32 replies to this topic

[Samurai 7]

This started out as a LRM thread, but the more I compared LRMS to AC's the more I found how wacked out AC weight was compared to other physical attacks.

So lets get into it.

When you calculate out the LRM; You get 180 shots per ton. That means each missile warhead, fuel and body) weigh in at 11lbs. About the same amount as a 12pk of Coke. The closest anti tank RPG that I could find was about 20lbs and had a effective range of 200m (basically SRMS); For LRMs to make sense, they need to be more like hellfire missiles. Hellfires are about 100lbs per missile. This gets you all the intelligence, range and armor piercing that the current LRMs offer and right sizes the weight.

AC20's are 7 shots per ton or 285lbs per shot!. Using the weight of the shell, gun and bore size (185mm) you end up with this: http://en.wikipedia....2-inch_howitzer A freaking WW2 howitzer that has a 200lb shell, can be shot 15000m and has a impact crater of 12ft wide by 4ft deep.
(muzzle velocities are about the same);
Yet someone try and convince me that 20 11lbs sticks do the same dmg as a 285lb bullet when they go about the same speed. It doesn't make sense.
AC20 generates 10tons of force; (285lbs @ 650m/s = 20.8k lbf)
a LRM 800lbf;
even if all 20 hit the same spot at the same time; you would still only generate 3/4 of the impact.

So lets go to the other extreme of a ac2
AC2 is 75 per ton or about 26.5lbs per shot. It does the same dmg as a LRM, but it is moving at 4x the speed and weights 2x as much, but does the same dmg?
But the impact is nearly 6x that of a LRM at 5.9k lbf.
That makes no sense what so ever, physics dictates that.

So what are my suggestions?

1. Bring AC's back in the realm of reality and at a minimum double the shots per ton If you double the ammo the weight drops in half and so does the impact. 11k lbf is now only 13x that of current lrm. Which puts it more into the same area of actual dmg.

2. Lower the shots per ton for LRMs by half. This would make LRM boating more expensive as you wont be able to pack 1200+ rounds of ammo; You will have to be more balanced, or keep running out. This would also increase the effective weight of the LRM to 22lbs at the lbf to 1600.

Which if the 1. suggestion is taken is 1/6th that of the above. (remember hitting something 20x with 1600lbs is not the same as hitting something once with 11k of force; Kinda like shooting a brick wall with a 9mm 10 times vs a .45 once. The .45 will probably leave a bigger whole in the wall. not a great example but still)

I cant even calculate a SRM because in order for them to do the same dmg as a AC2 they would need to weight 175lbs per missile, because of how slow they are. So if anything SRMS need to have their speed increased to 650m/s and their weight increased to 75lb per missile. Which only gives 26 missiles per ton. So I doubt anyone will go for that.

None of these are hard suggestions, but it seems in the name of 'balance' we threw physics out the window.
AC20s are supposed to be feared and yet they are not, at least not when compared to a LRM20;


Thoughts?

[Mawai]

Battletech physics ... don't look too closely at it grasshopper


Battletech weapons have always made no real sense when compared to current technology. Effective ranges are ridiculously short for everything. Part of this was justified in the lore due to lack of functional guidance and targeting systems making it hard to hit with the weapon ... but that also makes no real sense. Ballistic anti-vehicle weapons with an effective range of 270m ... the key phrase is "willing suspension of disbelief" ... however, it does make a generally fun game both on the table tap and on the computer.

By the way, lasers suffer from the same issues in terms of unphysical effective ranges ... though the rest of it is easier to make up since there is no current parallel weapons technology.

Edited by Mawai, 23 September 2014 - 06:00 PM.

[Mcgral18]

ACs are adequate where they are for balance.


And do you want to completely kill any LRM use ASIDE from boating?

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I've been looking at this sort of stuff too (good way to keep occupied when bored at least!).

Closest with modern missiles to compare to current Mech mounted missiles might be the Spike (LRM) and LAW (SRM), with weight and close relative range profiles.

---

LRMs could go back to 120 per ton. I'd make that trade that for more missile speed!

Ans SRMs should have some limited guidance and a speed boost would be nice.

---

And weapons like the AC/20 actually fired multiple rounds to equal 20 damage in a turn (which is why they're so hot too).

Although I'd welcome increasing the number of rounds IS Autocannons fire, it is an unpopular idea around here.

[ShinobiHunter]

There is only one way to explain this...

[Wolfways]

Ammo/ton = not enough.

[CocoaJin]

Maybe ACs aren't purely kinetic. Perhaps they are HE or HEAT like rounds that deliver the majority of their energy through a much smaller explosive mass compared to the round's torso weight. This would explain the low velocities used and damage to mass values.

[Duncan Jr Fischer]

Battletech is an amazing universe, it's vast, deep and complex, until you get to the mechs and their weapons. They are cool, but totally ridiculous from any logical point of view and trying to apply logic to them may harm your sanity. They are just cool, don't think about the rest. Isn't that a reason why we are all here, playing mechs and their weapons in the middle of some abstract vacuum without any other signs pointing to Battletech?

[Nothing Whatsoever]

CocoaJin, on 23 September 2014 - 08:30 PM, said:

Maybe ACs aren't purely kinetic. Perhaps they are HE or HEAT like rounds that deliver the majority of their energy through a much smaller explosive mass compared to the round's torso weight. This would explain the low velocities used and damage to mass values.

Autocannons do fire High Explosive Armor Piercing (HEAP) rounds because of the type of BattleMech armor the rounds had to defeat.

[Mavairo]

If we start talking physics, then there wouldn't be battlemechs in this game.
Treads>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Legs. Especially as weight increases.

[Jonathan Paine]

The year is 3049. This is make believe.

[CocoaJin]

Praetor Knight, on 23 September 2014 - 09:02 PM, said:

Autocannons do fire High Explosive Armor Piercing (HEAP) rounds because of the type of BattleMech armor the rounds had to defeat.

I did good?

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Tanks wouldn't be able to climb any cliffs and would struggle on many inclines.

I'd like to see a tank navigate Canyon Network for example, that'll be fun actually even with mechs having that slope climb nerf.

I love to see tanks in MWO regardless though.

[Whiplash!!!]

You really can't think too much about this stuff. It'll drive you nuts. An A-10C could take out any of these mechs from 8 miles away... literally.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Praetor Knight, on 23 September 2014 - 09:57 PM, said:

Tanks wouldn't be able to climb any cliffs and would struggle on many inclines.

I'd like to see a tank navigate Canyon Network for example, that'll be fun actually even with mechs having that slope climb nerf.

I love to see tanks in MWO regardless though.

Tanks would be able to equip jump jets for that, and would be more stable in flight than a mech would.

[The Amazing Atomic Spaniel]

Must... suspend... disbelief...

[aniviron]

Look, you seem earnest enough, so I'll start with this: An Atlas would float in water. In fact, almost every mech would. The density of these gigantic war machines is so low it's laughable. Hell, it's not even a close thing: not only would almost everything bigger than a Jenner float, most of them would float so well they would be bouncing off the top of the surface like a buoy.

And the thing is, this is pretty much par for the course in Battletech physics. It's ridiculous, the numbers are just way way off.

So save yourself the trouble and the headache, and don't worry about how much things weigh, how far it shoots, or any of that stuff, at least not as far as "Would this make sense in the real world?" You don't have to answer the question, because we already know the answer, no matter what the question is: the answer is no.

Now that you've got that, try to think about the game in terms of what makes a fun multiplayer shooter, and balance around that instead.

[Illegal Username]

In the grim darkness of space eighties physics are kinda wonky.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Kaeb Odellas, on 23 September 2014 - 10:10 PM, said:

Tanks would be able to equip jump jets for that, and would be more stable in flight than a mech would.

What tank in the lore actually did that? Best I can find is the Kanga. And here are some vague details regarding Jump Jets on vehicles.

[Christof Romulus]

Nice try Op!

But you forgot that ammunition was already 1.5x tabletop - the AC 20 actually only gets 5 shots / ton!

Now recalculate, update your post, and then read everything everyone else said:
This is a game.
The numbers are for fun-sake - redefine the ton if you have to.
The AC 20 doesn't fire a single slug - in fact NO AC 20 fires a single slug - they are multi-barrel ultra miniguns that sling hypervelocity rounds that shred armor off: http://www.sarna.net...i/Autocannon/20
Even the 185mm chemjet gun fires multiple, smaller shells.

It's just a game, the numbers help us sling DPS, that is all.