AtE TL Price Multiplication Too Harsh?

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

It is also of course a mistake to assume that the AK47 was designed to be very rugged. That wasn't the design goal.

Rather it is obvious, that it ended up rugged because the guy who designed it wanted it cheap and because was working within the constraints of the capabilities of Soviet Russia's fairly primitive metal mass production industry.

That assumed causation would mean that all technology coming out of that situation was similarly rugged.

And even if it's universally true for stuff from the USSR, that's not all stuff from later TLs compared to earlier ons.

[dcarson]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

Precisely. You're unlikely to get book value for anything.

That would require radically divergent tech from real life - historically we seem to have moved towards less robust tech in favour of higher performance. Filter out the badly designed and badly manufactured stuff and your TL6 design will generally be more robust than your TL8 one.
At least, that's the impression I get based on very limited experience - some of the experts around here may disagree.

I remember reading that the difference between Vietnam era jet fighters and modern ones is not the ability, modern planes are in the same ballpark for speed, maneuverability, payload, etc. but modern ones actually are in the air doing that instead of being in the hanger needing repair a lot more of the time. Cutting edge stuff becomes more reliable, routine stuff you know just how far you can cut costs and have it still be reliable which menas it is more fragile under bad conditions.

[starslayer]

The AK-47 is reliable because the designer made SIGNIFICANT tradeoffs in terms of part accuracy to allow for a very poor manufacturing process to consistently generate working rifles.

Compared to other 7.62x39 weapons :
The barrel can deflect something silly like 5 degrees in any direction while firing
It vents gas at every joint
The feed mechanisim is slow
It weighs more
It has more felt recoil,
etc.

Almost any other 7.62x39 weapon will have better 'stats' then the AK, with the exception that; those same allowances mean that it can tolerate more rust, more powder buildup, more sand, and other factors that erode exact fits.

However you can do it from the other end, and there are multiple examples of such weapons, where everything is so much more precise that it resists corrosion and intrusion of debris because there simply is no space for it, or the materials themselves radically resist corrosion- There is a Canadian company that makes a 7.62x39 rifle that used to have a youtube video where they put their rifle and an AK-47 into the same slurry of muddy, hot, salt water and agitate it for 3 days. the AK basically does not come out ( all but completely unfireable, rusted through in multiple locations), but their own weapon is fired while still soaking wet and barrel packed with sand, and the only effect is that the first round turns into a birdshot-esque blast of accelerated sand, subsequent rounds going down a now clean barrel.

If someone still remembers that video AtE, you can bet that the rifle that survives being soaked in hot salt-water commands much more money then the AK (even if it can't be repaired like how an AK can).

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by panton41

When your players don't care if the rifle is an M16A2, M16A3 or an M4A1 and just want a generic "American Assault Rifle" it doesn't really matter. The apparent inspirations for AtE (based on pull quotes) was video games like Borderlands and Fallout and movies like Mad Max. Not exactly a rigorous study of post-apocalyptic life. In them a pistol is a pistol and shoots pistol bullets from a pistol magazine, not a Beretta M92FS firing 9x19mm Parabellum P+ from an M92FS magazine.

I can't speak to Borderlands, but having ammo that didn't fit your weapons was a thing in Fallout from time to time (and trading it for ammo that did was also a thing). The latest Mad Max saw the protagonists facing exactly this problem - a fair amount of ammo, but very little for the guns they really wanted to be using.

While minor details in weight, barrel length, and so on are most likely not very important to an AtE campaign, for some ammo types could be very important. I, for one, would specify exact cartridges for guns acquired in an AtE game. I'd also make players specify whether their .357 magnum revolvers are carried loaded with .38 special ammo, or some of their few, rare, precious, .357 magnum rounds, because I'm horrible that way.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Rupert

I can't speak to Borderlands, but having ammo that didn't fit your weapons was a thing in Fallout from time to time (and trading it for ammo that did was also a thing). The latest Mad Max saw the protagonists facing exactly this problem - a fair amount of ammo, but very little for the guns they really wanted to be using.

While minor details in weight, barrel length, and so on are most likely not very important to an AtE campaign, for some ammo types could be very important. I, for one, would specify exact cartridges for guns acquired in an AtE game. I'd also make players specify whether their .357 magnum revolvers are carried loaded with .38 special ammo, or some of their few, rare, precious, .357 magnum rounds, because I'm horrible that way.

Yes quite.

I like the idea of the PC's having a hodge-podge of ammo of different types that has two values:

1). value in terms, of utility for the weapons they have

and

2). Value in terms of local trade value, which itself will be dependent on the weapons generally used in the local area.


I think you could hinge some fun stuff of this, say you know there's this warlord who's got a Desert Eagle .50, but he got little or no rounds for it and is always on the lookout for them (quietly because being seen as desperate to supply his sign of prestige isn't in keeping with his image). And you happen to find a bunch on some scavenger hunt. They're no use to you, there likely not much general resale value, but in the right place and right hands they could be very valuable.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by dcarson

I remember reading that the difference between Vietnam era jet fighters and modern ones is not the ability, modern planes are in the same ballpark for speed, maneuverability, payload, etc. but modern ones actually are in the air doing that instead of being in the hanger needing repair a lot more of the time. Cutting edge stuff becomes more reliable, routine stuff you know just how far you can cut costs and have it still be reliable which menas it is more fragile under bad conditions.

I think that going to depend on awful lot of variables, not least the Vietnam conflict was ongoing for 10+ years and involved over 5m sorties

No modern jets have seen that kind of use.

Also modern jets with modern equipment and modern capabilities etc are not known for easy maintenance, this is the stuff on the F22

Here's an interesting report by Jane's comparing some modern fighters


EDIT: basically the main variable seems to be what plane in what situation not what TL

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by dcarson

I remember reading that the difference between Vietnam era jet fighters and modern ones is not the ability, modern planes are in the same ballpark for speed, maneuverability, payload, etc. but modern ones actually are in the air doing that instead of being in the hanger needing repair a lot more of the time. Cutting edge stuff becomes more reliable, routine stuff you know just how far you can cut costs and have it still be reliable which menas it is more fragile under bad conditions.

I was under the impression that that tends to be achieved by not repairing things - if something stops working, you rip it out and replace it - likewise, your PPM involves switching whole assemblies out and sending them back to the manufacturer to be re-made. AFAIK, it's improved logistics and a change in doctrine that has done the trick, rather than improved manufacturing techniques.