209 replies to this topic

[Nightmare1]

WarHippy, on 11 November 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

I read just fine thanks. My statement to you was based off of what you said to me, anything you said later was not directed at me and something I was not commenting on. Pretty simple concept. That being said there is a difference between the canon provided by the books and the fluff used in the books to describe a scene. What is canon are the events that took place and the people taking part. Fluff on the other hand is any time the author was trying to paint a pretty picture in your mind by describing a scene. It sounds better to say "I savaged the enemy Centurion with a stream of fire from my AC rocking him backwards" then it does to say "I shot the guy with my big gun, and it looks like it hurt".

Yeah, and if you were at all interested in engaging in an actual dialogue with me, you would have at least skimmed my other posts, most of which are fairly close together and do not require much scrolling or page turning.

As far as your sentence examples go, that is description and is something that is necessary and proper to good storytelling.

In the books, "savaging" a Mech did not always kill it. Indeed, sometimes the "savaged" Mech took considerably more punishment before finally dying. Other times, usually author-dependent, the savaging would utterly annihilate the Mech in question.

That being said, I've already discussed fluff and such with Joseph Mallen in a very pleasant manner, and am enjoying the discussion we are having. I do not feel inclined to enter into such a discussion with you given your utter lack of initiative and condescending attitude. Good day.

[stjobe]

Strum Wealh, on 11 November 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

That is, the BattleTech lore & the TT gameplay rules already indicate that UACs should fire a single large shell with each salvo (including firing two large shells in quick succession when fired in "ultra mode"), in contrast to Standard ACs (which are always described as firing a burst of multiple individual shells in each salvo).

I've been looking over both TacOps Multiple Target rules and Tech Manual Ultra Autocannon description, and I don't think it follows from those sources that UACs and RACs are "single-shell salvo weapons".

First, UACs are explicitly described as having a higher rate of fire than regular ACs (Tech Manual, p. 208): "Capable of higher sustained rates of fire than standard or LB-X autocannons, Ultra ACs could dish out twice the punishment in the same amount of time." That's what sets them apart from regular ACs (which are burst-fire).

Same with RACs (p. 207): "Using multiple barrels to attain up to three times the volume of an Ultra burst". I.e. six times the volume of a regular AC burst.

Secondly, when TacOps (p. 100) talks about "shot", they really mean "burst"; you can't hit multiple targets with a single projectile - and you can fire on multiple targets with both a regular AC and a UAC, The UAC follows the same rules as the RAC because they both have a very high volume of projectiles arriving at the target.

As for TT rules, we know that regular ACs make one to-hit roll for their burst; UACs can fire twice (and make two to-hit rolls), RACs can fire up to six times (and make up to six to-hit rolls).

In effect then, if a regular AC has a burst of, say 10 rounds, the corresponding UAC would have the ability to fire two such bursts in the same time span (twice the rate of fire), and the corresponding RAC would have the ability to fire one such burst out of every barrel, effectively getting up to six times the rate of fire.

So in this example, the regular AC fires 10 projectiles, the UAC 20, and the RAC 60 projectiles in the same time span.

Edited by stjobe, 11 November 2014 - 01:42 PM.

[Zyllos]

I think all Energy weapons need lower DPS, overall. So, I would reduce their RoF.

Ballistic weapons need to be high DPS, low heat, weapons. This would allow for Ballistic weapons to be multi-shot weapons.

[WarHippy]

Nightmare1, on 11 November 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

Yeah, and if you were at all interested in engaging in an actual dialogue with me, you would have at least skimmed my other posts, most of which are fairly close together and do not require much scrolling or page turning.

I'm sorry, but all I did was respond to what you said to me. Expecting someone to have read everything you have said to other people in case you might have clarified your statement is pretty absurd. It is hardly an issue to get pissy about.

Nightmare1, on 11 November 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

As far as your sentence examples go, that is description and is something that is necessary and proper to good storytelling.

Indeed it is storytelling, but that doesn't make it anything else. Fluff isn't bad, but it isn't to be taken as set in stone since any author could come along and change it. Much like Stackpole described medium lasers firing crimson beams, but others describe azure beams, and in MWO they are green.

Nightmare1, on 11 November 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

In the books, "savaging" a Mech did not always kill it. Indeed, sometimes the "savaged" Mech took considerably more punishment before finally dying. Other times, usually author-dependent, the savaging would utterly annihilate the Mech in question.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I made those sentences up, and I used "savaging" to indicate significant damage being inflicted without making any indication as to the end result. Both could be canon, but only one is given fluffy frills to sound more interesting even though they both describe the same event.

Nightmare1, on 11 November 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

That being said, I've already discussed fluff and such with Joseph Mallen in a very pleasant manner, and am enjoying the discussion we are having. I do not feel inclined to enter into such a discussion with you given your utter lack of initiative and condescending attitude. Good day.

[Strum Wealh]

stjobe, on 11 November 2014 - 01:40 PM, said:

I've been looking over both TacOps Multiple Target rules and Tech Manual Ultra Autocannon description, and I don't think it follows from those sources that UACs and RACs are "single-shell salvo weapons".

First, UACs are explicitly described as having a higher rate of fire than regular ACs (Tech Manual, p. 208): "Capable of higher sustained rates of fire than standard or LB-X autocannons, Ultra ACs could dish out twice the punishment in the same amount of time." That's what sets them apart from regular ACs (which are burst-fire).

Same with RACs (p. 207): "Using multiple barrels to attain up to three times the volume of an Ultra burst". I.e. six times the volume of a regular AC burst.

Secondly, when TacOps (p. 100) talks about "shot", they really mean "burst"; you can't hit multiple targets with a single projectile - and you can fire on multiple targets with both a regular AC and a UAC, The UAC follows the same rules as the RAC because they both have a very high volume of projectiles arriving at the target.

As for TT rules, we know that regular ACs make one to-hit roll for their burst; UACs can fire twice (and make two to-hit rolls), RACs can fire up to six times (and make up to six to-hit rolls).

In effect then, if a regular AC has a burst of, say 10 rounds, the corresponding UAC would have the ability to fire two such bursts in the same time span (twice the rate of fire), and the corresponding RAC would have the ability to fire one such burst out of every barrel, effectively getting up to six times the rate of fire.

So in this example, the regular AC fires 10 projectiles, the UAC 20, and the RAC 60 projectiles in the same time span.

However, the Multiple Targets rule in TacOps indicates that (unlike Standard ACs) UACs & RACs cannot "walk" their fire when used in their "normal ROF" (e.g. 1x) mode - they necessarily have to be operating in their "rapid-fire" modes (e.g. 2x and above), firing multiple separate salvos, in order to do that.

This would imply that UACs & RACs are either firing single shells per salvo, or are firing in bursts & have radically shorter burst durations than the same class Standard ACs (so much so that a MechWarrior, intentionally trying to spread the damage of a single salvo as they would with a Standard AC, is incapable of doing so)... and then the UACs are able to "pump out twice the normal volume of fire for a weapon of its class" (by firing one salvo - either a single shell or a radically-compressed burst - after the other), and the RACs can do thrice that (firing up to six salvos - each of which are also unable to be "walked" across targets - in succession).

Combined with quotations like that provided by Nathan Foxbane or the description of the Ryoken B's UAC/20 in Test of Vengeance ("Monstrous shells the size of trash cans poured from her Stormcrow's left-arm autocannon into a Combine Centurion..."; source), this would suggest that single-shell-salvos are at least more common in UACs & RACs than in other AC types (where single-shell-salvos are essentially unheard-of).

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 11 November 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

What would you say if I told you there's a fully canon Urbie that fires nuclear Arrow-IV missiles, and it was one of them that killed the Kell Hounds?

Apparently Herb Beas loves nukes and Urbies...

There's a lot of weird and wonderful stuff that's canon, lots that doesn't make sense (and some - like Tetatae - that are canon but officially ignored and never to be revisited).

But going from that to ignoring what the Tech Manual have to say about ACs is rather a long step and cannot be justified by "there's weird stuff in canon".

I am not ignoring the FLUFF in the TechManual, I am just cataloging it where it belongs. As Fluff.

FLUFF

Quote

Description

The Autocannon is a direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) rounds at targets either singly or in bursts.

Different manufacturers and models of autocannons have different calibers (25mm-203mm) and rates of fire. Due to this, autocannons are grouped into generic "classes" of autocannons with common damage ratings, with Autocannon/20s doing massive damage while having very short range.

An example of the rating system: the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon is a 150mm weapon firing ten shells per "round" while the Chemjet Gun is a 185mm weapon firing much slower, and causing higher damage per shell. Despite their differences, both are classified as Autocannon/20s due to their damage output.

The way it works:

Quote

Technical specifications
Heat 7
Damage 20
Minimum Range N/A
Short Range 1-3
Medium Range 4-6
Long Range 7-9
Tons 14
Critical Slots 10
Ammo Per Ton 5

For all of its life in the BattleTech universe This is how it works. I fire my AC20 DAKKA It hits One location Now it has not mattered that Fluff says it is a single round or a clip of 10 x 2 point rounds. The damage hits one location. there is enough damage spreading all over in this game. I want there to be ONE weapon type that does front loaded damage. I am not a death by paper cuts type player. I LOVE Brute force. Leave my brute force weapons alone.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 12 November 2014 - 05:28 AM.

[Triordinant]

ACs have always been single-shot weapons because all their damage goes to one location. Clan ACs were nerfed with burst fire because it was decided that Clan vs IS matches would be 12 vs 12 instead of 10 vs 12 (or some other ratio). Clan technological superiority is supposed to be balanced by IS numerical superiority but 12 vs 12 meant that Clan and IS 'mechs now have to be "different but equal" because the goal now is for an all-IS team to have an even chance at beating an all-Clan team in a 12 vs 12 match.

[Joseph Mallan]

That really made me sad. I wanted my Clan adversary to be a beast to defeat.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 12 November 2014 - 06:37 AM.

[Triordinant]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 November 2014 - 05:26 AM, said:

I LOVE Brute force. Leave my brute force weapons alone.

I've heard this is why a lot of old-timers prefer the semi-auto M14 to the full-auto M16.

[Joseph Mallan]

Triordinant, on 12 November 2014 - 06:09 AM, said:

I've heard this is why a lot of old-timers prefer the semi-auto M14 to the full-auto M16.

that's some REAL old timers. I was in during the 80s... We had A2s coming in that limited Auto to 3 round burst.

[Triordinant]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 November 2014 - 06:12 AM, said:

that's some REAL old timers. I was in during the 80s... We had A2s coming in that limited Auto to 3 round burst.

A2s were made to conserve ammo and limit "spraying" by green troops while improving shot grouping. IMHO, the AN-94 that came later was an improvement over this.

[stjobe]

Strum Wealh, on 12 November 2014 - 05:00 AM, said:

However, the Multiple Targets rule in TacOps indicates that (unlike Standard ACs) UACs & RACs cannot "walk" their fire when used in their "normal ROF" (e.g. 1x) mode - they necessarily have to be operating in their "rapid-fire" modes (e.g. 2x and above), firing multiple separate salvos, in order to do that.

Either I'm blind or the text does not at all say that UACs can't fire at multiple targets in normal firing mode.

It says that "any type of autocannon can be “walked” across two targets close to one another. An LB-X autocannon firing a cluster shot and Ultra and Rotary autocannons firing at multiple targets are a special case". The special case is how the to-hit rolls are handled for the multiple shots from these weapons when fired in their special modes.

For regular ACs, you make two to-hit rolls; one against each target, which then take half normal damage. An AC/10 firing at and hitting two targets would do 5 points of damage to both targets.

For UACs and RACs you only make one to hit roll, and if that hits you determine the number of shots hitting each target, each shot doing full damage. An UAC/10 firing in Ultra mode against two targets and hitting them both would do 10 points of damage to both targets. A RAC/10 firing at two targets and hitting with all shots would do 30 points of damage to each target.

I don't see how this is at all compatible with normal ACs being burst-fire and UAC/RAC being single/salvo-fire. An UAC firing in regular mode can walk their fire just like a regular AC, doing half damage to each target. Only when fired in Ultra mode does it need to use the special case rule - because it fires faster and does more damage.

Also, the whole rules section is opened with this statement: "Autocannons fire bursts of large-caliber shells to damage a target, much like enormous machine guns. They can be used in rapid-fire mode or fired at multiple targets, as described below."

No distinction or reservation is made that some types of autocannons are NOT firing "bursts of large-caliber shells [...] like enormous machine guns"

[Strum Wealh]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 November 2014 - 05:26 AM, said:

For all of its life in the BattleTech universe This is how it works. I fire my AC20 DAKKA It hits One location Now it has not mattered that Fluff says it is a single round or a clip of 10 x 2 point rounds. The damage hits one location. there is enough damage spreading all over in this game. I want there to be ONE weapon type that does front loaded damage. I am not a death by paper cuts type player. I LOVE Brute force. Leave my brute force weapons alone.

Again, the basic TT gameplay rules are an abstraction, an extreme simplification designed to facilitate minimized space & time requirements for TT gameplay.

With MWO & other computer games, the computers can, within fractions of a second, perform all of the calculations & decisions that would make a human-run TT gameplay session run all night long and into the next day without the abstraction provided by the basic gameplay rules as written.

However, the BattleTech universe is composed of far, far more than the (overly) simplified basic TT gameplay rules - and MWO is ostensibly attempting to be as true as it can be to the BattleTech universe as a whole rather than just the BattleTech tabletop game.

And, as far as the BattleTech universe is concerned:

• Stanard operate as "quasi-continuous-wave" systems (e.g. "switched on only for certain time intervals, which are short enough to reduce thermal effects significantly, but still long enough that the laser process is close to its steady state, i.e. the laser is optically in the state of continuous-wave operation").
  
• ER Lasers use weaker laser emitters to create a plasma channel & clear a path of atmospheric debris before the main laser emitter (which also operates in a quasi-continuous-wave mode) is activated; "Designed to overcome the diffusive effects of atmospheric particulates and thermal-optical effects, the weapon used a firing sequence that began with an optical targeting laser pulse, sent through a meta-material developed by Star League engineers in the early 2600s. A second, stronger pulse would then fire from the main laser lens nanoseconds later, to destroy any small particles and dust in the line of fire before the final energy emission would emit from the primary laser itself". (Era Report: 2750, pg. 99)
  
• Pulse Lasers, as the name suggests, operate as "pulsed laser" systems (e.g. "emit light not in a continuous mode, but rather in the form of optical pulsesemit light not in a continuous mode, but rather in the form of optical pulses").
  
• PPCs are particle beam weapons, firing singular bolts or short-lived beams/pulses composed of subatomic particles or whole atoms. One description of how one make of PPC (the Parti-Kill PPC mounted on the Manticore Heavy Tank) works is given in TRO 3026 (on page 64): "Unlike other particle cannons, the Parti-Kill does not use an energy collection capacitor or similar chamber. Instead, it uses a series of magnetic collection bottles that gather their energy straight from the fusion reactor. These energies are then channeled through a larger magnetic bottle and released from the cannon. This fires an energy 'shell' that loses cohesion and disintegrates at 540 meters. The Parti-Kill's bolts are unstable at ranges under 90 meters."
  
• Flamers, visually, resemble contemporary flamethrowers, firing a long stream of flame/plasma at a target.
  
• Machine Guns are repeatedly described as Gatling-type weapons with bore sizes around 20mm, and would generally operate as either burst-fire weapons or continuous-fire weapons.
  
• Standard autocannons, as has already been established in this thread, are invariably burst-fire weapons that range from 20mm to 200mm.
  
• LB-X autocannons, as has already been established in this thread, are invariably burst-fire weapons when used in their "slug" mode and single-shell-salvo weapons when used in their "cluster" mode.
  
• Ultra Autocannons can be interpreted as either single-shell-salvo weapons or as burst-fire weapons (with radically-shorter burst durations relative to the Standard ACs).
  
• Gauss Rifles, as weaponized "Gauss guns", are large coilguns (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH RAILGUNS) that fire singular large nickel-ferrous slugs with each salvo; "The breakthrough in superconducting coils came from research into microwave power converters used by the Department of Mega-Engineering on huge orbital solar collectors. These almost perfectly efficient coils could produce an intense and compact magnetic field that would accelerate a small ferric projectile to supersonic speeds in milliseconds." (Era Report: 2750, pg. 99)
  
• LRMs (75mm, 8.33kg) are Redeye-sized (70mm, 8.3 kg) guided missiles launched in sets of 5, 10, 15, or 20.
  
• SRMs (10.0kg) are Stinger-sized (70mm, 10.1kg) guided missiles launched in sets of 2, 4, or 6.
  
• Streak SRMs are also Stinger-sized (70mm, 10.1kg) guided missiles launched in sets of 2, 4, or 6; their distinction comes from the additional, specialized guidance & fire-control systems built into the missiles & launchers; "[The] targeting blister in the missile launching system would bounce multiple coherent light pulses off the target, accepting a positive lock only if over ninety percent of the pulses returned a signal. Only then would the launcher’s combat computer release the missiles with a constant feed of telemetry to ensure optimal delivery." (Era Report: 2750, pg. 100)

The pinpoint front-loaded damage (PPFLD) mechanic, from the perspective of the BattleTech universe as of 3050, should be the sole province of the PPCs (which should offset the PPFLD capability with very high heat generation, moderate weight, and a long recycle time), Gauss Rifles (which should offset the PPFLD capability with very high weapon weight, high ammunition weight (which translates into a low salvo-per-ton ratio), and a long recycle time)), and (maybe) the Ultra Autocannons (which should offset the PPFLD capability withhigh weapon weight, moderate-to-high heat generation, noderate-to-high ammunition weight, an the risk of jamming the weapon).
Everything else should either have a significant firing duration (Standard Lasers, ER Lasers, Pulse Lasers, Flamers, Standard ACs, and slug-mode LB-X ACs) or a scattering effect with multiple small munitions (cluster-mode LB-X ACs, LRM launchers, SRM launchers, and SSRM launchers).

[Joseph Mallan]

Strum Wealh, on 12 November 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

Again, the basic TT gameplay rules are an abstraction, an extreme simplification designed to facilitate minimized space & time requirements for TT gameplay.

With MWO & other computer games, the computers can, within fractions of a second, perform all of the calculations & decisions that would make a human-run TT gameplay session run all night long and into the next day without the abstraction provided by the basic gameplay rules as written.

However, the BattleTech universe is composed of far, far more than the (overly) simplified basic TT gameplay rules - and MWO is ostensibly attempting to be as true as it can be to the BattleTech universe as a whole rather than just the BattleTech tabletop game.

And, as far as the BattleTech universe is concerned:

• Stanard operate as "quasi-continuous-wave" systems (e.g. "switched on only for certain time intervals, which are short enough to reduce thermal effects significantly, but still long enough that the laser process is close to its steady state, i.e. the laser is optically in the state of continuous-wave operation").
  
• ER Lasers use weaker laser emitters to create a plasma channel & clear a path of atmospheric debris before the main laser emitter (which also operates in a quasi-continuous-wave mode) is activated; "Designed to overcome the diffusive effects of atmospheric particulates and thermal-optical effects, the weapon used a firing sequence that began with an optical targeting laser pulse, sent through a meta-material developed by Star League engineers in the early 2600s. A second, stronger pulse would then fire from the main laser lens nanoseconds later, to destroy any small particles and dust in the line of fire before the final energy emission would emit from the primary laser itself". (Era Report: 2750, pg. 99)
  
• Pulse Lasers, as the name suggests, operate as "pulsed laser" systems (e.g. "emit light not in a continuous mode, but rather in the form of optical pulsesemit light not in a continuous mode, but rather in the form of optical pulses").
  
• PPCs are particle beam weapons, firing singular bolts or short-lived beams/pulses composed of subatomic particles or whole atoms. One description of how one make of PPC (the Parti-Kill PPC mounted on the Manticore Heavy Tank) works is given in TRO 3026 (on page 64): "Unlike other particle cannons, the Parti-Kill does not use an energy collection capacitor or similar chamber. Instead, it uses a series of magnetic collection bottles that gather their energy straight from the fusion reactor. These energies are then channeled through a larger magnetic bottle and released from the cannon. This fires an energy 'shell' that loses cohesion and disintegrates at 540 meters. The Parti-Kill's bolts are unstable at ranges under 90 meters."
  
• Flamers, visually, resemble contemporary flamethrowers, firing a long stream of flame/plasma at a target.
  
• Machine Guns are repeatedly described as Gatling-type weapons with bore sizes around 20mm, and would generally operate as either burst-fire weapons or continuous-fire weapons.
  
• Standard autocannons, as has already been established in this thread, are invariably burst-fire weapons that range from 20mm to 200mm.
  
• LB-X autocannons, as has already been established in this thread, are invariably burst-fire weapons when used in their "slug" mode and single-shell-salvo weapons when used in their "cluster" mode.
  
• Ultra Autocannons can be interpreted as either single-shell-salvo weapons or as burst-fire weapons (with radically-shorter burst durations relative to the Standard ACs).
  
• Gauss Rifles, as weaponized "Gauss guns", are large coilguns (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH RAILGUNS) that fire singular large nickel-ferrous slugs with each salvo; "The breakthrough in superconducting coils came from research into microwave power converters used by the Department of Mega-Engineering on huge orbital solar collectors. These almost perfectly efficient coils could produce an intense and compact magnetic field that would accelerate a small ferric projectile to supersonic speeds in milliseconds." (Era Report: 2750, pg. 99)
  
• LRMs (75mm, 8.33kg) are Redeye-sized (70mm, 8.3 kg) guided missiles launched in sets of 5, 10, 15, or 20.
  
• SRMs (10.0kg) are Stinger-sized (70mm, 10.1kg) guided missiles launched in sets of 2, 4, or 6.
  
• Streak SRMs are also Stinger-sized (70mm, 10.1kg) guided missiles launched in sets of 2, 4, or 6; their distinction comes from the additional, specialized guidance & fire-control systems built into the missiles & launchers; "[The] targeting blister in the missile launching system would bounce multiple coherent light pulses off the target, accepting a positive lock only if over ninety percent of the pulses returned a signal. Only then would the launcher’s combat computer release the missiles with a constant feed of telemetry to ensure optimal delivery." (Era Report: 2750, pg. 100)

The pinpoint front-loaded damage (PPFLD) mechanic, from the perspective of the BattleTech universe as of 3050, should be the sole province of the PPCs (which should offset the PPFLD capability with very high heat generation, moderate weight, and a long recycle time), Gauss Rifles (which should offset the PPFLD capability with very high weapon weight, high ammunition weight (which translates into a low salvo-per-ton ratio), and a long recycle time)), and (maybe) the Ultra Autocannons (which should offset the PPFLD capability withhigh weapon weight, moderate-to-high heat generation, noderate-to-high ammunition weight, an the risk of jamming the weapon).


Everything else should either have a significant firing duration (Standard Lasers, ER Lasers, Pulse Lasers, Flamers, Standard ACs, and slug-mode LB-X ACs) or a scattering effect with multiple small munitions (cluster-mode LB-X ACs, LRM launchers, SRM launchers, and SSRM launchers).

The Autocannon is a direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) rounds at targets either singly or in bursts.

So since PGI is of the singly opinion For the IS I guess we have our answer. I am still of the opinion that Clan ACs (all non LBX cluster rounds) should be solid slug. Cause that is how it's done. Not how its written about in fluff.

Just a question of interest... Which side is more stubborn, Those insisting on Change or those standing against?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 12 November 2014 - 11:06 AM.

[Kassatsu]

The WVR-6R and DRG-1N would like to remind you all that IS ACs are in fact fully automatic.

EDIT: If we're going by lore, most autocannons are closer to machine guns that deal massive damage (or at least more than our current machine guns) than gigantic anti-mech cannons. I'd be ok with near hitscan projectiles for fully automatic autocannons, or 40-round bursts over a second or two. Less BOOM TWENTY DAMAGE IN YOUR FACE and more dakka.

Edited by Kassatsu, 12 November 2014 - 11:08 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Kassatsu, on 12 November 2014 - 11:05 AM, said:

The WVR-6R and DRG-1N would like to remind you all that IS ACs are in fact fully automatic.

EDIT: If we're going by lore, most autocannons are closer to machine guns that deal massive damage (or at least more than our current machine guns) than gigantic anti-mech cannons.

PGI isn't going by lore obviously.

[Strum Wealh]

stjobe, on 12 November 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

Either I'm blind or the text does not at all say that UACs can't fire at multiple targets in normal firing mode.

It says that "any type of autocannon can be “walked” across two targets close to one another. An LB-X autocannon firing a cluster shot and Ultra and Rotary autocannons firing at multiple targets are a special case". The special case is how the to-hit rolls are handled for the multiple shots from these weapons when fired in their special modes.

For regular ACs, you make two to-hit rolls; one against each target, which then take half normal damage. An AC/10 firing at and hitting two targets would do 5 points of damage to both targets.

For UACs and RACs you only make one to hit roll, and if that hits you determine the number of shots hitting each target, each shot doing full damage. An UAC/10 firing in Ultra mode against two targets and hitting them both would do 10 points of damage to both targets. A RAC/10 firing at two targets and hitting with all shots would do 30 points of damage to each target.

I don't see how this is at all compatible with normal ACs being burst-fire and UAC/RAC being single/salvo-fire. An UAC firing in regular mode can walk their fire just like a regular AC, doing half damage to each target. Only when fired in Ultra mode does it need to use the special case rule - because it fires faster and does more damage.

Also, the whole rules section is opened with this statement: "Autocannons fire bursts of large-caliber shells to damage a target, much like enormous machine guns. They can be used in rapid-fire mode or fired at multiple targets, as described below."

No distinction or reservation is made that some types of autocannons are NOT firing "bursts of large-caliber shells [...] like enormous machine guns"

• Standard Autocannons: "Determine the to-hit number for both targets and make separate to-hit rolls against each target, using the higher (more difficult) of the to-hit numbers and adding a +1 modifier for firing at multiple targets with a single shot... If the to-hit roll succeeds, the target is struck by a single hit that inflicts damage equal to half the normal damage done by the weapon (rounded down)."
  
• Ultra Autocannons: "make a single to-hit roll against the highest to-hit number plus 1. Then determine whether the designated number of shots fired hit a target. If only one shot hit, it will strike one of the targets determined at random with a single shot that does full damage. If two, four or six shots hit, one, two or three shots will strike each target at full damage. If three or five shots hit, one or two shots will strike each target; randomly determine where the other shot lands."
  
• "No matter what type of autocannon is being used, both targets must be in adjacent hexes and within range of the weapon."

A Standard Autocannon (or a slug-mode LB-X AC, or a Light AC, or a HVAC) firing at multiple targets makes two separate to-hit rolls ("...make separate to-hit rolls against each target...") & splits a single salvo between two targets, dealing (approximately) half of the salvo's damage to each target. If one to-hit roll succeeds and the other fails, only the target against which the successful to-hit roll was made takes damage (half the normal damage done by one salvo from the weapon, rounded down).

An Ultra Autocannon (or a RAC) firing at multiple targets makes a single to-hit roll for both targets, where each salvo that hits deals full damage to one location of a single target. That is, if a UAC fires two shots & only one hits, the single shot that hits cannot be split between both targets (unlike a single shot from a Standard AC) and deals full damage to a single section of the target.

This, then, comes back to my previous statement:

"This would imply that UACs & RACs are either firing single shells per salvo, or are firing in bursts & have radically shorter burst durations than the same class Standard ACs (so much so that a MechWarrior, intentionally trying to spread the damage of a single salvo as they would with a Standard AC, is incapable of doing so)... and then the UACs are able to "pump out twice the normal volume of fire for a weapon of its class" (by firing one salvo - either a single shell or a radically-compressed burst - after the other), and the RACs can do thrice that (firing up to six salvos - each of which are also unable to be "walked" across targets - in succession).

Combined with quotations like that provided by Nathan Foxbane or the description of the Ryoken B's UAC/20 in Test of Vengeance ("Monstrous shells the size of trash cans poured from her Stormcrow's left-arm autocannon into a Combine Centurion..."; source), this would suggest that single-shell-salvos are at least more common in UACs & RACs than in other AC types (where single-shell-salvos are essentially unheard-of)."

[stjobe]

Strum Wealh, on 12 November 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

This would imply that UACs & RACs are either firing single shells per salvo, or are firing in bursts & have radically shorter burst durations than the same class Standard ACs (so much so that a MechWarrior, intentionally trying to spread the damage of a single salvo as they would with a Standard AC, is incapable of doing so)... and then the UACs are able to "pump out twice the normal volume of fire for a weapon of its class" (by firing one salvo - either a single shell or a radically-compressed burst - after the other), and the RACs can do thrice that (firing up to six salvos - each of which are also unable to be "walked" across targets - in succession).

Personally I don't find it hard to believe that standard ACs, UACs in Ultra mode, and RACs have the same firing duration for their bursts; the UAC just fires at twice the RoF, and the RAC at 2-6 times the RoF.

E.g.:
AC: 10 rounds in 3 seconds (200 rpm firing rate)
UAC in standard mode: 10 rounds in 3 seconds (200 rpm firing rate)
UAC in Ultra mode: 20 rounds in 3 seconds (400 rpm firing rate)
RAC on max: 60 rounds in 3 seconds (1200 rpm firing rate - 200 rpm per barrel if it's a six-barrelled RAC)

And it's not that the MechWarrior is unable to spread his fire, it that he fails to do so. With the regular AC he misses one of his to-hit rolls, with UACs he rolls badly on the cluster hit table. Both describe the same thing: Part of the burst missed its intended target.

Strum Wealh, on 12 November 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

Combined with quotations like that provided by Nathan Foxbane or the description of the Ryoken B's UAC/20 in Test of Vengeance ("Monstrous shells the size of trash cans poured from her Stormcrow's left-arm autocannon into a Combine Centurion..."; source), this would suggest that single-shell-salvos are at least more common in UACs & RACs than in other AC types (where single-shell-salvos are essentially unheard-of)."

Small trash cans?

Just for the record, I've acknowledged before the possibility of single-shot ACs (and in extension UACs, RACs, LB-Xs) in the BT Universe, but going by current lore they would have to fire a single 300mm, 200kg shell - and at least I have never seen an AC described with that large a caliber.

Either way, if they exist they are exceedingly uncommon - they should most definitely not be as common as they are in MWO, where every single IS AC is single-shot.

Edited by stjobe, 12 November 2014 - 12:19 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 November 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

The Autocannon is a direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) rounds at targets either singly or in bursts.

So since PGI is of the singly opinion For the IS I guess we have our answer. I am still of the opinion that Clan ACs (all non LBX cluster rounds) should be solid slug. Cause that is how it's done. Not how its written about in fluff.

Just a question of interest... Which side is more stubborn, Those insisting on Change or those standing against?

The "singly or in bursts" verbiage appears ONLY on Sarna.net's article on Autocannons; as a meta source, Sarna is by definition neither canonical nor definitive... and as a user-editable source, Sanra can - and has - been wrong.

So, show us a canonical source - a quotation form a novel or sourcebook, including title & page number - that backs it up.

• "An autocannon is a rapid-firing, auto-loading weapon that fires high-speed streams of high-explosive, armor-piercing shells. Light autocannon range in caliber from 30 to 90mm, and heavy autocannon may be 80 to 120mm or larger." - Classic BattleTech Master Rules (Revised), pg. 132
  
• "For what amounts to one of the most basic combat systems on the modern battlefield, autocannons (often abbreviated as ACs) are a broadly varied class of rapid-firing, auto-loading, heavy ballistic weaponry - gigantic machine guns, in other words. With calibers ranging from 30 to 90 millimeters at the lighter end, to as much as 203 millimeters or more at the heaviest, most autocannons deliver their damage by firing high-speed streams or bursts of high-explosive, armor-defeating shells through one or more barrels. While caliber and firing rate can vary greatly, four main classes have emerged over the centuries, setting the standards by which all other ACs are rated, based on their relative ballistic damage." - TechManual, pg. 207
  
• "Autocannons fire bursts of large-caliber shells to damage a target, much like enormous machine guns." - Tactical Operations, pg. 100
  
• "Rather than firing at a single target, any type of autocannon can be 'walked' across two targets close to one another. An LB-X autocannon firing a cluster shot and Ultra and Rotary autocannons firing at multiple targets are a special case." - Multiple Targets rule for autocannons, Tactical Operations, pg. 100

Granted, PGI can - and must - occasionally deviate from BT canon in order for MWO to remain in a playable state.
However, there are times - far more often than not - where adhering to BT canon can help & improve the playability of MWO.

BattleTech canon - rulebooks, sourcebooks, AND novels - dictate that all Standard ACs are burst-fire weapons, as are the vast majority of their brethren (with the (possible) exceptions being the UACs & RACs).

It is the belief of some - including myself - that reimplementing ACs to fit this model would help to improve - perhaps even drastically so - the playability of MWO.

[Triordinant]

Everyone forgets why IS autocannons fire single shots and Clan autocannons fire bursts. Clan ACs were nerfed with burst fire because it was decided that Clan vs IS matches would be 12 vs 12 instead of 10 vs 12 (or some other ratio). Clan technological superiority is supposed to be balanced by IS numerical superiority but 12 vs 12 meant that Clan and IS 'mechs and weapons now have to be "different but equal" because the goal now is for an all-IS team to have an even chance at beating an all-Clan team in a 12 vs 12 match. It has nothing to do with lore or TT or anything else.

Edited by Triordinant, 12 November 2014 - 12:54 PM.