198 replies to this topic

[Yeach]

Compare 4 medium lasers mounted onto an arm in a square/diamond configuration versus one AC20 mounted onto an arm.

Should they produce the same concentrated damage onto one area when fired against another mech/vehicle/building?

Autocannon 20
Damage:20
Heat: 7
Range: 9
Tons: 14
Crits: 10
Ammo: 5

Medium Laser
Damage:5
Heat: 3
Range: 9
Tons: 1
Crits: 1

Edited by Yeach, 15 November 2011 - 09:16 PM.

[Phades]

It is really going to boil down to several different factors that apply at the same time really. The first being, is the laser a beam over time or an instant flash of light? If it is a beam, what kind of penalty is there going to be applied to the AC 20 to compensate?

For example, if the beam discharges over 1 second and you fire 4 beams in a chain, you will waste 4 seconds of time achieving the same damage output that took less than 1 second the auto cannon user employed. If you fire them at the same time and are forced into a mandatory shot deviation for cone of fire or whatever scenario, then you will always lose to the auto cannon user due to the 1 second shot time in addition to being unable to effectively place the damage regardless of target size. Even if the auto cannon is given a long recycling time, say 6-8 seconds, that still does not prevent other weapons to being fired in a chain fire format piling on the damage while the medium laser user cycles through his group of lasers twice or slightly more depending on what the cool down time is assigned for the laser between shots.

Compressed damage up front wins over back loaded damage every single time, specially in team play orientated formats. I just hope other folks come to this realization before automatically assuming that the video game representation must be extremely faithful to the original table top rules.

[Yeach]

Assume the lasers are alpha-fired and both AC20 and MLas are instanteous to target or both have the same ballistics properties.
No backloaded damage.

I might make another thread of how I think lasers should work.

[Forsakened]

Yeach, on 15 November 2011 - 09:14 PM, said:

Assume the lasers are alpha-fired and both AC20 and MLas are instanteous to target or both have the same ballistics properties.
No backloaded damage.

I might make another thread of how I think lasers should work.

I actually had time to think about this, and I think if all lasers are alpha-fired then hypothetically all would be hitting at the same time so all would still need to penetrate the same amount of armor correct? If this is the case how do you get more damage from hitting a weakened armor spot if they are hitting simultaneously?

Wondering if anyone can explain this in a scientific manner that does not sound like complete you know what.

[Rzhanov]

As far as i remember in tabletop game hit locations were random, depending on dice roll. Also heat level from 4 med lasers is higher then from AC.
It is to be seen how game mechanic will handle this issue.

[Caballo]

...And back to the tabletop game again...

Ok, i guess i'll get my share of punishment for this one, but... This is a sim. It's realtime fighting. If you aim at a exact point you actually HIT IT (if you can aim, of course) So if you aim at an elbow, you get the elbow hitted.

If the developers are able to create a damage system what allows that elbow (call it joint, actuator... i don't mind) gets broken or they just gonna make a big blast and the whole forearm is gone (Or even the whole arm as in past games with all it's attachments), is something i don't know, but being realistic, and looking at the games produced with the current engines, i have my doubts about it.

It looks like the model of damage the TT manics are looking for is like hitting a rock with a wheel in a car simulator and emulating the whole breakage it would create in every part of the suspension, according to real physics... Ok, great. I swear i'll be happy if that can be done in any way, but you got to, at first, make the whole thing move together, and then set a system which allows to calculate all and every variable what comes into the thing... I don't know how far a modern home computer can get, but i doubt it can go that far.

[Caballo]

Yeach, on 15 November 2011 - 08:48 PM, said:

Compare 4 medium lasers mounted onto an arm in a square/diamond configuration versus one AC20 mounted onto an arm.

Should they produce the same concentrated damage onto one area when fired against another mech/vehicle/building?

Autocannon 20
Damage:20
Heat: 7
Range: 9
Tons: 14
Crits: 10
Ammo: 5

Medium Laser
Damage:5
Heat: 3
Range: 9
Tons: 1
Crits: 1

BTW, getting back to the question, i would raise the heat of the medium lasers to 4 each one, so you have 14 tons in the autocannon (Which i consider a limit to think about it before installing an AC20... you need to strip some armour, or heatsinks, and add ammo) and 16 heat in the medium lasers, but they only weight 1 ton, so you must add heatsinks to control it.

And about the accuracy of 4 lasers... even a 70's decade tank can aim the main cannon and the coaxial machinegun at the same point. i don't see any reason to make a X X X century war machine unable to do it... even by mechanical systems.

(Censorship is getting mad in this forum. you can't put 3 X together to say 30th century)

Edited by Caballo, 15 November 2011 - 10:12 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

This has been discussed a lot in other threads. Yeach - lasers move at the speed of light and therefore hit instantaneously whereas the AC round takes a discrete amount of time. As to the heat produced - you can add in extra heat sinks and still save weight and M lasers fire faster than AC20 which only has 5 shots for a ton of ammo.

[guardiandashi]

the issue is game balance

if you can "alpha strike" or group fire and have a battery of lasers all hit in the same spot you run into ballance issues IE the lasers are "too good" in comparison to the heavy ac

look at it this way to have a heat neutral ac 20 with ~10-15 rounds of fire (a good number in the board game for 1 combat)
ac 20 14 tons 10 crits, ammo 3 tons 3 crits, heat 7 so add 7 HS to keep the heat of the ac neutralized, you are up to 24 tons 20 crits

if you go with 4 medium lasers 12 heat sinks the medium laser battery is effectively 16 tons 16 crits for the EXACT same range and damage if they are allowed to pinpoint aim and group fire

this is assuming the design is already using up the 10 "free" heatsinks that come with all fusion reactors

[Yeach]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 15 November 2011 - 10:14 PM, said:

This has been discussed a lot in other threads. Yeach - lasers move at the speed of light and therefore hit instantaneously whereas the AC round takes a discrete amount of time. As to the heat produced - you can add in extra heat sinks and still save weight and M lasers fire faster than AC20 which only has 5 shots for a ton of ammo.

Who says lasers hit instantaneously and ACs don't? If you use TT rules they hit at the same rate as ballistics (ie they have the same range and aim modifiers.)
Are you ready to change TT rules and give lasers a +X to-hit advantage over ballistics. (oh like pulse lasers)

Which direction do you want to go?

Anyways I was going to make a thread that started like this

Laser hit instantaneously....

But require a small time to charge up so when you press the fire button there is a delay (think somewhat bombast lasers in MW4) and thus equaling to of the lead-time for an autocannon.

[Kurios]

Caballo, on 15 November 2011 - 10:02 PM, said:

...And back to the tabletop game again...

Ok, i guess i'll get my share of punishment for this one, but... This is a sim. It's realtime fighting. If you aim at a exact point you actually HIT IT (if you can aim, of course) So if you aim at an elbow, you get the elbow hitted.

If the developers are able to create a damage system what allows that elbow (call it joint, actuator... i don't mind) gets broken or they just gonna make a big blast and the whole forearm is gone (Or even the whole arm as in past games with all it's attachments), is something i don't know, but being realistic, and looking at the games produced with the current engines, i have my doubts about it.

It looks like the model of damage the TT manics are looking for is like hitting a rock with a wheel in a car simulator and emulating the whole breakage it would create in every part of the suspension, according to real physics... Ok, great. I swear i'll be happy if that can be done in any way, but you got to, at first, make the whole thing move together, and then set a system which allows to calculate all and every variable what comes into the thing... I don't know how far a modern home computer can get, but i doubt it can go that far.

Thats a broken assumption you know.... Your talking about 4 different weapon systems. Mounted at 4 separate points. Each one has to traverse to the target, ect, ect... especially as your point blank mark isnt even going to be at the same "angle..." So you got a computer system that attempts to put the guns onto your target curser. Though, I guess if you really think you are the ****, you could try to aim 4 guns yourself. But I think the computer ~just~ might do a better job then you at it. And even it isnt perfect. Ill think about drawing you diagrams and such if you think that im just making some bullshit up. But feel free to look at sterographic vision, Its a similiar problem... But in reverse. ( ie, you arnt trying to aim the cameras. Just make a 3d image with them. ). So yah. They actually are going to spread. At least a little. Theres alot of movement going on on those weapons mounts. it isnt like your rifle. (which, by the way, doesnt always shoot where the sight points, but thats another discussion. If you really care to know about that, go read rifle reviews in a shooting mag. They talk about scatter to. and thats RL. )

So some points:
Unstable firing platform.
Weapons arnt perfect to began with
Weapons dont have same Point of View on target.
A computer aims. Not you. (kinda)

[Caballo]

Kurios, on 15 November 2011 - 10:34 PM, said:

Thats a broken assumption you know.... Your talking about 4 different weapon systems. Mounted at 4 separate points. Each one has to traverse to the target, ect, ect... especially as your point blank mark isnt even going to be at the same "angle..." So you got a computer system that attempts to put the guns onto your target curser. Though, I guess if you really think you are the ****, you could try to aim 4 guns yourself. But I think the computer ~just~ might do a better job then you at it. And even it isnt perfect. Ill think about drawing you diagrams and such if you think that im just making some bullshit up. But feel free to look at sterographic vision, Its a similiar problem... But in reverse. ( ie, you arnt trying to aim the cameras. Just make a 3d image with them. ). So yah. They actually are going to spread. At least a little. Theres alot of movement going on on those weapons mounts. it isnt like your rifle. (which, by the way, doesnt always shoot where the sight points, but thats another discussion. If you really care to know about that, go read rifle reviews in a shooting mag. They talk about scatter to. and thats RL. )

So some points:
Unstable firing platform.
Weapons arnt perfect to began with
Weapons dont have same Point of View on target.
A computer aims. Not you. (kinda)

Next time, try to quote the right message. i'll do it for you:

"And about the accuracy of 4 lasers... even a 70's decade tank can aim the main cannon and the coaxial machinegun at the same point. i don't see any reason to make a X X X century war machine unable to do it... even by mechanical systems."

Again, aiming with four guns at once at the same point... even an old dumpster like an M47 can do it... but i guess you ignore what the term "Coaxial weapon" means:

COAXIAL:
A coaxial mount is mounted beside the primary weapon and thus points in the same general direction as the main armament, relying in the turret's ability to traverse in order to change arc. The term coaxial is a misnomer as the arrangement is actually paraxial (i.e., parallel axes, as opposed to the same axis).
Nearly all main battle tanks and most infantry fighting vehicles have a coaxial machine gun mounted to fire along a parallel axis to the main gun. Coaxial weapons are usually aimed by use of the main gun control. It is usually used to engage infantry or other "soft" targets when the main gun collateral damage would be excessive, or to conserve main gun ammunition.
Some weapons such as the M40 recoilless rifle and the LAW 80 have a smaller caliber spotting rifle mounted in coaxial fashion on the weapon's barrel, which allows the operator to visualise where the primary weapon's projectile will hit.

That said, i guess you're not thinking the gunner of a tank is aiming at the targer through the cannon, ¿don't you? the aiming visor is installed in other place of the vehicle, and they don't use to miss. And of course, i guess you aren't thinking the gunner's got to aim the machinegun and the cannon separately. they move together, using electrical engines to move the gun up and down to aim at the same point the cannon is aiming.

The only point i agree with you is that there's a lot of movement going on, but even an M1 abrahams can fire while moving with an evil accuracy... and it's been made the last century.

Edited by Caballo, 15 November 2011 - 10:57 PM.

[zudukai]

no reason why all those hot lasers with no knock would do less, if they are all mounted in the same arm/slot. armor piercing or normal?

[Kurios]

Caballo, on 15 November 2011 - 10:41 PM, said:

Next time, try to quote the right message. i'll do it for you:

"And about the accuracy of 4 lasers... even a 70's decade tank can aim the main cannon and the coaxial machinegun at the same point. i don't see any reason to make a X X X century war machine unable to do it... even by mechanical systems."

Again, aiming with four guns at once at the same point... even an old dumpster like an M47 can do it... but i guess you ignore what the term "Coaxial weapon" means:

COAXIAL:
A coaxial mount is mounted beside the primary weapon and thus points in the same general direction as the main armament, relying in the turret's ability to traverse in order to change arc. The term coaxial is a misnomer as the arrangement is actually paraxial (i.e., parallel axes, as opposed to the same axis).
Nearly all main battle tanks and most infantry fighting vehicles have a coaxial machine gun mounted to fire along a parallel axis to the main gun. Coaxial weapons are usually aimed by use of the main gun control. It is usually used to engage infantry or other "soft" targets when the main gun collateral damage would be excessive, or to conserve main gun ammunition.
Some weapons such as the M40 recoilless rifle and the LAW 80 have a smaller caliber spotting rifle mounted in coaxial fashion on the weapon's barrel, which allows the operator to visualise where the primary weapon's projectile will hit.

same general direction

key word.

same general direction doesnt mean same spot.

[Caballo]

sorry, i was editing the message, but you answered faster

[Kurios]

Heh, no problem. You prompted me to draw a picture anyways.

[Caballo]

that's exactly what i've been trying to tell you from the start... And that's what a ballistic computer does. (In fact that, and calculating elevation ranges for ballistic shots) And i guess that's why some weapons have a minimum range to work... and so on

[Caballo]

I mean assuming a battlemmech's ability to aim is the same as the red baron's plane is plain sick. we're on the XXI century and the weapon systems are a world away from that.

[Kurios]

See? Pictures help everything! But You still are running into inertia issues with multi-ton weaponry trying to swing around on a dime by fractions of a degree so things can be just on target. Especially if your not stationary. Im gonna gamble that your gonna scatter just a hair from your targeting cursor. and at a distance, a hair can be the difference between a leg and a head shot. (And yes, given enough time, they will stabilize to pretty darn good accuracy. but thats now an immobile sniping platform. Not a leaping, bouncing, melee fighting battlemech. )

[Yeach]

Caballo, on 15 November 2011 - 11:40 PM, said:

I mean assuming a battlemmech's ability to aim is the same as the red baron's plane is plain sick. we're on the XXI century and the weapon systems are a world away from that.

Okay pause on that thought.
The Red Baron DR-1 had two machine guns side-by-side. Now stack another two machine guns on top.
Now tell me amount of spread when you fire those machine guns.