171 replies to this topic

[Alex Warden]

yep..after how many times he shot at the "slightly armored" cockpit of a 20ton mech? and that´s the point...it takes an MG like forever to even penetrate the lightest armor of a BattleMech... thx for the read, i only knew it from the german translation

[stjobe]

Alex Warden, on 19 August 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

yep..after how many times he shot at the "slightly armored" cockpit of a 20ton mech? and that´s the point...it takes an MG like forever to even penetrate the lightest armor of a BattleMech... thx for the read, i only knew it from the german translation

You're welcome

"Forever" is a relative term; in TT, it would take 4-5 turns (40-50 seconds) to breach the head armour of a 'mech with a single MG (2 damage per 10-second turn, max 9 armour on head). Of course, a quad- or hexa-mount would do it in a single turn (10 seconds, 8 damage for the quad mount, 12 for the hexa-mount).

And that is the same for any 'mech, no matter how large or small; head armour is capped at 9 for all 'mechs in TT.

Also note that it's debatable whether what Grayson Death was using was a 'mech-scale MG (seeing how the "grip was familiar" - do 'mech MGs even have grips? Debatable, as I said).

[ShotgunWillie]

stjobe, on 19 August 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

You're welcome

"Forever" is a relative term; in TT, it would take 4-5 turns (40-50 seconds) to breach the head armour of a 'mech with a single MG (2 damage per 10-second turn, max 9 armour on head). Of course, a quad- or hexa-mount would do it in a single turn (10 seconds, 8 damage for the quad mount, 12 for the hexa-mount).

And that is the same for any 'mech, no matter how large or small; head armour is capped at 9 for all 'mechs in TT.

Also note that it's debatable whether what Grayson Death was using was a 'mech-scale MG (seeing how the "grip was familiar" - do 'mech MGs even have grips? Debatable, as I said).

The MG Grayson used was a vehicle mounted machinegun. One could argue that it was a mech class MG mounted on a vehicle, and given a grip so it could be manually fired.

Kind of like this:



And yes, I know that's a Mark 19 grenade launcher and not a 20mm machinegun, but it still illustrates my point.

[stjobe]

ShotgunWillie, on 19 August 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

The MG Grayson used was a vehicle mounted machinegun. One could argue that it was a mech class MG mounted on a vehicle, and given a grip so it could be manually fired.

I know what you mean, and the reason I say it's debatable is because the fluff isn't really all that clear when it comes to the distinction between 'mech-mounted MGs, vehicle-mounted MGs, support MGs, Battle Armour MGs, and infantry MGs.

'Mechs mount MGs that are "vehicular-scale", some of them are fluffed as 20mm, and they all have a damage value vs 'mechs, but when they are mounted on tripods they become Support MGs and don't have a damage value against 'mechs any more.

Meanwhile Battle Armour MGs are fluffed as being "in the vicenity[sic] of 12.7 mm or 0.50 calibre" because "[t]his calibre of round is better able to damage BattleMechs, BattleArmor and Combat Vehicles", but they are "typically upgraded versions of infantry-support weapons, which can rival their larger vehicular-scale cousins" - the infantry support weapons alluded to being the Support MGs above that are vehicular-scale MGs mounted on tripods.

It's a mess.

Edited by stjobe, 19 August 2013 - 08:24 AM.

[BulletChief]

tbh when i read this part i had something like this in mind:



with a madman face on

[A banana in the tailpipe]

I don't even want to consider what LRMs would do to a vehicle that had exposed crewmembers.

[Tombstoner]

BulletChief, on 19 August 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

that's the fun of battletech... a lot of technology was lost during wars so it's a nice blend of sci-fi high-tech and fairly primitive low-tech weaponry.
even today we already have some tech that is more advanced than in the b-tech universe.

you know what einstein sad about the 4th world war... Battletech is kinda like that.

And yet every single targeting computer in the game is magically accurate... how about that ..... missed opportunity PGI.

[BulletChief]

lockwoodx, on 19 August 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

I don't even want to consider what LRMs would do to a vehicle that had exposed crewmembers.

that's what i love about the early books. weapons are crazy powerful in a real war scenario.
a single medlaser overheats like crazy and a Srm2 actually does damage^^... and flamers kill ofc

Edited by BulletChief, 19 August 2013 - 08:40 AM.

[stjobe]

BulletChief, on 19 August 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

and flamers kill ofc

Not only that, but at least two major plot points in Decision at Thunder Rift revolves around Lori Kalmar being absolutely terrified of Flamers - as are most MechWarriors in the BattleTech Universe.

When was the last time you saw a MWO MechWarrior terrified of Flamers?

[Deathlike]

stjobe, on 19 August 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

When was the last time you saw a MWO MechWarrior terrified of Flamers?

Only when there's lava below.

[Strum Wealh]

lockwoodx, on 19 August 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

I don't even want to consider what LRMs would do to a vehicle that had exposed crewmembers.

TT LRMs come in sets of 120 missiles per ton, where 1 ton is equal to 1000kg (yes, BattleTech uses metric tons).
(1000 kg)/(120 missiles) = 8.33 kg per missile

TT SRMs come in sets of 120 missiles per ton (1000 kg).
(1000 kg)/(120 missiles) = 10.00 kg per missile

A single TT LRM is roughly equal in mass (and possibly, in size) to the FIM-43 Redeye shoulder-launched missile (8.3 kg per missile), while a single TT SRM is roughly equal in mass (and possibly, in size) to the FIM-92 Stinger shoulder-launched missile (10.1 kg per missile).

For comparison, an AIM-9 Sidewinder weighs 85.3 kg per missile, an AGM-122 Sidearm weighs 88.5 kg per missile, and the AGM-144 Hellfire weighs 45.4 kg per missile.

The Arrow IV missiles (at 200 kg per missile) would be roughly the same mass/size as the Isreali "Delilah" cruise missile (at 187 kg per missile).

[AC]

Caelroigh Blunt, on 17 August 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

I will say it once again: Machineguns should NOT be able to damage BattleMechs. Look (once again) at the real world: Not even a fifty caliber machinegun can do more than scratch the paint of an Abrams tank. How is it possible in ANY universe to make a machinegun a viable weapon against reactive armor plate? Okay, machinegun ammo is better, faster, stronger, more potent in the 31st century. SO IS ARMOR. It's not right and it should be changed.

This is Battletech, Not GI Joe, World of Tanks, or any other universe. If you want to play a game in Battletech, then follow the battletech rules. machine guns do 2 damage to mech armor, heavy machine guns do 3 damage to mech armor, and light machine guns do 1 damage to mech armor. All of this internal crit nonsense needs to go and PGI should just implement them like they should be implemented.

Let me quote battletech for you in case you are still confused....

Quote

The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers, while still being effective at damaging BattleMechs. Vehicular-scale machine guns mounted on BattleMechs can lay low entire platoons in just a few passes thanks to their high rate of fire, though they are more commonly found on Combat Vehicles and ProtoMechs.^[3] These weapons are much heavier than those typically carried by infantry, but can be used by them when placed on a static mount, where they are called Support Machine Guns.^[4]Battle Armor can also carry machine guns, typically upgraded versions of infantry-support weapons, which can rival their larger vehicular-scale cousins.^[5]
Beyond the "standard" models Clan Smoke Jaguar was the first to create Light Machine Guns and Heavy Machine Guns, which the other Clans and the Inner Sphere eventually fielded as well. The Federated Suns were also the first to mount multiple machine guns on the same linked platform creating the Machine Gun Array.^[3]

Note the part about "Still damage battlemechs" Machine guns get bonuses against infantry in the board game, but they have always been used against battle armor, vehicles, and mechs. Also, if it makes you feel better... the Warthog airplane has a machine gun that fires dupleted uranium rounds that are designed to kill armored vehicles. The discription above clearly states these are large machine guns...not guns the size a human could carry.

Edited by AC, 19 August 2013 - 11:31 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Lil Cthulhu, on 17 August 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_Gun
Technical specifications Heat 0 Damage 2 Minimum Range 0

Damage 2

Damage 2

Damage 2

Damage 2

Just make sure you remember that when you have MGs doing as much damage as a MWO AC2.

stjobe, on 19 August 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

Not only that, but at least two major plot points in Decision at Thunder Rift revolves around Lori Kalmar being absolutely terrified of Flamers - as are most MechWarriors in the BattleTech Universe.

When was the last time you saw a MWO MechWarrior terrified of Flamers?

When's the last time you saw a TT play afraid of Flamers?

[AC]

MWO machine guns SHOULD do as much damage as the AC2. The difference between the two weapons is range. The AC2 can reach out and touch you across the battle field. Machine guns are point blank weapons. If PGI could create maps with more variety of terrain rather than forcing these point blank fights, we would see better balance between the range weapons and brawl weapons.

[Joseph Mallan]

AC, on 19 August 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

MWO machine guns SHOULD do as much damage as the AC2. The difference between the two weapons is range. The AC2 can reach out and touch you across the battle field. Machine guns are point blank weapons. If PGI could create maps with more variety of terrain rather than forcing these point blank fights, we would see better balance between the range weapons and brawl weapons.

If you think a 0.5 ton weapon should do as much damage as a 6 ton weapon you are having logic issues.

[AC]

You are looking at it wrong. The AC2 is 2 damage per round to a single panel. Machine Gun is 2 damage over the same time frame. the MG spreads damage....

Not to mention PGI multiplied the MG ammo by 10x. They should have 200 rounds per ton, not 2000. That would go a long way to balancing them as well.

[Joseph Mallan]

AC, on 19 August 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

You are looking at it wrong. The AC2 is 2 damage per round to a single panel. Machine Gun is 2 damage over the same time frame. the MG spreads damage....

Not to mention PGI multiplied the MG ammo by 10x. They should have 200 rounds per ton, not 2000. That would go a long way to balancing them as well.

I do not want to see a single Machine gun matching a weapon 12 times its weight. At all. Ever.

[AC]

seems to work in table top, no reason why it couldn't work here with some balancing considerations. How has Megamech and TT gotten away with it for so long?

[Joseph Mallan]

AC, on 19 August 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

seems to work in table top, no reason why it couldn't work here with some balancing considerations. How has Megamech and TT gotten away with it for so long?

On TT it is a joke weapon unless mounted by the dozen. AC2s are also a PoS on TT. 2 points of damage only scare lights and Mechs with thin armor on the TT game. A MG should be a ballistic version of a small laser.

[One Medic Army]

AC, on 19 August 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

seems to work in table top, no reason why it couldn't work here with some balancing considerations. How has Megamech and TT gotten away with it for so long?

Here's the difference:
In TT short-range was a bigger penalty than it is here.

Small lasers/MGs were almost impossible to get into range to use (let alone melee).
You needed to win initiative, and you needed to have good enough speed.

In MWO you don't even need all that much speed, and our mechs are much faster (due to Endo, DHS, XL engines)