31 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

Nightmare1, on 23 August 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

I don't recall reading about weapons being at angles or having min-ranges in the books. In fact, quite to the contrary, there are many cases where these weapons were fired point-blank. Books such as D.R.T. record the effect of point-blank, sustained, accurate fire from autocannons while the Blood of Kerensky Trilogy shows what happens when Gauss Rifles are fired point-blank. There are other examples in other books as well. The point is, if you take a direct hit from a ballistic weapon, it should deal full damage. It doesn't matter what the imagined angle should be or how close (far is another issue) the enemy is. These are ballistics. For the ACs, a charge is ignited in the bullet-like casing, firing the shell down the length of the bore. Upon exiting, no matter what it strikes, it should deal full damage until it travels past its effective range. At that point, the projectile begins to slow down and lose energy, thus dealing less damage upon striking an object. For Gauss it is the same, although those slugs are fired using magnetic coils and capacitors. Still, upon exiting the barrel, the projectile should also deal full damage until it passes beyond its effective range. Proposing minimum ranges and scalar damage for these weapons is preposterous and about as dumb as snake mittens.

To be fair, one of the primary components of the damage mechanism of BT AC shells (which are of the high-explosive armor-piercing type) is the explosive warhead carried within the projectile, which does need to arm in order to be effective.
(The other components of the damage mechanism of BT AC shells are the sheer kinetic energy of the shell (KE = 0.5 * mass * velocity^2) and the shell's momentum (p = mass * velocity).)

As we've seen with the similar HEAT (high-explosive anti-tank) shells fired by the Abrams MBT in reality, a HEAP shell can travel a not-insignificant distance from the barrel of the weapon before the warhead arms (60-100 feet (18.29-30.48 meters) for the Abrams' M830A1 HEAT shell); at that point, one of the shell's primary damage mechanisms is non-functional, so the shell should impart reduced damage against anything it strikes before its warhead has a chance to arm.

However, there is the "does this make sense" angle that PGI had considered (as evidenced by the response by David Bradley in ATD 05). A MWO AC/2 shell, at 75 shells per ton & 1000 kg per ton, represents a 13.33 kg shell (which includes the casing, propellant charge, and sabot (if any)); likewise, a MWO AC/5 shell represents a 33.33 kg shell, an AC/10 shell represents a 66.67 kg shell, and a MWO AC/20 shell represents a 142.86 kg shell.
If, say, only 10% of the shell's weight represents the projectile's explosive charge... why does a 1.33 kg charge (AC/2 shell) have a 120-meter arming range (the AC/2's canonical minimum range), while a 14.29 kg charge (AC/20 shell) is armed before the shell leaves the barrel (since the AC/20 has no canonical minimum range)? Why does the 3.33 kg shell of a Standard AC/5 have a 90-meter minimum range, when the same-size charge of a UAC/5 shell would have a minimum range of only 60 meters? Why would a Gauss Rifle have a 60-meter minimum range when its slugs are simply melon-shaped lumps of nickel-ferrous alloy & have no explosive warheads to arm, and when the highest velocity said slugs are ever going to have is at the point when they exit the muzzle of the weapon?

Like David Bradley said, "it depends on how justified [PGI] can be in putting [minimum ranges] into the game without them being silly" and "it’s harder to justify why you can’t accurately fire an Autocannon/2 or Autocannon/5 up close, other than it was a balance to their long range in the tabletop game, so they won’t be affected by any sort of minimum range".

[Mirkk Defwode]

the idea that all of those are firing SABOT Rounds isn't exactly the best assumption. Many of the smaller grade autocannons like 2's and 5's are more likely firing standard shells with solid cores.

I could see the potentional for an AC10 or AC20 to fire SABOT rounds, but again it's more likely those are solid or explosive core standard munitions.

[Wolfways]

No, because PGI did LRM's wrong anyway. Minimum range meant harder to hit under a certain range. It had nothing to do with damage and LRM's (IS and clan) are supposed to deal full damage at any range. IS LRM's had a "difficult to hit" minimum range because the launchers were set at a ballistic angle which meant to fire at close range (under 180m) the mech had to lean forward.

[Strum Wealh]

Wolfways, on 24 August 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

No, because PGI did LRM's wrong anyway. Minimum range meant harder to hit under a certain range. It had nothing to do with damage and LRM's (IS and clan) are supposed to deal full damage at any range. IS LRM's had a "difficult to hit" minimum range because the launchers were set at a ballistic angle which meant to fire at close range (under 180m) the mech had to lean forward.

Actually, you're wrong.

• "The minimum range of LRMs and ATMs in the standard rules reflects the time it takes for the internal guidance systems to lock on to targets and for the explosive payloads to arm. Hot-loading enables a player to arm his LRM or ATM warheads before firing the missiles."
  
• "Because a ’Mech’s ammo bays are enclosed during battle, LRMs and ATMs must be hot-loaded before a scenario."
  
• "Minimum-range modifiers do not apply to hot-loaded LRMs and ATMs. However, hot-loaded LRMs and ATMs are not as accurate as standard missiles. When resolving damage from a flight of hot-loaded LRMs or ATMs, the attacking player rolls 3D6. Add the two lowest die results together to determine hits on the Cluster Hits Table."
  
• "Because hot-loaded LRMs and ATMs are fully armed in the launcher, any critical hit to the launcher triggers a missile explosion that destroys all of the launcher’s critical slots. Also, the body location of the launcher takes damage equal to the maximum potential damage of the missile flight."

All of the above come directly from pages 102-103 of Tactical Operations, and show that the TT minimum ranges of LRMs are indeed supposed to represent the missiles' arming range... and that the TT rules themselves provide a means by which the minimum range mechanic can be circumvented, by having the missiles "hot-loaded" (that is, to have the warheads pre-armed inside the ammo bins, rather than launching and then arming the warheads (which is how they normally operate)) in exchange for substantial risk to the survivability of firing unit (which is why having the warheads pre-armed isn't SOP to begin with).

As for the Clans' LRMs & their lack of a minimum range:

"Missile technology was another staple of the Exodus army. Clan engineers managed to perfect a rapid-arm mechanism that would allow the missiles to arm the instant they were fired. As such, all notions of minimum range for Clan long-range missiles vanished. The engineers also made the actual launcher systems half the mass of their SLDF predecessors."

The above comes directly from page 102 of Era Report: 3052, and indicates that the canonical Clan LRMs don't have a minimum range due to using a different manner of fuse & arming system than the IS-built LRMs.

By contrast, part of the reason that LRMs can reach the ranges they do - and the reason why they are capable of indirect-fire operations as well as direct-fire operations - is because they can (but do not always) fire in a ballistic arc.

"Standard LRM launchers are quite versatile, and can be easily upgraded with Artemis IV systems and even make use of a variety of special munitions. Inner Sphere launchers, which derive their impressive range from a ballistic launch angle, are notoriously less accurate close-in, especially when compared to their smaller and more compact Clan rivals." (TechManual, pg. 229)

The close-range inaccuracy of IS LRMs is in addition to, not instead of, the warhead arming range issue.

For all their other faults, PGI's implementation of IS LRM minimum range was clearly done to largely fit within the spirit (and most of the letter) of BattleTech, in terms of both lore & gameplay rules.

The MWO Clan LRMs and PGI's "ramp-up" mechanic, on the other hand... they could (and, IMO, should ) have just modeled them as hot-loaded missiles, with all of the attendant downsides thereof (which, in turn, are partially mitigated by the Clan 'Mechs having no-weight/no-volume CASE in all locations).

[Leopardao]

Strum Wealh, on 24 August 2014 - 05:02 PM, said:

All of the above come directly from pages 102-103 of Tactical Operations, and show that the TT minimum ranges of LRMs are indeed supposed to represent the missiles' arming range... and that the TT rules themselves provide a means by which the minimum range mechanic can be circumvented, by having the missiles "hot-loaded" (that is, to have the warheads pre-armed inside the ammo bins, rather than launching and then arming the warheads (which is how they normally operate)) in exchange for substantial risk to the survivability of firing unit (which is why having the warheads pre-armed isn't SOP to begin with).

For everyones benefit here I do want to say your both right and wrong. It should be noted that the Tactical Operations book you linked (which anyone can click on and view the PDF) states on Page 9 of the PDF;

• CHOOSE YOUR RULES. Tactical Operations encapsulates a myriad of advanced rules. In effect, all the rules and weapons/equipment in this volume are optional.

Now that being said while I do remember this book and two others being the primary source of many optional rules used back in the day, the rule for arming/hot loading LRMs within min range wasn't one I knew about or ever used. I will try to get my hands on a copy just because I'm curious if these books also added additional rules to the cannons like the LRMs to give a better overall reason for the min range other then flavor text.

Edited by Leopardao, 25 August 2014 - 12:28 AM.

[Wolfways]

I just get my info from Sarna. The only book i have now is the Compendium

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

Having actually fired most of the real ammo listed in the replies, I can tell you that some have a rather flat ballistic arc "or battle sight' range out to about 1100mtrs. Anything close, under 500mtrs can be point and shoot.
- The rounds leaving the muzzle have the highest 'potential' velocity as soon as they exit. They don't get any faster after leaving the barrel. (the closer to the muzzle the target is the higher the potential damage is, not what we are seeing in MWO, with any 'minimum range' restrictions.)

~ There is research into 'beyond line of sight' boosted ammo, but it's more like rocket assisted and guided.

- For the reply about the Sabot, the 'pellets' or actual sabot guides for the core, fall off at around 100mtrs, and don't effect the dart any. If the entire assembly was to strike anything at extremely close range, the penetrator would continue to function as it is designed.
- The only ammo currently in inventories that changes it characteristics is 'programmable warheads or P3 ammo', these are programmed as they leave the barrel muzzle. (many different effects can be programmed for the same warhead.)

On the topic if the Mech's barrels having to be angled up to fire straight shoots.
- The 'targeting and tracking systems' of the Mech are designed to link the Pilots reticle and the guns barrels to the indicated target the Pilots is aiming at. It doesn't matter if the target is near or far the barrels will be set to the required angle to deliver the projectiles to that distance and location. (the Pilot doesn't even see this effect, he just aims and shoots.)
~ If the barrels can be aimed down for targets that are lower than the shooter then close in shoots will not be any issue.

- The only issue I do have with the game is the fact that two Mech's facing each other, 'point blank' can still hit the center of each other. This should not be the case, as the physical barrels should not be able to angle in with out actually striking the other Mech. (actually should be shooting over, around , or by parts of the 'face to face' target.)
~ Similar to trying to shoot at small Mech's near your legs, you should not be able to even aim that close with more than a single barrel of one side. (let alone the fact of just 'striking' the small Mech with the physical barrel to 'knock it away") - I do so miss knock down.

Just some thoughts,
9erRed

[o0Marduk0o]

Redshift2k5, on 20 August 2014 - 09:20 AM, said:

Scalar damage for a bullet similarly is logically unsound(although it soes not make any more sense for a missile and we do, in fact, have scalar damage missiles).

however, I do not believe they ever would have implemented scalar damage for missiles unless the game balance required CLRMs to have weaknesses (full damage at all range and less weight would be ridiculous).

It makes some sense when the warheads need some time to get armed. Some are faster than others.

[Kinoons]

you could look at the minimum range being required for the shell to arm itself after it leaves the cannon -- a certain number of rotations is needed to arm the fuse in the nose of the shell or it doesn't explode on impact.

[Koniving]

Redshift2k5, on 20 August 2014 - 09:20 AM, said:

Any chance for a projectile to deal no damage despite a direct hit is against the designs ensiblities of MWO; it's easy to justify with a nonexistant sci-fi weapon such as the PPC but logically, actual bullets hitting the target at close range but dealing no damage just doesn't make sense. Realism is hadly perfect in MWO but RNGs and logic-defying maic bullets are not part of the game.

Scalar damage for a bullet similarly is logically unsound(although it soes not make any more sense for a missile and we do, in fact, have scalar damage missiles).

however, I do not believe they ever would have implemented scalar damage for missiles unless the game balance required CLRMs to have weaknesses (full damage at all range and less weight would be ridiculous).

---

So, my rebuttal: Do these ballistic weapons need to have a system in place to simulate min range for balance reasons, or do you just want it to be fluff accurate?

Balance reasons, and there was a valid reason for those minimum ranges (which I might add only existed on torso-mounted autocannons and arms without lower arm actuators, which could not converge unlike arm weapons).

On tabletop I had the minimum ranges for only torso mounted ACs, ACs mounted in arms without lower arm actuators and by extension Clan UACs in the arms. Supposedly, these cannot 'twist' or 'converge', so lining up shots at certain ranges becomes difficult.

And is this reason not enough?

Impossible convergence. The shot is literally coming out of the side of the barrel at an 70+ degree angle! And this is a short barrel, imagine those long barrels.

Here's another.

These are coming out of the WALLS of the Laser Emitters! The goddamn walls! They're coming out of the walls, it's game over man game over!
It is simply impossible convergence.

PPCs actually have 100% damage at less than 90 meters, and have the minimum range due to the fact that unlike lasers, PPCs need to build before they can fire, and it's a significant amount of time (more so than a Gauss Rifle). Flipping off the field inhibitor reduces the charge up delay to that of an ER PPC in that an ER PPC's energy build up is significantly faster, spiking the heat significantly more but able to better react to the user's twitch-firing whims than a standard PPC. The ER PPC also has a minimum range when in the same conditions as ACs which is again non-swiveling barrel-length and thus lack of convergence at close range-related.

The minimum range represents a difficulty to hit due to "conditions." Whether because your torso cannon is fixed and you can't rotate it to hit something so damn close because it's set the aim at something farther away and you can't get the enemy in front of your left shoulder because he's sitting in front of your screen at 30 meters away and you can't twist that far to line it up with the enemy dead in front of you (as you'd need him off to your left for the cannon to hit him), or because your weapon energy build-up time is too long to hit something that fast, that close up, or because the enemy is behind the tip of the barrel of your weapon even though the enemy is directly in your face tapping on your cockpit with its finger.

People aren't asking for magical "oh you don't do damage here."
We're asking that CONVERGENCE be fixed so that the impossible convergence is gone.
You shouldn't have a Jagermech sticking his arms over your shoulders and still manage to headshot you with twin AC/20s.
If their arms are not twisting to point at you, they shouldn't be able to shoot at a 90 degree angle to magically hit you.

Instead, this should happen.

And obviously something else has to be done about standing on mechs, because it's also an issue.

Image source:

Edited by Koniving, 25 August 2014 - 05:37 PM.

[Farix]

So if I put a gun to my head and pull the trigger, it should do no damage?

Yeah, makes as much since as ballistic minimum ranges.

[Cyberiad]

Minimum ranges make sense for board games and turn taking RPGs but don't make sense at all in a simulator. It's like implementing a minimum range for an archer in a fantasy combat sim because fire emblem archers can't shoot at enemies in the adjacent square.