.4, which rounds up to 3 (again, this does not match the Alpha Strike card, which lists "2").
• Since the "Modified" and "Base" damage for Medium Range are now the same (5), OV is now 0 (also does not match the "1" listed on the Alpha Strike card).

For the CRD-2R, the Defensive Points are 18.7 (6x2 = 12 for Armor, 5x1 = 5 for Structure, 12 + 5 = 17; TMM = 1; DIR = 1 + (1/10) = 1.1; 17 x 1.1 = 18.7).  The Offensive Points, however, are now 20.5:  4 (S) + 5x2 (M) + 3 (L) + 2 (IF2) + 1.5 (SZ 3, 3/2) = 4 + 10 + 3 + 2 + 1.5 = 20.5.  Added together, I get 20.5 + 18.7 = 39.2, rounded down to 39 (1 point higher than the 38 listed on the Alpha Strike card).

Did I miscalculate somewhere, or is this a real error on the card?

[nckestrel]

The Crusader is penalized for only having 8 rounds of ammo per LDM launcherz

[theagent]

The Crusader is penalized for only having 8 rounds of ammo per LDM launcherz

(Smacks self in head)

Right... I'd forgotten about that. And that's why they don't have the LRM special as well?

[nckestrel]

(Smacks self in head)

Right... I'd forgotten about that. And that's why they don't have the LRM special as well?

That's due to the Artemis.  Artemis equipped units, in AS/BF, can only use Artemis rounds, so they don't get the LRM to use alternative munitions.

[Bishop Steiner]

Perhaps this has been addressed, but the MUL lists the BJ3 with a 3042 introductory date, but the mech itself was first debuted in the Fourth Succession War Battlepack?  I have not been able to obtain a copy of this Battlepack to confirm, though.

[Sartris]

Perhaps this has been addressed, but the MUL lists the BJ3 with a 3042 introductory date, but the mech itself was first debuted in the Fourth Succession War Battlepack?  I have not been able to obtain a copy of this Battlepack to confirm, though.

it was in the 4thSW Battlepack, yes (writeup on pg 38)

[Daryk]

That variant is also mentioned in TRO 3039 (page 128) as being from the "3030's".

[Cache]

it was in the 4thSW Battlepack, yes (writeup on pg 38)

That variant is also mentioned in TRO 3039 (page 128) as being from the "3030's".

Those are prototypes, not production models.  Double heat sink production was not re-started until 3040 according to TechManual. This appears to be the limiting factor of the design.

[Daryk]

So the 3042 version has 10(20) heat sinks vice 10(13)?

[nckestrel]

http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3831/blackjack-bj-3x

[skiltao]

Perhaps this has been addressed, but the MUL lists the BJ3 with a 3042 introductory date, but the mech itself was first debuted in the Fourth Succession War Battlepack?  I have not been able to obtain a copy of this Battlepack to confirm, though.

Actually, it first debuted in Objective Raids (page 149) as an evolution of the BJ-2.

[Bishop Steiner]

Actually, it first debuted in Objective Raids (page 149) as an evolution of the BJ-2.

Which makes sense from a nomenclature standpoint.. but since the BJ2 was produced in 3052, and the BJ3 was in various guises produced during the 4th Succession War and full production apparently in 3042... the designation doesn't really make sense... but what can you do?

[Bishop Steiner]

http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3831/blackjack-bj-3x

thank you! Are there record sheets anywhere?  This is literally the only reference I have ever seen to a 3X.. the rest just list the BJ3 as being the first mech to enter production with DHS, apparently the corrosive ones, originally. 

[Sartris]

i presume the BJ-3X is referenced obliquely in this paragraph from TRO:3039... though the intro date of 3029 on the MUL muddles things.

In the 3030s, the St. Ives Compact experimented with
recovered technology on some of their Blackjacks. One prototype
that showed great promise replace the autocannon
and one heat sink with a pair of Ceres Arms Smasher PPCs.
Three of the remaining heat sinks were replaced with experimental
“freezer” double efficiency units.

[Cache]

thank you! Are there record sheets anywhere?

He originally posted in the wrong thread. There's only a quote left.

http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3831/blackjack-bj-3x
The BJ-3 with all double heat sinks could not have existed that early.  So we created a BJ-3X that was a step toward the 3. It has not received a record sheet yet.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=55482.msg1293852#msg1293852

[Bishop Steiner]

He originally posted in the wrong thread. There's only a quote left.http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=55482.msg1293852#msg1293852

Ah, OK, so this is a "new canon" stopgap fix, basically?

[nckestrel]

Yes, the "old" canon was contradictory.

[The_Livewire]

I apologize if I'm late or missed a comment.  If I did I couldn't find it.

Should Davion have access to the 3050 Clan omnis in the Jihad era?

[cavingjan]

Not all of them but most of them. Davion is part of the IS General list.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

The availability trajectory makes sense if you imagine the 3050 omnis as battle salvage.  By the Jihad everyone has accumulated a good bit of Clan salvage thanks to Revival, Bulldog,  and Serpent.  But chronic borderjumping raids don't maintain that windall, and availability peters back out for the IS as time advances.

[Starbuck]

BEAR CUB (Standard)

http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/314/bear-cub-standard

should not have long range damage value of 1

its only long range weapon is a lrm5, converts with 0.3 points of damage, which qualify for a long range damage of 0*

(sources: TRO3075 and SSW)

[Starbuck]

and again the KARHU.
the discussion and correction of the KARHU C (now PV 40) on the previous page made me wonder why the KARHU A costs 44 points.
compared to the C it lacks the melee weapon but adds 1 damage point at long range and an IF1. this should not be a 4 point difference.

KARHU A
http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1748/karhu-a

offensive value
4+4+4+4 damage +1.5 size +1 IF1 = 18.5

defensive value
   MF = 10/8 + 0.5 jump = 1.25 + 0.5 = 1.75
   DIR = [(7*2) + 4] x [1+(2 tmm/10)] = 21.6, rounded to nearest half  = 21.5

   Defensive Value: 21.5 + 1.75 = 23.25

Final Point Value = 18.5 + 23.25 = 41.75

so the PV of the KARHU A should be 42.

[Xotl]

The Karhu A is jump-capable.  Using the current rules, that gives it a further +1 defence mod, for a 1.3 multiplier, not a 1.2.

The PV revision would remove that, but it's not finalized as of yet and so hasn't been implemented in the MUL.

[Starbuck]

The Karhu A is jump-capable.  Using the current rules, that gives it a further +1 defence mod, for a 1.3 multiplier, not a 1.2.

The PV revision would remove that, but it's not finalized as of yet and so hasn't been implemented in the MUL.

i dont think so.
according to errata v1.1 for ASC the additional +1 is for jump-capable infantry, so the multiplier of 1.2 should be correct.
see also GoldBishops math and Nckestrels answer/correction to it:

. . DIR = [(7*2) + 4] x [1+(3 tmm/10)] ~ 23.4, or 23.5 (round, nearest half)

TMM is 2, not 3? Only infantry include the +1 for jump now, as of v1.1 errata.

[GoldBishop]

@Starbuck - the ASC v1.1 Errata is found here:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=40232.msg928691#msg928691

The change for calculating the Defensive Interaction Rating (DIR) is located on p.12 of the Errata, and reads as thus:
 

Defense Factor Modifiers Table (Ground Units) (p. 140)
1) Under “Unit’s Best Move Rate”
Unit is Jump-Capable
Change to:
Unit is Jump-Capable Infantry

...Since the Karhu is *not* Infantry, only its best movement is used to determine the multiplier (10", or +2).  I did not go back and correct my calculations; if I mislead you, please forgive me - mine are not official calculations.

Do note that it's my understanding that Jump-capable units still pay for Jump movement in the Movement Factor (MF)... but that's it.  (I sympathize if you feel this value is under-costed to jump-capable 'mechs, but this is not the thread to voice such a complaint).

Another note: the whole of the MUL is still in need of this (v1.1) update; many of the values, while unchecked, will be calculated slightly off (as of 9-Feb-2017, units are more expensive by about 1-2 PV depending on the unit).  One could assume that once the Heat Modification section is finalized, we'll see the "update" ripple through the MUL.  (I'm not privy to their time tables, so we can only guess).

**EDIT** I can confirm the reduced cost to the Karhu "A" (44 to 42) "B" (47 to 45) and G (48 to 46)... but again, these should come after the v.1.1 screens units off the MUL en masse.  (Mine are still unofficial calculations; I'm just a friendly calculating spectator)

[Starbuck]

@GoldBishop

you did not mislead me at all.

i have the errata, but haven't looked thoroughly into conversion and calculating PV changes.
if you hadn't brought up the Karhu issue i would not have noticed the change in calculating the DIR.

and as you stated, it seems that a lot - if not all - jump-capable mechs are still calculated using the old (and now obsolete) formula.

[FrozenIceman]

All MUL entries for Infantry (as well as all TRO)'s are now drastically different due to Tech Manual Errata 3.0 changing and replacing nearly all BV and Damage Calculations for infantry weapons.

See an example of change impact to Heavy Jump Infantry (TRO 3085)

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=5884.msg1296048#msg1296048

I did check the standard weapons as well.  Rifle, LRM, SRM, and Flamer have all been changed, meaning any units (nearly all of them) that use those weapons are now incorrect in both damage output and BV in the entire MUL.

[Sigil]

TI-1A Titan has a MUL date of 2787.
TRO: 3075 pg. 94 gives a prototype date of 2765 and references General Aleksandr Kerensky.

FFL-4A Firefly has a MUL date of 2801 and even the oldest Firefly mode, the FFL-2SLE, has a date of 2790
Operation Klondike pg. 164 clearly states the Firefly was a mainstay of the SLDF and introduced in the "27th century."

[Sigil]

The CPLT-K2 and ZEU-6S intro dates are still being reviewed.  If there's something else asked about that hasn't been responded to, feel free to bump, I may have lost it in the backlog.
Thanks.

Ping!

[TigerShark]

This one seems tied into the introduction of the snub-nosed PPC, which may require errata in its own right. However, given the data we have:

Falcon FLC-4Nb
The current fluff states that the Falcon was put into production with the remaining factories of the Rim Worlds Republic, namely Roe Weapon Systems of Apollo. This would have to have been done during the SLDF occupation. This puts the date of the FLC-4Nb no earlier than 2770 (conquest of Apollo) and no later than 2772, when Kerensky's troops departed the Republic. (LoT, pp 109-110) My suggested date would be 2770, since it states these were "rushed into production." But in reality, it could have been any time up to the launch of ALMARIC.

This would mean that an FLC-4N production facility existed on Apollo prior to this date. Unless the unlikely scenario exists where General Kerensky has a Falcon factory built from scratch out of a Roe Weapons Systems aerospace plant. So the FLC-4N should probably be added to the RWR Home Guard availability. Also, seems like there was some kind of upgrade done to the plant, if it existed. Seems a little strange that an Endo Steel frame would be readily available for a rushed unit. Feels like there should be another unit here preceding the -4Nb, like the FLC-4Nb-PP2 config. (I know that's not canon--just my impression from the timeline and the logical chain of events).

Phoenix Hawk PXH-1c
Going off of the FLC-4Nb fluff, the PXH-1c is said to come first: "Equipped with the prototype Snub-Nosed PPC first deployed in
the PHX-1c Phoenix Hawk.." (Op:Klondike, p. 163) This suggests that the Phoenix Hawk's upgrade came first. Given that Kerensky's Orion custom came in at 2754, this should be much earlier than 2784, possibly just inserting the Kerensky date of 2754.