49 replies to this topic

[Deamonition]

Dirkfall, on 07 April 2013 - 11:53 PM, said:

There were alot of discussions concerning this topic, especially when Gauss Cats rocked. But you know, after improving balance - it became obsolete. The thing is about weapon balance. Perhaps you just got in wrong momement to the wrong place.

P.S. Seems like you haven't met gauss ravens, etc. Frustraiting, really.

Yes, the double AC20 is just an example. I have experienced the double gauss and the gauss or AC20 Raven. I agree with you. They are a pain

Could you explain your point a bit more cause I don't see what "balance improvement" you are talking about and how cheese builds is an obsolete topic. I still see a lot of them.

Edited by Deamonition, 08 April 2013 - 08:52 AM.

[blinkin]

Merchant, on 08 April 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

I have zero idea what this 'dance' is,, but whoever wrote that piece from Tech Manual should be shot for major failure.

No Mech artwork I have ever seen shows an AC/20 as a small caliber or an AC/2 as large caliber. That is because artists know a big caliber does more damage than a small one. That's just how Ballistics work.

This quoted nonsense was never in BT when I played and if I played now, I would either ignore the quote or not play in any game that followed it.

VS.

^^
guess which one mangles tanks within a span of a couple seconds.

and here is the answer to that question:
http://youtu.be/WigToyhO7Fo?t=2m28s

the A10 uses a 30mm cannon to do it's job.

"That's just how Ballistics work."

Edited by blinkin, 08 April 2013 - 09:28 AM.

[Deamonition]

blinkin, on 08 April 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

VS.

^^
guess which one mangles tanks within a span of a couple seconds.

and here is the answer to that question:
http://youtu.be/WigToyhO7Fo?t=2m28s

the A10 uses a 30mm cannon to do it's job.

"That's just how Ballistics work."

It seems like you want to support your point by showing that the old cannon (top picture) has a bigger barrel size than the one below, but the one below packs more punch. Do I get you correctly?

The flaw with your argument is that you compare stuff that was created in different centuries......

Normally, for things on the same technology level, The bigger the shell, the more damage it does (and the more range it's got).

That is indeed how ballistic works.

[Mechafruit]

You're comparing apples to oranges. An old sub-sonic iron cannon ball used to destroy wood and stone, vs. a super-sonic armor-piercing depleted uranium tipped shell used to destroy tanks? I think you need a better comparison to further prove your point.

While not so much supporting your idea of smaller calibers being better(Smaller generally has higher velocity and range, at the cost of damage done on impact), this gives an idea of how little is known about the actual round an autocannon fires.



That is a 120mm armor piercing sabot round fired by modern tanks. It's capable of knocking out most tanks in 1-2 hits.



That is a 30mm armor piercing round fired by the A-10 Warthog's main gun. It's capable of knocking out a tank in multiple consecutive hits in a short period of time.

Now here's a picture of an ultra autocannon found on Sarna, along with it's shell next to it.



As you can see, the shell used by the ultra autocannon is very similar to what tanks fire now. However, battletech's cannons have never had the exact shell they fire set in stone. Sometimes they're depicted firing a burst of many smaller rounds(MechWarrior 3&4), whereas other times they're shown firing a single round(MechWarrior Online). Then in this picture of a normal autocannon, it seems the round is more of a 'capsule' than the 'dart' fired from the ultra autocannon.



Who knows? Maybe the autocannons just fire large canisters that simply explode on impact, the size of the round influencing the amount of explosives being held in the round, at the cost of velocity and range? Maybe the autocannons fire a burst of multiple, smaller rounds with the rating of cannon influencing how many rounds are fired in a burst? Maybe they're gatling guns that fire hundreds of bullets in mere seconds? There's no real way of knowing for sure, because it's never been specified exactly what an autocannon fires. In MechWarrior Online though, it seems they lean towards the 'explosive capsule' of larger calibers according to cannon rating, or they fire a 'piercing dart' that gets larger in scale with cannon rating.

Edited by ZMarine123, 08 April 2013 - 10:34 AM.

[Deamonition]

ZMarine123, on 08 April 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

You're comparing apples to oranges. An old sub-sonic iron cannon ball used to destroy wood and stone, vs. a super-sonic armor-piercing depleted uranium tipped shell used to destroy tanks? I think you need a better comparison to further prove your point.

While not so much supporting your idea of smaller calibers being better(Smaller generally has higher velocity and range, at the cost of damage done on impact), this gives an idea of how little is known about the actual round an autocannon fires.



That is a 120mm armor piercing sabot round fired by modern tanks. It's capable of knocking out most tanks in 1-2 hits.



That is a 30mm armor piercing round fired by the A-10 Warthog's main gun. It's capable of knocking out a tank in multiple consecutive hits in a short period of time.

Now here's a picture of an ultra autocannon found on Sarna, along with it's shell next to it.



As you can see, the shell used by the ultra autocannon is very similar to what tanks fire now. However, battletech's cannons have never had the exact shell they fire set in stone. Sometimes they're depicted firing a burst of many smaller rounds(MechWarrior 3&4), whereas other times they're shown firing a single round(MechWarrior Online). Then in this picture of a normal autocannon, it seems the round is more of a 'capsule' than the 'dart' fired from the ultra autocannon.



Who knows? Maybe the autocannons just fire large canisters that simply explode on impact, the size of the round influencing the amount of explosives being held in the round, at the cost of velocity and range? Maybe the autocannons fire a burst of multiple, smaller rounds with the rating of cannon influencing how many rounds are fired in a burst? Maybe they're gatling guns that fire hundreds of bullets in mere seconds? There's no real way of knowing for sure, because it's never been specified exactly what an autocannon fires. In MechWarrior Online though, it seems they lean towards the 'explosive capsule' of larger calibers according to cannon rating, or they fire a 'piercing dart' that gets larger in scale with cannon rating.

I appreciate what you bring in the conversation. From what you say about PGI and their vision of ACs, I would still tend to favor size limitations for hardpoints. As you say, the philosophy seems to be that AC fire one round that increases in size with AC size. Therefore, hardpoints size limit makes sense. And it also does for missiles and other weaponry

[blinkin]

ZMarine123, on 08 April 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

..............

agreed i was simply trying to debunk all of the "bigger caliber is always better" arguments.

sir Isaac tells us that force = mass * acceleration

a single BB from an air rifle can cause just as much damage as an atomic bomb if it is accelerated to high enough speeds. or as in the example of the A10 you can simply fire 4,000 rounds per minute.

[Wildstreak]

Agree that the old cannon cannot be compared to the A10 warthog gun.

Old cannons came in different sizes and should be compared against each other.

Modern Autocannons should be compared against each other.

As for BT ACs, I stick by what was presented for years going back to when BT started. BT ACs always fired multiple shots similar to modern Autocannons, they are rapid fire like a machine gun but larger calibers based on era. I remember all the fiction writers, whenever they wrote about an AC 'shot' being fired, it was multiple rounds doing the damage, it did not matter if it was an AC2 or an AC20, they all fired multiple rounds that together did the damage and explained why damage was done to different areas for the bigger ones AC/10 and AC/20.

Strangely, current BT changed to all damage in one place that is an inaccurate representation of ACs (they seem to have done the same for Energy, I read the current BT Quick Start rules and it says LL does all damage to one spot).

MWO seems to have taken some weird hybrid where LL does splash damage that is like old BT while PPC and Balistics do all damage to one spot like new. Peersonally, I believe the last should change, ACs should do splash damage like lasers, not decided on PPC yet.

[Sybreed]

well it would be freaking amazing if ACs could have more dakka...

it would also solve the getting 1-shot issue when facing a dual AC/20.

It would still hurt like hell, but at least there's a chance the damage isn't all focused on the same place.

More dakka solves all problems

[Narcissistic Martyr]

But... you'd be taking away my AC20 raven... the only mech that consistently makes me smile.

[blinkin]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 08 April 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

But... you'd be taking away my AC20 raven... the only mech that consistently makes me smile.

14 tons without counting ammo. i would have to say i am truly impressed if you did actually do that.

i prefer the ERPPC jenner.