StratOps/IntOps Warship/JumpShip/Space Station Calculator

[Cryhavok101]

I almost forgot, I also added a second sheet that displays info in a several blocks, in more of a TRO style display. This is a work in progress. Right now it doesn't copy paste well, without needing some formatting, however as it is, it has made my life easier when putting things in such a format. There are more blocks of info going off to the side, so scroll until you get to the last one to see them all.

The only thing I wasn't able to add was the cargo bays section of a TRO style entry, because of the nature of them and how they can be split in any number of ways, I can't set this up to make them populate like the rest of it. Still, that is a easy part to type out yourself when transferring this info into a document.

[I am Belch II]

Thank you for all the updates on this calculator of this.

[Cryhavok101]

Found a problem preventing people from selecting primitive K-F drives, and fixed it.

[Cryhavok101]

For anyone who didn't know, this sheet doesn't work in other spreadsheet programs. It uses formulas that don't translate from one to another. Here is a link to instructions on using google sheets offline.

[Cryhavok101]

Most Current Link 7-20-17
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-CDKf4BJghLS2B52_9O5q4deG8h5G2A9W-hDcBHGcUY/edit?usp=sharing

Now supports making Space Stations.

To do so, on the K-F Drive type select "None."

Added Energy Storage Batteries to the weapons and equipment list.

Updated C-bill and BV2 costs to accommodate space stations.

Note: If you try to use this feature to create a monitor, be aware that the controls weight calculation will be off, and the resultant difference in c-bill costs as well.

As usual if you notice something wrong, please let me know.

[assaultdoor]

Should adding a NCSS (Large or Small) reduce the number of crew (cell D20)? Adding one increases the number of officers and the number of gunners/other, which I would expect, but it also reduces the number of crew. The NCSS Large adds 2 officers and 12 gunners/other, and reduces the number of crew by 2. The NCSS Small adds 1 officer and 6 gunners/other, and reduces the number of crew by 1. I assume it's taking the additional officer(s) from the crew.

[Cryhavok101]

Yes, that is working as intended, and yes it is simply taking the number of officers needed for the additional people from the crew total. I did this so it was easier to see crew needed to operate equipment all together, since some people consider those optional, and may run the ship without those crew just without using that equipment. The ship still has the correct number of officers, and if you count gunners, other, and normal crew as the same, the same number of those as well.

[Cryhavok101]

Thanks to Alsadius's suggestions in another thread, I made some improvements to the TRO Workup section of this sheet. The weapons sections now include the defensive weapons, and the ammo now includes the defensive ammo.

He had another suggestion that I did not implement:

His sugegstion was to add they launch and cargo bays to the general equipment section, by adding the following formula to cell V2 on the TRO Workup sheet:

Code: [Select]

=IFERROR(FILTER(EquipedName,(EquipedType="Equipment")+(EquipedType="Bay")),"None")
I did not implement it, because bays need to be assigned doors and arranged how you want them. The massive variety of ways they can be set up makes it inappropriate, in my opinion, to add them to the general equipment... however, I provided his formula for that cell in case any of you prefer doing it the way Alsadius suggested.

[Psyckosama]

How would one add things like custom weapons?

[Alsadius]

Once you've made your own copy, just un-hide all hidden tabs, go to the weapons tab, and add in whatever you want. The format is pretty self-explanatory.

[Cryhavok101]

Once you've made your own copy, just un-hide all hidden tabs, go to the weapons tab, and add in whatever you want. The format is pretty self-explanatory.

What he said.

As long as the numbers don't have weird complex equations it should be fine. The weirder it is to figure out your weapon's weight, the more hoops you'll have to jump through.

[I am Belch II]

Thanks for the update..going to give it a try soon.

[Psyckosama]

What he said.

As long as the numbers don't have weird complex equations it should be fine. The weirder it is to figure out your weapon's weight, the more hoops you'll have to jump through.

Fair enough. I just house rule that Light Vehicles use Battle Armor weapons rather than infantry because of how strange the infantry weapons rules are.

[marauder648]

This is awesome :D I've figured out how to use it (kind of) but I have spotted an error, the NAC ammo seems to be coming in light, I had 120 rounds of NAC-10 ammo weigh 24 tons not the 240 tons it should.  I dunno if i'm doing something wrong (probably am) or its a hiccup on the sheet.  Or am I doing it wrong, it seems to be actual numbers of shots, not tons of ammo, is that where I'm going wrong?

[Alsadius]

This is awesome :D I've figured out how to use it (kind of) but I have spotted an error, the NAC ammo seems to be coming in light, I had 120 rounds of NAC-10 ammo weigh 24 tons not the 240 tons it should.  I dunno if i'm doing something wrong (probably am) or its a hiccup on the sheet.  Or am I doing it wrong, it seems to be actual numbers of shots, not tons of ammo, is that where I'm going wrong?

Per my copy of TacOps(pg. 408), NAC/10 ammo is 5 shots per ton, same as an AC/20. That's the correct value, unless there's been errata.

[marauder648]

Yeah I've been faffing around with it, the thing calculates the weight per shot, not per ton, so you need to add say 96 shots for some LRM ammo for example to get the right tonnage. 

[Cryhavok101]

Yeah I had to go with weight per shot so that ammo calculations didn't have to use entirely different calculations for things when the ammo weighs more than a ton per shot. Plus the sheet is sort of set up to allow for Fractional accounting.

[marauder648]

it still works superbly :) Its very easy to use!

[Andras]

Is the weight of the IS LAC/5 correct? It shows 8 tons per weapon.

[Vition2]

Following on to a couple of posts from Andras, the fire control weight is not adding up properly.

I can use the following on the nose and get 3785.88 tons FC:
5 Capital Launcher Barracuda
4 Naval PPC Heavy
4 Naval Laser 55
3 Naval AC 20
15 Laser Large ER (IS)
30 AMS (IS)
(61 weapons)
When I double that up in the aft, it only returns 4164.46 tons of FC when it should be exactly double.
The base number is wrong anyway, should being either 4888 tons or 7332 tons, depending on which formula you believe is correct (I know we don't have a definitive answer regarding this yet, though I'm about to look at the Conqueror which might shine light on the issue)

Edit: I do appreciate what you've done here, it is a great spreadsheet in general.

[Cryhavok101]

Following on to a couple of posts from Andras, the fire control weight is not adding up properly.

I can use the following on the nose and get 3785.88 tons FC:
5 Capital Launcher Barracuda
4 Naval PPC Heavy
4 Naval Laser 55
3 Naval AC 20
15 Laser Large ER (IS)
30 AMS (IS)
(61 weapons)
When I double that up in the aft, it only returns 4164.46 tons of FC when it should be exactly double.
The base number is wrong anyway, should being either 4888 tons or 7332 tons, depending on which formula you believe is correct (I know we don't have a definitive answer regarding this yet, though I'm about to look at the Conqueror which might shine light on the issue)

Edit: I do appreciate what you've done here, it is a great spreadsheet in general.

So I've turned maintenance and development of this sheet over to Alsadius, as I have been falling back out of battletech. I am not sure exactly what the problem is because I can't check the books for the exactly numbers, but I did notice one thing: AMS doesn't take up fire control slots. It would count as 31 weapons, not 61. I am fairly certain that is the correct way to do it also, as I recall spending some time checking to make sure. If it isn't however, it's something Alsadius will need to be contacted about.

[Vition2]

I am fairly certain that is the correct way to do it also, as I recall spending some time checking to make sure. If it isn't however, it's something Alsadius will need to be contacted about.

It is absolutely NOT how AMS is handled, they only have an exception for crew.  Everything else strongly indicates that they take up weapon slots on Warships and other large craft (particularly damning in this regard is the Laser AMS in the Tactical Operations Heavy Weapons and Equipment Combat Data table where it is specifically and unambiguously stated as taking a weapon slot on Warships).  I'll take this to Alsadius though.

Your decreased activity in the community will be noticed, but I understand the feeling entirely.

[Maingunnery]

It is absolutely NOT how AMS is handled, they only have an exception for crew.  Everything else strongly indicates that they take up weapon slots on Warships and other large craft (particularly damning in this regard is the Laser AMS in the Tactical Operations Heavy Weapons and Equipment Combat Data table where it is specifically and unambiguously stated as taking a weapon slot on Warships).  I'll take this to Alsadius though.

Your decreased activity in the community will be noticed, but I understand the feeling entirely.

It doesn't matter if they take up weapon slots, AMS are automatic systems and as such don't count for fire control.

[Vition2]

It doesn't matter if they take up weapon slots, AMS are automatic systems and as such don't count for fire control.

Please direct me to the proper rules for this then, as everything I am seeing indicates that weapons (regardless of being automatic systems) are required to be counted for fire control.

The only point in both TO and SO where I have seen any exception to the normal rulings for weapons for AMS is in regards to CREW ONLY.  But I am willing to be proved wrong.

[Alsadius]

I saw this thread, but didn't want to jump in until I had a chance to dig into it properly, which won't be until this weekend. I'll look into it when I get a chance, and see what I can find.

[Maingunnery]

It seems that I was wrong, it was replied in detail here:

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=3258.msg74301#msg74301

[Alsadius]

It seems that I was wrong, it was replied in detail here:

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=3258.msg74301#msg74301

Awesome, thank you for finding that. That'll make this fix substantially easier.

[Alsadius]

I've gone in and updated the sheet to correctly calculate fire control weights with AMS included. I've also added some additional notes on the hidden parts of the sheet, for anyone who wants to play with it themselves, and corrected a couple small bugs that I'd previously found - the "free" armor for having SI is now included in the max armor, and the cost calculations for stations have been corrected.

I've also done something a bit experimental - a lot of the cells now feature data validation, to ensure that you're putting in legal values. It won't stop you from doing what you like, but the little red triangle at the top corner of a cell will tell you if certain things are illegal. Let me know what you think - it's easy enough to take it out if people dislike it.

I'm also thinking of taking bays out of the weapon list and making them their own thing off to the side. That should allow for better management of doors, facings, and so on, and it'll make the TRO write-up look better as well, since all the bays can be included in a single spot with all the flexibility that canonical bays have. Would that be worth adding?

[Andras]

The Fire control it now gives me is exactly 1/2 that I manually calculated.

64 weapons totalling 456 tons on 4 arcs each. I get 547.2 tons manually (456tons x .3 x 4 arcs). The new sheet gave me 273.6t

[Maingunnery]

I'm also thinking of taking bays out of the weapon list and making them their own thing off to the side. That should allow for better management of doors, facings, and so on, and it'll make the TRO write-up look better as well, since all the bays can be included in a single spot with all the flexibility that canonical bays have. Would that be worth adding?

Yes please.  :clap: