11 replies to this topic

[Tiyos]

Ok, so everybody knows how the clan ACs work, how the damage is spread out around multiple rounds. But, has anybody ever thought about the regular, non ultra autocannons? What if the regular clan autocannons were build the same as the inner sphere autocannons, with one shot carrying all the damage.

[B0oN]

Thats quite an old hat, good sir, and one of the first things many a Clan-player asked right off the bat when playing with AC-builds intead of UAC´s .

PGI answered : "Working as intended" ... and "... to neuter OP-ness of Clans and balance the playingfield"

Nevertheless its a quite nice suggestion .

[Koniving]

Honestly I don't like that on the IS, let alone the Clans.

By Cassette, they essentially mean something similar to a magazine, tube or drum which varies from weapon to weapon.

How 'bout this instead?
IS and Clan ACs: (Damage per bullet in parenthesis) [Total possible damage per cycle in bracket]
2 = 1 shot. (2 damage) [2 damage]
5 = 2 shots. (2.5 damage) [5 damage]
10 = 3 shots. (3.33 damage) [10 damage]
20 = 4 shots. (5 damage) [20 damage]

IS and Clan UACs (to account for when the IS UACs come out)
2 = 2 shots per 2 damage. (1 damage) [4 damage]
5 = 3 shots per 5 damage. (1.67 damage) [10 damage]
10 = 4 shots per 10 damage. (2.5 damage) [20 damage]
20 = 5 shots. per 20 damage. (4 damage) [40 damage]

IS and Clan RACs
2 = 3 shots per 2 damage. (0.67 damage) [12 damage]
5 = 5 shots per 5 damage. (1 damage) [30 damage]
10 = 6 shots per 10 damage (1.67 damage) [60 damage]
20 = 8 shots per 20 damage (2.5 damage) [120 damage]
Note: RAC/10s and 20s will not exist in our life time. Included for completeness.
It'd be Dakka heaven.

Edited by Koniving, 03 March 2015 - 05:04 PM.

[TheSilken]

Kon it says that the heavier ACs have less rounds per cassette so it should be in the reverse. Also doesn't the Devastator AC-20 fire a single massive round?

[Bloodweaver]

Koniving, on 03 March 2015 - 04:28 PM, said:

How 'bout this instead?
IS and Clan ACs:
2 = 1 shot.
5 = 2 shots.
10 = 3 shots.
20 = 4 shots.

IS and Clan UACs (to account for when the IS UACs come out)
2 = 2 shots per 2 damage
5 = 3 shots per 5 damage
10 = 4 shots per 10 damage
20 = 5 shots. per 20 damage

IS and Clan RACs
2 = 4 shots per 2 damage
5 = 5 shots per 5 damage
10 = 6 shots per 10 damage
20 = 7 shots per 20 damage

It'd be Dakka heaven.

At first I was going to say (once again) how those shell-counts are way too low for my liking. And how I strongly prefer the MW3 implementation of autocannon fire, which was also the only Mechwarrior game to use multi-shot ACs until Clans were implemented into MWO. It's less "BLAM, BLAM, BLAM" in MW3, and more "BBBBBAM." Probably six or eight shells per AC shot, but all released very quickly - well under half a second. Beautiful (and terrifying) jackhammer effect.

Anyway, the point was going to be that it's not so much the shell count that matters, it's more the duration over which those shells are released. A hundred shells would still be deadly if they all came out more or less at once(as an added bonus, it would look and feel incredible). And even shell counts as low as two or three would become quite weak if they were blasted out over the duration of a full second or more(and as an added detriment, would look and feel totally lame).

And that point remains. But then, I thought of something else. Something that I thought might be right up your own alley. It would require different versions of ACs to really have any effect, but there you go... Anyway. What if there was an inverse relationship between burst duration, and projectile speed? And that there was also an inverse relationship between damage rating and shell count?

Let's say you have a version of the AC/2 that fires eight shells in its burst. Let us imagine that this burst is similar to, but slightly slower than, those of the autocannon in MW3. We'll say it is delivered over the space of 1/2 of a second. And let us further say that this particular version of the AC/2 has a projectile speed of 2,160m/s, so that it reaches it's optimal range (720m) in exactly 1/3 of a second. As a result, the first shell reaches optimal range 0.333 seconds after the trigger has been pulled, but it takes 0.5 seconds for the final shell in the burst to leave the barrel, meaning the entirety of the burst has been delivered to the weapon's optimal range in 0.833 seconds, or 5/6 of a second.

Now let us say that we also have a version of the AC/20. It too fires an eight-shell burst, and it too does this over the space of 0.5 seconds. And it has a projectile speed of 810 m/s, so it too has its first shell reach optimal range (270m) in 0.333 seconds, and its final shell reaching that range in 0.833 seconds, also just like the AC/2 above.

Why is this interesting? For all intents and purposes, the two autocannon above are alike in everything but projectile speed. Fiddle with the numbers, and you can use the combination of projectile speed + burst duration to determine a weapon's optimal range. Balance it out by having those shells start slowing down after reaching that optimal range, making them easier and easier to avoid, and also begin to physically drop at an increasing rate. Bigger shells become affected by drag more rapidly, et voila, you have a natural, comprehensible, and tabletop-friendly balancing mechanism for AC fire that also makes (some) sense of the fact the lower-rated ACs have higher ranges(which is the reverse of ballistic physics in general).

And the added touch is you can also implement lower shell counts, even single-shot ACs, without having to make them feel either over- or under-powered. The key is to use that one little not-usually-thought-of number as your standard - the amount of time it takes for your AC to deliver its full damage rating to optimal range, from the time of pulling the trigger to the moment the final shell in the "round" hits that range, and using both projectile speed and burst duration as variables in that value. We'll call it the "to-hit value" for now. Balance all the ACs around it, and worlds of possibility open.

Yeah, you can have your single shot AC/20. But, since the "to-hit value" is 0.833 seconds(in the examples above), and you only have ONE shell firing, that means your projectile speed will be a measly 324 m/s(lol), half of what it is in MWO currently. It becomes less of a cannon and more of a cannon - you don't "fire" so much as "lob." If you do manage to hit with it, though, that's 20 points of instant, unavoidable, devastating damage. It should be costly. No doubled armor values required!

Too much? Ok, give each AC rating its own unique "to-hit value." The cool thing is this a great stand-in for DPS, since it takes the specificities of FPS gameplay into account without completely throwing out the intention of AC ratings as being "damage per ten second" values as opposed to "damage per shell" values.

Let's say that, to compensate for their shorter range, AC20s have a "to-hit value" of 0.667 seconds. That is, all AC/20s are designed to deliver their full damage rating per "round," at a distance of 270m, within 2/3 second of the trigger being pulled.

Single-shot = 20 damage per shell, 405m/s (still quite a bit slower than MWO's AC/20)
5 shells, 0.25-second burst = 4 damage per shell; 648 m/s (akin to MWO's projectile speed)
40 shells, 0.25-second burst = 0.5 damage per shell; 648 m/s (same projectile speed and burst duration, but a much more compact burst, making it more likely to hit albeit with lesser damage per shell)
40 shells, 0.6-second burst = 0.5 damage per shell; 4,050 m/s (for all intents and purposes, a "ballistic laser" - you lose pinpoint damage, but gain near-hitscan speed)
So, fewer projectiles OR shorter burst = lower projectile speed. And all three of of these things are just variables in what is the true value being used, amount of time it takes to apply a single "round's" full damage to optimal range. AC ranges start to make a little more sense. And variety reigns supreme. The main key, really is to balance pinpoint versus leading time. How much of each do you want?

Thoughts? Keep in mind, this literaly just now occurred to me, so I'm sure there's some intrinsic balance flaws.

[TheSilken]

Bloodweaver, on 03 March 2015 - 05:49 PM, said:

At first I was going to say (once again) how those shell-counts are way too low for my liking. And how I strongly prefer the MW3 implementation of autocannon fire, which was also the only Mechwarrior game to use multi-shot ACs until Clans were implemented into MWO. It's less "BLAM, BLAM, BLAM" in MW3, and more "BBBBBAM." Probably six or eight shells per AC shot, but all released very quickly - well under half a second. Beautiful (and terrifying) jackhammer effect.

MW4 ACs fired in bursts except for the LBXs. Again, also within a small time frame which is how it should be.

[Bloodweaver]

TheSilken, on 03 March 2015 - 05:54 PM, said:

MW4 ACs fired in bursts except for the LBXs. Again, also within a small time frame which is how it should be.

In MW4, it was just an animation. They were still pinpoint weapons. For that matter, so were lasers - they "stuck" to whatever they hit when first fired. The "beam time" was just an animation effect.

Only Ultra's had a "burst," and it wasn't really a burst at all. It was a double-tap, as with the Inner Sphere UAC5 in MWO, although the second shell was fired automatically unlike in MWO.

Edited by Bloodweaver, 03 March 2015 - 05:57 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

TheSilken, on 03 March 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

Kon it says that the heavier ACs have less rounds per cassette so it should be in the reverse. Also doesn't the Devastator AC-20 fire a single massive round?

Nope - the 185mm AC/20s on the Demolisher (which is apparently also known as the "Devastator", as evidenced by how Sarna redirects both "Devastator (Tank)" & "Devastator (Combat Vehicle)"to the Demolisher) fire 4-shell bursts per cassette, as explicitly stated in Era Report: 3052.

"The existence of weapon classes is an old point of contention among purists and the pragmatic. An engineer or armchair general might hold forth that the Crusher SH Cannon Autocannon (the only useful part of a Hetzer wheeled assault gun) is a completely different sort of weapon than 185mm ChemJet Guns of the fearsome Demolisher tank, because the former is a 150mm autocannon designed to fire a cassette of 10 shells while the latter is a 185mm weapon that fires a four-round cassette. However, not everyone can afford the luxury of such nitpicking, and so militaries long ago adopted a scheme of rough classes to judge weapon systems. In the case of the aforementioned autocannons, military personnel and casual observers would consider both weapons to be 'class 20' autocannons as they both fire 200 kilograms of ammunition in a 10-second period at an effective range of just under 300 meters." - Era Report: 3052, pg. 98

Between that, the source Koniving cited above (where is that from?), the "Multiple Targets" rule from Tactical Operations, and various novel descriptions, all evidence points to there being no such thing at all in BattleTech as single-shell-salvo standard autocannons.

At best, there are a few references that seem to support the existence of single-shell-salvo Ultra Autocannons as a contrast to the always-burst-fire standard models.

[Koniving]

TheSilken, on 03 March 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

Kon it says that the heavier ACs have less rounds per cassette so it should be in the reverse. Also doesn't the Devastator AC-20 fire a single massive round?

1) it won't fit with how PGI does things
2) The Victor's AC/20, a Pontiac 100, is known for firing 100 shots in a single second to get 20 damage...and rediculously long reload time.
3) you'd never use an AC/2, AC/5 or AC/10 again if that was the case.

And Devastator as in the Cauldron Born's UAC/20? The only thing even remotely assumed to fire a single round is the Cauldron Born's Ultra AC/20, and even that thing has two rotating barrels in most depictions. That's 207mm. That's a heavily contested thing, which I believe someone at WizKidz finalized as it requires "2 rounds per volley to deal 20 damage, up to 2 volleys with standard rules."
(Or did you mean the 185mm weapon on the Mech Devastator as Strum Wealth pre-empted with?)

The 190mm single shot Heavy Rifle does 9 damage, with 3 damage lost against modern armor (so one projectile at 190mm = 6 damage).
The 185mm Chemjet Gun is one that still to this day is stated to be 4 shots, and that's 5 damage per shot. So it fits fairly well.

Besides, do you use AC/2s now?
Would you use them if it took 20 bullets to do 2 damage while an AC/20 does 5 damage per bullet?

My shot count wasn't given as a BT ideal, but a practical number for the poor gameplay design and server/hit detection issues of this game. Now if we had 1x armor/structure, I'd be all over something like that, especially Bloodweaver's idea here (as I've been pitching similar things since 2013).

Edited by Koniving, 03 March 2015 - 06:27 PM.

[Koniving]

Strum Wealh, on 03 March 2015 - 06:01 PM, said:

Between that, the source Koniving cited above (where is that from?), the "Multiple Targets" rule from Tactical Operations, and various novel descriptions, all evidence points to there being no such thing at all in BattleTech as single-shell-salvo standard autocannons.

At best, there are a few references that seem to support the existence of single-shell-salvo Ultra Autocannons as a contrast to the always-burst-fire standard models.

BattleTechnology magazine, issue 0102 (or 0201). One of the two. Pages 8 through 14 listing lots of weapons. Its lasers are really interesting. Though I noticed most of the early ones are about infantry weaponry, with 0102 also having a lot about a ninja mercenary group for espionage missions and other craziness, and a Wolverine lifting the rear end of a tank (and the tank subsequently trying to beat the cockpit in with the barrel/turret).


(Put in perspective, a lot of BT builds make a lot more sense...)

Quote

BattleTechnology is a magazine that was published irregularly between 1987 and 1995 by Pacific Rim Publishing Company dedicated to BattleTech, a tabletop game of futuristic combat published at the time by FASA Corporation. The magazine includes game scenarios, optional rules, technical specifications for BattleMechs and other units, historical and current events in the fictional BattleTech universe, and short fiction, all of which was approved by FASA. The magazine is considered an official source of optional materials for the game.

The issue is in 87.
Information eventually changed, expanding beyond 120mm and weakening autocannons to create a smoother gap as you go up (bit of a power creep issue if you ask me). Unfortunately between this and the errorneous "rounds" instead of cassettes for AC ammo tonnage can create a lot of confusion.

Last edit:
If you happen to find some of your own.. I'm missing these issues:
6 (0204), 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18
Early Years
Lost issues
War Years

(For some reason their weird numbering stops at issue 7... and it just becomes 7, 8, 9, etc.. when it starts out 0101, 0102, 0201, 0202, 0203, 0204, etc...)

Edited by Koniving, 03 March 2015 - 06:46 PM.

[Bloodweaver]

Koniving, on 03 March 2015 - 06:29 PM, said:

...a Wolverine lifting the rear end of a tank (and the tank subsequently trying to beat the cockpit in with the barrel/turret).

Is that the description in the magazine? To me it looks more as if the Wolverine is trying to pull the tank out of a ditch or quicksand or something. I mean, all those guys on the ground are just kind of piddling around, doop-de-doo...

[Koniving]

Bloodweaver, on 03 March 2015 - 05:55 PM, said:

In MW4, it was just an animation. They were still pinpoint weapons. For that matter, so were lasers - they "stuck" to whatever they hit when first fired. The "beam time" was just an animation effect.

MW3 bursts.

I'm playing Pirate's Moon currently (it's been requested), I'm seeing around 3 bullets per shot on maximum settings.

TheSilken, on 03 March 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

Kon it says that the heavier ACs have less rounds per cassette so it should be in the reverse.

Before closing the magazine, I realized I didn't copy the individual specifications of each class so it made me think "Where did he get that, I hadn't shared it."
So I re-read the passage.

It says "Though this can be misleading since there are fewer shells in higher calibers than in smaller (calibers)."
Be aware that AC/2s [including LBX2 and UAC/2s] expand from 25mm to 90mm (if you only include AC/2s then 30mm to 80mm is all I found).
AC/5s go from 40mm to 120mm.
AC/10s from 80mm to 120mm.
AC/20s are the only ones that go beyond that, ranging from 30mm (Pontiac 100, Victor) to 185mm for the IS (Chemjet Gun). (The magazine is set in 3027 and caps the biggest AC/20s at 120mm).
UAC/20s go up to 207mm, with exactly one of them being that size. With that exception and maybe another one, most of them go up to 180mm.

As Strum pointed out, the 150mm is 10 shots per cassette/magazine and the 185mm was 4 shots per cassette/magazine. The Hunchback's original Tomozudur...yeah I can't spell that thing for the life of me is a 180mm 5 shotter. (5 shots = 4 damage per shot).
At some point Hunchbacks stopped getting produced and when restarted, Kali-yama Weapons Industries replaced all the weapon systems on the 4Gs rolling off the assembly lines with their own brand of weaponry. The new AC/20 was a 120mm Kali-Yama Big Bore at 12 shots per cassette with a high rate of fire and slow cassette exchange. (12 shots = 1.67 [rounded] per shot).

Of course this assumes that every use is exactly 20 damage, though the magazine goes out of its way to point out that's a generic classification, an 'expected standard'... and goes on to explain that some AC/20s do excess of 20 damage, and some do less. (The direct and glancing blow rules account for this to some degree).

Some more from it.

Compared to later iterations, it seems the shots per rating went down considerably too.

Bloodweaver, on 03 March 2015 - 08:02 PM, said:

Is that the description in the magazine? To me it looks more as if the Wolverine is trying to pull the tank out of a ditch or quicksand or something. I mean, all those guys on the ground are just kind of piddling around, doop-de-doo...

I know. You got two guys aiming guns at each other. One getting ready to hurl a grenade.
Something I noticed is they all have identical poses to your typical green/tan army men toys from cheap dollar stores. Every. Single. One. of them. Except the guy in the MG seat of the tank.

You'll notice its tracked on the left side, so that could be it. But I don't see why they would be pointing the MG at the cockpit, pivoting the turret around, and have two guys pointing guns at each other with one person getting ready to chuck a grenade if that's what it is.

(Truth be told in a drawing like that, you're bound to change its purpose half way through).

Specifically the picture is in the middle of an in-book-ad for StarGuard. A similar board game. So meh.

Edited by Koniving, 03 March 2015 - 08:19 PM.