Explaining the rules

[Earl822]

ty

[Carthaginian]

What would the development time for machine guns be? I'm using the SS definition: anything full-automatic and under 1"/25mm. Are they governed by the 6 month time given for naval rifles under 8" in the rules, or are weapons that small just considered as constantly being improved?

Also, do the mounts take 6 months per barrel to research? Since recoil of these weapons is (on a naval scale) nonexistent, would it really take 2 years to design a quad .50 caliber mount? Would it be appropriate under the rules to consider a machine gun of any caliber capable of being mounted in any reasonable quantity (8 was the largest array, IIRC) with 6 months of research? I mean, getting four .50 caliber Brownings to fit into one mount is simple- you just weld four mounts together and move the ammo boxes around by hand to see where they have to sit to keep the belts from getting in each other's way. It's a process that can literally be done in a matter of hours.

[Borys]

The half inch quad looks quite sophisticated ...
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_50cal-M2_MG_pics.htm

Borys

[Borys]

I agree that MG mounts should have simplified rules.

[Carthaginian]

The half inch quad looks quite sophisticated ...
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_50cal-M2_MG_pics.htm

Borys

It looks sophisticated because it's got fairings and covers and guards all over it in that picture. It's really no more advanced or sophisticated than that twin .50 cal mount that is nothing but an iron shield with two guns bolted onto a hinged cradle behind it. The quad mount is powered as well (for motive purposes) and thus is a bit bulkier.

Basically, though, it's the same thing: any number of cradles into which the gun is held by usually a single pin, with an ammunition can holder set off to one side. The mounts on that page illustrate my point on how it's just a matter of figuring out where to bolt the next gun to make sure that the ammo feed isn't disturbed. The twin simply sets one gun as left-hand feed and one as right-hand. The quad mount really only adds a second pair in the same setup, but set slightly behind the first in order to allow for room for easier access to the ammunition cans.

[The Rock Doctor]

Back to the army upgrade thing:

Cost of building an army corps:
$2 and 0.25BP per rating

Upgrading army units cost is the rating difference plus one times the basic unit cost ($2 and 0.25BP).

So 30x(0.25+0.25)=15BP and 30*(2+2)=$120

I'm puzzled by the math for the BP.  The BP rating for a baseline infantry unit is 2, and for an advanced infantry unit, it's 3.  Yet the BP cost to upgrade from one to the other is only 0.5 BP?

Edit:  Crap, never mind.  I was confusing the artillery rating with the BP cost.