171 replies to this topic

[SecondReversal]

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.

I will say it once again: nobody cares about your fluff-based balancing concerns. Battletech is an inherently flawed system, and we're all stuck working within that inherently flawed system. It is pure and unmitigated fallacy to cripple Battlemech designs and weapons due to concerns about the realism of that system.

Guess what? Battlemechs are already a stupid idea! Nearly all implementations of Battletech weaponry is stupid! Get over it.

This is a competitive game - Intentionally building inferiority into the system is counterproductive at best, and lunacy at worst. If you want a true to life vehicular combat sim, go play IL-2 Sturmovik or Steel Beasts Pro or some such other property.

[Cherry Darling]

The machine guns mounted on mechs are not "human" scale MGs. They are much larger and are meant to be effective against infantry as well armoured targets.

[SweetWarmIce]

Bullseye69, on 17 August 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

According to smurfy's weapon chart

Machine guns do 1 DPS per second has no cool down and no heat.

That means a jagermech with 6 machine guns does 6dps per second.

That means for 10 seconds of fire it did 60 points of damage and fired 60 bullets.

60 points of every 10 seconds for 60 seconds is 360 points of damage in a minute.

360 points of damage for 2 minutes is 720 points of damage.

I don't know nay mech that has 720 points of armor on any place so machine gun 720 bullets used, one dead enemy mech.

The mech still has 1280 rounds of ammo left on that one ton he spent for 2000 rounds.

I just constructed a jagermech with full armor, 300 stock engine 6 machine guns and 2 er ppc plus 6000 round of machine gun ammo with case the rest of the weight was double heat sink and had a non speed tweak of over 73 kph. The only down side i see on that mech as far as the machine guns is that it only has 3 tons of ammo and that is only 6000 rounds.
Which means it can fire from start of match and barring destruction fire for 15 minutes straight without running out of ammo and at games end still have 600 round of ammo left. That is if smurfy's damage chart is right and it only does 1 damage a second from 1 machine gun multiplied by the 6 machine guns you have , that a lot of damage for any mech especailly one that faster than a lot of assault and some heavys.

If you actually take that build into a match, it is no where near as effective as theory crafting makes it out to be.

[Vassago Rain]

They are not M16 machineguns.
They are not 50 caliber machineguns.

They are 30mm, half ton, self-contained weapon systems, that 4 nerds in the 80s called 'machineguns.' They do 2 damage, whih is the same damage as an AC2.

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

this


is used in 2013 to take out APC and tanks every day.
It is safe to say that in 3050 or what ever we are in they will have the equivalent or better.

Just because you played TT does not mean you know how weapons actually work.

p.s. a 50 cal sniper rifle now (2013) can pierce the armor of an Abrams tank. Stop pretending to know what you have no clue about! You look silly!

[Tincan Nightmare]

I find it funny that so many people are concerned about MG's doing damage to Mechs, in comparison to all of the other BT 'space magic' that permeates the rules. I mean in BT lighter caliber bullets travel the farthest (except for MG's) but have trouble hitting something up close (minimum range rule), 'long' range missiles reach out to 630 meters (TT stats) and are fired in clusters because most will just simply miss, that armor has 'hit points' instead of a weapon either being defeated by the armor or being powerful enough to punch thru, and finally that an infantry platoon equipped with rifles can inflict damage to Mechs. Yes, in BT a group of 28 soldiers can unload their assault rifles and actually hurt a 2 legged tank. And finally, Battle Armor carries support MG's, something comparable to a 50 cal, but it has the same stats as a 20mm MG carried by a Mech. Its MIND BOGGLING ! But we love it anyway .

[Tincan Nightmare]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 17 August 2013 - 09:20 PM, said:

this


is used in 2013 to take out APC and tanks every day.
It is safe to say that in 3050 or what ever we are in they will have the equivalent or better.

Just because you played TT does not mean you know how weapons actually work.

p.s. a 50 cal sniper rifle now (2013) can pierce the armor of an Abrams tank. Stop pretending to know what you have no clue about! You look silly!

That looks like a triple mount of 7.62mm mini-guns. Maybe some older APC's might be threatened by that if fired at from above (if mounted on a chopper) but most modern armor won't sweat trying to handle 30 caliber rounds. And maybe a 50cal sniper round can pierce an Abrams armor, but it probably depends on where it lands. The soviets used anti-tank rifles during WWII, but they aimed at vision blocks, tracks, and other vulnerable areas, they weren't shooting straight through armor. Don't give fuel to the fire for why MG's shouldn't work, BT 80's scifi tech is enough reason why MG's are damaging mechs.

[Ralgas]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 17 August 2013 - 09:20 PM, said:

Just because you played TT does not mean you know how weapons actually work.

p.s. a 50 cal sniper rifle now (2013) can pierce the armor of an Abrams tank. Stop pretending to know what you have no clue about! You look silly!

That's just it though, anyone who played TT or bothered to look at the stats rather than just the descriptions knows the mg we have now are WEAKSAUCE compared to the value's they are based off. The reason they did that is because if they put out the scale TT based dmg we typically have they'd be the ac/40 of ballistic mechs and 5v's would be 10x worse than they are dodgy hit detection or not......

Edited by Ralgas, 17 August 2013 - 09:40 PM.

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

Tincan Nightmare, on 17 August 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

That looks like a triple mount of 7.62mm mini-guns. Maybe some older APC's might be threatened by that if fired at from above (if mounted on a chopper) but most modern armor won't sweat trying to handle 30 caliber rounds. And maybe a 50cal sniper round can pierce an Abrams armor, but it probably depends on where it lands. The soviets used anti-tank rifles during WWII, but they aimed at vision blocks, tracks, and other vulnerable areas, they weren't shooting straight through armor. Don't give fuel to the fire for why MG's shouldn't work, BT 80's scifi tech is enough reason why MG's are damaging mechs.

this......



is a M197 20mm Automatic Gun

piercing heavy armor is what it does.


The Cobra attack helicopter with this gun eats heavy's for breakfast.

OH but what about a a-10 Warthog and its auto cannon. The dont call the Warthog the "tank killer" for nothing.






they eat heavy armor for lunch with room left over for dinner.


The point is we have automatic or "machine guns" now thats primary purpose is to take out light and heavy armor. Do we now need to get into the depleted uranium high explosive armor piercing rounds also?

If we can do it now, they can do it then. But then again lasers are not real but people have no issue forgetting that do they. Atleast not in the capacity they are used in this game. Lasers can remove hair now though.

Edited by Funkadelic Mayhem, 17 August 2013 - 10:20 PM.

[Koniving]

Strum Wealh, on 17 August 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

Most BT references for the Machine Gun give it as a 20mm weapon, making it more similar to the M61 Vulcan (Gatling-type weapon that uses a 20mm x 102mm cartridge) or the M39 Cannon (revolver-type weapon that uses a 20mm x 102mm cartridge), than to the 0.50 caliber M2 Browning (which uses a 12.7mm x 99mm cartridge).

MGs are 20mm weapons (and fire bullets, which are by definition solid and non-explosive projectiles); 30mm weapons (especially those that fire explosive shells rather than bullets) are AC/2s.

That is, the MG would be equivalent to the M61 or the M39 (sans the bullet vs shell issue), while the GAU-8 would be the equivalent of a RAC/2 (with the standard, non-rotary AC/2 being more similar to the ADEN cannon, the DEFA cannon, or the MK 108 cannon).

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_gun
So it would seem. I'm actually surprised there are so many variants of MGs.

Wonder how MWO would try to implement even half of them?

On a side note... Some MG usage.

Edited by Koniving, 17 August 2013 - 10:20 PM.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 17 August 2013 - 10:13 PM, said:

this......



is a M197 20mm Automatic Gun

piercing heavy armor is what it does.


The Cobra attack helicopter with this gun eats heavy's for breakfast.

OH but what about a a-10 Warthog and its auto cannon. The dont call the Warthog the "tank killer" for nothing.






they eat heavy armor for lunch with room left over for dinner.


The point is we have automatic or "machine guns" now thats primary purpose is to take out light and heavy armor. Do we now need to get into the depleted uranium high explosive armor piercing rounds also?

If we can do it now, they can do it then. But then again lasers are not real but people have no issue forgetting that do they. Atleast not in the capacity they are used in this game. Lasers can remove hair now though.

People keep throwing the Gau-8 out whenever BT MG's come up, and it is a powerful weapon system, but its max armor penetration is 69mm at 500 meters and 38mm at 1000 meters. That's the reason it is mounted on an aircraft, its is shooting 'down' at the thinly armored roofs of armored vehicles. An M1 Abrams frontal turret armor is estimated at 940 to 960mm of RHA versus kinetic energy penetrators. Its why it carries an 120mm gun to engage other tanks. And Cobras and Apaches hunt tanks with TOW and Hellfire anti-tank missiles. I'm not saying those 20 and 30mm guns can't damage or destroy armor (a T-72 is reported to have been destroyed by a Bradleys 25mm chaingun, though I don't know if it was a side or rear shot), but they are not the weapon of choice for that role. Which is perfect for how MG's work in MWO right now .

[Sephlock]

SecondReversal, on 17 August 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

I will say it once again: nobody cares about your fluff-based balancing concerns.

Actually, the grognards do, and in any event based on the fluff, MGs should be effective against Battlemechs. Also, based on the fact that the armor is ablative in nature, MGs should work just fine. And that's not even mentioning how big the machineguns are, or that they are designed for use against Battlemechs...

As far as I can tell the only people who still say this stuff about MGs are newbies and trolls. Or newbie trolls.

Quote

Guess what? Battlemechs are already a stupid idea! Nearly all implementations of Battletech weaponry is stupid! Get over it.

[Angel of Annihilation]

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.

Well I guess it depends on the size of the machine gun. Take the A10 Warthogs machine gun. It is a 30mm gun that fires depleted uranium tipped shells. They go right through a tank. I saw a schematic listing the Madcat MGs as .80 calibur. .50 cal is 12.7mm so .80 cal would be a 20mm gun which is not that much smaller than used in the A10.

Also there is some lore behind MGs being used to take out light mechs. I forget what novel it was but it was one of the first ones where some 20 ton light mechs were killed by the use of a Heavy MG.

[Mcgral18]

Tincan Nightmare, on 17 August 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

People keep throwing the Gau-8 out whenever BT MG's come up, and it is a powerful weapon system, but its max armor penetration is 69mm at 500 meters and 38mm at 1000 meters. That's the reason it is mounted on an aircraft, its is shooting 'down' at the thinly armored roofs of armored vehicles. An M1 Abrams frontal turret armor is estimated at 940 to 960mm of RHA versus kinetic energy penetrators. Its why it carries an 120mm gun to engage other tanks. And Cobras and Apaches hunt tanks with TOW and Hellfire anti-tank missiles. I'm not saying those 20 and 30mm guns can't damage or destroy armor (a T-72 is reported to have been destroyed by a Bradleys 25mm chaingun, though I don't know if it was a side or rear shot), but they are not the weapon of choice for that role. Which is perfect for how MG's work in MWO right now .

Well, something tells me they might be a bit more effective within 90M-120M, MWO's range. I wish they were the short range AC2 damage of lore, but the most recent patch made them useable at least. Crit-seeking is better than no damage.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Tincan Nightmare, on 17 August 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

People keep throwing the Gau-8 out whenever BT MG's come up, and it is a powerful weapon system, but its max armor penetration is 69mm at 500 meters and 38mm at 1000 meters. That's the reason it is mounted on an aircraft, its is shooting 'down' at the thinly armored roofs of armored vehicles. An M1 Abrams frontal turret armor is estimated at 940 to 960mm of RHA versus kinetic energy penetrators. Its why it carries an 120mm gun to engage other tanks. And Cobras and Apaches hunt tanks with TOW and Hellfire anti-tank missiles. I'm not saying those 20 and 30mm guns can't damage or destroy armor (a T-72 is reported to have been destroyed by a Bradleys 25mm chaingun, though I don't know if it was a side or rear shot), but they are not the weapon of choice for that role. Which is perfect for how MG's work in MWO right now .

You also not considering the materials armor on mechs are made of. I am going to use standard body armor for example. The ceramic hardplate in standard body armor will stop up to a 7.62mm round pretty easily, however it erodes after the plate gets hit. The material essentually powers and loses it stopping power. Even the best ceramic plate will only stop 2-3 rounds before something has a high likelyhood of penetrating.

Mech armor could be very similar. It does very well against the first hit stopping even the most powerful AC/20 or Gauss rounds, however as it takes damage it degrads in effectiveness to the point anything can penetrate it. Since each shot degrades it, a MG could also degrade it over time.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 17 August 2013 - 09:20 PM, said:

this


is used in 2013 to take out APC and tanks every day.
It is safe to say that in 3050 or what ever we are in they will have the equivalent or better.

Just because you played TT does not mean you know how weapons actually work.

p.s. a 50 cal sniper rifle now (2013) can pierce the armor of an Abrams tank. Stop pretending to know what you have no clue about! You look silly!

Actually hate to break this to you but what you have pictures is a 7.62mm minigun or rather a triple mount 7.62mm mini gun. This is the same round fired by the M60 machine gun or a standard sniper rifle and it absolutely will not penetrate a tank. In fact it would have issue penetrating a Humvee fitted with ballastic plates.

Also a .50 cal round will not penetrate a MBT, not even with armor piercing rounds. It maybe be able to penetrate some lightly armored APCs or Recon vehicles that can't be penetrated by standard man portable MGs.

Honestly it is not till you get to the 20mm range of cannon that you start seeing any real armor piercing capability and even then you would have to engage the MBTS from above at a very shallow angle like from an aircraft.

[Hammerfinn]

SweetWarmIce, on 17 August 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

If you actually take that build into a match, it is no where near as effective as theory crafting makes it out to be.

I dunno. I've been killed by these guys FAST if they do it right.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Viktor Drake, on 17 August 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

You also not considering the materials armor on mechs are made of. I am going to use standard body armor for example. The ceramic hardplate in standard body armor will stop up to a 7.62mm round pretty easily, however it erodes after the plate gets hit. The material essentually powers and loses it stopping power. Even the best ceramic plate will only stop 2-3 rounds before something has a high likelyhood of penetrating.

Mech armor could be very similar. It does very well against the first hit stopping even the most powerful AC/20 or Gauss rounds, however as it takes damage it degrads in effectiveness to the point anything can penetrate it. Since each shot degrades it, a MG could also degrade it over time.

Hey I'm all for MG's being a usable weapon in the game. MWO is an online multiplayer game set in the BT universe, and in that universe mech and vehicle MG's (and even battle armor) can inflict damage on a mech (or vehicle or battle armor). I just always find it funny how the Gau-8 is depicted as a weapon that just shoots straight through tanks. Especially when you consider that the Marauders AC5 is a 120mm cannon that fires a 3 round burst. I mean a triple tap from a 120mm weapon has more wear down than a 30mm rotary gun. I just think people should realize that BT is more 80's pseudo science, so whether a mechs MG is comparable to a Gau-8 is immaterial to the more important issue of game balance.

[-Natural Selection-]

The day Jags came out I bought a DD and dropped 6 mgs on there bacause I thought it was fun and pretty funny. Now with the mg buff I see quite a few more. It isnt the peel your armor off build that most make it out to be. If you stand there thinking the mgs are wrecking you, you are wrong. Really have to pick where to go, and who to shoot. I have seen over 1100 damage rounds, but when it goes wrong dont be suprised with 40 lol.

Its a build that works good with a good (drop)group make up, communicating well. Otherwise if you treat it like an ac40 build you will be very disappointed. You are not going to just stomp around plowing people.

[stjobe]

Two things:
1. BattleTech's 'mech-mounted MGs are huge things, half a ton. They're not the piddly little man-portable machineguns we use today. Also, they benefit from about a thousand years of weapons technology research, the same research that took modern-day tank guns and turned them into Rifles, and then turned those Rifles into Autocannons.

The MG is designed to damage BattleMech armour, that's why it has a damage value of 2 against 'mechs. With its high volume of fire, it's also extremely effective against infantry (which incidentally includes powered-armour infantry), killing 2-12 of those with a single burst.

In short, it's ludicrous to argue that because modern-day machineguns don't have much effect on the hardened-steel armour of modern-day tanks, BattleTech MGs don't have much effect on BattleTech armour (and see next point).

2. BattleMechs have ablative armour, not the hardened steel armour of our modern-day tanks. It's designed to peel off and dissipate incoming attacks. Because of that, it's entirely conceivable that a very high volume-of-fire weapon like the MG is quite effective at peeling off such armour rapidly.

The MG is not a modern-day machine gun, and it's not firing at modern-day armour.

The MG is a 1000-years-in-the-future sci-fi weapon, firing at the 1000-years-in-the-future sci-fi armour of giant walking machines of war that fills the same niche as medieval knights, so can we please stop with the inane ".50s can't kill tanks, so MGs shouldn't hurt 'mechs" please? It only shows you have no idea of the rich 28 years of lore this fictional universe has.

And just because it has to be said: When designing a game, game-play trumps all realism, and Rule of Cool is way more important than the Laws of Physics.