75 replies to this topic

[Rockjaw]

Tier, I will grant you that the specific weapon you have in mind against the specific armor you have in mind the 20 mm will likely move some armor around a bit. Particularly using frangible rounds. That notwithstanding, the tombstone was often shown being "eaten" up by weapons such as the MG 42, 34, etc. etc. which does/do NOT have that kind of capability. The M2...eh...50/50 chance once again depending on the ammunition being used. Honestly you could simply have pointed out that one of the weapons protrayed was a 20 mm chaingun. you didn't have to go to all the trouble.

That being said, with a 20mm chaingun you are beginning to enter the territory of AC/2 weaponry. As I have already admitted that's a very VERY big maybe point. Simply due to the fact that it's designed to penetrate armor.


Mchawkeye, Thanks. glad you enjoyed it.

[Liam]

In my opinion MG (or the heavy version of it) could be 20 mm

30 mm for AC2
50-90 mm for AC5
90-120 mm for AC10
120-155 mm for AC20

However in a sense of bore diameter. Propellant amount is another story.

35 mm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=D9yCURHiwBQ&feature=fvwp 57 mm

100 mm


I think in a mech sized autocanon reloadtime would be reduced.

Edited by Liam, 12 November 2011 - 12:22 PM.

[Pht]

Glare, on 09 November 2011 - 08:54 PM, said:

Check your rules again, a hit location roll of a 2 deals damage and then checks for critical damage.

Yes - it does damage, and I did not say that it doesn't.

The damage that is done on a critical hit is Penetrating damage. It punches a hole in the armor (penetration type damage) instead of only removing armor from the surface (ablation type of damage).

Amechwarrior, on 10 November 2011 - 06:30 AM, said:

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.

The advanced rules for critical (penetrating) hits in tactical operations address this. Weapons that put out bigger damage "chunks" have an easier time getting a penetrating hit.

Edited by Pht, 12 November 2011 - 05:39 PM.

[Amechwarrior]

Pht, on 12 November 2011 - 05:38 PM, said:

The advanced rules for critical (penetrating) hits in tactical operations address this. Weapons that put out bigger damage "chunks" have an easier time getting a penetrating hit.

Yea you are right that this is in TacOps, CBT has a one-off optional rule for everything you could think of. A good number of these are "But it works this way in reality!" type of optional rules. If we started pulling out every optional rule as justification for something the game stops looking like what we started with. The point I was making was about how small weapons work as a game mechanic in normal play.

You do not use a design like the Piranha to destroy armor, you use it to exploit already opened armor locations and areas with very little armor remaining for critical hits that can change the tide of the entire match. This concept has been left out of PC Mechwarrior play across the entire series regardless of how the game handled critical hits. This is because it was just easier to destroy the entire location or 'mech with your gauss rifles and other big punch weaponry. I was not trying to reconcile real world armor mechanics or optional rules to MW game play. I was trying to emulate the role and use of these smaller weapons within the different mechanics of a the real-time Mechwarrior simulator.

[Pht]

Amechwarrior, on 12 November 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

Yea you are right that this is in TacOps, CBT has a one-off optional rule for everything you could think of. A good number of these are "But it works this way in reality!" type of optional rules. If we started pulling out every optional rule as justification for something the game stops looking like what we started with. The point I was making was about how small weapons work as a game mechanic in normal play.

"Like what we started with?" ... You're referencing an unknown here... what are you posting about?

Besides which, on that basis, we should stick to only the introductory rules.
---

As far as "crit seekers" - they "crit seek" better than the larger weapons - even with the advanced rules - because they either do spread damage (missiles, cluster lbx) or are small enough to be mounted in large groups. They get "more" crits because a 'Mech can mount them in multiples or because they spread out and do more groups of damage - or simply because they have a better chance of hitting an already stripped section.

They don't "get more" crits because they're better at making holes in armor.

[Glare]

Pht, on 12 November 2011 - 05:38 PM, said:

Yes - it does damage, and I did not say that it doesn't.

The damage that is done on a critical hit is Penetrating damage. It punches a hole in the armor (penetration type damage) instead of only removing armor from the surface (ablation type of damage).

You take a hit from a Large Laser. You get a hit location of 2. The laser burns off a half a ton of armor and then does a crit check. If it's only penetrative (and it's also a laser, so the penetration model becomes all kinds of weird and non-intuitive) damage to components, the 'mech would not take armor damage. But it does. Therefore, the ablative model of armor is still entirely present.

The Through-Armor-Critcals aren't so much a mechanic for penetrative damage as they are for a weapon just plain getting lucky and finding a ***** in the armor.

EDIT: fine, if "C-h-i-n-k" is censored, I'll go with "gap"

Edited by Glare, 12 November 2011 - 07:10 PM.

[Amechwarrior]

I am talking about the run of the mill rules that have been the core rules since inception. I am talking about the normal rules you would find in any edition Battletech, Master rules 4th, the old 2nd edition or the current Total Warfare. I think when I say "normal play" most people familiar with the TT rules would assume I do not mean with all kinds of not tourney legal optional rules like extreme range and exotic tech. Yes as time goes on the rules get bigger and more complex, but look at where they got bigger. We got more STUFF, not more rules on how to run and walk or how to fire. The new editions still use the same "Roll to see if you hit, roll to see where, roll for crits if you touch internals" they do not throw them out wholesale like other long running PnP and Tabletop games, they add to them.

Yes, I know it sounds counter intuitive, I myself called this a half baked theory in the post laying it out. The problem was, as in my initial post is that the entire structure of the rules was not meant to classify a hard from soft target, armor is armor is armor. The same was applied to damage, 1 dmg was 1dmg be it from a LRM, LBX plink or one of 20 points of damage from an AC/20. Changing that changes everything, I am not saying it can not be changed for the better but it would be radically different. It would stop resembling the TT rules and drift away from established Battletech principles.

The last paragraph, you are right in all counts. In the PC games you do everything you said. Yet what did we see? How players picked adding a small laser or MG or SRM2 over adding on more heatsinks or another ton of ammo for the big punch weapons? These small weapons were useless in the MW games. I was just trying to add incentive to use them, in a method that made them useful like they are in the TT rules. A "bigger gun penetrates more" game mechanic obviously favors big guns and thicker armor. We would be right back to big 'mechs and bigger weapons getting the spot light and smaller weapons going unused which is unlike the patterns of play we see in the board game.

Does anybody have a reason why a traditional thickness/penetration mechanic would not favor bigger guns and thicker armor and thus, assaults and heavies over the lesser armed 'mechs?

[Pht]

Glare, on 12 November 2011 - 07:09 PM, said:

You take a hit from a Large Laser. You get a hit location of 2. The laser burns off a half a ton of armor and then does a crit check. If it's only penetrative (and it's also a laser, so the penetration model becomes all kinds of weird and non-intuitive) damage to components, the 'mech would not take armor damage. But it does. Therefore, the ablative model of armor is still entirely present.

You're confusing things and still equivocating penetrating damage with ablative; you can't have both at once.

An ablative attack, by definition is one that only removes armor from the surface. You can't have an ablative-penetrating attack.

On a purely penetrating attack - the act of penetrating causes ... armor damage ... in the form of a hole, which is what the damage number represents in the case of that roll.

Quote

The Through-Armor-Critcals aren't so much a mechanic for penetrative damage as they are for a weapon just plain getting lucky and finding a ***** in the armor.

EDIT: fine, if "C-h-i-n-k" is censored, I'll go with "gap"

So battlemechs walk around with heavy-gauss slug (bigger than a baskeball) sized gaps in their armor? ... Heavy gauss, normal gauss, and other "large" projectile weapons have an equal chance of, in your reasoning - "finding a gap."

No, what makes sense is to say that the rule simulates for a "small" weapon finding a lucky gap - AND for "large" weapons to blast holes in pristine armor.

Amechwarrior, on 12 November 2011 - 07:20 PM, said:

I am talking about the run of the mill rules that have been the core rules since inception. I am talking about the normal rules you would find in any edition Battletech, Master rules 4th, the old 2nd edition or the current Total Warfare. I think when I say "normal play" most people familiar with the TT rules would assume I do not mean with all kinds of not tourney legal optional rules like extreme range and exotic tech. Yes as time goes on the rules get bigger and more complex, but look at where they got bigger. We got more STUFF, not more rules on how to run and walk or how to fire. The new editions still use the same "Roll to see if you hit, roll to see where, roll for crits if you touch internals" they do not throw them out wholesale like other long running PnP and Tabletop games, they add to them.

And those rules build on and do not contradict the "basic" rules; they're there, yes, for "realism" (which is really just suspension of disbelief, in the case of a VG).

Quote

The last paragraph, you are right in all counts. In the PC games you do everything you said. Yet what did we see? How players picked adding a small laser or MG or SRM2 over adding on more heatsinks or another ton of ammo for the big punch weapons? These small weapons were useless in the MW games. I was just trying to add incentive to use them, in a method that made them useful like they are in the TT rules. A "bigger gun penetrates more" game mechanic obviously favors big guns and thicker armor. We would be right back to big 'mechs and bigger weapons getting the spot light and smaller weapons going unused which is unlike the patterns of play we see in the board game.

In mw4, at least, small weapons are somewhat nerfed because they can't get a lucky penetrating shot, because there's virtually *no* internal/penetrating/equipment damage setup to really speak of - at least nothing robust; and they ditched the armor vs weapon balance from the TT; resulting in hard shelled eggs with invisible innards and no useful internal space layout. So you wind up having to use massive damage alphas to penetrate the "shell" and blast out the ct's invisible "internal armor."

"Bigger guns penetrating more" is balanced by adding "small weapons have a chance of a lucky shot" - just like it is in the TT.

[Glare]

There was a reason 'gap' was in quotes. You are correct, every weapon has the same chance to inflict a critical, which, if going by a penetrative stance, means that the small laser has the same chance to punch right through the armor that a Gauss Rifle does.

Yeah, that's definitely true. Oh wait.

See my earlier example of some lucky hits for small weapons. For large weapons, it's ramming that gauss slug down the barrel of an autocannon, or the tubes of a missile launcher (weapon crit). It's impacting the armor in such a way that it buckles to cut off a coolant line (heat sink). It's displacing internal components that are otherwise not tracked to punch a hole in reactor shielding (engine). It's the glass on the cockpit fracturing and buckling on an unlucky hit (cockpit). It's the tiny antennae on a Wasp that gets nicked by a whizzing bullet or sizzling laser (sensor)

[Pht]

Glare, on 12 November 2011 - 07:51 PM, said:

For large weapons, it's ramming that gauss slug down the barrel of an autocannon, or the tubes of a missile launcher (weapon crit).

... and it's not restricted to actual armor penetrating hits in this way. Large weapons can get a penetrating shot on a section with nothing but an armor panel and nothing under it but internal structure - in other words, a pure "armor hole-punch" shot - and the rules even allow for that damage to transfer to the next connected section - an internal ricochet - if there's nothing inside that section to stop it.

The system and the lore allow for armor-punching critical/penetrating hits.

Edited by Pht, 12 November 2011 - 08:01 PM.

[Glare]

Getting a critical hit chance on a section with nothing in it doesn't automatically mean an "armor hole-punch" shot. The only locations that can possible have nothing in them to absorb a critical hit are the left and right torsos on a non-Light/Extra Light engined 'Mech with nothing else in it. The division between center and side torsos is arbitrary at best. A pellet from your LB-10X slips through a loose armor plate and punctures enough myomer and compartments to nick the engine. A blast from your Large Laser hits the absolute perfect angle to scorch a line clear from the side to the gyro.

And besides, hits to parts of your 'Mech that no longer exist transfer inward too. You can take a TAC to your now-nonexistant arm and have damage done to your internal components on the same side torso. I'm all for following the table top rules, but some of them just don't make sense the way real life does. Penetration through armor is one of them.

Edited by Glare, 12 November 2011 - 08:09 PM.

[Pht]

Glare, on 12 November 2011 - 08:07 PM, said:

Getting a critical hit chance on a section with nothing in it doesn't automatically mean an "armor hole-punch" shot. The only locations that can possible have nothing in them to absorb a critical hit are the left and right torsos on a non-Light/Extra Light engined 'Mech with nothing else in it.

... and you can get a penetrating hit on 'Mechs set up exactly that way.

Besides which, if the projectile didn't penetrate the armor on a section with pristine armor, why do the rules allow for that damage to *transfer internally* behind that pristine armor?

Quote

And besides, hits to parts of your 'Mech that no longer exist transfer inward too.

Um - no. If the arm has been shot off previously, it can't transfer damage - nor can any other previously shot off section.

The reason that shots "transfer" from already shot off sections is because you've already gotten a "hit" - so in that case, it's not that the invisible limb transfers damage - it's that the weapon would in "reality" have hit the next section down the line.

[Amechwarrior]

Pht, on 12 November 2011 - 07:41 PM, said:

"Bigger guns penetrating more" is balanced by adding "small weapons have a chance of a lucky shot" - just like it is in the TT.

I agree on your assessment of MW4 and its lack of meaningful critical hits and the problem of massive alphas. But the line I have quoted above is the only thing I have a question about.

"- just like it is in the TT"

That is not how it works in the normal TT rules or the majority of Battletech games played across the world for decades. It should read "Bigger guns damaging more" is balanced by adding "small weapons have as much chance of a lucky shot" - just like it is in the TT.

Their is no mechanic for extra penetration that some weapons get that others do not. Big guns do not get any extra through armor critical properties then small guns and vice versa. If I have misinterpreted your meaning of "Bigger guns penetrating more" to mean that they do get some advantage to critical hits that smaller weapons do not then my fault. Sometimes, our mental and communal definitions of terms do not always line up.

If by "Bigger guns penetrating more" you do mean that damage from some weapons should get more chances at a damaging internals the other weapons, then I will form a reply to that concept and why the higher damage value weapons should not get that perk. However if this is just a misunderstanding of definitions and words used then then we are just talking at different wavelengths.

[Pht]

Amechwarrior, on 12 November 2011 - 08:22 PM, said:

Their is no mechanic for extra penetration that some weapons get that others do not. Big guns do not get any extra through armor critical properties then small guns and vice versa.

Tac ops, page 74, advanced determining critical hits.

I really don't see any reason to not use the advanced rules, they would tend to make the game more believable, and IMO the reason most don't use them is because the basic game is already slow enough - and already has a lot of rules for a GM to keep up with.

Quote

If I have misinterpreted your meaning of "Bigger guns penetrating more" to mean that they do get some advantage to critical hits that smaller weapons do not then my fault. Sometimes, our mental and communal definitions of terms do not always line up.

No, you've got it right. Things like heavy gauss rifles (weapons that put out damage in large chunks) have a better chance at punching holes outright.

Mind you, I'd also say that you would have to also implement the extended critical damage tables too... (another roll to see quality of "critical hit") to keep the "large chunk" of damage weapons in line.


Oh, also, on the "Gaps" thing - any gap that would be there should be rather small - battlemechs are atmosphere and water-proof (they can handle combat in vacuum and underwater) - and yes, while it is the polymer sealant layer that enables this, ... that sealant is useless in combat if not covered by armor.

"gaps" would probably be better understood as "weak spots" in the armor and structure.

Edited by Pht, 12 November 2011 - 08:45 PM.

[Phades]

Why handicap ballistic weapons more than they already are? The lower caliber auto cannons are not a favorite and are more filler to pair up with larger weapons with good range with left over space/tonnage.

With a realistic penetration model, you would be seeing outer->inner->critical on most every successful hit making the weapon fire far more lethal than it already is on a single shot basis rather than the alpha strike withering fire that more commonly occurs. It would also largely render the actual damage listing irrelevant.

While having more hit locations in play and adding calculations in for potential deflection/glancing hits based on angle (must include energy weapons for this otherwise it is pointless) wouldn't be a terrible thing. I think the last thing the game would need is making it more lethal or providing greater bias towards specific weapons and weapon platforms.

[Amechwarrior]

I got my TacOps out, again these are optional rules, not normal Battletech. The core rules make up the bulk of the shared experience we have as Classic Battletech players. Make a poll, "How many of you played with house rules or other lvl3 add ons?" and I bet you would get a near 80% or higher number of responses for "Yes". But then ask, "Did you play with optional rule X or Y?" and you will not get the same unanimous reception. We all have played and know the core TT rules, the kind of play you find in Total Warfare but the extra rules vary with each group, personal preference and experience. Everyone who knows the TT rules knows what a 0/0 pilot is, or what a roll of 12 on the Hit-Location chart means, not what expanded crits rules are or recovering nerve in battle, the core rules are the shared essence of Battletech.

That said, I am not against using advanced rules, or even making up new things whole cloth to solve problems when transitioning from the largely turn based Battletech universe to a real time sim of 'mech combat. It is just that the solutions should end up feeling more like table top play then not. In reviewing the Expanded Critical Hits and Damage rules it seems these rules are not as relevant to our discussion.

By penetration, as used in most of this thread, we were talking about through armor criticals. Rolling the 2 on the Hit Location Chart. The rules and page numbers you referenced only deal with internal damage as it is normally applied. More or less, it is a mechanic that once you touch the internals, the big punch guns have an easier time of inflicting critical damage. The Expanded Critical Damage charts detail breaking weapons down as they get damaged instead of the normal "one critical hit = destroyed weapon" you might get an ammo jam or +1 difficulty to aim and so on. But in all of these, all the armor must first be stripped off the location as in normal(dmg location transfers aside).

My concept translated back in to TT rules, was more along the lines of letting the small weapons get the lucky "Through armor critical" on a 3 or 4 not just 2. My quotes and concepts were about armor penetration, not how already exposed internal structure was damaged. How ever, if you take my system and apply it to an already exposed internal area, you do end up with something like the expanded critical hit rule, but in reverse.

You seem to be talking about about big guns hitting an armored location, and getting a chance for critical hits, even if armor remains. The rules you referenced do not deal with that.

The reasons giving the low damage weapons a higher then average "Through Armor Crit" ability is that historically they go unused no matter if you have MW2s TT style criticals or MW4s hardpoints. If you gave the PC Mechwarrior something like the expanded crit chance, and expanded damage as the concepts work in TacOps it would only further the superiority and battlefield survivability of assault and heavy 'mechs.

Expanded Crit chance: a.k.a Big slugs crush more once they touch internal structure. Favors big punch weapons common on heavier designs and unfeasible to most lighter designs. The MW games have a problem of the big guns ruling the field, without any extra help. Giving them another perk to already high damage is not what will make smaller weapons more useful and rounded out.

Expanded Crit Damage: a.k.a Equipment might not be killed outright when hit. This is totally separate from how much damage a 'mech takes. This deals with the components taking damage and becoming less operative instead of being outright destroyed from 1 critical hit. I do not really mind this one. Except that in the TT rules, if 1/2 of the components crits are hit it dies. This favors big bulk weaponry, as single and 2 crit weapons die by default and big guns like Gauss and AC/20 can keep on kicking, abit worse then before but still functional. This again, favors the bigger heavier designs with the bulkier weaponry. In this system an small laser is killed every time, yet it could potentially take a Clan Gauss Rifle 3 critical hits to fully destroy. This again is bad for light and medium 'mechs

Penatration/Thickness rules: a.k.a Big punch can get more through armor crits, and thicker armor helps prevent this. You have not been promoting the thicker armor part of this, but other posters had this as part of the penetration math was how thick the remaining armor was. See my initial concept post for why this is a bad idea.

All three of these mechanics favor fewer, larger weapons that deal damage in one single block. This is already a balance problem of the previous MW games without any extra mechanics. It further devalues the smaller weaponry that is already useless in PC titles yet, incredibly useful in normal tournament level play.

Answer me how will these mechanics help less powerful weapons become more useful and brings the variety and range of weapons used closer to the Battletech Core Rules?