52 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

*chuckle* This thread was technically a duplicate (the original thread I posted was moved to this forum, and then buried with little notice.) So I deleted my old one, this one is no longer a duplicate. (Also- I'm an American )

-----------------------

Moving on.

I would not advocate removing basic indirect fire.

Restricting LRMs to LoS fire without a spotter would cripple them in about every aspect.. I can honestly say I doubt you would see them much, even in closed team games, and here's why:

Requirements for direct fire engagement: Lock target and fire, then wait with Center Torso presented while your missiles travel to target. Your direct fire opponent has no such requirement, he pops you in the CT with whatever he wants, then turns whatever shoulder has the most armor to take the center of your missile barrage. Or, better yet, steps behind cover while your missiles are in flight. An LRM mech using LoS is open season while missiles are in flight.

Requirements for Indirect fire engagement: A spotter, training a TAG on the target. While he's doing that, he's not able to take cover, he's not able to torso twist, all he can do is present his CT to the enemy- while waiting for your missiles to hit. Requiring 2 mechs (actively) to make 1 of them functional is a hard sell, when Energy and Ballistics have no such requirement.

--------------------------------

According to compendium, IDF just needs to have a friendly mech with LoS, it does not mention requirement of additional equipment.

[Captain Stiffy]

[Livewyr]

Captain Stiffy, on 17 April 2014 - 04:02 PM, said:

Using magical weapons to defeat magical equipment?

I like it.

[Tombstoner]

Livewyr, on 23 April 2014 - 03:45 AM, said:

Using magical weapons to defeat magical equipment?

I like it.

With magical levels of accuracy.... i approve.

The rest of the OP content violates the science smell test.... The field strength needed to affect the given effect is definitely disproportionate from concept to concept among many others.

The magnetic field bubble needs to have a polar end . it would work if the mech was stationary. the magnetic filed must point down or it would be way to hazardous to mechs behind you.
your 100 tone mech would be walking would with jenners, commandos and spiders sticking to its but.

The ION shield for lasers should also block visible light.... thus creating black holes wandering the map. the visibility shield would work both ways. only the one inside cant see anything and everyone else can see the black ball.

The field strength for ECM is the lowest of them all since all you have to do is confuse some photovoltaic cells. that's easily done by saturating the em spectrum with power on all frequencies. EMC is the only form of shield that reasonably works and only for targeting systems.... although image recognition and screen scraping is 20 century tech no reason optically guided via tv shouldn't still work unless they have the ion shield up....

But yea i get it PGI's version of ECM is FUBAR. all it should do is make targeting times proportional to the amount of mech visible. Time to detect mech* % of mech visible * ECM co-factor * camouflage ratting for terrain* presence of trees or water.
direct fire doesn't suffer from any of this.

I love hiding my ECM commando stationary in some trees within 200 meters of the OPFOR. i also love shooting them in the back and when they turn around they think its FF and shoot there team mates....

[Livewyr]

Tombstoner, on 28 April 2014 - 03:10 PM, said:

With magical levels of accuracy.... i approve.

The rest of the OP content violates the science smell test.... The field strength needed to affect the given effect is definitely disproportionate from concept to concept among many others.

The magnetic field bubble needs to have a polar end . it would work if the mech was stationary. the magnetic filed must point down or it would be way to hazardous to mechs behind you.
your 100 tone mech would be walking would with jenners, commandos and spiders sticking to its but.

The ION shield for lasers should also block visible light.... thus creating black holes wandering the map. the visibility shield would work both ways. only the one inside cant see anything and everyone else can see the black ball.

Where do PPCs fit in the science smell test?

Tombstoner, on 28 April 2014 - 03:10 PM, said:

The field strength for ECM is the lowest of them all since all you have to do is confuse some photovoltaic cells. that's easily done by saturating the em spectrum with power on all frequencies. EMC is the only form of shield that reasonably works and only for targeting systems.... although image recognition and screen scraping is 20 century tech no reason optically guided via tv shouldn't still work unless they have the ion shield up....

But yea i get it PGI's version of ECM is FUBAR. all it should do is make targeting times proportional to the amount of mech visible. Time to detect mech* % of mech visible * ECM co-factor * camouflage ratting for terrain* presence of trees or water.
direct fire doesn't suffer from any of this.

I love hiding my ECM commando stationary in some trees within 200 meters of the OPFOR. i also love shooting them in the back and when they turn around they think its FF and shoot there team mates....

I would love hiding behind enemy forces to do that too... I just think if I'm going to have Null Sig, I should have the minimum heat of firing a PPC constantly that goes with it.. and 3-5 more crit slots.



I'm not disagreeing with you in reality, but I do (Token-ly?) disagree with the token science-based rejection of the MFG and IDF concerning BT tech. Especially considering the "Blue Shield."

[Strum Wealh]

Livewyr, on 28 April 2014 - 04:18 PM, said:

Where do PPCs fit in the science smell test?

The PPC could be interpreted as being, for all intents and purposes, an electrolaser system.

Strum Wealh, on 19 March 2014 - 08:46 PM, said:

Also, the third option should, IMO, have its name changed from "Ion Cannon" to "Electrolaser", as the latter (which is arguably a subset of the former, anyway) actually functions specifically on the behavior being described ("...uses lasers to form an electrically conductive laser-induced plasma channel (LIPC). A fraction of a second later, a powerful electric current is sent down this plasma channel and delivered to the target..."; the electric current could easily be interpreted as (or substituted for) a charged particle beam).

[Livewyr]

Strum Wealh, on 28 April 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

The PPC could be interpreted as being, for all intents and purposes, an electrolaser system.

Well, except the PPC produces recoil and has is part kinetic in damage.. (apparently a ion projectile with significant mass)

[Strum Wealh]

Daekar, on 17 April 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

No wonder more Americans don't enjoy British comedy... it would all go right over their heads.

I'm an American & I enjoy some British comedy (the comedic elements of (British) Top Gear, Doctor Who, and (British) Being Human, to name a few - though, I will admit to trying to watch Graham Norton a couple of times and not "getting into it").

-----

Daekar, on 17 April 2014 - 06:10 AM, said:

I would like to propose some new equipment.

(snip)

I think it looks pretty balanced and should normalize the efficacy of each weapon system in line with the partial implementation the devs already have in place. Of course, if these are a bad idea, then so is the current implementation of ECM.

The proposed ideas, despite their satirical nature, are unpalatable on their own because they are neither directly from BattleTech nor reasonably considered elements of items/ideas that are such, and thus have no place in MechWarrior.

That being said, I came up with a 3058 "ultimate anti-energy 'Mech" as part of a similar discussion over two years ago.

Quote

What about the numerous canon "hard counters", like the various advanced armor types (see also, this post), special munitions for autocannons, and alternate ammunition for missile launchers?

To use your example of "building a unit that is anti-laser", what about (if/when 3058 rolls around) modifying a CLPT-C3 Catapult to be fitted with Reflective Armor and having its Arrow IV launchers fitted with both Laser-Inhibiting Missiles and Cluster Arrow Missiles by sacrificing one of the four Medium Lasers while keeping two of the MLs and replacing one with a Machine Gun and 0.5 tons of ammo?

Such a 'Mech could engage conventionally with the lasers, MG, and cluster missile while being more resistant to energy weapon fire (due to its armor), or it could engage with the LI missiles, cluster missiles, and MG and inhibit the reduce the ability of any energy-centric units (such as the Clans' Nova and Supernova, or the ANH-1E Annihilator, or the AWS-8Q Awesome, or the Schrek PPC Carrier) to effectively counter-attack.

The fact of the matter is that BattleTech - and, by extension, MechWarrior - has always had a set of items that served as counters to one or more other items; that ECM suites serve as the counters to sensors & the missiles that rely upon those sensors for tracking locks is neither unprecedented nor unexpected.

MWO's implementation of Guardian is modeled on what is essentially a combination of electronic radar jamming equipment, some degree of laser jamming equipment (to address IR & UV based lidar systems), an infrared countermeasures (IRCM) system (likely very similar to the planned CIRCM system), a sonar jamming system (see here and here), and some system meant to confuse some types of magnetometers and magnetic anomaly detectors - which is how Guardian has always been described in BattleTech, since its introduction in TRO 2750 in 1989.

More specifically, PGI utilized several of the advanced BattleTech gameplay rules from Tactical Operations in their implementation of Guardian (which is where things like the dual ECM/ECCM modes, the failure-to-detect condition for opponents' sensors, and Beagle's ability to "burn through" Guardian's jamming at short range come from).
It should also be noted that PGI's implementation of Guardian doesn't even represent the complete range of Guardian's abilities (see here); the most notable missing function in PGI's implementation is Guardian's third mode (as distinct from ECM/Disrupt and ECCM/Counter), which allows for the generation of "Ghost Targets" (that is, "sensor ghosts") that can clutter and deceive the targeting systems of opposing 'Mechs.

PGI's greatest EW/IW-related mistake, IMO, was in not similarly fleshing-out the rest of the EW/IW gear - such as implementing the full capabilities of Beagle (see here), or implementing the capabilities of the EW/IW capabilities of the Command Console (see here), and/or implementing the C3 system in addition to the basic/inherent data sharing (see here for an explanation & proposal) - and releasing all of it at the same time.

----------

General Taskeen, on 17 April 2014 - 11:48 AM, said:

At its base, LRM's are blocked by an ECM Mech standing right in front of me. Meaning that ECM Mech is totally shielded from any LRM fire in LOS. While at the same time, that ECM Mech can fire its LRM's.

The claim that "[an] ECM Mech is totally shielded from any LRM fire in LOS" is patently & demonstratably false.

Being unable to achieve a sensor lock - and thus a weapon lock - does not prevent a LRM launcher from being fired; when fired without a lock, MWO LRMs will go to wherever the reticle was pointed at the moment the weapon was fired (that is, the dumb-fired LRMs will not follow the reticle once they have left the launch tubes).
As such, MWO LRMs still have a decent chance of hitting a stationary or slow-moving target (such as the classic poptart, or a team huddled against a hill/outcrop/etc - basically, the same situations against which the artillery & air strike modules would be used) - or one whose movements are so predictable that the LRMs can be launched at the point where the target is expected to be - at range.

Against a fast or evading target at range, however, LRMs are unlikely to be (and should not be expected to be) an easy-to-use option - but they remain an option nonetheless (unless said target is inside the 180-meter minimum range, as "standing right in front of [you]" would tend to imply - in which case, using LRMs in that situation is simply operator error rather than a fault with the weapon itself or anything to do with Guardian).

[Strum Wealh]

Livewyr, on 28 April 2014 - 05:54 PM, said:

Well, except the PPC produces recoil and has is part kinetic in damage.. (apparently a ion projectile with significant mass)

Well, a charged particle bolt/pulse (which could just as easily be composed of individual protons, or even whole atoms that carry a net charge, as electrons) could be reasonably expected to have the same general needs & operating conditions as a charged particle beam (also would also be composed of individual protons, or even whole atoms that carry a net charge), particularly when it comes to using a laser-induced plasma channel to combat some of the effects of firing such a device within an atmosphere (including, most notably, "blooming" and "beam absorption").

[Livewyr]

Strum Wealh, on 28 April 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

The proposed ideas, despite their satirical nature, are unpalatable on their own because they are neither directly from BattleTech nor reasonably considered elements of items/ideas that are such, and thus have no place in MechWarrior.

That being said, I came up with a 3058 "ultimate anti-energy 'Mech" as part of a similar discussion over two years ago.

They're equals to MWO frankenquipment ECM, just because they're not in TT, doesn't mean they can't be in MWO. (Coolant flush, heat scale, duh.)

Strum Wealh, on 28 April 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

The fact of the matter is that BattleTech - and, by extension, MechWarrior - has always had a set of items that served as counters to one or more other items; that ECM suites serve as the counters to sensors & the missiles that rely upon those sensors for tracking locks is neither unprecedented nor unexpected.

Correction: Guardian ECM does not counter missiles at all. Only the T2 equipment (BAP, A4FC, NARC, etc..) I read the compendium and tac-ops manuals on the subject.

(Angel ECM strips the locks of Streaks and *could* let them fire as regular SRMs)

Strum Wealh, on 28 April 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

MWO's implementation of Guardian is modeled on what is essentially a combination of electronic radar jamming equipment, some degree of laser jamming equipment (to address IR & UV based lidar systems), an infrared countermeasures (IRCM) system (likely very similar to the planned CIRCM system), a sonar jamming system (see here and here), and some system meant to confuse some types of magnetometers and magnetic anomaly detectors - which is how Guardian has always been described in BattleTech, since its introduction in TRO 2750 in 1989.

More specifically, PGI utilized several of the advanced BattleTech gameplay rules from Tactical Operations in their implementation of Guardian (which is where things like the dual ECM/ECCM modes, the failure-to-detect condition for opponents' sensors, and Beagle's ability to "burn through" Guardian's jamming at short range come from).
It should also be noted that PGI's implementation of Guardian doesn't even represent the complete range of Guardian's abilities (see here); the most notable missing function in PGI's implementation is Guardian's third mode (as distinct from ECM/Disrupt and ECCM/Counter), which allows for the generation of "Ghost Targets" (that is, "sensor ghosts") that can clutter and deceive the targeting systems of opposing 'Mechs.

I just read up on ECM in the Compendium, Total Warfare, and Tactical Operations. They say ECM protects the ECM mech, and its bubble from being identified (+modifiers to sensor range rolls) it does not protect the mech from being targeted. (It has no effect on targeting computers.)

"The ECM suite does not affect other scanning and targeting devices, such as TAG and targeting computers." (TW-134, Cited by Tac Ops 279)

I'd love to see the ghost targets and things.. could make for some good IW.. but the target location/lock blocking is in the realm of Null Sig and Stealth armors, not ECM. Not even Angel ECM.

Strum Wealh, on 28 April 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

PGI's greatest EW/IW-related mistake, IMO, was in not similarly fleshing-out the rest of the EW/IW gear - such as implementing the full capabilities of Beagle (see here), or implementing the capabilities of the EW/IW capabilities of the Command Console (see here), and/or implementing the C3 system in addition to the basic/inherent data sharing (see here for an explanation & proposal) - and releasing all of it at the same time.

And mixing Null sig (which is much more expensive and a pain to use) into Guardian ECM.

Strum Wealh, on 28 April 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

The claim that "[an] ECM Mech is totally shielded from any LRM fire in LOS" is patently & demonstratably false.

Being unable to achieve a sensor lock - and thus a weapon lock - does not prevent a LRM launcher from being fired; when fired without a lock, MWO LRMs will go to wherever the reticle was pointed at the moment the weapon was fired (that is, the dumb-fired LRMs will not follow the reticle once they have left the launch tubes).
As such, MWO LRMs still have a decent chance of hitting a stationary or slow-moving target (such as the classic poptart, or a team huddled against a hill/outcrop/etc - basically, the same situations against which the artillery & air strike modules would be used) - or one whose movements are so predictable that the LRMs can be launched at the point where the target is expected to be - at range.

Against a fast or evading target at range, however, LRMs are unlikely to be (and should not be expected to be) an easy-to-use option - but they remain an option nonetheless (unless said target is inside the 180-meter minimum range, as "standing right in front of [you]" would tend to imply - in which case, using LRMs in that situation is simply operator error rather than a fault with the weapon itself or anything to do with Guardian).

Imagine shooting a PPC, or an AC5 at 160m/s in an arc (instead of their 1000+ in a straight line) and then tell me it's still effective.

Incredibly slow would have to be.. 20kph out past 300 meters. (180m you can't hit anyways.)

[Critical Rocket]

@Strum Wealh

Graham Norton is about as funny as an orphanage fire and more tragic to watch. He isn't mainstream comedy, more saturday evening chat show comedy. Check out Red Dwarf, League of Gentlemen, Modern Toss, Bill Bailey and many more to see good British comedy

On topic though, the ECM debate is moot now really since PGI have pretty much washed their of it to work on other tweaks. They are still probably bricking it over the clan tech implementation and systems that come with them such as Targeting computers.

[Strum Wealh]

Livewyr, on 29 April 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

They're equals to MWO frankenquipment ECM, just because they're not in TT, doesn't mean they can't be in MWO. (Coolant flush, heat scale, duh.)



Correction: Guardian ECM does not counter missiles at all. Only the T2 equipment (BAP, A4FC, NARC, etc..) I read the compendium and tac-ops manuals on the subject.

(Angel ECM strips the locks of Streaks and *could* let them fire as regular SRMs)





I just read up on ECM in the Compendium, Total Warfare, and Tactical Operations. They say ECM protects the ECM mech, and its bubble from being identified (+modifiers to sensor range rolls) it does not protect the mech from being targeted. (It has no effect on targeting computers.)

"The ECM suite does not affect other scanning and targeting devices, such as TAG and targeting computers." (TW-134, Cited by Tac Ops 279)

I'd love to see the ghost targets and things.. could make for some good IW.. but the target location/lock blocking is in the realm of Null Sig and Stealth armors, not ECM. Not even Angel ECM.



And mixing Null sig (which is much more expensive and a pain to use) into Guardian ECM.



Imagine shooting a PPC, or an AC5 at 160m/s in an arc (instead of their 1000+ in a straight line) and then tell me it's still effective.

Incredibly slow would have to be.. 20kph out past 300 meters. (180m you can't hit anyways.)

Actually, Guardian ECM would/should affect targeting & weapon locks when the equivalent of the advanced rules are used in a real-time environment like MWO, albeit as a side-effect of Guardian's affecting the sensors that the targeting system relies upon.

More specifically, the Tactical Operations rules did allow for ECM suites to assist in negating the ability for an opposing 'Mech to establish a sensor lock.

• "The ranges of various electronic sensor systems appear in the Sensor Range Table. To make a Sensor Check, the player rolls 2D6. A result of 7 or 8 means the sensor detects any unit within its short range. A result of 5 or 6 means the sensor detects units out to its medium range. A result of 2 to 4 means the sensor detects units out to its long range. A roll of 9 to 12 means the sensor failed to detect any units. Remember that a spotting unit may use only one type of sensor per turn, which is declared to the gamemaster at the start of the turn." - TacOps, pg. 222
  
• "In the double-blind game, all ECM and stealth systems modify the die roll results of spotting units attempting to detect an enemy unit equipped with such an ECM system. Because different ECM/stealth systems have different effects against different probes and sensors, the modifiers vary depending on the spotting unit’s probe/sensor and the enemy unit’s ECM system. These modifiers appear in the ECM/Stealth Modifier Table. Once the sensor detection dice roll has been made (including adding any bonus modifiers from the controlling player’s side), the player consults the ECM/Stealth Modifier Table and adds the applicable modifier to the roll result." - TacOps, pg. 224

The combined 2D6 probability of "a roll of 9 to 12" (that is, a result of 9, 10, 11, or 12) is roughly 27.8% - meaning that (on average) more than one-in-four sensor scans by a BattleMech's primary sensor arrays (even in a broad-daylight environment completely free of advanced EW packages or natural electromagnetic interference) would completely fail to detect any given target!

Now, let us examine the ECM/Stealth Modifier Table, from page 223 of Tactical Operations:

(scan of table is courtesy of steelblueskies)

Note that Guardian ECM adds 5 to the result of a Sensor Roll made with basic "'Mech sensors". If there are no other modifiers in effect, a roll of 4 or more against a Guardian ECM carrier becomes a Sensor Roll result of 9 or more; recall that "a roll of 9 to 12 means the sensor failed to detect any units."
Considering 2D6 probabilities (for the base Sensor Roll), the combined likelihood of a 2 or a 3 is on the order of 8.4%... implying that the likelihood of standard 'Mech radar/lidar/sonar/etc completely failing to pick up a Guardian ECM carrier (due to a roll of 4 or more, plus Guardian's +5 modifier) is on the order of 91.6%.
Note, also, that Guardian adds 4 to the result of a Sensor Roll made with a Beagle Active Probe; if there are no other modifiers in effect, a roll of 5 or more (the probability of which is on the order of 83.4%) against a Guardian ECM carrier would induce the failure-to-detect condition against Beagle.

PGI evidently made the intuitive leap from "a BattleMech's basic sensors generally (90+% of the time) fail to pierce Guardian's veil or identify a targetable unit" to "a BattleMech's Targeting-Tracking System cannot achieve a weapons lock against something that its sensors cannot lock-onto; it cannot target what it cannot 'see'".

Though, note that Guardian has no effect against (that is, produces no modifiers with regard to) thermographic IR sensors (e.g. "thermal vision", ostensibly distinct from an IR-based (or near-IR-based) lidar system), seismic sensors, or magscan sensors (which are apparently separate from the magnetic sensors mentioned in the Guardian fluff); these sensor types are described on pages 222-224 of TacOps.
As such, weapons like Heat-Seeking Warheads would be largely unaffected by Guardian (though, affecting such munitions - and the associated sensors - is the purview of NullSig ("...heat-seeking weapons (such as Heat-Seeking Missiles) calculate their to-hit modifiers against the unit as though it is 8 points cooler than it actually is..." - TacOps, pg. 336), and VoidSig ("Only a Bloodhound probe can penetrate the Void-Signature System’s masking effect. The Watchdog system, Beagle Active Probe and their Clan equivalents may not detect a hidden unit using a Void-Signature System." - TacOps, pg. 349); additionally, an infrared imager (TacOps, pg. 339) "forces the controlling player of any hostile units to roll 2D6 for each hidden unit on the battlefield, revealing the unit on any result of 8+ unless the unit shutdown without an overheat level, or is actively using a Null-Signature, Void-Signature, or Stealth Armor System."), and munitions like Anti-Radiation Missiles (and/or a substantially buffed-up version of the Listen-Kill Missiles, mainly to bypass the timeline issue for the "proper" ARADs) would actually be more effective in homing in on Guardian (and Beagle) equipped targets.
Moreover (and as noted in my previous response to General Taskeen) being unable to achieve a sensor lock - and thus a weapon lock - does not prevent a normal LRM launcher from being fired at targets that one has spotted visually.

[Livewyr]

Strum Wealh, on 29 April 2014 - 03:30 PM, said:

Actually, Guardian ECM would/should affect targeting & weapon locks when the equivalent of the advanced rules are used in a real-time environment like MWO, albeit as a side-effect of Guardian's affecting the sensors that the targeting system relies upon.

More specifically, the Tactical Operations rules did allow for ECM suites to assist in negating the ability for an opposing 'Mech to establish a sensor lock.

• "The ranges of various electronic sensor systems appear in the Sensor Range Table. To make a Sensor Check, the player rolls 2D6. A result of 7 or 8 means the sensor detects any unit within its short range. A result of 5 or 6 means the sensor detects units out to its medium range. A result of 2 to 4 means the sensor detects units out to its long range. A roll of 9 to 12 means the sensor failed to detect any units. Remember that a spotting unit may use only one type of sensor per turn, which is declared to the gamemaster at the start of the turn." - TacOps, pg. 222
  
• "In the double-blind game, all ECM and stealth systems modify the die roll results of spotting units attempting to detect an enemy unit equipped with such an ECM system. Because different ECM/stealth systems have different effects against different probes and sensors, the modifiers vary depending on the spotting unit’s probe/sensor and the enemy unit’s ECM system. These modifiers appear in the ECM/Stealth Modifier Table. Once the sensor detection dice roll has been made (including adding any bonus modifiers from the controlling player’s side), the player consults the ECM/Stealth Modifier Table and adds the applicable modifier to the roll result." - TacOps, pg. 224

The combined 2D6 probability of "a roll of 9 to 12" (that is, a result of 9, 10, 11, or 12) is roughly 27.8% - meaning that (on average) more than one-in-four sensor scans by a BattleMech's primary sensor arrays (even in a broad-daylight environment completely free of advanced EW packages or natural electromagnetic interference) would completely fail to detect any given target!


Now, let us examine the ECM/Stealth Modifier Table, from page 223 of Tactical Operations:

(scan of table is courtesy of steelblueskies)

Note that Guardian ECM adds 5 to the result of a Sensor Roll made with basic "'Mech sensors". If there are no other modifiers in effect, a roll of 4 or more against a Guardian ECM carrier becomes a Sensor Roll result of 9 or more; recall that "a roll of 9 to 12 means the sensor failed to detect any units."
Considering 2D6 probabilities (for the base Sensor Roll), the combined likelihood of a 2 or a 3 is on the order of 8.4%... implying that the likelihood of standard 'Mech radar/lidar/sonar/etc completely failing to pick up a Guardian ECM carrier (due to a roll of 4 or more, plus Guardian's +5 modifier) is on the order of 91.6%.
Note, also, that Guardian adds 4 to the result of a Sensor Roll made with a Beagle Active Probe; if there are no other modifiers in effect, a roll of 5 or more (the probability of which is on the order of 83.4%) against a Guardian ECM carrier would induce the failure-to-detect condition against Beagle.

The detection modifiers in the book are referring to active sensors that do not (need to) have line of sight, as compared to LoS spotting (P. 221). That is largely a moot point in MWO as (aside from seismic) we don't have non-LoS detection, at all. We have IR sensors for LoS detection.

Guardian does not effect LoS detection, or targeting computers.
Given that we've been granted a built in pseudo-C3 network in the translation to real-time movement/fire dynamic, unless the mech is within 180m of the ECM, it should be able to pass on the LoS/Targeting computer detection through his Pseudo-C3 connection to team mates.
Target I.D. and other information may be hidden (as they are a product of the sensors and not the targeting/Mk1 eyeball) but the targeting computer's (C3 Master) lock is unaffected.

(Caveat: I'm perfectly fine with ECM delaying the lock-on time for tracking missiles, as the importance of tracking missiles is increased in a dynamic movement system compared to turn-based.)

Strum Wealh, on 29 April 2014 - 03:30 PM, said:

PGI evidently made the intuitive leap from "a BattleMech's basic sensors generally (90+% of the time) fail to pierce Guardian's veil or identify a targetable unit" to "a BattleMech's Targeting-Tracking System cannot achieve a weapons lock against something that its sensors cannot lock-onto; it cannot target what it cannot 'see'".

Though, note that Guardian has no effect against (that is, produces no modifiers with regard to) thermographic IR sensors (e.g. "thermal vision", ostensibly distinct from an IR-based (or near-IR-based) lidar system), seismic sensors, or magscan sensors (which are apparently separate from the magnetic sensors mentioned in the Guardian fluff); these sensor types are described on pages 222-224 of TacOps.
As such, weapons like Heat-Seeking Warheads would be largely unaffected by Guardian (though, affecting such munitions - and the associated sensors - is the purview of NullSig ("...heat-seeking weapons (such as Heat-Seeking Missiles) calculate their to-hit modifiers against the unit as though it is 8 points cooler than it actually is..." - TacOps, pg. 336), and VoidSig ("Only a Bloodhound probe can penetrate the Void-Signature System’s masking effect. The Watchdog system, Beagle Active Probe and their Clan equivalents may not detect a hidden unit using a Void-Signature System." - TacOps, pg. 349); additionally, an infrared imager (TacOps, pg. 339) "forces the controlling player of any hostile units to roll 2D6 for each hidden unit on the battlefield, revealing the unit on any result of 8+ unless the unit shutdown without an overheat level, or is actively using a Null-Signature, Void-Signature, or Stealth Armor System."), and munitions like Anti-Radiation Missiles (and/or a substantially buffed-up version of the Listen-Kill Missiles, mainly to bypass the timeline issue for the "proper" ARADs) would actually be more effective in homing in on Guardian (and Beagle) equipped targets.
Moreover (and as noted in my previous response to General Taskeen) being unable to achieve a sensor lock - and thus a weapon lock - does not prevent a normal LRM launcher from being fired at targets that one has spotted visually.

1: Given that we all have access to IR vision- one can assume we see that through IR sensors on the mech, which just as we do in game, only operate on a LoS basis.
Those aren't effected by ECM. (It takes Null-Sig/Stealth tech to do that, as you just stated yourself.)

2: You keep saying that about LRM launchers, and on the most basic technical level, it is true. However, where as that might work in a static, turn-based system where the target doesn't move, 160meters per second will not hit anything aside from a target sitting still for several seconds. (An extreme rarity in MWO.)

3: I've love to see some Fire & Forget ECM tracking missiles, just to make it a little more interesting.

4: I think ECM should be reworked to remove the lock prevention, in favor of T2 tech countering *AND* an addition of limited T1 information equipment. (non-LoS mech sensors etc..)
This would allow more ECM capable mechs to be added and create an information warfare.

[Bashfulsalamander]

I stopped reading some of these post, so sorry in advance if I am redundant or repetitive. The tech ideas in the beginning of the forum are not horrible, but could influence a very one sided fight if no one on enemy team has any counter based technology or someone who is not skilled enough to use it properly. ECM is fine because it does not effect any projectiles and still can be countered through counter ecm, ppc, and tag. I don't remember if narc works or not. I don't know if this is off topic but since we are discussing stealth and forms of protection why not different types of armor or a way to not be visible to thermal imaging.

Edited by Bashfulsalamander, 29 April 2014 - 07:19 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Livewyr, on 29 April 2014 - 06:07 PM, said:

The detection modifiers in the book are referring to active sensors that do not (need to) have line of sight, as compared to LoS spotting (P. 221). That is largely a moot point in MWO as (aside from seismic) we don't have non-LoS detection, at all. We have IR sensors for LoS detection.

Guardian does not effect LoS detection, or targeting computers.
Given that we've been granted a built in pseudo-C3 network in the translation to real-time movement/fire dynamic, unless the mech is within 180m of the ECM, it should be able to pass on the LoS/Targeting computer detection through his Pseudo-C3 connection to team mates.
Target I.D. and other information may be hidden (as they are a product of the sensors and not the targeting/Mk1 eyeball) but the targeting computer's (C3 Master) lock is unaffected.

(Caveat: I'm perfectly fine with ECM delaying the lock-on time for tracking missiles, as the importance of tracking missiles is increased in a dynamic movement system compared to turn-based.)

Firstly, there is a difference between "LOS detection" and what TacOps is describing on pg. 221, which is "visual spotting" (which relies on the pilots own eyes & a set of optical cameras installed on the 'Mech) in contrast to sensor spotting (which relies on non-visual-spectrum sensors - e.g. radar (which isn't always LOS-dependent), lidar (which is strictly LOS), sonar (which is also dependent on LOS for monostatic/non-bistatic systems), thermographic, seismic, magscan, and so on).

Obviously, Guardian should/would not interfere with visual spotting (as it cannot make the 'Mech visually invisible - that is the purview of CLPS and VoidSig).

PGI then evidently made a design decision to model their rendition of IR sensor spotting on how thermographic cameras and passive infrared (PIR) sensors work in reality - both are strictly LOS sensors, incapable of seeing through walls or terrain.
We also have seismic sensor spotting (where a design decision - based on feedback from the playerbase - was made to change MWO seismic spotting so that it could only display data when the spotting 'Mech was both on the ground and not moving its feet... as would be expected from a seismometer array ), but we do not (yet) have magscan spotting in MWO (despite it having meen explicitly mentioned in earlier planc for EW/IW, and which shouldn't/wouldn't be dependent on LOS if modern MADs are used as the basis of its behavior).

While Guardian does affect the primary sensors that the BattleMech's Targeting-Tracking System (the "lower-case"/colloquial targeting computer), the TTS is a wholly sepatate entity from the "upper-case" Targeting Computer (which is described (on page 238 of TechManual) as "more than just a basic sensor tracking and targeting array" and is more of "a series of recoil compensators and gyroscopic stabilizers that combine to counter much of the routine weapon drift caused by the shooter’s own lurching motions, muzzle recoil and other environmental conditions"); Guardian does not interfere with the operation of the gimbals and actuators/stabilizers that make up the TC, but it does interfere with the sensors that would provide information to the TTS.

As Guardian can and does interfere with the sensors' ability to establish the presence & identity of any unit within its hemisphere of influence, what information is a forward observer going to send back to its lancemates?
If said forward unit is unable to sense anything, it has no sensor data to send. And if it's also within the umbrella of an emeny Guardian (which is evidently capable of jamming microwave/radio transmissions), its ability to send any messages at all is largely (if not wholly) negated.
Evidently, PGI made a design decision to combine the basic ECM rules found in Total Warfare (including, most notably, the statement from page 134 of TotWar: "The ECM’s disruptive abilities affect all enemy units inside this bubble, as well as any line of sight traced through the bubble", with the sensors' LOS evidently being included in that description) with the advanced capabilities found in TacOps.

----------

Livewyr, on 29 April 2014 - 06:07 PM, said:

1: Given that we all have access to IR vision- one can assume we see that through IR sensors on the mech, which just as we do in game, only operate on a LoS basis.
Those aren't effected by ECM. (It takes Null-Sig/Stealth tech to do that, as you just stated yourself.)

2: You keep saying that about LRM launchers, and on the most basic technical level, it is true. However, where as that might work in a static, turn-based system where the target doesn't move, 160meters per second will not hit anything aside from a target sitting still for several seconds. (An extreme rarity in MWO.)

3: I've love to see some Fire & Forget ECM tracking missiles, just to make it a little more interesting.

4: I think ECM should be reworked to remove the lock prevention, in favor of T2 tech countering *AND* an addition of limited T1 information equipment. (non-LoS mech sensors etc..)
This would allow more ECM capable mechs to be added and create an information warfare.

1.) Indeed - MWO "thermal vision" is limited to LOS observation (just as real-world thermographic cameras are) and is not affected by Guardian's influence (that is, Guardian does not make one less-visible or invisible to thermal vision - that would/should require Stealth Armor, NullSig, or VoidSig).

2.) The speed of the LRMs is independent of the fact that they can be visually-aimed at an opponent and fired without a lock, and be expected to arrive at the targeted position (assuming said position is within their range); whether the intended target is still in that position when the missiles arrive is also a separate matter.

3.) There are a whole host of alternate munitions, for both standard missile launchers & standard autocannons, that should be implemented to provide more varied capabilities for the 'Mechs and "make it a little more interesting".

4.) PGI's implementation of Guardian is largely fine as-is; it is the sub-par implementation (or outright non-implementation) of the other EW/IW systems that needs to be rectified - Beagle, the Command Console, the as-yet-unimplemented C3 System, and a couple other things should have a broader range of useful & potent capabilities, to the point that EW/IW should be very nearly a game unto itself.

[Livewyr]

Strum Wealh, on 29 April 2014 - 09:46 PM, said:

Firstly, there is a difference between "LOS detection" and what TacOps is describing on pg. 221, which is "visual spotting" (which relies on the pilots own eyes & a set of optical cameras installed on the 'Mech) in contrast to sensor spotting (which relies on non-visual-spectrum sensors - e.g. radar (which isn't always LOS-dependent), lidar (which is strictly LOS), sonar (which is also dependent on LOS for monostatic/non-bistatic systems), thermographic, seismic, magscan, and so on).

Obviously, Guardian should/would not interfere with visual spotting (as it cannot make the 'Mech visually invisible - that is the purview of CLPS and VoidSig).

PGI then evidently made a design decision to model their rendition of IR sensor spotting on how thermographic cameras and passive infrared (PIR) sensors work in reality - both are strictly LOS sensors, incapable of seeing through walls or terrain.
We also have seismic sensor spotting (where a design decision - based on feedback from the playerbase - was made to change MWO seismic spotting so that it could only display data when the spotting 'Mech was both on the ground and not moving its feet... as would be expected from a seismometer array ), but we do not (yet) have magscan spotting in MWO (despite it having meen explicitly mentioned in earlier planc for EW/IW, and which shouldn't/wouldn't be dependent on LOS if modern MADs are used as the basis of its behavior).

While Guardian does affect the primary sensors that the BattleMech's Targeting-Tracking System (the "lower-case"/colloquial targeting computer), the TTS is a wholly sepatate entity from the "upper-case" Targeting Computer (which is described (on page 238 of TechManual) as "more than just a basic sensor tracking and targeting array" and is more of "a series of recoil compensators and gyroscopic stabilizers that combine to counter much of the routine weapon drift caused by the shooter’s own lurching motions, muzzle recoil and other environmental conditions"); Guardian does not interfere with the operation of the gimbals and actuators/stabilizers that make up the TC, but it does interfere with the sensors that would provide information to the TTS.

As Guardian can and does interfere with the sensors' ability to establish the presence & identity of any unit within its hemisphere of influence, what information is a forward observer going to send back to its lancemates?
If said forward unit is unable to sense anything, it has no sensor data to send. And if it's also within the umbrella of an emeny Guardian (which is evidently capable of jamming microwave/radio transmissions), its ability to send any messages at all is largely (if not wholly) negated.
Evidently, PGI made a design decision to combine the basic ECM rules found in Total Warfare (including, most notably, the statement from page 134 of TotWar: "The ECM’s disruptive abilities affect all enemy units inside this bubble, as well as any line of sight traced through the bubble", with the sensors' LOS evidently being included in that description) with the advanced capabilities found in TacOps.

IR sensors detect mechs
They are apparently, the only sensors that detect mechs in MWO. (BAP and mech sensors detect through terrain)
They are unaffected by Guardian ECM...
so why is Guardian ECM blocking detection in MWO?
----------

Strum Wealh, on 29 April 2014 - 09:46 PM, said:

1.) Indeed - MWO "thermal vision" is limited to LOS observation (just as real-world thermographic cameras are) and is not affected by Guardian's influence (that is, Guardian does not make one less-visible or invisible to thermal vision - that would/should require Stealth Armor, NullSig, or VoidSig).

2.) The speed of the LRMs is independent of the fact that they can be visually-aimed at an opponent and fired without a lock, and be expected to arrive at the targeted position (assuming said position is within their range); whether the intended target is still in that position when the missiles arrive is also a separate matter.

3.) There are a whole host of alternate munitions, for both standard missile launchers & standard autocannons, that should be implemented to provide more varied capabilities for the 'Mechs and "make it a little more interesting".

4.) PGI's implementation of Guardian is largely fine as-is; it is the sub-par implementation (or outright non-implementation) of the other EW/IW systems that needs to be rectified - Beagle, the Command Console, the as-yet-unimplemented C3 System, and a couple other things should have a broader range of useful & potent capabilities, to the point that EW/IW should be very nearly a game unto itself.

1: Precisely, IR detection is not affected by Guardian ECM, and seems to be the detection system we use since we can't detect through terrain. In order to be "undetectable" by the mech, the enemy needs to be using Null-Sig. Again, why is MWO Guardian ECM blocking LoS detection, when it includes IR?

2: The LRM speed *is* independent of the fact that they can be fire without lock. However, odds of hitting a (even slightly) moving target is dependent on the speed of the LRMs. Same thing applies to direct fire weapons, none of them would hit anything if fired at LRM missile speed. It's a dynamic (everyone moves, all the time) battlefield.

3: Indeed, and some other weapons I'd love to use. (Like the Long Tom Cannon.)

4: It is not fine-as-is. It's blocking IR sensors, when it specifically states that it does not, even in the Tac Ops.
4a: If they decide they want to add Mech Sensors, and real BAP and the other sensors, Guardian ECM can block those. (And it would be a good thing!) But while we have LoS only locking, based on IR sensors, Guardian ECM should not block it.

[Strum Wealh]

Livewyr, on 30 April 2014 - 04:47 AM, said:

IR sensors detect mechs
They are apparently, the only sensors that detect mechs in MWO. (BAP and mech sensors detect through terrain)
They are unaffected by Guardian ECM...
so why is Guardian ECM blocking detection in MWO?
----------



1: Precisely, IR detection is not affected by Guardian ECM, and seems to be the detection system we use since we can't detect through terrain. In order to be "undetectable" by the mech, the enemy needs to be using Null-Sig. Again, why is MWO Guardian ECM blocking LoS detection, when it includes IR?

2: The LRM speed *is* independent of the fact that they can be fire without lock. However, odds of hitting a (even slightly) moving target is dependent on the speed of the LRMs. Same thing applies to direct fire weapons, none of them would hit anything if fired at LRM missile speed. It's a dynamic (everyone moves, all the time) battlefield.

3: Indeed, and some other weapons I'd love to use. (Like the Long Tom Cannon.)

4: It is not fine-as-is. It's blocking IR sensors, when it specifically states that it does not, even in the Tac Ops.
4a: If they decide they want to add Mech Sensors, and real BAP and the other sensors, Guardian ECM can block those. (And it would be a good thing!) But while we have LoS only locking, based on IR sensors, Guardian ECM should not block it.

A human looking at an image from a thermographic camera is a very different situation from a computer using an infrared homing system.

"A missile's resistance to decoys can also be determined by the method in which the space in front of itself is scanned for targets. Early missiles used spin scanning while newer seekers use conical scanning which gives them superior decoy discrimination as well as overall increased sensitivity for longer range tracking. There have also been missiles built using so-called rosette scanning methods. Very modern heat-seeking missiles utilise imaging infrared (IIR), where the IR/UV sensor is a focal plane array which is able to "see" in infra-red, much like the CCD in a digital camera. This requires much more signal processing but can be much more accurate and harder to fool with decoys. In addition to being more flare-resistant, newer seekers are also less likely to be fooled into locking onto the sun, another common trick for avoiding heat-seeking missiles."

Guardian is able to fool the latter, very likely through a component (or set of components) similar to the AN/ALQ-144, AN/ALQ-147, and AN/ALQ-157 infrared countermeasures (IRCM) systems deployed by the US military in the early 1980s (and still in use today).



"Both systems [ALQ-144 and ALQ-147] consist of a heated silicon carbide block that radiates a large amount of infra-red energy, it is surrounded by a large cylindrical mechanical shutter, that modulates the infra-red output, producing a pulsing pattern. Early infrared guided missiles used a rotating reticle, when a target was not on the sensor's centerline, it would produce a pulse as the reticle swept over the target. When the target was on the sensor's centerline, the sensor would produce a constant signal. This constant signal was required by the early missiles to produce a 'lock on' that would allow a launch.

The ALQ-144 and 147 IRCM produced a pattern of pulses that was approximately synchronized with the rotation rate of these reticles. Before launch this would prevent the missile actually locking onto the target, preventing the operator from firing the missile. After launch this would cause the missile to think that the target was off to one side, and cause the missile to steer away from the aircraft carrying the IRCM.

The introduction of rosette and 'staring' scanning techniques in second generation missiles reduced the effectiveness of the ALQ-144 and 147, later upgrades restored the effectiveness of the jammers."

Using such a system, Guardian would be able to deceive most machine-guided IR detection systems in BattleTech in much the same way that the ALQ-144 and its ilk can deceive machine-guided IR detection/homing systems in reality.
In fact, it should be noted that BattleTech's Heat-Seeking Missiles (described on page 369 of TacOps) receive a +1 to-hit penalty against targets that are not overheated to the point of affecting MP & a +2 to-hit penalty if fired through/across a hex that is on fire - which indicates that the IR seeker they employ is not terribly high-quality (less accurate than normal missiles against "cool" targets, and deceived by setting a few trees on fire), and the IR detection systems on the 'Mechs themselves are very likely of similar (lack of) quality (as the example on pg. 223 of TacOps indicates that even a 'Mech at 14 heat points & a range of 7 hexes can go undetected by a BattleMech's IR sensors, even without the assistance of SA/NullSig/VoidSig).

And, again, all of that is very different from a human operator looking through a thermographic camera and noticing on their own that there is a large hot object at a given distance & direction (especially is the pulse rate on the IRCM system is much faster than the human visual refresh rate).

It is believable (and explicitly stated in Guardian's description) that Guardian would have some components analogous to the ALQ-144, intended to deal with some of the IR sensors that could be expected to be seen on the 31st century battlefield; as long as Guardian does not make a 'Mech invisible to "thermal vision" (which is an ability reserved for Stealth Armor, NullSig, and VoidSig), it is not overstepping its bounds.

-----

I've long maintained that MWO missiles - both LRMs and SRMs are too slow; the weapons that their TT counterparts are similarly-sized to (the TT LRM, at ~8.33 kg per missile, would be roughly the same size as the FIM-43 Redeye missile; the TT (S)SRM, at ~10 kg per missile, would be roughly the same size as the FIM-92 Stinger missile) are significantly faster (580 m/s for the Redeye & 750 m/s for the Stinger, versus (currently) 160 m/s for MWO LRMs & 300 m/s for MWO (S)SRMs).

Even at only 50% of the velocity of their real-world equivalents, MWO LRMs "should be" pushing 290 m/s (an 81% increase over the current speed) & MWO (S)SRMs should be pushing 375 m/s (a 25% increase over the current speed).

And, of course, AMS damage output would have to be increased to compensate for the increased missile velocities.

-----

Unfortunately, the Long Tom Cannon (with a space requirement of 15 critical spaces) is too large to be mounted on 'Mechs without implementing crit-splitting & the Long Tom Artillery Piece (with a space requirement of 30 critical spaces) is too large to be mounted on a 'Mech at all.
The smaller Sniper (15 tons & 10 criticals) & Thumper (10 tons & 7 criticals) artillery cannons, on the other hand, would fit.

[Redshift2k5]

I don't even know where to start.

All the ECM crybabies can just bring a BAP, TAG, or run with a proficient spotter, whichever is most approppriate.

[Livewyr]

Strum Wealh, on 30 April 2014 - 07:04 AM, said:

A human looking at an image from a thermographic camera is a very different situation from a computer using an infrared homing system.

"A missile's resistance to decoys can also be determined by the method in which the space in front of itself is scanned for targets. Early missiles used spin scanning while newer seekers use conical scanning which gives them superior decoy discrimination as well as overall increased sensitivity for longer range tracking. There have also been missiles built using so-called rosette scanning methods. Very modern heat-seeking missiles utilise imaging infrared (IIR), where the IR/UV sensor is a focal plane array which is able to "see" in infra-red, much like the CCD in a digital camera. This requires much more signal processing but can be much more accurate and harder to fool with decoys. In addition to being more flare-resistant, newer seekers are also less likely to be fooled into locking onto the sun, another common trick for avoiding heat-seeking missiles."

Guardian is able to fool the latter, very likely through a component (or set of components) similar to the AN/ALQ-144, AN/ALQ-147, and AN/ALQ-157 infrared countermeasures (IRCM) systems deployed by the US military in the early 1980s (and still in use today).



"Both systems [ALQ-144 and ALQ-147] consist of a heated silicon carbide block that radiates a large amount of infra-red energy, it is surrounded by a large cylindrical mechanical shutter, that modulates the infra-red output, producing a pulsing pattern. Early infrared guided missiles used a rotating reticle, when a target was not on the sensor's centerline, it would produce a pulse as the reticle swept over the target. When the target was on the sensor's centerline, the sensor would produce a constant signal. This constant signal was required by the early missiles to produce a 'lock on' that would allow a launch.

The ALQ-144 and 147 IRCM produced a pattern of pulses that was approximately synchronized with the rotation rate of these reticles. Before launch this would prevent the missile actually locking onto the target, preventing the operator from firing the missile. After launch this would cause the missile to think that the target was off to one side, and cause the missile to steer away from the aircraft carrying the IRCM.

The introduction of rosette and 'staring' scanning techniques in second generation missiles reduced the effectiveness of the ALQ-144 and 147, later upgrades restored the effectiveness of the jammers."

Using such a system, Guardian would be able to deceive most machine-guided IR detection systems in BattleTech in much the same way that the ALQ-144 and its ilk can deceive machine-guided IR detection/homing systems in reality.
In fact, it should be noted that BattleTech's Heat-Seeking Missiles (described on page 369 of TacOps) receive a +1 to-hit penalty against targets that are not overheated to the point of affecting MP & a +2 to-hit penalty if fired through/across a hex that is on fire - which indicates that the IR seeker they employ is not terribly high-quality (less accurate than normal missiles against "cool" targets, and deceived by setting a few trees on fire), and the IR detection systems on the 'Mechs themselves are very likely of similar (lack of) quality (as the example on pg. 223 of TacOps indicates that even a 'Mech at 14 heat points & a range of 7 hexes can go undetected by a BattleMech's IR sensors, even without the assistance of SA/NullSig/VoidSig).

And, again, all of that is very different from a human operator looking through a thermographic camera and noticing on their own that there is a large hot object at a given distance & direction (especially is the pulse rate on the IRCM system is much faster than the human visual refresh rate).

It is believable (and explicitly stated in Guardian's description) that Guardian would have some components analogous to the ALQ-144, intended to deal with some of the IR sensors that could be expected to be seen on the 31st century battlefield; as long as Guardian does not make a 'Mech invisible to "thermal vision" (which is an ability reserved for Stealth Armor, NullSig, and VoidSig), it is not overstepping its bounds.

-----

That's some very pretty (current IRL) science you have there.. it's a shame that P.223 of Tac Ops explicitly states that ECM has no effect on IR sensors. (Including "Seis/IR/Magscan Modifier: NA")

And IR detection and imaging are produced from the same sensor.. one is just delivered to a screen (imaging, FLIR in modern day), the other is studied for anomaly (detection.)
One needs Nullsig/Stealth armor to reduce the heat signature and therefore reduce anomaly detection.. Guardian ECM itself does none of that...

Strum Wealh, on 30 April 2014 - 07:04 AM, said:

I've long maintained that MWO missiles - both LRMs and SRMs are too slow; the weapons that their TT counterparts are similarly-sized to (the TT LRM, at ~8.33 kg per missile, would be roughly the same size as the FIM-43 Redeye missile; the TT (S)SRM, at ~10 kg per missile, would be roughly the same size as the FIM-92 Stinger missile) are significantly faster (580 m/s for the Redeye & 750 m/s for the Stinger, versus (currently) 160 m/s for MWO LRMs & 300 m/s for MWO (S)SRMs).

Even at only 50% of the velocity of their real-world equivalents, MWO LRMs "should be" pushing 290 m/s (an 81% increase over the current speed) & MWO (S)SRMs should be pushing 375 m/s (a 25% increase over the current speed).

And, of course, AMS damage output would have to be increased to compensate for the increased missile velocities.

-----

Yeah, that's all true.. but it's something I'll concede to gameplay to keep the weapon system from being overpowered.
(Similar thoughts toward lasers, which wouldn't hardly work in Frozen City's snow storms or the dust of River City...deflection...)

Strum Wealh, on 30 April 2014 - 07:04 AM, said:

Unfortunately, the Long Tom Cannon (with a space requirement of 15 critical spaces) is too large to be mounted on 'Mechs without implementing crit-splitting & the Long Tom Artillery Piece (with a space requirement of 30 critical spaces) is too large to be mounted on a 'Mech at all.
The smaller Sniper (15 tons & 10 criticals) & Thumper (10 tons & 7 criticals) artillery cannons, on the other hand, would fit.

LTC would require removal of arm actuators to mount, but given that you can store and use ammo in your leg.. seizing up the arm should make it an extension of the torso, me thinks.

Redshift2k5, on 30 April 2014 - 07:24 AM, said:

I don't even know where to start.

All the ECM crybabies can just bring a BAP, TAG, or run with a proficient spotter, whichever is most approppriate.

Well, fine.. once you have to aim your ECM beam at me at all times to turn off my ability to lock you, or get someone to point their ECM beam at you to "stealth" you.

(Easy to point out all the counters as balance.. especially when you forget that they are active use counters that take up weapon slots.. while the Jesus box you forgot about is doing its thing.)

If you need, I can explain in detail why active use counters are not balancing mechanics against a passive system.

Edited by Livewyr, 30 April 2014 - 01:23 PM.

[LauLiao]

Daekar, on 17 April 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:

It seems satire is lost on people. What would they make of A Modest Proposal, I wonder?

If no one knows it's satire, then it's not very good satire.