69 replies to this topic

[Vilheim]

Xandre Blackheart, on 28 June 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

Well no you're not wrong. It's definitely not a linear formula. If propelling a 1kg shell at 1000m/s takes X propellant. it is definitely more then X2 propellant to propel a 2kg shell at 1000m/s

The point where you go off the rails a bit is that it's mass, not volume or diameter that makes the difference. If you used the same diameter bore, and a denser shell, you'd see the same results.

Ah yes. In any case, would take lots more propellant, which a 'Mech may not have space for such large round and would explain the lesser range.

[Chunkymonkey]

This topic would actually matter if the devs put in multiple models of a weapons since each turn in TT was supposed to be ten seconds. So ten liitle shots, or 1 big shot didnt matter as long as they did 10 damage. When it was first adapted for Mechwarrior, it was one shot for balance reasons but in canon, it actually varies, same with lasers and other weapons. Size and weight also mattered by design. Obviously this was to complicated for a video game back then but now with modern technology......

Edited by Chunkymonkey, 29 June 2012 - 10:03 PM.

[Shotski]

Interesting topic.. doesn't it boil down to "I want all the cannons and weapons on my mech to shoot far and fast"... Also, I should have a button in my cockpit that automatically destroyes all the enemy mechs... I really look forward to seing how these developers address issues of previous games. Autocannon range and rate of fire are two of those.. I just don't like a range limitation that makes the rounds magically disapear after they have gone a certain distance.. I mean, if I fire an elevated shot, it should drop over a distance.. who knows I might just damage a foot...

Edited by Shotski, 29 June 2012 - 10:32 PM.

[Xandre Blackheart]

Well. as paraphrased before, half the fun is trying to figure out HOW the rules can be reconciled with what we know about physics.

[RedDragon]

Shotski, on 29 June 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

Interesting topic.. doesn't it boil down to "I want all the cannons and weapons on my mech to shoot far and fast"...

Well... no. Go and read it again. It's not about the damage potential, it's about the way ACs are depicted in the game. They don't have to deal more damage when fired in bursts.

[Sky walker]

I thought that in canon it was always AC == multiple shots per turn. Some models shot large caliber projectiles rarely, majority shot lower caliber projectiles more rapidly, RACs shot insane amount of projectiles - all within the same class (say: /20s).

It was never though like a medieval gunpowder cannon shooting one projectile every... long period.

Edited by Sky walker, 30 June 2012 - 03:15 AM.

[Bobfrombobtown]

Each individual AC may or may not be rapid fire, and may be of varying calibers.

Link: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon

[Agent CraZy DiP]

"...no Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each "round" or burst of fire." -sarna.net

He's right... Which begs the question... Will the option for a burst fire and rapid ever become available in the future as the game progresses?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

The problem is that one of the advantages of acs is that they do their damage at one point all at once. In TT the "burst" of multiple rounds is not a problem. In a PC game this could lead to a burst hitting all over, even some shots missing altogether with fast moving and manouvering mechs. This is why they are portrayed as one shot in game.

[Xandre Blackheart]

You know, at this point I don't care anymore.

They can make one big BANG or a line of shells that goes BRAAAP, as long as it dumps the damage all in the same spot. I tell ya I just don't care about the graphics.