94 replies to this topic

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Willard Phule, on 18 November 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

Might as well keep it up.....

Right now, today, we have missiles that can be "aimed" (locked) and fired at far more than a kilometer. And they track much, much better than what's in the game.

Why mention that?

Because of the lore and timeline of the BT universe. At one point, prior to the Exodus, the Inner Sphere had MUCH better technology than they do today. There were FOUR succession wars, each one depleted the Great House's ability to produce technology. They lost the ability to make ER energy weapons, Ultra ACs, LBx ACs, Gauss Rifles, XL engines, Double Heat Sinks....all of that. It was gone for HUNDREDS of years.

During the time where technology was declining, they lost a lot of targeting and communications technology as well. This is where the 1000m range on LRMs comes from (actually, the BT range is 21 hexes. Each hex is 30m. My math may be wrong, that that comes out as 610m to me).

Also keep in mind that the Ares Convention of 2412 was designed to reduce civilian casualties and damage. Perhaps one of the reasons for the shortened range and the fact that the missiles explode after hitting maximum range is the reflection of that agreement.

In TT, you get 100 twenty pound missiles per ton. In MWO, you get 180 eleven pound missiles per ton.

That might be why they have a short range with low individual damage. They need to squeeze a guidance package, propulsion package, and a warhead into such a small bit ordinance.

Whereas the M47 Dragon is a modern performance equivalent and it's missiles weigh 30lbs.

[RazorbeastFXK3]

Ah.. I was going by the knowledge of the old style tripod tube where you dropped the mortar shell in the open end then cower away from the device and covered your ears 'cause when the mortar hit the butt at the back of the barrel, it kicked on and launched.

I haven't been keeping myself up-to-date on the latest tech, heh. I probably should get myself cable television again so I can watch the Discovery Channel like I used to or just actively research it myself through websites and such.

Willard Phule, on 18 November 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

Not entirely true.

There exists today a round that will home in on a target that a forward observer is designating with a laser. There are tube-fired artillery rounds that'll do the same thing (that Excalibur I was babbling about).

[DEN_Ninja]

Considering this is a game...a Science Fiction Genre game. Let's take realism and set that aside, it has very little to say about gameplay mechanics.

I would rather have LRM's have independent modes of fires, direct, indirect, and dumb as a sub of indirect. Half the reason why people consider LRM Launchers useless before most of the buffs was because as it was it was an unreliable weapon in terms of hits in any situation that does not have an individual spotter. This stems from the fact that LRM Launchers use a parabolic arc trajectory along with the requirement of lock ons.

Direct Fire;
Requires Line of Sight
Requires Lock
Straight Line Trajectory
Medium Tracking Ability

Indirect Fire;
Requires Independent Spotting when without LOS
Requires Lock
Parabolic Arc Trajectory
Low Tracking Ability

Indirect Dumb Fire;
Line of Sight with target area
No Lock
Parabolic Arc Trajectory
No Tracking

For frame reference, Streaks are of High Tracking ability

This gives LRM Launchers the ability to have a level of usability without a spotters when they have line of sight. This also gives more reason for spotting roles.

From there you can decrease the missile speed back to its original level. Possibly remove the LRM damage spread outright, though I believe it already was.

This comes with a whole slew of changes to spotting and information warfare if possible.
_____________________________
Otherwise, yes decrease the angle of attack a smidge.

[Burktross]

Roadbuster, on 18 November 2014 - 01:11 AM, said:

If missiles would be more realistic there would be no need for battlemechs, because they are toys compared to the weapons available in 2014.
MWO is a game.
And having good balance in a game is more important than being realistic.

I'd also welcome a slight reduction of the dive angle of LRMs.

Agreed. Decrease indirect firing arc a bit to make cover viable, but to compensate, up damage to 1.1 again and make direct fire fire straighter.

[SaltBeef]

Keep whining I am sure the Devs will turn the mean LRMS into fairy gumdrop sprinkles for you!

[DEN_Ninja]

SaltBeef, on 18 November 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

Keep whining I am sure the Devs will turn the mean LRMS into fairy gumdrop sprinkles for you!

Ugh, reminds me of CB in my Founder's Cat. 30 LRM's to your face? for a total of what should be like 30 damage? Nope that was like 5 damage, try again. A sixth of one ton of ammo tickled people.

An AC/5 did 5 damage more damage reliably against hitreg with only a loss of 1/30 of a ton.

Edited by Tichorius Davion, 18 November 2014 - 12:04 PM.

[kf envy]

Willard Phule, on 18 November 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

Might as well keep it up.....

Right now, today, we have missiles that can be "aimed" (locked) and fired at far more than a kilometer. And they track much, much better than what's in the game.

Why mention that?

Because of the lore and timeline of the BT universe. At one point, prior to the Exodus, the Inner Sphere had MUCH better technology than they do today. There were FOUR succession wars, each one depleted the Great House's ability to produce technology. They lost the ability to make ER energy weapons, Ultra ACs, LBx ACs, Gauss Rifles, XL engines, Double Heat Sinks....all of that. It was gone for HUNDREDS of years.

During the time where technology was declining, they lost a lot of targeting and communications technology as well. This is where the 1000m range on LRMs comes from (actually, the BT range is 21 hexes. Each hex is 30m. My math may be wrong, that that comes out as 610m to me).

Also keep in mind that the Ares Convention of 2412 was designed to reduce civilian casualties and damage. Perhaps one of the reasons for the shortened range and the fact that the missiles explode after hitting maximum range is the reflection of that agreement.

i do remember and even in the tt rule books it talking about how after an short time after the 1st battlemech's were being used for war all fractions agreed on a set rules of war not more nukes an other WMD's and to avoide civillian casualties. an the IS lost the ability to make lost of weapons, mechs "the last MAL factory was destroyed by the clans during the invasion" jump ship let alone warship. what what they do have were/is being built by automated machines that they did not how to fix if they broke down. ware as the clans did not louse all this technology but were able to go on and improve it an unlike IS they still had ship yards to build jump ships warship an on top of that all the factory's needed to build top of the line battlmech, protomechs, an battle armor. an even there form of war was to reduce the waste of life an resources because of there limited amount.

but i also recall about the in rule book saying that because the small size of the hex boards that the range on some of the weapons have been vastly reduced or you end up needing an hex board the size of your living room.

but as for LRM's there good for this game an the OP should be happy there not like any of of modern if they were all it take is 1 LRM out of 40+ flying at you to 1hit KO your battlemech

[SaltBeef]

I was not here for CB but have seen all the youtubes.

[KraftySOT]

I love it when people say THIS IS THE FUTURE A MISSILE CAN GO FATHER THAN 1,000 METERS!!!

Yet, fuel to weight ratio remains a constant.

It doesnt matter how far in the future you are, physics doesnt change. Fuel weighs something. More weight decreases range. More fuel increases range, but increases weight. Components weigh things. The more weight, the less range, the more fuel required.

There is a finite cap on how far, destructive, agile, etc a missile can be based on all those factors.

An LRM is smaller than an SRM

http://www.sarna.net...RM_-_TR3026.jpg

And an SRM is roughly the same size, range, weight, and explosive component as a ATGM Javelin. With around 17kgs of explosive, and around 40 kgs of fuel.

If you make a missile with a smaller warhead, thus reducing weight, the same level of fuel, extends the range, at the cost of explosive content.

An LRM is no larger, or more powerful, than a 3.5 inch rocket. Has the same effective range, and same explosive content.

There ARE plenty of missiles that fire much, much father in the BTech universe, but like real missiles, to achieve this, it exponentially increases size and weight.

There arent missiles today, or any day in the future, that have cruise missile range, while being able to be picked up and loaded by a human being (less than 120 lbs).

[Fut]

KraftySOT, on 18 November 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

I love it when people say THIS IS THE FUTURE A MISSILE CAN GO FATHER THAN 1,000 METERS!!!

Yet, fuel to weight ratio remains a constant.

It doesnt matter how far in the future you are, physics doesnt change. Fuel weighs something. More weight decreases range. More fuel increases range, but increases weight. Components weigh things. The more weight, the less range, the more fuel required.

What about futuristic fuels that weigh less than conventional fuels used today?

Edited by Fut, 18 November 2014 - 12:10 PM.

[Willard Phule]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 18 November 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

In TT, you get 100 twenty pound missiles per ton. In MWO, you get 180 eleven pound missiles per ton.

That might be why they have a short range with low individual damage. They need to squeeze a guidance package, propulsion package, and a warhead into such a small bit ordinance.

Whereas the M47 Dragon is a modern performance equivalent and it's missiles weigh 30lbs.

True, but keep in mind that PGI is a Canadian company and apparently, Canadians have trouble with math. They doubled the ammo per ton, armor points per ton and internal structure points....so, yeah.

As far as the weight per missile goes, it's best to not even go there.

If you read any of the old sourcebooks about the Star League and how the Battlemech evolved, the story itself explains part of it. Up until the time that the Battlemech was developed by the Terran Hegonomy, warfare was fairly standard. Ground troops, tanks, planes, etc.

One of the things a Battlemech was designed for, at that time, was to pretty much ignore conventional weaponry. The "autocannons" mounted on the tanks of that day are not the same as the "autocannon" that is mounted on Battlemechs. Advancements in armor plating and myomer technology were pretty much the thing that drove the development.

So, I guess what I'm saying is you have to use a little imagination. They designed an armor plating that was impervious to standard weaponry so weaponry had to advance as well.

[KraftySOT]

Air to air missiles for example, have a few mile range (up to 22 for the sidewinder), but, has a smaller explosive charge than an ATGM (at around 9.4kgs) and weighs considerable more (188 lbs) of that almost 60 lbs is fuel.

http://en.wikipedia....IM-9_Sidewinder

Its also 9 feet long, a good 4 feet longer than an LRM.

An LRM isnt a very potent weapon.

Think Katayusha, but with the same guidance as a Hellfire. Which only has a 10-20m accuracy.

[Fut]

Willard Phule, on 18 November 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

True, but keep in mind that PGI is a Canadian company and apparently, Canadians have trouble with math. They doubled the ammo per ton, armor points per ton and internal structure points....so, yeah.

None of this illustrates PGI having trouble with math.
Nice try though.

[KraftySOT]

Fut, on 18 November 2014 - 12:10 PM, said:

What about futuristic fuels that weigh less than conventional fuels used today?

Theres no such thing. Liquids generally all weigh almost exactly the same. Saving a kg isnt changing anything. Non liquid fuels are even less efficient.

Hence why the solid boosters are so damned big.

[Willard Phule]

KraftySOT, on 18 November 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

I love it when people say THIS IS THE FUTURE A MISSILE CAN GO FATHER THAN 1,000 METERS!!!

Yet, fuel to weight ratio remains a constant.

It doesnt matter how far in the future you are, physics doesnt change. Fuel weighs something. More weight decreases range. More fuel increases range, but increases weight. Components weigh things. The more weight, the less range, the more fuel required.

There is a finite cap on how far, destructive, agile, etc a missile can be based on all those factors.

An LRM is smaller than an SRM

http://www.sarna.net...RM_-_TR3026.jpg

And an SRM is roughly the same size, range, weight, and explosive component as a ATGM Javelin. With around 17kgs of explosive, and around 40 kgs of fuel.

If you make a missile with a smaller warhead, thus reducing weight, the same level of fuel, extends the range, at the cost of explosive content.

An LRM is no larger, or more powerful, than a 3.5 inch rocket. Has the same effective range, and same explosive content.

There ARE plenty of missiles that fire much, much father in the BTech universe, but like real missiles, to achieve this, it exponentially increases size and weight.

There arent missiles today, or any day in the future, that have cruise missile range, while being able to be picked up and loaded by a human being (less than 120 lbs).

And, again, the Ares conventions comes into play.

Unexploded ordnance is a danger to civilians. Missiles, at least in MW:O, explode upon reaching maximum range to prevent UXO from littering a planet that the invading force intends to use. Or whatever.

Today, we've got missiles that can lock on miles away from the target, track it down and blow it up. It isn't the body, fuel or warhead that accomplishes that...it's the tracking system. You can build a rocket that'll fly for a long, long time but if it can't track it's target or it becomes a danger to everyone if it misses, then what's the point, right?

Fut, on 18 November 2014 - 12:13 PM, said:

None of this illustrates PGI having trouble with math.
Nice try though.

Well, technically, it does.

I didn't say PGI in particular had problems with math, just Canadians in general. PGI happens to be Canadian....follow the logic. Go as slow as you need.

But, seriously, a lot of issues in this game tend to arise from PGI's difficulties with numbers.

Ghost heat, constant adjustment of projectile speeds, burn times, etc......they don't make minor adjustments and then see how it works, they beat the snot out of it with Paul's Soccer Bat.

Sigh. What's the point of arguing with a White Knight?

Ok, you win. PGI is awesome. Paul is a god and Russ is the savior. Do me a favor, next time you're at your personal PGI shrine you have hidden in your bedroom closet, light a candle for me, ok?

[KraftySOT]

Its like bullets. Theres a finite cap on how they perform. No amount of technology changes that until you move on to an entirely new technology. Like gun powder to magnets.

But then that would be a Gauss rifle, not an LRM lol.

But you can get more range, or more muzzle velocity, or more stopping power, you cant get them all. As you increase the power to do one thing, youre decreasing its power at something else.

The heavier you make a missile, the more fuel you need to move it, which in turn, makes it heavier. At some point you cant build a bigger rocket, because the fuel weighs to much for the engine to move given its power. Then you get a bigger engine, you need more fuel. Its a never ending cycle.

So theres practical and hard limits on missile sizes.

Now could you move something like a missile wth alternative sources of propulsion? Sure. But as said, in the BTech lore, there was a huge backslide in technology.

They even have tanks with ICEs, internal combustion engines. Theres mechs with them too, though not combat mechs. Its not as advanced as everyone thinks.

For simplicity and cost, they use fuel based rockets. Not unlike a guided Hydra rocket from an Apache. Which also has about a 1200m range.

[KraftySOT]

Willard Phule, on 18 November 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

And, again, the Ares conventions comes into play.

Unexploded ordnance is a danger to civilians. Missiles, at least in MW:O, explode upon reaching maximum range to prevent UXO from littering a planet that the invading force intends to use. Or whatever.

Today, we've got missiles that can lock on miles away from the target, track it down and blow it up. It isn't the body, fuel or warhead that accomplishes that...it's the tracking system. You can build a rocket that'll fly for a long, long time but if it can't track it's target or it becomes a danger to everyone if it misses, then what's the point, right?

Thats totally valid, but not the part about tracking.

Tracking, or gearing as its called, is a constant. It doesnt stop working, or stop tracking. I mean a watch battery will run one for your concievable life time.

Its that the missile runs out of fuel, or, it travels to fast to recieve responses from the main FCS and becomes more ineffective over range, until it runs out of fuel.

Take for instance the Hellfire or Patriot missiles. Both of them are inaccurate because of the latency between home base FCS (in the seat of the apache or the patriot launch vehicle) and their actual position in the universe. For them to receive updates, it requires an algorithm, much like GPS satellites that because of their distance from earth and speed, are actually tavelling slower through time than we are, thus, they need an algorithm to be accurate, or else theres weird delays and things miss. The greater the distance, the greater the error will appear to be.

So range is really only limited by two factors. Fuel. Communications.

The actual tracking component of a missile, is a fixed piece of equipment developed by a number of manufacturers that you can "plug in" to any missile you may be developing. Its size and weight are constant considerations, but not something designed specifically for a missile.

Infact the same tracking that a side winder uses, is also used in the FCS of 40mm launchers on Bradleys.

[SaltBeef]

Well if we compare current technology with Advanced 3050 tech mechs can 3d print thier ammunition out of lighter more durable materials right there in the launcher. Explosives would be alot hotter and penetrating metals such as copper for shape charges would probably be a different more effective molten penetrator. Like I have said before imaging the Periodic Table of the elements by 3050.

[KraftySOT]

And Wifi speed is constant.

You wont get more efficient wireless transmission. Ever. Unfortunately.

SaltBeef, on 18 November 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

Well if we compare current technology with Advanced 3050 tech mechs can 3d print thier ammunition out of lighter more durable materials right there in the launcher. Explosives would be alot hotter and penetrating metals such as copper for shape charges would probably be a different more effective molten penetrator. Like I have said before imaging the Periodic Table of the elements by 3050.

Well remember the game was made by people really interested in "future tech" in the 1980s. So most stuff is based on what was "around the corner" in 1988, thus, things coming in the 90s and early 2000s. They had no idea 3d printing would be a thing (and it really isnt as earth shattering as people say it is)

Also written into the timeline, is a huge back slide in technology, to the point where in 3025, you have the same technological level as the 1980s, but also have these futuristic war machines no one knows how to fix.

As the game and lore expanded in the 90s, they added the clans, and had a huge "reawakening" of technology, which really kinds of puts the brakes on the dystopian future thing they were going for.

So in many cases, fans who disagree, can both be right.

There IS a time in MW where technology is actually BEHIND 2014 technology, but then 25 years later, its blowing that technology out of the water.

AMS and Metal Storm are the same thing. Thats the rationale of the people who were at FASA. They were all military and history buffs and brainstormed this stuff up based on things that were probably technological innovations, without getting TOO science fictiony.

I mean...they used LITHIUM batteries on their Jump Ships.

That was a hot new item in 1989.

Now I have one in my cellphone. Who gives a crap.

And if we want to go there...we know now that a PPC will never work, lasers wont work, gauss rifles dont seem to follow the curvature of a planet thus making them mostly useless (THANKS US NAVY!) missiles and rockets are easily defeated...etc..

MW is just a fun game. Its not supposed to be taken THAT seriously or it all starts to fall apart. You have to cut off the real world unfortunately for alot of stuff to make sense.

I mean...the way physics works...if you dont penetrate armor, you didnt do anything to it. All the AC/2s in the world would never actually damage a mech, if its not penetrating the armor.

It would be like the 37mm atgs bouncing off french tanks in the Battle of France.

[Willard Phule]

KraftySOT, on 18 November 2014 - 12:24 PM, said:

Thats totally valid, but not the part about tracking.

Tracking, or gearing as its called, is a constant. It doesnt stop working, or stop tracking. I mean a watch battery will run one for your concievable life time.

Its that the missile runs out of fuel, or, it travels to fast to recieve responses from the main FCS and becomes more ineffective over range, until it runs out of fuel.

Take for instance the Hellfire or Patriot missiles. Both of them are inaccurate because of the latency between home base FCS (in the seat of the apache or the patriot launch vehicle) and their actual position in the universe. For them to receive updates, it requires an algorithm, much like GPS satellites that because of their distance from earth and speed, are actually tavelling slower through time than we are, thus, they need an algorithm to be accurate, or else theres weird delays and things miss. The greater the distance, the greater the error will appear to be.

So range is really only limited by two factors. Fuel. Communications.

The actual tracking component of a missile, is a fixed piece of equipment developed by a number of manufacturers that you can "plug in" to any missile you may be developing. Its size and weight are constant considerations, but not something designed specifically for a missile.

Infact the same tracking that a side winder uses, is also used in the FCS of 40mm launchers on Bradleys.

Right, but if the best tracking system you had available to you could only lock targets at 1000m and closer, you'd tend to build your missiles to work under those conditions. Making a missile with a 5000m range but a tracking system that's only good for 1000m would be irresponsible.

Keep in mind, the tracking system used on anything like a Sidewinder is "losttech." That's why SRMs are "dumbfire."