198 replies to this topic

[Hollister]

You beat me to it Kurios, was doing about the same thing. The only thing I would want to see is that hard mounted weapons like in the torso or shoulder should not be able to aim at a given point. Like the 2nd and 3rd mech. Hard mounted weapons should aim like the 1st mech. The only time a hard mounted weapon should be able to aim at a given point is if they are zeroed to a specific range, which that range can not be changed, if they miss though should continue along the arc they were aimed from.

[Kudzu]

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.

And Battletech is basically a futuristic version of WW2 tank combat when you break it down, much like Star Wars space battles were like WW2 dogfights.

[wolf74]

Also let us not forget that there is a "Targeting Computer" Upgrade system in the battletech game which is Added to mechs.
Direct fire weapons only.

Sum of the Direct Fire weapons on a Mech weight total. (Value W)
Targeting computer Weight/Crit = (W / Y) rounded up to the next whole number.
Y = if Clan 5, If I.S. 4

If a Mech weapon system can "Auto-Magic" Converge what are the Targeting Computer to do (Play Minesweeper)? We all have seen what happens with the Auto-Magic Converge system, Mech armor value have to go to 3x or more to keep most mech from dieing from a single weapon group hit. (See MW3 & 4)

Yes the Cone of fire seems to have the greatest support. But there was another option,
1st. Pilot can manual Pick the range to the closest 25m mark, When No Target is Locked on to by Radar the weapon will be at this Convergence range.
2nd With a Target locked on too have the Convergence system move at a Limited Speed on the adjustments.
3^rd The Targeting Computer can boost the Convergence Speed of the system 50-300% faster (Range is listed so there can be balance in testing) This way a Pilot has to Plan his attack a little and not have Perfect Auto-Magic Convergence at a target at 50m and than shoot one at 1000m ½sec later. (Like in MW1,2,3,&4)

Edited by wolf74, 16 November 2011 - 12:29 AM.

[wolf on the tide]

nice graph gave me the urge to shoot the tank at 100m and step forward a few paces to play tank-football
(if somebody's in the mood to do some number crunching...how far will a 20 ton tank fly if kicked by a 100 ton assault mech?)

on subject of OP, (and oppologies to those who dont like TT references)

for the tonnage (in the old days) you'd probably be carrying PPC's
for spread damage you'd pick 4 X med's
for a huge bang (concentrated damage) you'd pick the AC20
if you wanted to hit the other guy while moving fast you'd pick 4 X meds (4 chances to hit as opposed to one)

i'm assuming that you want all 4 lasers "slaved" and aiming at the same point, if so - have you considered a bigger weapon?are you tending to fire in sequence or all instantly?
as to how it burns through the armour, are we to assume something like 4 lasers burning close together and all at once, or in succession at the exact same point? (lets assume that 4 X instantantly = instantantly) - ( 4 X 0 = 0)

well, i don't have the answers,
but, 2 things i'm "fairly certain" of 1) what they give us is what we get. 2) sooner or later the guy with the AC20's going to run out of ammo.

" i can haz pew-pew lazzorz plox?"

[VYCanis]

I liked the MW3 approach to the targeting computer. Where it basically just showed you how much you needed to lead an enemy by in order to hit. But then again, it only cost 1 ton. so it wasn't a "true" targeting comp. Though it was a bit redundant for lasers, since it'd just sit on the target

Depending on what aim method the devs choose, yeah, i agree acting as a speed boost to weapon accurization/convergeance works best. I'd also go as far as suggesting there should be a different look to the crosshairs and a different look to the image magnification, to really make it feel special.

[Oppi]

4 lasers, even mounted very close to each other, would almost never hit the same spot of armour. There is a distance between the lasers, so there are two possibilities :

1) They are mounted to fire exactly straight forward, so they would always hit the 4 corners of a square (if mounted in a square formation that is).

2) They are focused to a certain distance where all four shots intersect, so they would hit the same spot, but only if the target was in that point of focus. In every other situation it would be 1) again.

Of course there will be hit zones, so damage scattered in a small area will still count to hit "the same spot", but the fact that it'll almost never really be the same spot hit by all 4 lasers could be modeled by not simply adding up the damage values but to decrease the sum with a factor between 0 and 1.

[Cyber Carns]

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.

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.

Here is more info for you to the M1A2 from Wiki:


The Abrams is equipped with a ballistic fire-control computer that uses user and system-supplied data from a variety of sources, to compute, display, and incorporate the three components of a ballistic solution—lead angle, ammunition type, and range to the target—to accurately fire the tank. These three components are determined using a YAG rod laser rangefinder, crosswind sensor, a pendulum static cant sensor, data concerning performance and flight characteristics of each specific type of round, tank-specific boresight alignment data, ammunition temperature, air temperature, barometric pressure, a muzzle reference system (MRS) that determines and compensates for barrel droop at the muzzle due to gravitational pull and barrel heating due to firing or sunlight, and target speed determined by tracking rate tachometers in the Gunner's or Commander's Controls Handles. All of these factors are computed into a ballistic solution and updated 30 times per second. The updated solution is displayed in the Gunner's or Tank Commander's field of view in the form of a reticle in both day and Thermal modes. The ballistic computer manipulates the turret and a complex arrangement of mirrors so that all one has to do is keep the reticle on the target and fire to achieve a hit. Proper lead and gun tube elevation are applied to the turret by the computer, greatly simplifying the job of the gunner
The fire-control system uses these data to compute a firing solution for the gunner. The ballistic solution generated ensures a hit percentage greater than 95 percent at nominal ranges. Either the commander or gunner can fire the main gun. Additionally, the Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) on the M1A2 can be used to locate targets and pass them on for the gunner to engage while the commander scans for new targets. In the event of a malfunction or damage to the primary sight system, the main and coaxial weapons can be manually aimed using a telescopic scope boresighted to the main gun known as the Gunner's Auxiliary Sight (GAS). The GAS has two interchangeable reticles; one for HEAT and MPAT (MultiPurpose AntiTank) rounds and one for APFSDS and STAFF (Smart Target-Activated Fire and Forget) ammunition. Turret traverse and main gun elevation can be accomplished with manual handles and cranks in the event of a Fire Control System or Hydraulic System failure.

[Joseph Mallan]

I see it this way, lasers are beams of light. They don't drift in the wind, they don't drop due to gravity or fall off of velocity. So if they are aimed at the the same spot why would they miss by more than a few inches/centemeters? After all we don't say "laser precise' because they are inaccurate.

[Max Liao]

Because the targeting system directs each weapon's fire individually. This goes back to the canon/lore that targeting computers of the 31st Century are pure crap ... this is what makes BattleTech fun.

Now, the Ontos Heavy tank, on the other hand, can fire their 8 MLs in 2 combined pairs (per fluff).

[Joseph Mallan]

Personally I like the way lasers were handled in Babylon 5! I'd love writing my name in the opponents armor!

[Dihm]

I'm fine with them doing the same damage, that's just the way it is. I don't want to see the simulation aspect of the game go away completely. That said, I don't have a problem not making this a "hard" sim, where everything is 1 to 1 precise. Go with a cone of fire, have each laser "roll" independently within that cone instead of lumping them all as one. Movement speed, perks, a targeting computer would effect the cone. If it is small enough, you hit the same armor location with all your lasers. If you're at a distance, they may spread over the enemy mech. the AC20 will always hit one location.

Also, 4 medium lasers, while having the same damage, don't pack the same kinetic force (lasers have 0 after all). Getting hit by an AC20 should cause some serious stagger to the targeting system, making the returning fire less accurate. Lasers? No/little shake to the enemy mech.

[Tweaks]

None of the choices in your poll matched what I would do.

PG already stated that even though they are trying to abide to the tabletop game rules as much as possible, that some of them don't apply too well in a computer game. The way damage is calculated and applied is one of those things.

In the tabletop game, 5 points of damage is 5 points of damage, whether it's a ballistic weapon or a laser. In the novels, it's clear that the different types of weapons do different types of damage. Ballistic weapons also tend to be much less accurate than lasers, and the weapon's cone of fire will be larger.

For example, ballistic weapons will blow up or shred pieces of armor and rock the enemy 'Mech. Lasers on the other end, will melt and vaporize armor. Lasers are by nature pin-point accurate, so the only cone of fire would be caused by the weapon's mount itself or movement of the 'Mech. Technically, a laser has more chance of causing a critical hit because it can focus fire in a tighter circle. I said technically, so don't start bashing on me for it...

That being said, firing an AC/20 that does supposedly 20 points of ballistic/explosion damage would not necessarily do the same as 4 medium lasers each doing 5 points of laser/heat damage.

All that of course, is dependent on PG using more granular types of damage (ballistic, explosion, concussive, missile, laser, particle, heat, etc...) as opposed to a plain and uniform damage type for all weapons.

Then there's the whole issue of allowing alpha strikes in the first place... If each medium laser causes 7 points of heat, then it means firing all 4 at the same time could cause the 'Mech to overheat if it was already hot to begin with. If they implement heat management properly, this wouldn't be an issue that much cause only fools would risk it.

[BurningRanger]

For the ones stating that this game is in the future and weapons or aiming should be at least as good as today... it can be worse, that's called LosTech.

Imo the 4 MLs shouldn't be able to fire at the same spot without proper aiming, cos no1 would use AC20s anymore.
Think about recent First-Person-Shooters for a moment where for example when you hold down the trigger of a MG the bullets get spread more and more, because the weapon is shaking. You get that nice crosshair with circle around getting wider to show that you're spreading more and more.
Now turn this around for MW when you aim at the enemy you get a wide circle at first. If you'd fire instantaneously your shots get spread because the targeting system aswell as the mechanics of the single weapons need some time to adjust to your aiming. Some shots will miss the target even though you have it right there under your crosshair. The longer you aim at a spot though the smaller the circle gets and the less your shots will be spread. At some point you'd be able to actually fire 4 MLs on the same spot, but for that you'd need a calm hand.
Voila, problem solved.

This would also explain why it's so hard to hit moving targets (even with lasers, where the shot travels at speed of light).
With a Targeting Computer it just works faster that the circle gets smaller and hence the weapons don't spread that far anymore, because the Targeting Computer is faster in adjusting your weapons than a standard targeting system.

[Tierloc]

You don't take weapons purely on what damage they do, you balance the weight, heat, range, recycle and slots available to you on the chassis you chose. This question assumes the armor on the target is going to take the same damage from ballistics and energy. It also applies TT damage to previous video game mechanics, where the damage was modified.

And unless the only weapons the chassis is carrying are 4 IS medium lasers (that's weak for even a Light chassis), it wouldn't be an alpha.

[Yeach]

Oppi, on 16 November 2011 - 03:18 AM, said:

4 lasers, even mounted very close to each other, would almost never hit the same spot of armour. There is a distance between the lasers, so there are two possibilities :

1) They are mounted to fire exactly straight forward, so they would always hit the 4 corners of a square (if mounted in a square formation that is).

2) They are focused to a certain distance where all four shots intersect, so they would hit the same spot, but only if the target was in that point of focus. In every other situation it would be 1) again.

Of course there will be hit zones, so damage scattered in a small area will still count to hit "the same spot", but the fact that it'll almost never really be the same spot hit by all 4 lasers could be modeled by not simply adding up the damage values but to decrease the sum with a factor between 0 and 1.

Did anyone miss the point that the lasers are mount in the arms.
1. Maximum range of the medium laser is 270 m. This would be where you want the lasers to converge at.
2. Maximum distance between individual laser beams (because they are mounted on an arm) should be at around 1 m apart. (Width of an arm)
So even without any moving gimbals. Your cone of convergence per se is
The maximum spread would be at short range 0 m would be 1 m.
At 270 m the spread the spread would be at 0.1 m or less.
At 135 m spread would be 0.5 m
Unless you add more armor locations, it is likely that they would hit in the same "general" area on a mech.
How large/small is an armor location again?


(Actually I agree with the above quote except for the last part)

Edited by Yeach, 16 November 2011 - 06:47 AM.

[HIemfire]

Even with all 4 medium lasers mounted in the same location I do not see them hitting the exact same spot on a target with any feasibility. The masses are for hard (non-variable inclination/sweep) mounts. To have them adjust to match the point of aim breaks that as well as completely kills the point of an AC/20, making it too powerful an option. The cost for using them instead of the AC/20 should be the relative inaccuracy of the massed array over the single cannon as well as the increased heat (which compensates partially for the lighter mass).

So massed weapons (regardless of type) should not match the accuracy of a single weapon, period.

My 2 cents.

[BurningRanger]

Yeach, on 16 November 2011 - 06:29 AM, said:

Did anyone miss the point that the lasers are mount in the arms.

Weapons still need to adjust to your aiming on their own. Having the targeting system control your whole arm to fire at a spot will probably make it even slower to react to adjustments. (Try to put a string through the hole of a needle without moving your hand or fingers, but just your arm. The arm isn't made for such precise movement.)

[Yeach]

BurningRanger, on 16 November 2011 - 06:45 AM, said:

Weapons still need to adjust to your aiming on their own. Having the targeting system control your whole arm to fire at a spot will probably make it even slower to react to adjustments. (Try to put a string through the hole of a needle without moving your hand or fingers, but just your arm. The arm isn't made for such precise movement.)

Now we are talking about accuracy vs precision.
Precision being able to put all your shots at once place.
Accuracy being able to put your shots where you aim.

The question here is not accuracy but precision. ie how much spread between the medium lasers.

[Tierloc]

I had this discussion over AC cannons and ballistics in another thread.

You're not being accurate to the technology by inducing a precision modifier, you just want to limit the pvp experience. That's why it's difficult to ascertain the correct value - it disagrees with any RL examples.

Edited by Tierloc, 16 November 2011 - 06:55 AM.

[Tierloc]

hiemfire, on 16 November 2011 - 06:42 AM, said:

The masses are for hard (non-variable inclination/sweep) mounts.

I thought they were hard mounts too until convergence was explained to me in reference to the video game. If you hit a target at 200m and then again at 600m, you don't have hard mounts. You have static mounted turrets on the mech that have degrees of range in mobility.

Hard mounts would basically make every weapon dumbfire at almost every range except the one range of convergence, which assumes the pilot couldn't change the weapons alignment to the sights.

If I fired a gun at a target and the sight grouped a foot to the left of where I was shooting, I'd adjust the sight.