73 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

CapperDeluxe, on 29 July 2014 - 05:21 AM, said:

I wouldn't be opposed to recoil if it might help the immersion, but recoil won't affect large ballistics because recoil only affects subsequent shots and right now autocannons have lots of time between shots, so this would pretty much encourage alpha strikes more, not less.

Now if all autocannons were changed to fire as quickly as AC2's perhaps there could be a use there as they would become DPS weapons instead of Front Loaded Damage weapons. (strictly speaking about IS AC's here)

CapperDeluxe, on 29 July 2014 - 06:17 AM, said:

But most of the front loaded damage builds that are most often complained about use AC's, Gauss, and PPCs. Recoil won't affect them if they alpha those weapons.

One way to make recoil have an effect with even single-projectile (e.g. front-loaded damage) weapons is to couple the introduction of the recoil mechanic with the introduction of a short universal cooldown.

The universal cooldown can be very short - even just 0.10s (one-tenth of one second) would do the job.

That that combination would do is create the situation where simultaneously triggering multiple weapons (as with an Alpha Strike) would not allow all of the weapons to actually fire simultaneously; instead, the weapons would very quickly fire sequentially.
Take, for example, the classis "2 PPC + 2 AC/5" combination. Under this system, triggering all of the weapons simultaneously would produce the following effect:

• the first weapon would fire at t = 0.00s (e.g. when the trigger is pulled)
  
• the second weapon would fire at t = 0.10s (e.g. 0.10s after the first weapon fires)
  
• the third weapon would fire at t = 0.20s (e.g. 0.10s after the second weapon fires)
  
• the fourth weapon would fire at t = 0.30s (e.g. 0.10s after the third weapon fires)

With no compensation/counteraction from the player, the recoil from the first weapon would turn/elevate the torso slightly, so that the reticle is not sitting on the same pixel when the second weapon fires, the recoil from the second weapon would turn/elevate the torso slightly more, so that the reticle is sitting further from original same pixel when the third weapon fires, and the recoil from the third weapon would turn/elevate the torso still more, so that the reticle is sitting even further from the same pixel when the fourth weapon fires.

The same system (combined recoil with forced non-simultaneous firing) was used, with success, in From Software's Chromehounds.

With a similar system in place, "pinpoint" Alpha Strikes would become far less prevalent - a small percentage of players would have the adaptability + will to learn how to manually compensate, while the majority would simply no longer be able to place all of the damage of 3+ high-recoil weapons on a single pixel (or perhaps even a single location) at long range (or even medium range, depending on the individual).

[stjobe]

Quote

But while the A-10's endurance and firepower are legendary, the myth that its cannon drastically decelerates the aircraft is pure "Hawg-wash," said retired Air Force Col. Steve Ruehl.

"I have fired as many as 500 rounds in one trigger burst, that takes just about seven, eight seconds, and [it had] no impact on the air speed of the aircraft," said Ruhel, who has logged 3,500 hours flying A-10s.

- http://www.stripes.c...-fired-1.152557

Also, it should be noted that BattleTech autocannons are burst-fire guns, not single-shot*. The Pontiac 100 AC/20 mounted on the Victor, for example, is so named because it fires 100 rounds to do its 20 damage.

The classification of ACs as per Era Report 3052 (p. 98) is kilograms of ammo thrown downrange per second; an AC/5 throws 5 kg downrange per second, and AC/20 throws 20 kg.

*yes, the lore allows for single-shot ACs; none have been described. The lore is rife with descriptions of burst-fire ACs though, and the Tech Manual says ACs are "basically giant machine-guns" (p. 207).

Edited by stjobe, 29 July 2014 - 08:17 AM.

[xeromynd]

Lets get some retractable stabilization feet that take approximately 5sec to deploy and 5 sec to retract. That way everyone can sling AC20's from their mechs like a baby throwing food in a highchair.


/sarcasm.


I don't think mechs would be very stable as it is. After all, this is fiction. Adding "realistic" recoil would surely knock some mechs right over, no? Alpha-ing two AC40's on a Jagermech, I can't see that turning out too well.

[Gigastrike]

Just what this game needs. A buff to front-loaded damage.

[Heffay]

Training Instructor, on 29 July 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

STrum, have you ever actually watched an A-10 scream down out of the sun on a strafing run, and then seen what happens to the aircraft when the cannon fires? A 1.5 second burst from the cannon is like watching the plane run into an invisible force field. No planes fly at max thrust in anything but an emergency situation, and most include governors that won't allow them to even try it in the first place. Also,the engines have to lift the plane and its payload, not just compensate for recoil.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about, or is your physics education based on "this is how I imagine the world working"?

[Strum Wealh]

Training Instructor, on 29 July 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

STrum, have you ever actually watched an A-10 scream down out of the sun on a strafing run, and then seen what happens to the aircraft when the cannon fires? A 1.5 second burst from the cannon is like watching the plane run into an invisible force field. No planes fly at max thrust in anything but an emergency situation, and most include governors that won't allow them to even try it in the first place. Also,the engines have to lift the plane and its payload, not just compensate for recoil.

Take a high-powered rifle. Brace it against your hip with one hand holding the barrel down. Pull the trigger. You'll feel the recoil, but the gun isn't going to move you unless you're skinny as a hipster barrista. Next,hold it normally, at shoulder level, in a normal firing stance and shoot again. The recoil is far more noticeable, because you are exercising the same force at a further distance from pivot, amplifying that force, and thus requiring more recoil compensation. As for the Jager and Blackjack vs the Atlas, the Blackjack's upper torso can only transfer so much of the force downwards before the mech has to take a step back in order to avoid falling over.

The Army liked the GAU-8 Avenger so much that they tried to mount it to various mobile land-based platforms, such as the M-113 personnel carrier. Testing discovered that the recoil from the gun was simply too much for any mount to handle. The A-10 uses forward speed and downward attack angle as a recoil compensation method. If they wanted to have the AC20 slow a mech down when it's fired, it would be pretty cool.

I have, actually (multiple Nellis air shows in my youth, including demonstrations by A-10s).
Even at 66% power, the A-10's engines are putting out a combined 11,966 pounds (53 ,227 newtons, or 53.2 kN) of thrust - still more than enough (by almost 20%) to overcome the GAU-8/A's 44.5 kN of recoil.
On top of that, the gun is used when the plane is in a dive; in addition to the engine's thrust, there are both the downward and forward components of the momentum of 30,000 to 50,000 pounds (13,608 to 22,680 kg) of airplane in a dive at 300-450 mph (483 to 724 kph).
The GAU-8/A simply does not produce enough force through recoil to make the A-10 fly backwards under normal operating conditions; it's not going to happen unless the pilot is purposefully trying to make it happen (e.g. by pointing the nose upward, cutting the engines below 55% power, and then firing the gun).

With the 'Mech comparison, we're talking about the same thing - the difference is, my use of the terminology is more accurate.
The recoil force of the weapon itself ("F") is constant (or, at least, consistent), regardless of who/what holds it (e.g. a human shooter, vs being locked into some sort of mechanical bracket) or how it is held. What changes with the position of the weapon (at distance "r" from the pivot/fulcrum/center-of-rotation) is not the recoil force, but the moment/torque ("T") imparted on the firing platform (the person holding the gun, or the 'Mech on which the gun is mounted).
The recoil in more noticeable, because the moment/torque has changed, not because the actual force created by firing the weapon has changed.
The equation is T = r x F; F is constant, but moving the weapon between high mounts (e.g. JagerMech) & low mounts (e.g. Orion) alters T by altering r without changing F.

[POOTYTANGASAUR]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 July 2014 - 12:52 AM, said:

Funny thing about BattleTech 'Mechs: until you get to Heavies they are generally lighter than a modern-day Main Battle Tank. A current Abrams M1A2 is actually 68 tons.

Now, the AC/20: assuming it's firing the max-size 203 mm round, then that's a ~8-inch shell. That is Cruiser-grade weaponry. Using that on land requires elaborate setups generally involving building the weapon on-site and/or using railroad cars.

tl;dr: BattleMechs are magic.

Addendum: Railguns and Gauss rifles do generate recoil. If the device weren't both more massive and/or bolted down, then it would go flying back while the round remains stationary.

Physics, man, physics.

I'm sorry, but there really isn't a way that I can correct you without insulting your intelligence. A gauss rifle or rail gun works by using electromagnets set in an extremely precise sequence to accelerate a metal shells exponentially before exiting the barrel. This process produces zero recoil as their is no force being exerted on the shell or the mech, other than the push/pull of the magnets. The magnets do all the work accelerating the shell instead of an expansion of gasses like most other firing mechanisms..... Which DOES cause recoil, especially on large shells like that of an ac20 which require much larger gas expansion for similar firing results to smaller shells.

TL;DR
Ur wrong bro.

Edited by POOTYTANGASAUR, 29 July 2014 - 08:55 AM.

[Josef Koba]

Training Instructor, on 29 July 2014 - 12:11 AM, said:

Recoil has been suggested before,and it would be nice to do something about the boomJagers and boomCats.

I didn't realize that these were still a problem. I hardly ever see them anymore.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

To those of you arguing phsyics for battlemechs.

STOP TRYING TO APPLY REAL WORLD LOGIC TO BATTLETECH, IT ONLY MAKES YOU LOOK FOOLISH AND ONLY SERVES TO BREAK LORE.

We have the universe we are playing in, and that's the BATTLETECH universe. That means if it works in Battletech, it works here. Because if the physics were REAL, we WOULD NOT BE PLAYING A GAME WITH WALKING MECHA!

Scientists have again and again stated that battlemechs are impractical, even if they worked out a way for them to work similar to how they do in Battletech. It's not practical, they would fall over, and they would be easily susceptible to getting knocked over.

So please, THINK BEFORE YOU TRY TO REAL WORLD LOGIC BATTLETECH... please... for your own mental health.

[xXBagheeraXx]

I would like to see recoil done the way it was in MW3. Where if you mounted a large weapon in the arms it would kick a LOT in whatever direction the firing arm was located, if you fired two similar weapons there wasnt any kick. This could be changed in mwo to a slight vertical kick perhaps?

Josef Koba, on 29 July 2014 - 09:06 AM, said:

I didn't realize that these were still a problem. I hardly ever see them anymore.

Boomcats I rarely see...

And Boomjagers go boom...All 3 of my direwhales can one shot the side torso of those.

[Elyam]

In BT all recoil is compensated for through a variety of methods. It has no effect on play, especially since it lives within a 10-second impulse. But as with many other things, MWO allows some greater simulation prospects. We should keep with the general low to no effect of recoil, but visually we should see both the recoil force and the compensation mechanisms and experience some of those as long as they stabilize somewhat quickly. It would be more of a cosmetic effect, but some actual effects wouldn't be bad if carefully implemented.

[PANZERKAT]

The Hunchback always had a gigantic hole on its shoulder. That seems like a big Ac 20 with big rounds to me.

[Noth]

POOTYTANGASAUR, on 29 July 2014 - 08:52 AM, said:

I'm sorry, but there really isn't a way that I can correct you without insulting your intelligence. A gauss rifle or rail gun works by using electromagnets set in an extremely precise sequence to accelerate a metal shells exponentially before exiting the barrel. This process produces zero recoil as their is no force being exerted on the shell or the mech, other than the push/pull of the magnets. The magnets do all the work accelerating the shell instead of an expansion of gasses like most other firing mechanisms..... Which DOES cause recoil, especially on large shells like that of an ac20 which require much larger gas expansion for similar firing results to smaller shells.

TL;DR
Ur wrong bro.

In the real world, rail guns still generate recoil. That is basic physics. I suggest you look up some videos of teh real world rail guns. They still require recoil mechanisms.

[stjobe]

KOMMISSAR KITTY, on 29 July 2014 - 10:24 AM, said:

The Hunchback always had a gigantic hole on its shoulder. That seems like a big Ac 20 with big rounds to me.

Sure, it's big. The Tomodzuru autocannon is a 180mm gun and fires a burst of 5 rounds.

[Trauglodyte]

Killian De Morte, on 28 July 2014 - 11:33 PM, said:

One element that seems to be missing is recoil ?

Surely a massive AC20 cannon or Gauss rifle should throw the aiming crosshair up and randomly left or right big time when shot ?

I know these are big gun platforms - but in real-life do you ever see even a small artillery piece fire a shell with zero recoil ?

It could be added to make big / multi ballistics a bit more unique compared to lasers and PPCs
I know the slow moving shells require skill to lead a target etc - but with no "kickback" you may as well be using a peashooter or air-rifle, its about the 'feel' of it.

OK so zero recoil for machine guns - but surely anything over an AC2 should jump the aim point about a bit after firing - It would not effect the initial hit - but the pilot would need to pull the aim back in for that second AC10 or AC20 shot !

It has been suggested for 2 years now but all of the self entitled AC users come clamoring about how unfair it would be that their ability to aim would be impaired and how that isn't right. Blah blah blah!

[InspectorG]

Flash Frame, on 29 July 2014 - 09:08 AM, said:

To those of you arguing phsyics for battlemechs.

STOP TRYING TO APPLY REAL WORLD LOGIC TO BATTLETECH, IT ONLY MAKES YOU LOOK FOOLISH AND ONLY SERVES TO BREAK LORE.

We have the universe we are playing in, and that's the BATTLETECH universe. That means if it works in Battletech, it works here. Because if the physics were REAL, we WOULD NOT BE PLAYING A GAME WITH WALKING MECHA!

Scientists have again and again stated that battlemechs are impractical, even if they worked out a way for them to work similar to how they do in Battletech. It's not practical, they would fall over, and they would be easily susceptible to getting knocked over.

So please, THINK BEFORE YOU TRY TO REAL WORLD LOGIC BATTLETECH... please... for your own mental health.

Because in the future, its more efficient to war with giant robots rather than small drones. Lasers, ballistics, missiles rather than chemical, biological, nanomachine, orbital platforms, or ecological weapons.

[Strum Wealh]

Elyam, on 29 July 2014 - 10:19 AM, said:

In BT all recoil is compensated for through a variety of methods. It has no effect on play, especially since it lives within a 10-second impulse. But as with many other things, MWO allows some greater simulation prospects. We should keep with the general low to no effect of recoil, but visually we should see both the recoil force and the compensation mechanisms and experience some of those as long as they stabilize somewhat quickly. It would be more of a cosmetic effect, but some actual effects wouldn't be bad if carefully implemented.

No, BT 'Mechs don't & can't compensate for all of the recoil generated by their weapons.

CBT Master rules specifically states on page 138 that the recoil of the Heavy Gauss Rifle is such that it can only be mounted in torso locations, and TechManual specifically states on page 218 that the recoil from the Heavy Gauss Rifle is enough to "destabilize the firing unit".

From Classic BattleTech Starterbook: Wolf and Blake:

Quote

The LB 10-X autocannon in the Zeus’ left forearm belched fire and kicked, the recoil momentarily swinging the Zeus’ torso out of alignment.

From Classic BattleTech Starterbook: Fist & Falcon:

Quote

All eighty-five tons of the BattleMaster shook with recoil as the Gauss rifle fired.

From Blood of Heroes (see here):

Quote

Alex waited for the targeting cross hairs to flash red, then hit the firing studs for both missile racks in quick succession. The Archer staggered under the multiple recoil of forty missiles streaking from the tubes.

Also:

Quote

The GLH-2D utilizes two massive M-7 Gauss Rifles, with two tons of ammo for each rifle. It was a showing of the powerful new weapons at the time and earned it the nickname of "Gausszilla". One problem with the two massive rifles was the recoil. During the Reunification War, multiple reports of catastrophic failure of the shoulder couplings came in from the front lines.

Quote

Shadow Hawk IIC 7 - This Clan Snow Raven variant is used in space combat to support or repel boarding attacks. By carrying eight Improved Jump Jets tied into extended capacity fuel tanks, the Shadow Hawk IIC 7 can maneuver in space very easily. On the ground the smaller XL Engine used reduces the top speed slightly, but the jump jets easily compensate for this. To reduce handling problems in space the weapons array consists of low-recoil ER Large and Medium lasers with a Medium Pulse Laser. In fact the only recoil-inducing weapon is the ATM-6 in the right torso. Three tons of ammunition space allow the IIC 7 pilot to tailor the weapon load depending on the situation.

Quote

The Heavy Gauss Rifle is a new, deadly innovation by Lyran Alliance scientists introduced in 3061. Applying their "bigger is better" philosophy to Gauss technology, the Heavy Gauss Rifle is one of the heaviest battlefield weapons in existence, and has a correspondingly high damage potential. Indeed, the recoil from the weapon is so great that the rifle cannot be mounted in a vehicle's turret or 'Mech's arms, as firing the rifle would essentially rip it off. A 'Mech firing the rifle may even be knocked down by the recoil. At close range, the rifle can inflict damage exceeding that of even an Autocannon/20, and so it has earned the handle of "Thor's Hammer" among LAAF troops.

Quote

The Improved Heavy Gauss Rifle also inflicts a great deal of structural stress when it fires; This limits the Improved Heavy Gauss Rifle to torso locations on BattleMechs or hull mountings on combat vehicles as the recoil and stress would rip the arm or turret off the vehicle. These immense forces also destabilize the unit, making it more difficult to operate in combat.

It would seem that there are several canonical instances of ballistic and missile weapons - from LB-X AC-10s to LRM-20s to standard Gauss Rifles to both standard and improved versions of the Heavy Gauss Rifle - causing recoil, and of said recoil being enough to give even BattleMechs some trouble.
While ACs and other recoil-generating weapons would probably have some form of recoil-damping system integrated into their construction, it is clearly not enough to completely negate the effects of the weapons' recoil.

While BattleMechs may have advanced systems (the DI computer and its balancing protocols, together with the gyro) to keep them upright across uneven terrain and while under fire and can be equipped with additional optional systems to further assist in compensating for recoil (e.g. the targeting computer system and its integrated "recoil compensators" (Tech Manual, pg. 238)), the instances cited above clearly demonstrate that the DI computer & gyro are actually rather limited in regard to being able to deal with recoil and even the latter, while improving upon the former's capabilities, is not enough to compensate in the most extreme of cases (HGRs/iHGRs, where the recoil is so extreme as to require a Piloting Skill Roll to keep the 'Mech from falling, in TT gameplay).

So, yes, BT weapons do exhibit significant recoil effects, and Weapons in MWO should also exhibit significant recoil effects.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 29 July 2014 - 12:03 PM.

[Elyam]

Hats off to you for all the quotes. I'm a huge fan of the fiction and all resource book commentary (though of earlier books). Of course, the color commentary of the stories has always included such descriptions, but in actual TT gameplay did not exist (no rule of any kind for recoil) because it was assumed to stabilize between the 10-second rounds. Now, the heavy gauss came later than my time - I've never worked in any period later than 3058, so please forgive me that construction rule oversight. For all I know more might have been added in even later years.

As I said above though, It would be interesting to have some effects, especially visual, but taking into consideration the idea that it has never been a part of BT play, and as such, should not be added as powerful, immense, or with heavy implications for the gunner. MWO can stretch a bit in this area if it wants to.

[Gremlich Johns]

Killian De Morte, on 28 July 2014 - 11:33 PM, said:

One element that seems to be missing is recoil ?

Surely a massive AC20 cannon or Gauss rifle should throw the aiming crosshair up and randomly left or right big time when shot ?

I know these are big gun platforms - but in real-life do you ever see even a small artillery piece fire a shell with zero recoil ?

It could be added to make big / multi ballistics a bit more unique compared to lasers and PPCs
I know the slow moving shells require skill to lead a target etc - but with no "kickback" you may as well be using a peashooter or air-rifle, its about the 'feel' of it.

OK so zero recoil for machine guns - but surely anything over an AC2 should jump the aim point about a bit after firing - It would not effect the initial hit - but the pilot would need to pull the aim back in for that second AC10 or AC20 shot !

If we need recoil, then we also should have knockdown.

For example, if I shoot a light mech at 100m with an AC20, the light mech should fall over, aff?

[stjobe]

Gremlich Johns, on 29 July 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

For example, if I shoot a light mech at 100m with an AC20, the light mech should fall over, aff?

Not if the pilot succeeded with his piloting roll.

On the flip side though, if a light shot your Atlas with four medium lasers, you would have to make a piloting roll to not fall over.

(The rule is any 'mech taking 20 points of damage or more in a single round needs to make a piloting roll or fall over; the justification is that you just removed over a ton of armour and the balance of the 'mech shifted - NOT that you got hit by a big slug. AC/20s are burst-fire weapons in BattleTech anyway...)

Edited by stjobe, 29 July 2014 - 01:15 PM.