209 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

Escef, on 08 November 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

In order to rectify this problem you'd need to institute more and more fixes to either buff ballistics or nerf energy weapons.

I know the perfect fix for that: proper BT heat penalties, on a sliding scale starting at about 30-50% heat and getting increasingly worse until the inevitable not over-ridable shut-down at 100%.

Penalties could include:
* reticule shake and HUD effects
* movement slowdown
* over-ridable shut-downs
* perhaps even risk of ammo cook-off, although that might be a bit harsh.

All of these effects are already in-game, so it should be rather painless to implement such a heat penalty scale.

[Kiiyor]

Strum Wealh, on 08 November 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

That's right - the humble AC/5 is a burst-mode version of the Abrams MBT main gun...

HA, I was going to post something about this last night, but all it boiled down to in the end was "ain't no physics like battletech physics".

The shells can weigh between 15 and 25kg or so. The amount of energy required to move a shell normally reserved for the largest mortars or main battle tanks at speed through a weapon to allow "burst fire" is staggering. And the mechanical stress! Though I suppose it's maybe not that much of a stretch if they've invented alloys that ignore the square cubed law. Also, If they aren't using the combustible cases of many modern tank rounds, they'd also have to contend with ejecting the spent cartridges.

If you want a chuckle, try to think of one of those rounds moving internally through from a foot to an arm.

And that's only an AC5! Does the AC20 fire shells recovered from the Yamato?

Well, if the grey death novel is a bust, I need to look up the hunchback fight from one of the Cassie Suthorn novels. Black Dragon? TO THE BOOKSHELF.

[Vezm]

Lucian Nostra, on 07 November 2014 - 11:19 PM, said:

Tank cannons with autoloaders are not autocannons..

Autocannons are defined as rapid firing cannons, real life examples include the Bushmaster mounted on the Bradley IFV and Rarden 30 on the British IFVs.

The difference? A autoloader does not make a weapon AUTOMATIC.. it requires the breach to be opened and a new round loaded in before the breach is sealed.. that isn't how automatic weapons work..

I'm sorry but if the breach doesn't open and a new round is not loaded how would the weapon be ready to fire?

There are three distinctions of automatic in the world of weapons. Automatic loading, automatic cocking and automatic firing. Full auto (hold the trigger) is all three, semi-auto is the first two.

Feed, load(chambering), lock, {LT-MOB-25}, fire, unlock, extract, eject. All firearms follow these steps, not always in that order and the names don't always apply very well. eg, a muzzle loader still extracts but it's the same stage as firing.

[pyrocomp]

Hm, consider suggesting to PGI addition to the weapons ranks the idea of different manufacturers, where each AC/n will have from 1 to N rounds per burst 'shot'. Different pricing included.
The idea may sound idiotic, but will allow later to add nerfed (higher heat or slot size or higher reloading time or less damage or whatever) cheap version of everything to help beginners with their Mechs. Or and double price current weapons. And lostech for completely different prices.

[Y E O N N E]

Lucian Nostra, on 08 November 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

And that is not how a Tank cannon with an autoloader functions.

Yes it is, just scaled up and slowed down. It's electrically driven instead of driven by propellant gases. Round fires, electric gadgets open the breach, eject the casing, place a new round in, close the breach, and fire again.

Quote

actually if YOU dig a bit deeper you'd notice that ACP is on the ROUND not the GUN. It was used to distinguish the round as rimless for use in a pistol vs rimmed rounds used in revolvers.. It has nothing to do with the guns being automatic, the 1911 is and has always been classified as semi-automatic. ALSO YES the very definition of an automatic weapon is that it keeps firing when the trigger is held!

I said ACP is the round. Go read it again. The round is called what it is because the M1911 is from a time period when most handguns were not self-loading, they were revolvers. The M1911 was referred to as an automatic in the parlance of the times.

Quote

None of the guns you mention (bofors, hispano, bushmaster) require the breach to be opened so a new round can be fired, thus they are autocannons. I also like how you tell me automatic weapons aren't weapons that fire continuously when its about the pistol but here the definition is a gun that fires over and over..

The breech opens. What, you think the cartridge just ghosts through a solid piece of steel and magically appears inside the chamber? No, the action has to be opened for the round to get inside. Do you even know what a breech is? It's the back-end of the barrel, where the round goes on every modern military firearm. It's not a muzzle-loader.

Also, you are selectively reading what I said. I said the original definition for the term "automatic" as it relates to firearms is that the weapon loads the next round by itself. That's why .45 ACP is called .45 ACP, because it was designed for a gun that loads itself, which is why it being rimless was important in the first place. Rimmed cartridges offer a greater chance of jamming than do rimless when used in auto-loading firearms.

Quote

Removing the man loading a breach fired weapon with a mechanical piece does not make a weapon automatic. A bolt action rifle with a motorized gear that cycles the bolt does not stop it from being bolt action and suddenly turn it into an automatic weapon

Removing the man loading the breech does, in fact, make it automatic. Removing the man cycling the bolt on his rifle makes it automatic according to the modern definition if it fires again when done loading. It's automatic in the old-school definition if it simply loads without him having to manually operate the bolt.

Also, do you know what the difference between a fully automatic AR-15 is and one that isn't? A trigger sear. That's basically it. Cut yourself a new sear (highly illegal) and bam, automatic rifle. There were even these things called Pedersen Devices in the First World War that could be used to convert an M1903 Springfield into a semi-automatic rifle on the fly. Given that it operates on recoil, you could theoretically change the trigger mechanism to make it fire on full automatic. Recoil operation is exactly what most submachine guns use to fire in full automatic and there is no way in Hell you are going to win an argument saying something like the MP40 is not automatic.

Quote

Im not debating weither or not IS ACs are autocannons or not this is about the examples given.

You have a very basic level of knowledge on the subject and it's inadequate. Go to your local library and check out some books on the history of firearms, because right now you are convinced that the breech on a breech-loading weapon doesn't have to open to insert the next round and you are implying that a modern Gatling gun such as the M134 is not automatic. Simply going to Wikipedia for quick answers won't cut it here, and even then that particular source supports my statements more than it does yours.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 08 November 2014 - 04:47 PM.

[ShadowWolf Kell]

stjobe, on 08 November 2014 - 01:42 PM, said:

I know the perfect fix for that: proper BT heat penalties, on a sliding scale starting at about 30-50% heat and getting increasingly worse until the inevitable not over-ridable shut-down at 100%.

Penalties could include:
* reticule shake and HUD effects
* movement slowdown
* over-ridable shut-downs
* perhaps even risk of ammo cook-off, although that might be a bit harsh.

All of these effects are already in-game, so it should be rather painless to implement such a heat penalty scale.

Don't forget pilot blackouts and pilot death potential on an override, with mandatory pilot damage so heat effects amplify a pilot's chance of losing consciousness or dying.

[mindwarp]

When you're quoting shell weights etc, please remember that 1 ton of ammo in Battletech also includes all the ammo feeds etc from that ton of ammo to the weapon.

[Daneiel]

Kiiyor, on 08 November 2014 - 02:17 AM, said:

One of the Grey Death novels mentioned one of the autocannons firing an 120mm shell. TO MY BOOKSHELF.

Its Marauder - the gun is GM whirwind - its fire 3 shots burst 120mm each .There isn't any autocannon in BT lore that fire single shot , not in the novels nor in the manuals - all of them are burst fire .It was easy for making and PGI made it in that way , are they would change them - i don't know - when i saw the "the quirks for K2 - balistic and not PPCs , the Firestarters without flamer quirks and so many more - I don't have hopes to see ACs MW/BT lore friendly anymore.

Edited by Daneiel, 08 November 2014 - 06:41 PM.

[Krivvan]

LordKnightFandragon, on 07 November 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

If anything, the Clan ACs should maybe fire faster so the shots spread less, more like an MG42 and less like a .50cal in shot spread difference......

That ruins the balancing motif they're doing where Clans have superior damage, range, and tonnage but aren't as capable of PPFLD as IS mechs.

[Krivvan]

RedDragon, on 08 November 2014 - 02:30 AM, said:

But even then it would be a one in a million find. Not to mention that even the game rules say that ACs are burst fire (for purposes of "walking" shots from one target to another and damaging infantry - you can kill more infantrymen with ACs than with a Gauss in one shot because they fire bursts).

In this game though, a single shell is far, far, far, far, far more preferable to a stream. It's the thing that makes Clan ACs not too stupidly good. Same goes for Clan missiles. Clan lasers are better, but have longer durations. Clan PPCs even have more spread out damage.

[Ultimax]

Krivvan, on 08 November 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

That ruins the balancing motif they're doing where Clans have superior damage, range, and tonnage but aren't as capable of PPFLD as IS mechs.

On a macro scale this still holds true.

On a micro scale, I don't believe this is true.

It will take some time to analyze it all, but we can consider quirked mechs as "specialists" and at this point specialized IS mechs can compete at clan ranges, have potentially even better heat management with less investment, and some likely compete or exceed on DPS.

[Krivvan]

Ultimatum X, on 08 November 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

It will take some time to analyze it all, but we can consider quirked mechs as "specialists" and at this point specialized IS mechs can compete at clan ranges, have potentially even better heat management with less investment, and some likely compete or exceed on DPS.

All these quirked mechs still can't stand up to clan mechs in an open field and exposed fight. And those that maybe can, are glass cannons (like the Dragon-1N). But that's good. You want Clans to favor increased face time whereas IS to favor decreased face time with peeking and jump sniping.

Better gameplay > > > > > > Lore friendly.

Edited by Krivvan, 08 November 2014 - 07:29 PM.

[Ultimax]

Krivvan, on 08 November 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

Better gameplay > > > > > > Lore friendly.

I agree.


From a comp player's perspective, how many competitive clan builds that are not the Dire Wolf do you see utilize UACs - and which particular UACs?

[wanderer]

Captain Stiffy, on 07 November 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

Shouldn't they all be like the clan ones? Why did they start down that path for IS to begin with?

Because they didn't know better and realize that being able to deliver large amounts of rapid, focused damage is the quickest and most effective way to kill things.

PGI took most of our suggestions to fix AC's and turned them into Clantech edition weapon "balance" instead. Yes, AC's should be burst fire. In TT, single shot weapons are "rifles", and are decidedly inferior to the classic autocannon with reduced armor damage (though full damage vs. softer internal structure and non-armored targets).

What's even more ironic is that light/medium/heavy rifles exist in the current timeframe (obsolete, but they certainly do alongside 'Mech mountable rocket launchers) and would neatly fill the gap between MG's and autocannons, as light rifles are 1crit/3ton weapons, medium rifles 2crit/5ton, and heavy rifles (which compare to an AC/5 vs. armor, deal more damage to internals, and have slightly inferior ammo capacity) 3crit/8tons.

Seriously. It's that stupid simple to put in an entire "new" line of ballistic weaponry that'd give immense amounts of new options to 'Mechs all over the weight table.

[SaltBeef]

All Should be burst except LBX models. Lore wise.

[Ryoken]

SaltBeef, on 09 November 2014 - 05:30 AM, said:

All Should be burst except LBX models. Lore wise.

Actually even LBX models are burst firing cannons just that every shell will fall into several clusters at a certain distance from the target. This is why the number of LBX clusters hitting a target mech is not modified by range. So the LBX autocannons as we have them now are wrong in two ways:
1) they fire a single shot, where it should be a burst
2) the fired shot immidiately clusters instead of clustering at a certain distance to the target mech, making them useless at range


To OP topic / general on autocannons:
When reading the descriptions autocannons are described as "giant machine guns" firing several projectiles in TT rules and in fluff:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon

Daneiel, on 08 November 2014 - 06:40 PM, said:

Its Marauder - the gun is GM whirwind - its fire 3 shots burst 120mm each .There isn't any autocannon in BT lore that fire single shot , not in the novels nor in the manuals - all of them are burst fire .It was easy for making and PGI made it in that way , are they would change them - i don't know - when i saw the "the quirks for K2 - balistic and not PPCs , the Firestarters without flamer quirks and so many more - I don't have hopes to see ACs MW/BT lore friendly anymore.

(So single slug firing Autocannons if they exsist therefore must be notable rare exceptions as it is said to be specifically mentioned for the Cauldron Born - or at least that rumor is going through the forums, yet I do not have read any sources on that.)


So ALL autocannons should be burst fire weapons.
Therefore IS autocannons also should fire a short burst maybe half as long in time as the Clan autocannons.
And ALL autocannons should get some recoil mechanism.

MW3 could be a good example where to start so look at 3m50s:


MW3 also did the best job on LBX autocannons yet as they did fire a short burst of clustering projectiles.

I also think MWO and Blog did make a big mistake with making UACs multibarrel, where from the description only a modified load mechanism enhances the UACs performance not more barrels. Now the UACs in MWO do look like the rotary ACs should look like.

To sum it up:
normal Autocannon: single barrel, fires short burst
Ultra Autocannon: single barrel, fires two short bursts in the same time a normal Autocannon can fire one burst
LBX Autocannon: single barrel, fires short burst of flechette
Rotary Autocannon: multi barrel, fires variable number of short bursts

I blame Blog, the dark age and MWO for messing these simple things up...

Edited by Ryoken, 09 November 2014 - 09:58 AM.

[SaltBeef]

I thought the Lbx was a single shell that fragmented separated on the way to target not a buckshot weapon. In this game it is cannister buckshot.

[Water Bear]

The last I read in the this thread, the only thing that hadn't been said was the following:

From the printed material, I believe the most recent canon explanation of the inner sphere autocanon is that it fires a stream, like a clan AC. I forget where I read this most recently, I want to say it was in Total Warfare (the most recent tabletop standard game rules book), but I don't really know that to be true.

I recall the description "stream of razor sharp projectiles" to be the explanation I remember most clearly, but I don't know how old that explanation is. Someone said that the fiction is not consistent on this, but I believe a stream of projectiles is the most recent thing I read, and the most common.

Edited by Water Bear, 09 November 2014 - 01:11 PM.

[Krivvan]

wanderer, on 08 November 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

PGI took most of our suggestions to fix AC's and turned them into Clantech edition weapon "balance" instead.

Which is one of the best decisions they've made in the entire game ever. It actually does help balance out Clantech.

For pure gameplay reasons, why would anyone want burst fire for god's sake?

[Daneiel]

Ryoken, on 09 November 2014 - 09:22 AM, said:

(So single slug firing Autocannons if they exsist therefore must be notable rare exceptions as it is said to be specifically mentioned for the Cauldron Born - or at least that rumor is going through the forums, yet I do not have read any sources on that.)

About the Ebon Jaguar UAC/20 - all clan weapons are standardized - if you see it one mech it will be on others too , that mean it will act like every other ones - burst fire .