69 replies to this topic

[Chunkymonkey]

Arent the Autocannons supposed to fire 5-10 shots in a clip generally? Or some types were very powerfull but one bullet. LBX was supposed to be alot of shots or one shot also but it was supposed to shoot pellots. Also, Ultra was supposed to fire twice the number of bullets in a clip in the same time, the last games were disappointing in this area.

[Noth]

Auto cannon came in various style and were rated by the damage they did over ten seconds. a 203mm AC/20 may fire only one shot every ten seconds but do the same damage as a 150mm AC/20 that fire 5 shots every 10 seconds. Ultra essentially doubles this. LBX, doesn't fire pellts but a shell that splits mid flight or the satandard solid shot.

[Tincan Nightmare]

In the TT autocannons were burst fire weapons, but the devs have made them into single shot ones, though it doesn't really matter since it is still 2, 5, 10, or 20 points of damage to a single location. Though its funny the picture of the Hunchback shooting the Jenner at the top of this forum page has a cluster of shell casings shooting out of its autocannon.

[Chunkymonkey]

Touche, but that means we should still have some rapid fire autocannons rather then one big bullet.

[Pxranger]

Always did bug me that The more damage a autocannon did, the shorter the range.... (tabletop BT anyway)

[Chunkymonkey]

Probably to late now to change, o well, guess ill have to kill people in one shot, sigh.

[Alexander Diaz]

Pxranger, on 23 June 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

Always did bug me that The more damage a autocannon did, the shorter the range.... (tabletop BT anyway)

Game balance. Later, you get your big distance hitters like the Gauss Rifle. For Autocannons, it makes sense to me. Gives you a reason to go less damage for a longer range. Though, AC/2s were always funny to me. I actually didn't mind the LBX2s. for specific roles like VTOL clipping from great distances.

[MrM1971]

Originaly auto cannons where single shot not burst ( think of them more along the lines of Tank Guns ) they added burst fire years and years latter when people started thinking of them more like machine gun weapons

[Kusak Snowtiger]

Think Mauler. 4 AC-2's. 2 of them in each torso. Talk about an embarassing way to go. pinged to death by a mauler what was it 23 hexes away. Or something like. I also think their was an ultra ac 2 variant of the Mauler. What a pain in the tail. Super long range machine guns on steroids

[Tincan Nightmare]

MrM1971, on 23 June 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

Originaly auto cannons where single shot not burst ( think of them more along the lines of Tank Guns ) they added burst fire years and years latter when people started thinking of them more like machine gun weapons

So the cover of the first edition of the mechwarrior RPG with a Rifleman firing with a stream of shells coming out the arms was years later? Or in TRO 3026 where it describes the AC/20 of a Hetzer and Mechbuster fighter as firing 10 and 5 shot bursts are years later? Or the orginal novels that all described them that way? Since those are all 30 years old I don't see how it was years later.

[KageRyuu]

Tincan Nightmare, on 23 June 2012 - 11:45 PM, said:

So the cover of the first edition of the mechwarrior RPG with a Rifleman firing with a stream of shells coming out the arms was years later? Or in TRO 3026 where it describes the AC/20 of a Hetzer and Mechbuster fighter as firing 10 and 5 shot bursts are years later? Or the orginal novels that all described them that way? Since those are all 30 years old I don't see how it was years later.

You do realize that when the first battle mech came out, aka the Mackie, it was 2439 AD, years before the first RPG book which is dated in the Succession Wars, 3025 AD to be exact, that's over 500 years right there, almost 600.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Mackie
http://www.sarna.net..._Wars_(History)
http://www.sarna.net...,_First_Edition

Regardless, the Mackie and Autocannons of those early days were most likely big bore single shot affairs much like the "Rifles" that came before them.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Heavy_Rifle
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Medium_Rifle
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Light_Rifle

Edited by KageRyuu, 24 June 2012 - 12:30 AM.

[Tincan Nightmare]

KageRyuu, on 24 June 2012 - 12:24 AM, said:

You do realize that when the first battle mech came out, aka the Mackie, it was 2439 AD, years before the first RPG book which is dated in the Succession Wars, 3025 AD to be exact, that's over 500 years right there, almost 600.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Mackie
http://www.sarna.net..._Wars_(History)
http://www.sarna.net...,_First_Edition

Regardless, the Mackie and Autocannons of those early days were most likely big bore single shot affairs much like the "Rifles" that came before them.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Heavy_Rifle
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Medium_Rifle
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Light_Rifle

Wow so you are talking about the literal history of the Inner Sphere vs the sourcebooks and rulebooks that have defined Autocannons since the game has started. And those links to the rifles are funny since they are 'newer' in terms to how long they have been a part of BT, in fact they are what were added years later from the orginal Autocannons. And you evidently didn't read the part where it states that those rifles were the precursors to modern Autocannons. Heres a quote from pg. 132 of the master rules, pretty much the same definition given to Autocannons since they were given one.

'An autocannon is a rapid-firing, auto-loading weapon that fires high-speed streams of high-explosive, armor piercing shells. Light autocannon range in caliber from 30 to 90mm, and heavy autocannon may be 80 to 120mm or larger. Autocannons are also available in advanced LB-X, rotary or Ultra version.'

Notice the segment about high-speed streams, and this is the standard version since they bring up ultra and rotary types at the end. Sarna is a great resource, but it is also a wiki, so it is only as accurate as the people writing the articles, and is trumped by the source material coming from those who designed and made the game.

Oh and the Mackie shows up in TRO 3058 and it mounts an AC/10.

Edited by Tincan Nightmare, 24 June 2012 - 01:04 AM.

[Bruticus Stickalot]

also have to remember guas rifles were not out on mechs till not long before clans came .atlas had a ac20 not a guas to begin with

[Xandre Blackheart]

An auto cannon is a cannon with an automatic loading sequence. Doesn't imply anything about rate of fire.

Modern russian main battle tanks have "auto cannons" They have an auto loading sequence. The ROF is nothing like a 25mm chain fed auto cannon on the M-2 Bradley, but they are both auto cannons.

Increases in rate of fire depend on the efficiency of the automatic loading sequence, just like a machine gun. And that's all an Auto cannon is in principle, a scaled up machine gun. The more efficient the loading sequence the faster the rate of fire that can be achived. But efficiency is a harsh mistress. It doesn't just mean faster.

An AC/20 has 5 rounds per ton. That's a 400 pound shell. No automatic loading sequence in the world is going to get that shell loaded in under a second. 10 seconds is a reasonable figure however. And rememebr it has to be robust enough to perform the loading/eject sequence over and over without breaking or jamming.

Of course you could postulate that it's 400 pounds of shells divided into say 4 or 5 shots (or more). Well that's 4 100 pound shells or 5 80 pound shells or whatever combination you want to think about (but 80 pound shells is pretty close to modern tank ammo weights). That does not make it easier. The mechanism has to crank those rates out in 10 seconds.

Loading a 100 pound shell, firing and ejecting it in 2.5 seconds is actually MORE difficult than loading 1 400 pound shell, firing and ejecting every 10 seconds. That can be done (and is being done) with current technology. Even using advance techniques such as pressurized propellants (butane) to reduce casing weight you will be pushing efficiency when you get to a rate of 1 100 lbs projectile loaded and fired every 2.5 seconds because of heat and wear and tear on the mechanism.


The other consideration is the purpose of the auto-cannons being discussed. One 400 pound projectile going down range every 10 seconds is far more devastating that 2000 1 pound projectiles hitting the same spot. Armor penetration is much better from a single massive strike than multiple smaller strikes, even if they are on the same spot.

Sure there may be times when you want a spray of fire (or a shotgun effect, or flechettes) but armor penetration is not one of those times. So it doesn't make sense to view the autocannons in battle tech as rapid fire weapons, when the engineering and science would be better served by larger shots at a slower rate of fire.

By the way a 400 lbs shell is only a 10 inch (250 mm) naval gun. A 16 inch naval gun (410 mm) fires a 2200 or 2700 lb shell depending on heavy or super heavy ammo. Fortunatly (or unfortunately depending on your point of view) you can't mount those on a mech.

At least not until the Long Tom is available.

Edited by Xandre Blackheart, 25 June 2012 - 08:15 AM.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Xandre Blackheart, on 25 June 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

snip

Well were talking about walking giant robots 1000 years in the future, so the 'that isn't realistic' argument is pretty pointless. Also see my earlier post on how autocannons have been defined in nearly every single sourcebook as 'RAPID FIRING' sending a 'STREAM' of shells at their target. Maybe its crazy, maybe 1000 years in the future giant robots will have tank size machine guns, but that is how BT has defined autocannons for several decades now. But hey, since I'm just using the source material that everything came from to argue the point, I'll bow out to your superior opinion.

[Antagonist]

To address the issue of shorter range with higher damage rating:

Your mech is only so big. For a given length, the lower your gun's caliber, the higher its caliber lengths, which in turn increases the maximum range. For an AC/20, you have a large feed mechanism that needs space just behind the barrel, as well, leaving you with just a few caliber lengths. Thus, it reduces the maximum effective range.

[CCC Dober]

Ditto on the rapid-fire, even sarna states that. Don't let it be said that this source can't deliver. Look here (first sentence). And if you have any interest in military hardware, then you will find plenty of autocannons that trump the measly 5,10, 50 rounds each burst or what else you got. Ever heard of the russian ZSU aka 'the deadly zoo'? Or the german Marder 2? They can drown their targets in shells.
They spit out hundreds of shells per minute and the modern weapons have access to several types of rounds.
As for MW:O, you could also assume that what you see is a single tracer round out of many because you don't really want to advertise your position too much if you can help it. I can live with that, although I know that its primary use has something to do with lag and how it affects the damage of a burst weapon.

[I C U B4 U C ME]

Tincan Nightmare, on 25 June 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

Well were talking about walking giant robots 1000 years in the future, so the 'that isn't realistic' argument is pretty pointless. Also see my earlier post on how autocannons have been defined in nearly every single sourcebook as 'RAPID FIRING' sending a 'STREAM' of shells at their target. Maybe its crazy, maybe 1000 years in the future giant robots will have tank size machine guns, but that is how BT has defined autocannons for several decades now. But hey, since I'm just using the source material that everything came from to argue the point, I'll bow out to your superior opinion.

Lol you should. His argument makes a lot more sense than yours. The point is arguing a games mechanics is pointless. Anyway shooting a burst of 200mm+ rounds is gonna have some huge recoil and be inaccuraate as ****. It doesnt matter what they do game balance is whats important. Making a game more realistic often makes it easier to balance.

In fact mechs are ******* pointless. A modern jet wing would cost less and **** a huge target like a mech over.

[Viper69]

If auto cannons fired a stream of bullets then why did they add the rotary auto cannons later on? I cant think that they would need to make a gattling gun mechanism if in fact the gun already fired like that from the get go.

[RedDragon]

Viper69, on 26 June 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

If auto cannons fired a stream of bullets then why did they add the rotary auto cannons later on? I cant think that they would need to make a gattling gun mechanism if in fact the gun already fired like that from the get go.

If machineguns fired a stream of bullets then why did they invent the gatling gun later on?
Yes, I know, the Gatling is in fact the predecessor of the MG. The point is, a multi-barrel gun is more efficient than a "normal" gun burst-firing. So it's only logical to add more barrels later on. In fact some standard ACs did already have multiple barrels.
Rotarys were simply invented to get an even higher rate of fire.

Guys, please just look at any of the novels or sourcebooks. ACs fire in bursts, period. It's a different matter if that makes sense for MWO or if you think it's cooler to have single-shot ACs, but please don't say ACs are single-fire in canon. It's just not true.