404 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

Varent, on 05 March 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

found another example of a single shot ac20. Not that I really like using sarna but since people keep throwing out sarna examples of why its not BT.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Thunder

Weapons and Equipment
The primary weapon on the Thunder is the massive Kali Yama Big Bore Autocannon/20 which is capable of devastating most lighter 'Mechs with a single shot.

Joseph Mallan, on 05 March 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

Not to burst your bubble... Cause I like single shot ACs. The 3055 (Update) TRO does not mention a single shot. There are at least 4 of Each TRO (original, Update, Upgrade, Revised). So only the newest fluff counts in some cases.

Neither the original, the upgraded, nor the revised version of TRO 3055 contains that line about "devastating most lighter 'Mechs with a single shot", so I don't really know where sarna got that from (as it seems to have been there since the page was created back in 2006).

Varent, on 05 March 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

Anyways...

One shot 20 damage, increase CD abit.

One shot 5 damage per round burst 4 total of 20 damage over .4 seconds. Less heat or lower cd (take your pick)

One shot 2 damage per round burst 10 total of 20 damage over .25 seconds. (ditto of above options)

One shot delay mechanic allow for firing every .5 seconds (5 damage per round) over 2 seconds, 1 second cool down repeat.


These would all be interesting ways you could setup the different manufacturers of the ac20 while retaining the damage and making both parties happy.

I'm still not convinced that increasing the CD by an unspecified amount compensates adequately for the guarantee of doing 100% damage to one section.

Believe it or not, but I'm all for different manufacturers with differing characteristics, but I've yet to see a solution that adequately compensates the non-FLD versions to where they're equally powerful as the FLD versions (while not making the FLD versions simply sub-par).

Not that I have the solution myself, of course. If I did, you'd be hearing about it non-stop

Edited by stjobe, 05 March 2014 - 12:54 PM.

[Varent]

stjobe, on 05 March 2014 - 12:53 PM, said:

Neither the original, the upgraded, nor the revised version of TRO 3055 contains that line about "devastating most lighter 'Mechs with a single shot", so I don't really know where sarna got that from (as it seems to have been there since the page was created back in 2006).


I'm still not convinced that increasing the CD by an unspecified amount compensates adequately for the guarantee of doing 100% damage to one section.

Believe it or not, but I'm all for different manufacturers with differing characteristics, but I've yet to see a solution that adequately compensates the non-FLD versions to where they're equally powerful as the FLD versions (while not making the FLD versions simply sub-par).

Not that I have the solution myself, of course. If I did, you'd be hearing about it non-stop

1st statement) already gave the answer right.... here....

Varent, on 05 March 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

Bad system is bad. And not made for online gaming. In fact it predates it so far back that it wasnt even a mild consideration. Point was showing another example for the lols. Larger point is you can have your cake and eat it too AND it makes both sides happy.

2nd statement) I purposefully didnt give numbers since id like people to play around with ideas and make there own assumptions as to what would be fair. Id love to see all types of different ac out there with all types of numbers and variations. I want people to be able to make there mech PERFECTLY how they want it. And I would love to see this implimented in CW where people travel to certain sections just to pick up the right ac and then get pissed if its destroyed and have to travel there again or go with something sub par to what they want. It would make a more interesting and diverse world.

Edited by Varent, 05 March 2014 - 12:59 PM.

[Cimarb]

El Space Doctor, on 05 March 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

GI Joe? I remember some kid had a GI Joe figurine when I was a kid, but that's about all I know about the IP. And that they did movies, which I'm not really in rush to see. Did they have laser warmachines? Also, just think about how cool star wars would've been if they instead of those light sabers had machine cannon sabers? Missile sabers? Railgun sabers? MECH SABERS!?!?!? That wrinkly green midget bashing those black metal guys on top of the head with a cataphract that has an old persian saber duct taped to it's hand. That I'd watch.

Yeah, GI Joe had all energy weapons, at least in the cartoons - it was a way to get around the lame 80s "make peace not war" people that also almost made the Mustang be replaced by the Probe... /shiver...

Star Wars probably would have been a better example, since it is more universally known. Light sabers were the epitome of that genre, though, and while they did have huge machine guns and such, they are just not nearly as iconic. If you want more mundane weaponry, there are plenty of those movies out there too.

El Space Doctor, on 05 March 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

Ah, I usually ignore sigs (you know, they're often filled with silly brigade emblems and links to silly ways to improve games ) so after reading your not silly original proposal what you wrote later on about makes more sense. Still, an eight-nine ton 2 DPS system doesn't really seem like the most competitive and balanced weapon around, but your basework is definately something that could be used for a baseline to start testing.

Ahh... the idea of the racket a six AC 2 jager would make firing roughly 110 shots per second. With a party mix: one third tracer, one third incediary armor piercing and one third high explosives, simply for the effect... Yeah. I could get behind that provided they lessened the heat and dumped ghost. Even if it ended up doing just 12 dps, those light bridges woven across the battlefield with sound resembling an a-10 on a strafing run would make it worth playing that completely useless build.

A Jäger was designed to be an Anti-Aircraft defense machine, and filled that niche very, very well. I would LOVE to have the ACs be Gatling guns (BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR) they should be instead of the POP-POP-POP they currently are.

Ghost heat was implemented because PGI was trying to address high-alpha damage caused by front-loaded (FLD) weapons such as ACs and PPCs. Remove that FLD, and ghost heat is unneeded. Fix the heat system, and oh what a happy, easily balanced world this would be!

[Cimarb]

stjobe, on 05 March 2014 - 12:53 PM, said:

I'm still not convinced that increasing the CD by an unspecified amount compensates adequately for the guarantee of doing 100% damage to one section.

Believe it or not, but I'm all for different manufacturers with differing characteristics, but I've yet to see a solution that adequately compensates the non-FLD versions to where they're equally powerful as the FLD versions (while not making the FLD versions simply sub-par).

Not that I have the solution myself, of course. If I did, you'd be hearing about it non-stop

The first step is to get the ACs balanced against each other, to set a benchmark, and then throw some variations in the mix to compare. THEN you can start seeing what is subpar and adjust from there by adding heat to individual variations, longer cool downs, etc. it all has to start with TRYING ideas, though, and that is where PGI comes in, unfortunately.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 05 March 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

A Jäger was designed to be an Anti-Aircraft defense machine, and filled that niche very, very well. I would LOVE to have the ACs be Gatling guns (BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR) they should be instead of the POP-POP-POP they currently are.

I think they implimented the jager specifically because they couldnt bring out the rifleman due to legal issues. So really it should be used to fullfill more rolls then simply anti-air.

That said if you really want anti air ....lbx 2?

Cimarb, on 05 March 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

The first step is to get the ACs balanced against each other, to set a benchmark, and then throw some variations in the mix to compare. THEN you can start seeing what is subpar and adjust from there by adding heat to individual variations, longer cool downs, etc. it all has to start with TRYING ideas, though, and that is where PGI comes in, unfortunately.

Agree with everything except balancing with each other. But im on the same page good sir.

[Mirkk Defwode]

stjobe, on 27 February 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

Well, no. Not a single AC in lore has been described as being single shot, and just one UAC/20 is possibly single-shot (although it could as well be burst-fire). The lore says that single-shot ACs are *possible*, but none have yet been described.

I'm just going to leave this here.

Quote

The Autocannon is a direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) rounds at targets either singly or in bursts.
Different manufacturers and models of autocannons have different calibers (25mm-203mm) and rates of fire. Due to this, autocannons are grouped into generic "classes" of autocannons with common damage ratings, with Autocannon/20s doing massive damage while having very short range.
An example of the rating system: the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon is a 150mm weapon firing ten shells per "round" while the Chemjet Gun is a 185mm weapon firing much slower, and causing higher damage per shell. Despite their differences, both are classified as Autocannon/20s due to their damage output.

Now as a side note to that, the descriptions in lore were much along the lines of "burp of fire" in many of the novels.

Also people need to learn the difference between "Burst" and "Sustained" fire.

No weapons engineer in their right mind would ever design a weapon to fire in a "Burst" in excess of 3 rounds. Infact many new modern weapons (Infantry Rifles specifically) have been going to a two round burst because the recoil doesn't impact the user before the second round exits the barrel.

Now along that same line, "Sustained" fire is an automatic weapon where the user determines the burst length on their own by pulling the trigger. Light Machinegun operators in the infantry do this with their weapons to establish covering fire, or even just suspression on target by holding down the trigger for a longer duration where anything from 6 to 20 rounds could leave the weapon. If they're at a standing position while firing you'll find this to be a lot shorter trigger pull than if they're prone or in a rest postition as they want the weapon to still be in their control.

In comparison Light armor and Aircraft today fitted with Autocannons use this Sustained fire in their normal operations. Now there are exceptions like the A-10 Warthog with it's GAU-8 are specifcally designed for Sustained fire with an exceptionally high rate of fire.

If you want Autocannons to become multiple shot weapons, I suggest we just make them sustained fire, with their magazines limited to the shots you'd like to see. IE in the range of 4-10 Rounds before a -LONG- reload period.

In MW:LL the autocannons carried that design for a time period which many people liked.

It's a win for the people who want multiple shots for autocannons to limit the pinpoint accuracy and still allows the weapon to be controllable. The rate of fire would need to be adjusted for various classes of autocannons.

When RACs are introduced later you just keep the damage values and drastically increase the RoF from what the UAC is.

RAC is double UAC and UAC is double AC for RoF sort of thing while the standard damage remains roughly the same. While having that higher RoF can also have a higher instance of weapon jams for long instances of sustained fire as a mitigating factor.

We can have this done correctly and in a balanced fashion.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 05 March 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

I think they implimented the jager specifically because they couldnt bring out the rifleman due to legal issues. So really it should be used to fullfill more rolls then simply anti-air.

That said if you really want anti air ....lbx 2?

In MWO, yes, but not in Battletech. Even in BT, though, it was used for more than AA - that was just its original purpose.

As for the Rifleman, I can't find any novels that described the autocannons before the Clans, but some of the main characters in the later Dark Age books piloted a Hatchetman (Aaron Sandoval) and another a Rifleman, and it often described them "walking" the shots across an enemy mech. I can't remember the name of the guy they were hunting down (an ex-senator or something), but there was a lot of good descriptive stuff about ACs in those novels.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 05 March 2014 - 01:27 PM, said:

In MWO, yes, but not in Battletech. Even in BT, though, it was used for more than AA - that was just its original purpose.

As for the Rifleman, I can't find any novels that described the autocannons before the Clans, but some of the main characters in the later Dark Age books piloted a Hatchetman (Aaron Sandoval) and another a Rifleman, and it often described them "walking" the shots across an enemy mech. I can't remember the name of the guy they were hunting down (an ex-senator or something), but there was a lot of good descriptive stuff about ACs in those novels.

one of my favorite novels uses a rifleman actually.

familiar with cammachos cabaleros?

One of the main chars (that sadly dies) is desribed using a rifle man quite extensively as a medium range sniping mech. Often reffering to it as the "sure shot"

Its described as firing singular slugs mostly. Also very specifically describes a 'paint round' that they used for training purposes. Wich given my paintball background simply made me chuckle and smile.

Edited by Varent, 05 March 2014 - 01:31 PM.

[Cimarb]

Mirkk Defwode, on 05 March 2014 - 01:22 PM, said:

I'm just going to leave this here.


Now as a side note to that, the descriptions in lore were much along the lines of "burp of fire" in many of the novels.

Also people need to learn the difference between "Burst" and "Sustained" fire.

No weapons engineer in their right mind would ever design a weapon to fire in a "Burst" in excess of 3 rounds. Infact many new modern weapons (Infantry Rifles specifically) have been going to a two round burst because the recoil doesn't impact the user before the second round exits the barrel.

Now along that same line, "Sustained" fire is an automatic weapon where the user determines the burst length on their own by pulling the trigger. Light Machinegun operators in the infantry do this with their weapons to establish covering fire, or even just suspression on target by holding down the trigger for a longer duration where anything from 6 to 20 rounds could leave the weapon. If they're at a standing position while firing you'll find this to be a lot shorter trigger pull than if they're prone or in a rest postition as they want the weapon to still be in their control.

In comparison Light armor and Aircraft today fitted with Autocannons use this Sustained fire in their normal operations. Now there are exceptions like the A-10 Warthog with it's GAU-8 are specifcally designed for Sustained fire with an exceptionally high rate of fire.

If you want Autocannons to become multiple shot weapons, I suggest we just make them sustained fire, with their magazines limited to the shots you'd like to see. IE in the range of 4-10 Rounds before a -LONG- reload period.

In MW:LL the autocannons carried that design for a time period which many people liked.

It's a win for the people who want multiple shots for autocannons to limit the pinpoint accuracy and still allows the weapon to be controllable. The rate of fire would need to be adjusted for various classes of autocannons.

When RACs are introduced later you just keep the damage values and drastically increase the RoF from what the UAC is.

RAC is double UAC and UAC is double AC for RoF sort of thing while the standard damage remains roughly the same. While having that higher RoF can also have a higher instance of weapon jams for long instances of sustained fire as a mitigating factor.

We can have this done correctly and in a balanced fashion.

We cover a lot of that in the thread I keep bringing up (http://mwomercs.com/...13#entry3113813), but you are correct. Phrasing is always a communication issue, and burst is just easier to say over and over and over again than sustained, when in implementation they are roughly the same thing. Sustained would be a burst fire that did NOT have a cooldown period, for instance, while you describe a sustained fire that has a cooldown, which would actually be just a potentially really long burst. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 05 March 2014 - 01:30 PM, said:

one of my favorite novels uses a rifleman actually.

familiar with cammachos cabaleros?

One of the main chars (that sadly dies) is desribed using a rifle man quite extensively as a medium range sniping mech. Often reffering to it as the "sure shot"

Its described as firing singular slugs mostly. Also very specifically describes a 'paint round' that they used for training purposes. Wich given my paintball background simply made me chuckle and smile.

I'm not familiar with them, so I had to look it up. I am pretty sure I read Close Quarters, but I went into the Army in 1995, so I missed the second and third book that were released after that. I can't promise I will be able to read them now, though, as I just don't have the patience to sit and read a book like I used to...

A medium range sniping mech makes me think of an AC5 in MWO, actually. That is what a lot of people use them as. I'm actually not opposed to that staying in the game, as I think 4-5 damage would be a good "sweet spot" to limit single hits, but that would be down the road after we saw how FLD versions compared to more burst or sustained versions.

[stjobe]

Mirkk Defwode, on 05 March 2014 - 01:22 PM, said:

I'm just going to leave this here.


Now as a side note to that, the descriptions in lore were much along the lines of "burp of fire" in many of the novels.

Well, I've given extensive quotes from the novels and included scans from the Tech Manual (and that's just one of the more recent posts), but there's just no convincing some people that all or at least most ACs are single-shot - because that's how the (simplified from lore) TT mechanic worked.

Mirkk Defwode, on 05 March 2014 - 01:22 PM, said:

Also people need to learn the difference between "Burst" and "Sustained" fire.
[...]
If you want Autocannons to become multiple shot weapons, I suggest we just make them sustained fire, with their magazines limited to the shots you'd like to see. IE in the range of 4-10 Rounds before a -LONG- reload period.

I've actually toyed a bit with the idea that all weapons could be sustained-fire. Lasers, ACs, missiles, all of them. Hold down the trigger and they fire a beam or stream of projectiles/missiles until you let off. Adjust rate of fire and damage to where the DPS is where it is now, and balance from there.

The idea has several benefits, and of course some drawbacks. The FLD crowd isn't going to like it, for one thing, but I find it interesting to toy with these ideas and try to work out what it would do to the game and its game-play.

Edited by stjobe, 05 March 2014 - 01:51 PM.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Cimarb, on 05 March 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:

We cover a lot of that in the thread I keep bringing up (http://mwomercs.com/...13#entry3113813), but you are correct. Phrasing is always a communication issue, and burst is just easier to say over and over and over again than sustained, when in implementation they are roughly the same thing. Sustained would be a burst fire that did NOT have a cooldown period, for instance, while you describe a sustained fire that has a cooldown, which would actually be just a potentially really long burst. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

I agree "Burst" is easier to say, but it makes me uneasy as when I first worked on MW:LL they did have autocannons in the closed builds setup as 6 to 8 round mechanical bursts that were near uncontrollable. You'd get 2-4 shells on target and the rest would completely miss.

I tend to also find designs that lack logic in the design for their functionality infuriating and I'd loathe to see the ACs become something like that. I can assure everyone that they wouldn't be functional and wouldn't be fun to use. Mirroring existing mechanical weapons design either through modern rifles or autocannons even to the degree of autoloading tanks and artillery pieces is the best solution to many of these woes.

I'm also in favor of expanding our weapons along the lines of what Mechwarrior Tactics has done by having variations based on manufactuer that would have differences in their behavior but still fit within classifications. This would allow those that want a larger single shot weapon and those that want sustained fire weapons can go hand in hand, the solution to making them both valuable is that the single shot weapons do near the same damage as the multi-shot weapons but overall those multishot weapons do more damage for their magazine capacity.

[Rebas Kradd]

Couldn't you just slow the AC5 velocity to 1200 or something? Might not require any more than a tiny change to eliminate the PPC-combo pinpoint effect...

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 05 March 2014 - 01:56 PM.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 05 March 2014 - 01:44 PM, said:

I'm not familiar with them, so I had to look it up. I am pretty sure I read Close Quarters, but I went into the Army in 1995, so I missed the second and third book that were released after that. I can't promise I will be able to read them now, though, as I just don't have the patience to sit and read a book like I used to...

A medium range sniping mech makes me think of an AC5 in MWO, actually. That is what a lot of people use them as. I'm actually not opposed to that staying in the game, as I think 4-5 damage would be a good "sweet spot" to limit single hits, but that would be down the road after we saw how FLD versions compared to more burst or sustained versions.

was a good book, actually kinda wanna re read it now... *shrug* I would love to sit down and thought process out some things sometime. Though as Ive said above, still would love to at least see that a dev has read and maybe thought about this. I know they mentioned it for CW already. dunno if they would consider it before then.

Rebas Kradd, on 05 March 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

Couldn't you just slow the AC5 velocity to 1200 or something? Might not require any more than a tiny change to eliminate the PPC-combo pinpoint effect...

not sure slowing ammo is the answer, it seems to work against hit detection.

[FactorlanP]

stjobe, on 05 March 2014 - 01:50 PM, said:

Well, I've given extensive quotes from the novels and included scans from the Tech Manual (and that's just one of the more recent posts), but there's just no convincing some people that all or at least most ACs are single-shot - because that's how the (simplified from lore) TT mechanic worked.


I've actually toyed a bit with the idea that all weapons could be sustained-fire. Lasers, ACs, missiles, all of them. Hold down the trigger and they fire a beam or stream of projectiles/missiles until you let off. Adjust rate of fire and damage to where the DPS is where it is now, and balance from there.

The idea has several benefits, and of course some drawbacks. The FLD crowd isn't going to like it, for one thing, but I find it interesting to toy with these ideas and try to work out what it would do to the game and its game-play.

Wouldn't a sustained fire AC be a RAC? (Rotary Auto Cannon)

I like the burst concept best. Especially since then you can create numerous variations of each AC, all with variations in number of shells in burst (always equaling the cannons rating), heat, recycle, c-bill cost, availability (once we have CW) etc etc.

[El Space Doctor]

Cimarb, on 05 March 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

Yeah, GI Joe had all energy weapons, at least in the cartoons - it was a way to get around the lame 80s "make peace not war" people that also almost made the Mustang be replaced by the Probe... /shiver...

Star Wars probably would have been a better example, since it is more universally known. Light sabers were the epitome of that genre, though, and while they did have huge machine guns and such, they are just not nearly as iconic. If you want more mundane weaponry, there are plenty of those movies out there too.

Yeah, joking aside though, light sabers are cool. ish. And even though I'd love to see a remake where a 30 pound green dwarf punches someone with a bloody missile silo, that is mostly to see how the die hard fans would react, I was indeed just running my mouth. But the original point was that I just never, even as a kid found these beam weapons really that intriguing. And when you have these space knights stomping around in giant tanks.. laser is just not gritty enough. The idea of PPC though.. Man made lighting cooking their users into the cockpit. That I can get behind. That's a weapon one uses while serving their space great house lord who took enough retardation pills to knock his understanding of sociology back to the middle ages. That's a weapon you use when dressed in loin cloth and eating raw iron sandwiches. Maybe use a laser to heat up said sandwich, that's about it. So when I first discovered battletech, it was the gritty silly macho nonsense that lifted BT to become the only sci-fi/ fantasy IP ever paid any real attention to. And when MW2 came out. Best game ever. Period. In which I never had a laser on any of my mechs, even thought they were allegedly the best weapons in the game.

So these days, given it's been about 15+ years since I last played TT, I'm just using mechwarrior to relive my childhood fantasies of crashing a king crab through the glass doors of the nearest McD and threatening them with a pair of ac20's to prove me what they peddle is actually edible.

Come to think of it, GTA V needs a BT mod.

Cimarb, on 05 March 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

A Jäger was designed to be an Anti-Aircraft defense machine, and filled that niche very, very well. I would LOVE to have the ACs be Gatling guns (BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR) they should be instead of the POP-POP-POP they currently are.

Ghost heat was implemented because PGI was trying to address high-alpha damage caused by front-loaded (FLD) weapons such as ACs and PPCs. Remove that FLD, and ghost heat is unneeded. Fix the heat system, and oh what a happy, easily balanced world this would be!

Yeah, I'm fully aware what PGI wished they'd accomplish when implementing ghost heat system. But to this day I still can't figure how they came to the conclusion that it might work. The reason I brought it up was simply the fact that the suggested balancing ideas for AC's would have to be things that PGI is A) willing to go through with and capable of doing in a timely manner. Any solution that is even slightly complicated to pull off or would require them to back track and remove some of the brilliant decisions they have implemented. Given the myriad of ways it has been proven on this forum and in practice that the only thing ghost heat was actually truly effective in was pissing people off. And since PGI seems to be very much unwilling to take back any bad decisions.. Ehh. I dunno. I fear nothing that makes any sense will not happen within a year or so and that the suggestion that (if any) passes is the one that allows the simplest, crudest band aid without actually addressing the problem at all. So we're sort of stuck between reasonable ideas like yours that would probably be to complicated for PGI to even attempt within a year and another horrible idea of theirs that would be working as intented™ and impossible to get removed later on.

[Varent]

El Space Doctor, on 05 March 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm fully aware what PGI wished they'd accomplish when implementing ghost heat system. But to this day I still can't figure how they came to the conclusion that it might work. The reason I brought it up was simply the fact that the suggested balancing ideas for AC's would have to be things that PGI is A) willing to go through with and capable of doing in a timely manner. Any solution that is even slightly complicated to pull off or would require them to back track and remove some of the brilliant decisions they have implemented. Given the myriad of ways it has been proven on this forum and in practice that the only thing ghost heat was actually truly effective in was pissing people off. And since PGI seems to be very much unwilling to take back any bad decisions.. Ehh. I dunno. I fear nothing that makes any sense will not happen within a year or so and that the suggestion that (if any) passes is the one that allows the simplest, crudest band aid without actually addressing the problem at all. So we're sort of stuck between reasonable ideas like yours that would probably be to complicated for PGI to even attempt within a year and another horrible idea of theirs that would be working as intented™ and impossible to get removed later on.

pgi has already said they want to eventually come out with different makers of AC and other weapons for CW. Most of this is supposition and the hopes they will do it earlier.

[Cimarb]

Mirkk Defwode, on 05 March 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:

I agree "Burst" is easier to say, but it makes me uneasy as when I first worked on MW:LL they did have autocannons in the closed builds setup as 6 to 8 round mechanical bursts that were near uncontrollable. You'd get 2-4 shells on target and the rest would completely miss.

I tend to also find designs that lack logic in the design for their functionality infuriating and I'd loathe to see the ACs become something like that. I can assure everyone that they wouldn't be functional and wouldn't be fun to use. Mirroring existing mechanical weapons design either through modern rifles or autocannons even to the degree of autoloading tanks and artillery pieces is the best solution to many of these woes.

I'm also in favor of expanding our weapons along the lines of what Mechwarrior Tactics has done by having variations based on manufactuer that would have differences in their behavior but still fit within classifications. This would allow those that want a larger single shot weapon and those that want sustained fire weapons can go hand in hand, the solution to making them both valuable is that the single shot weapons do near the same damage as the multi-shot weapons but overall those multishot weapons do more damage for their magazine capacity.

I'm pretty **** about semantics too, since the most well thought out post can easily be derailed by someone thinking you meant something completely different than you did.

If you get a chance, click on the link in my signature. The numbers can be adjusted, but it gives my impression of how the manufacturers could be used to give a ton of balance and variety to autocannons (and every other system too). It was also a good, long discussion that covered a lot of the things that keep popping back up in other threads about this topic.

[Mirkk Defwode]

FactorlanP, on 05 March 2014 - 02:04 PM, said:

Wouldn't a sustained fire AC be a RAC? (Rotary Auto Cannon)

I like the burst concept best. Especially since then you can create numerous variations of each AC, all with variations in number of shells in burst (always equaling the cannons rating), heat, recycle, c-bill cost, availability (once we have CW) etc etc.

Rotary weapons have a much higher rate of fire than single or even multi-barrel autocannons.

A good example is the GAU-12 compared to the Bushmaster M242. They fire the exact same round but have very different behavior.

Quote

Bushmaster 242
Shell 25×137 mm Caliber 25 millimetres (0.98 in) caliber Barrels Single barrel (progressive RH parabolic twist) Rate of fire • Cyclic: 200rpm with 1hp or 500rpm with 8hp Muzzle velocity 1,100 metres per second (3,600 ft/s) Effective firing range 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) Maximum firing range 6,800 metres (22,300 ft)

Quote

GAU-12
Cartridge 25 x 137 mm Caliber 25 mm (0.98 in) Barrels 5-barrel (progressive RH parabolic twist, 11 grooves) Action Hydraulic, Electric, Pneumatic Rate of fire 1800 - 4200 rounds per minute Muzzle velocity (HEI) 3400 ft/s (1040 m/s); (API) 3280 ft/s (1000 m/s). Maximum firing range 12,000 feet (3,660 m) Feed system Linked or linkless Sights Lead Computing Optical Sight System (LCOSS)

[Cimarb]

FactorlanP, on 05 March 2014 - 02:04 PM, said:

Wouldn't a sustained fire AC be a RAC? (Rotary Auto Cannon)

I like the burst concept best. Especially since then you can create numerous variations of each AC, all with variations in number of shells in burst (always equaling the cannons rating), heat, recycle, c-bill cost, availability (once we have CW) etc etc.

Not necessarily. A rotary autocannon was just a really fast firing autocannon. Think of an M16, which can be fired in 3-round bursts or highly inaccurate longer bursts, compared to an M240 SAW or M60, which can be fired sustained but you are taught to keep the bursts short so it doesn't jam (this would be like the UAC5), and then compared to the full rotary Gatling gun like you see Jesse Ventura use in Predator.

See the link in my signature about manufacturer variations. (I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, I know...)