75 replies to this topic

[Mercurial]

Pht--I understand that's how it works under the game proper (I used to play TT). What I'm saying is that if you fundamentally change the system you significantly alter the dynamic in ways that make things worse. The problem here is we're discussing something broad: Armor is of course, 'thinner' in the rear for ALL Mechs, but should all armor be thin to the degree that even an Assault Mech is considerably 'threatened' by a light mech? I am aware critical hits that damage internal structure exists in the tabletop game, though I am firmly of the opinion that probably should NOT be in MWO in ANY form. (RNG makes sense for a tabletop game in which RNG how everything has to work to make it interesting--to HELL with it in an action sim), but a 'small chance on a random hit with a random weapon to inflict IS damage is a whole different from animal to 'a certain weapon value will penetrate armor and inflict X damage'. This is to say nothing of the fact that by changing this system you are literally *fundamentally* changing the core dynamic of Battletech itself. The value of armor will change signficantly and Internal structure will be a very different kind of beast than it is currently. It's a pretty drastic and not simple change--and basically, I'm not convinced it'd be the kind of change that would be for the better of the game.

The 'problem' with Mech sims thus far is that lighter mechs by and large have little practical value over heavier mechs for a variety of factors, Mostly the combination of open terrain and long-range targeting/omnscient radars largely rendering the need to 'scout' moot and rendering flanking too difficult (there was simply no way a light/medium was going to get across that open field without being legged/sniped from range because it had no cover in most scenarios). I believe, personally, this is something MWO must fix. I am concerned that a system like this would simply create more issues for it; unless of course you create some silly 'some weapons chip' rule. And if you do that, why bother? Because in all likelyhood, THAT weapon will be the new status quo. It's a pretty drastic change to render Machine guns useless (arguably more useless then they already are in some respects).

[Tierloc]

Rockjaw, on 07 November 2011 - 01:50 PM, said:

Do you really want machinegun spam to be able to take down an Assault mech?

In the movie Deathrace, the "tombstone" is a huge, thick piece of steal protecting the back of frank's car.. but it's still eventually brought down by machine guns. Hit something enough with any amount of force and eventually it will break down. I would think angle is a bigger factor for applied force over repetitive hits.

[Rockjaw]

Mercurial, for the last time. I'm not talking about a "shot" whizzing through the armor and damaging the internal components of a mech. I'm talking about a small enough caliber being ineffective in terms of causing the armor to ablate. This is a slight modification to the rules where tiny weapons bounce off instead of wearing down armor. That's all. I'm not talking about a penetration through the entire armored plate. I'm talking about SMALL WEAPONS ONLY. How many more ways must I put that?

Tierloc: I sincerely hope you're trying to be funny. The fact of the matter is that Deathrace is entirely inaccurate in terms of armor unless he is using non armor rated plating and the opponents are using armor piercing ammunition, and if this is the case than this is useless to the discussion at hand..

[Rockjaw]

For the record. I dont want this to be WoT. I like the game but this should be and needs to be different. I just think that in one small area of one small weapon type there is an advantage to be gained by a change in mechanic.

[Mercurial]

Rockjaw, on 08 November 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

Mercurial, for the last time. I'm not talking about a "shot" whizzing through the armor and damaging the internal components of a mech. I'm talking about a small enough caliber being ineffective in terms of causing the armor to ablate. This is a slight modification to the rules where tiny weapons bounce off instead of wearing down armor. That's all. I'm not talking about a penetration through the entire armored plate. I'm talking about SMALL WEAPONS ONLY. How many more ways must I put that?

I get that. I don't think that's even remotely vague. That still effects lighter mechs because lighter mechs by necessity are more likely to equip these 'smaller' weapons. I suppose it would be slightly more clear if you explained EXACTLY what weapons you're talking about, because the jist I'm getting is you're basically talking about the Machine Gun. At least I HOPE that's all you're talking about, since if you're talking about SRM 2s and 4s being part of that category then you're just being absurd. I assume you're excluding say, Small Lasers, since you mentioned that lasers could 'chip'. I'm just saying there's no need for that. It doesn't make the game 'different'--it just makes Machine Guns a pointless usage of tonnage, since as it is they're basically just 'sacrifice a ton or two for a heatless weapon at extreme close ranges." What bothers me even more about this idea is that it isn't even very novel: Heavy Gear 1 & 2 pretty much used a pen system. You're not making Btech 'new ' at that point. Just 'More like Heavy Gear'.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Rockjaw, you effectively want to hasten the rush for everyone to get into assault mechs. I understand wanting a more complicated armor model. I really really do. I'd love one, but it's just not battletech. It'll throw decades worth of game balancing out the window because you're annoyed HMG's can do some damage to armor.

[Rockjaw]

Eh, TRL: not so much, really. I 'm not that annoyed at it...I just happened to jump in Mw2 mercs recently and realized that a cluster of 3-4 med lasers were entirely capable of taking out a med (45t) mech after 3 (well aimed, not headshot.) bursts. That's just way too easy. I was in a commando...for the record. To replicate that system...which admittedly has flaws in its application...but is the most true to the BT mechanic is not going to help us here. To make a counter argument I would say that many people (particularly the "old guard" so to speak) overestimate and prefer lighter mechs dueling heav's for nostalgia's and possibly prides sake. " I took out a so and so in my that and that."

Merc: And why, precisely, is it that you believe a light mech should be able to eat through armor so effectively?

I would typically be talking about the lighter ballistic weapons only. MG, Maybe Lbx with "shot" up to 5 (against very heavy armor) and AC up to 2. Those are aerotech/soft vehicle killers in my opinion. Missles wouldn't make any sense to weaken at all since firing 2 or 6 SRMs each missile still carries the same payload. Lasers might be lightly less effective against heavy armor due to the ability of the armor to absorb heat based on its mass. These are just ideas mind you. But I think that should clarify it. It's not perfect...but it's not a light mech making mincemeat out of a Heav in 4-6 bursts of multiple MG fire. In short, I guess you'd say that I don't believe all mechs are created equal. I wouldn't intend this to create a "race for the biggest gun" although this IS the internet...that's gonna happen anyway, trust me. But more a matter of style, manuverability and heat management being absolute necessities for light mech players who try to duel "above" their class.

[Pht]

Glare, on 07 November 2011 - 06:45 PM, said:

You are half correct. Yes, there is such a roll on the tables. However, the only way to get such a roll is with a 2 on the hit tables. That translates to exactly 1/36 chance of a penetrating hit, or approximately 2.8% chance. Clearly, the exceptional hit, not the normal.

In answering the statement, it was the correct answer - the statement was that BT armor is purely ablative, when it's not, and I pointed out the gameplay mechanic - it's also quite common in the novels to read about heavier weapons simply blasting huge holes in the armor - and the source books for the parent system don't contradict this. In fact, the advanced rules on penetrating hits back this idea up - weapons that do larger "chunks" of damage have a better chance of penetrating.

Quote

Further backing up my position is how all Tournament Legal types of armor suffer damage in the exact same way. Damage is taken directly to the armor, which in 97.233(repeating)% of all hits will not penetrate the armor before it is all gone. The only exceptions are Hardened Armor and the Clan Ferro-Lamellar Armor, which take half damage (but still damage, same chance of penetrating hit) and one less damage per hit (still damage, same tiny chance of penetrating hit).

There's no in universe reason to limit it to tourney legal armor.

Quote

I fail to see how my initial post was inflammatory. I was drawing your attention to how this suggestion is by its very nature not within the scope of Battletech as a standard mechanic.

You mistook my post if you think I found your first post inflammatory - I merely disagreed with you; nothing more was intended.

----
Tweaks, the source cited by that page has been superseded by Tech manual - and even were it not, it simply says that the armor is ablative in nature - that does not mean it can not be punched through.
----

Mercurial, on 07 November 2011 - 08:47 PM, said:

Pht--I understand that's how it works under the game proper (I used to play TT). What I'm saying is that if you fundamentally change the system you significantly alter the dynamic in ways that make things worse.

I don't think I've missed much in this thread, but I don't know what system you're referring to being "fundamentally changed" ...

Quote

The problem here is we're discussing something broad: Armor is of course, 'thinner' in the rear for ALL Mechs, but should all armor be thin to the degree that even an Assault Mech is considerably 'threatened' by a light mech?

Armor in the BTU, imo, is for when you mess up - or when you have no other choice. Yes, an assault is able to weather the damage most light mechs can put out; and for the most part, barring a lucky shot, should be able to do so.

If they're going to implement penetrating hits than they should also implement the modifiers for chance on penetrating hits that has weapons that do "small chunks" of damage (like small lasers and machine guns) take a "no advantage" on penetrating while "big chunk damage" weapons like, say, the heavy guass, take a modifier that makes them "penetrate" more easily. They should also implement the extended critical damage setup, so that there's an extra modifier added after you hit - if you penetrate and "hit" something but you just barely hit it, there's no effect, all the way up to the normal kind of hit, (normal critical hit rules).

That way, the penetrating hits makes sense, but doesn't make the game "Mechwarrior insta-death-penetrating-hit-misery."

Quote

I am aware critical hits that damage internal structure exists in the tabletop game, though I am firmly of the opinion that probably should NOT be in MWO in ANY form. (RNG makes sense for a tabletop game in which RNG how everything has to work to make it interesting--to HELL with it in an action sim),

This is very knee (twitch - stupid ninja bot!) and you've offered no reasons why "rng is bad," nor have you said in what specific instance it's to be considered bad.

As far as RNG, if this is a MW game, the pilot doesn't choose where his weapons hit; that depends on how well his 'Mech can put its weapons fire "under the reticule" - and BTU 'Mechs are not capable of MW4 style weapons fire concentration (all into one panel of the target 'Mech for weapons that arrive at the same time).

So, the "evil" rng would only apply in the sense that there's a chance to get a critical hit on any section that your 'Mech actually manages to connect with in the VG implementation.

Quote

This is to say nothing of the fact that by changing this system you are literally *fundamentally* changing the core dynamic of Battletech itself.

Penetrating hits are a core dynamic of Battletech in the pen and paper game rules, in the source books, and in the novels. It's nothing new, it's nothing not accounted for, and it's nothing bad.

Quote

The 'problem' with Mech sims thus far is that lighter mechs by and large have little practical value over heavier mechs for a variety of factors, ...

One of which is the fact that light 'Mechs don't even have the option of a lucky penetrating shot *at all.*

Edited by Pht, 09 November 2011 - 06:47 PM.

[Glare]

In the part of my post dealing with armor, I started with all tournament legal armor and moved on. Neither Hardened nor Clan Ferro-Lamellar armor are tournament legal, and are the only universal exceptions to how damage is dealt, and they still follow some very basic rules. Namely, that weapons do damage to it, and that said damage ablates the armor until the Internal Structure takes damage directly.

[Pht]

Glare, on 09 November 2011 - 07:49 PM, said:

In the part of my post dealing with armor, I started with all tournament legal armor and moved on. Neither Hardened nor Clan Ferro-Lamellar armor are tournament legal, and are the only universal exceptions to how damage is dealt, and they still follow some very basic rules. Namely, that weapons do damage to it, and that said damage ablates the armor until the Internal Structure takes damage directly.

If weapons fire only ablates armor than how do you account for the fact that a penetrating hit can be had against a 'Mech with pristine armor?

[Glare]

You know very well what I meant. Even on a penetrating hit, which still only happens a maximum of 1/36th of the time (and actually closer to 15/1296, or a whopping 1.15% chance on a hit, since in order to inflict any critical damage you have to get an 8 or higher when checking for critical hits), the hit still deals ablative damage. The penetrating hit is rare enough to be statistically discounted from armor performance.

[Pht]

On a penetrating hit the armor doesn't ablate.

If it ablated there would be no penetration. Ablation means removal from the surface. The damage is in the form of a hole, not a removal of armor from the surface. You cannot have ablation and penetration of an armor panel at the same time - that requires equivocating on the definitions of the two.

Secondarily, what *in universe* reason can you offer, as obviously the rules allow for penetrating hits?

Edited by Pht, 09 November 2011 - 08:28 PM.

[Glare]

Check your rules again, a hit location roll of a 2 deals damage and then checks for critical damage. This is the only way to deal critical damage before destroying all the armor in a location without searching for special weapon effects or TacOps optional rules.

Edited by Glare, 09 November 2011 - 09:00 PM.

[BduSlammer]

From books and reads,it gave weapons sizes. AC-2 was 25 to 30mm chain guns . AC-5 were like 40 to 75mm. but the Maruader AC-5 was a 120mm due to its low rate of fire . The Atlas AC-20 is a 8in gun that fires a 4 round burst, while the Victor AC-20 was a 100mm gun with a higher rate .

[Nik Van Rhijn]

From memory the mech MG was the equivalent of a 20mm cannon rather than a conventional MG - don't forget that even a "conventional" .50 cal has some AP capability, and would certainly have posssibility of some ablation, leading to later penetration. To be honest I feel that all AC have been treated "incorrectly" in canon (I know it's heresy) and think that the TT could do with a "refresh" on the rules - it was a long time ago (I still have a combined arms regiment worth of models) and was never designed with the abilities of modern PC games in mind..
Laser range limitations are reasonable due to decoherance caused by being used in atmosphere - in a vauum their range is considerably extended and effectively the bigger the laser, the more energy and the greater the range. As i have posted elsewhere, the biggest problem is with Ac's. In RL basically the greater the size the longer the range and the slowr the rate of fire ie an AC20 should be the greatest ranged not the least - but it didn't fit in with the effects that the crwator's of the original TT game wanted. Applying "reality" to a "fantasy" will never work. IMHO much as I like canon it would be nice to see some changes - as long as balace is kept. Otherwise (as has been posted elsewhere) we will end up with a rush to refit with Clan tech as soon as it becomes available. If we are to have a mostly urban wnvironment then the smaller mechs will have a chance - a Jenner in a close range ambush with the chance to dodge out of sight can worry even an Atlas. If you look at the 3 mechs that they have listed so far, they are all cloe/mid range specialists - which probably gives you an idea of where they may be heading.

[Amechwarrior]

The problem is, TT rules were not intended to separate a hard from a soft target. Armor is armor is armor. Everybody gets battlemech class armor plates, everyone gets battlemech class weaponry. Part of the fluff to excuse the "Why does this can a infantry unit with one man left do damage to my 'mech?" is that the armor is so good at being ablative(breaking off, crumbling, turning to dust), just about anything can make it do so. It trades this relative fragility to be able to dissipate the massive amounts of explosive and kinetic forces of things like LBX-20 slugs or gauss rounds. This is all fluff reasoning and a generally minor point.

Adding a armor thickness and corresponding weapon penetration mechanic will of course favor larger "big punch" guns and thicker armor. Both of which are more common on heavier designs. This would also be a major departure from established Battletech principles. We can already clearly see how the smaller weapons are easily forgotten about in the PC games for big punch weaponry. This is the exact opposite of the kinds of loadouts we see in the stock designs for TT play. Many mechs have MGs, small lasers and ACs in addition to big punchers. This becomes important later.

The concept of "blowing a hole" and then shooting into it does have fictional sources and also TT support with the roll of 2 on the hit table. This kind of concept has never been tried on the PC games as far as I know (never played MPBT or MWLL). However, every single weapon had the same chance of hitting this lucky spot. You could be a big punch or a plinker, you still only had a ~3% chance to find that hole. This is where the plinker weapons earn there keep, not lose it like in the penetration/thickness models.

In the TT, LBX cluster rounds(shotgun pellets), low damage missiles fired in numbers, multiple smaller weapons like small(or even medium) lasers, machine guns, flamers, AC2s and 5s were known as "Crit Seekers." A smart player rolled the big guns first to take off the external armor, then would roll his numerous small weapons or LBX shot to get more dice rolls, to have a higher chance to hit the internals and get critical hits. The game mechanic role of the multiple small arms was not to destroy armor outright, it was to give you more chances to hit exposed areas or get that lucky 3% headshot or through armor crit.

If anything, these smaller weapons should get a higher modifier to "Find the hole" in a real time Mechwarrior. The big weapons do not need this, they simply destroy their way through and their lucky chance can stay at whatever the baseline value is. This would add real worthwhile combat value to these ignored smaller weapons in the MW series. We would no longer see people taking a Warhammer and dumping the 2x small lasers and 2x MG for more heatsinks to keep the PPCs cool. They would need them for critical hits that can disable enemy weapons faster then destroying all of the internal hit points.

Ok, now what does this do to light mechs? Won't they get abused as zippy crit finding buggers with their generally smaller weaponry? Yes, yes they would and you want it this way. This would force light 'mech pilots to get close, the ranges are short on these and multiple AC2s are too heavy for lights. Once close, they can get behind enemy assaults and heavies who can drop them if they mess up. More importantly this forces assaults to take a light 'mech on their 6 o'clock as a real threat.

All of these situations are missing from the MW pc games and staple examples of classic Battletech game mechanics. I want my lights to be forced to sneak or jump behind the enemies and I want my enemies to not ignore my lights, just like in the TT. I want my designs to feature an array of useful weaponry, not just big punch weapons, just like the TT 'mech configs. I want to be able to say "My Commando flanked that Atlas and got a lucky hit on the rear right and caused a AC/20 ammo explosion that totally sent the pilot to the sky!" just like how this can happen in the TT(yes this is rare, and it should be). All in all, if anything giving these "crit seeker" class of weapons a greater chance of the lucky strike would make the game a closer simulation of Battletech.

Edits: Minor spelling mistakes/redundant words.

Edited by Amechwarrior, 10 November 2011 - 06:38 AM.

[Rockjaw]

Amechwarrior,

I must admit that so far I find your post to be the most interesting and compelling. A game model of "Blow a hole in it and then look for the hole" is interesting and does tend to add a layer of strategy that would otherwise be easily missed. In fact it may even be possible that under a combat model that resembles the one you've mentioned most vet's would end up in lighter mechs leaving some (not all I am sure) of the new players to blow large messy holes in each other before taking advantage of said large messy holes.

I agree with you that the backing of the ablative "everybody gets mech-class armor" model is mainly fluff. I don't have much use for fluff myself which may be the problem that I am dealing with at the heart of things. Nonetheless I will agree with you that the model of combat that will be built here needs some type of change from the classic PC model. Frankly I suspect that Heavy/assault mechs are about to get truly ponderous.

[Amechwarrior]

Thanks, this thread kind of died after my monster wall of text. The neat thing is, this concept is the exact opposite of the penetration/thickness mechanic you posted initially and what would make sense to most people, because that is how it works with real life armor we have today. This is another example on how we can use the TT rules as a guide to help shape a real time sim to feel more like Battletech. It might not be intuitive to say "smaller weapons should pierce armor more" but as a gameplay mechanic it works.

There is a reason the TT rules have stood the test of time. I have a copy of the 2nd ed. rules, and minus the new weapons and stuff added on top, the core rules, the foundation of Battletech has remained unchanged. Take a look at DnD or 40k and compare them to their versions in the '80s and '90s. A player from that time would have no clue what was going on, but a Battletech player would still know that a 12 is a headshot and a 0/0 pilot is a deity on the field.

[Tierloc]

Rockjaw, on 08 November 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

Tierloc: I sincerely hope you're trying to be funny. The fact of the matter is that Deathrace is entirely inaccurate in terms of armor unless he is using non armor rated plating and the opponents are using armor piercing ammunition, and if this is the case than this is useless to the discussion at hand..

I don't know about you, but 20mm isn't exactly small arms fire. If your telling me that even under the best conditions of fabrication, seams and weapon pressure points, that a plate of armor can withstand 1000+ rounds (before we even talk about grouping multipliers).. then no. I think suggesting the bullets are just going to bounce off is unrealistic.




Left to Right (Scale 1:1)

5.7mm x 28 P90 (Five-seveN, P90) Ball SS190
5.56mm x 45 NATO (FN Minimi, Galil, L85A1, L86A1, M16A2) Ball M855
7.62mm x 51 NATO (FN FAL, FN MAG, G3, HK21, HK23, L1A1 (SLR), L7A1 (GPMG), M14A1, M60, MG3) Ball L2A2
.50" Browning (12.7mm x 99) (.50" M2, M2HB, Barrett) Armor-Piercing-Incendiary-Tracer M20
20mm x 102 Vulcan (M39, M50, M61A, M61A1, GAU-4, Mk. 22 Mod. 2) Target Practice M55A2
20mm x 139 HS 820 (HS820, KAD, Rh202, M139) Armor-Piercing-Incendiary
25mm x 137mm (KBA, GAU-12/U, M242, Rh205, Aden 25) Target Practice



Edit:

Quote

Frankenstein's Monster - A Fifth-generation Ford Mustang armed with 2 M134s, smokescreen, napalm and oil slick for defense,[5] as well as a 6-inch-thick (150 mm) detachable steel plate on the rear bumper called "The Tombstone". It also has an ejector seat for the navigator and a cigarette lighter.

Dodge Ram - Machine Gun Joe's truck, armed with a cowcatcher, 4 hood-mounted Browning M1919, 2 side-mounted Vulcan cannons and Russian RPG-7s on the roof.

Vulcan Cartridges (see photo above)

Cartridge 20×102mm
Caliber 20 mm (0.787 in)
Barrels 6
Action Hydraulically operated, electrically fired, Gatling
Rate of fire 6,000 rounds per minute (M61A1)
6,600 rounds per minute (M61A2)
Muzzle velocity 3,450 feet per second (1,050 m/s) (with PGU-28/B round)
Feed system Belt or linkless feed system


If you read into the description of the armor piercing ammo..

The M53 - 6.3 mm RHA penetration at 0 degree impact angle and 1000 m range.^{[color="#0645ad"][7][/color]}
The M56A - 12.5 mm RHA penetration at 0 degree obliquity at 100m range.^{[color="#0645ad"][7[/color]}

RHA - Rolled homogeneous armour (RHA) is a type of steel which is used to [color="#0645ad"]armour vehicles[/color].



Doesn't seem like they would be bouncing off to me.. Instant pentration? Of course not, but hundreds of rounds in a controlled spread? Absolutely.

Edited by Tierloc, 11 November 2011 - 09:26 AM.

[Mchawkeye]

Good thread, but I have to say, the video posted in the OP was just far too awesome to really express. Good find.