102 replies to this topic

[Phades]

feor, on 28 November 2011 - 07:47 PM, said:

I imagine it'll be fairly simple.

Scout mech A puts his targeting reticule on a spot and hits his "designate target" button. If he has a Tag, it kicks in, but that doesn't really help unless you're calling in Arrow IV. (TAG guided LRMs won't come into existence until the Mariks perfect the Semi-guided LRMs in 3058)

All friendlies (not affected by ECM) get a new target pop up on their HUD, you targeting point for barrage fire. They get to somewhere they aren't just immediately firing into a building, pick that target, wait for the tone, and pull the trigger. Those LRMs will then land in a roughly 30m wide circle centered on the target point of the designation.

Actually it is pretty complex within a FPS input setting, unless you are suggesting that hand guided missiles are smart munitions that will automatically avoid any and all obstacles in their path including and not limited to the firing arc of which they leave the machine and have infinite turning capabilities. Let me draw a bad picture to try and illustrate what I am getting at.



Now, do you allow the weapon to fire at a target which is on the radar, but have no "beam" site to guide it to the target in order to simulate indirect fire? If so, do you then force all the shooters except D potentially to "aim" at the sky and then guess how to hook the missiles while in flight over or around the obstacles or do they just know that the intended target is the one selected by the spotter B and automatically fly into the best possible arc to strike him? Do missiles have a limited turning arc rendering anything above say 60 degrees over say 10 meters invalid, or can they do 90 degree turns or greater in the space of less than 1 meter? When "aiming" at the sky in order to give the missiles a chance to clear the obstacles, how do you represent the target's motion and relative position if no radar lock is achieved via hud and only visual spotting occurred through the spotter?

Really, you must split these kinds of hairs when referencing a situation like this.

[Psydotek]

I'd like to see a limited turning radius for missiles. Also, i'd like to see indirect LRM fire. A scout 'mech could be the spotter while other 'mechs without a direct line of sight would see a bracket or outline which they could lock onto. After a target lock is acquired, the would have to pitch their reticule high enough to clear the obstacle and fire before the target lock is lost. Of course, since the LRMs are being aimed indirectly, a reduced number of missiles would hit the target.

Edited by Psydotek, 29 November 2011 - 11:15 PM.

[feor]

The Missiles would be fired skyward for indirect fire, and automatically arc down towards their lock, with the "lock" being to the point under the spotter's reticle. They hit in a 30m circle around that spot.

Nothing needs to be known about the target mech's motion or position. In fact A being a mech in your diagram is a bit of a fallacy, I don't envision the target being something, so much as somewhere. It is a dot under the spotter's targeting reticle. When the missiles are fired they home in on the spot that reticle was over at the moment they were fired. Accounting for potential movement of the target is entirely up to the spotter.

The missile carrying mechs would not know what the spotter was trying to hit. Indeed they would be, for all intents and purposes, firing blind and relying on the spotter to actually have his targeting reticle on something worth hitting. (as opposed to say an empty street)

[Phades]

That sounds a lot more like a C3 master taking over the firing of a C3 slave weapon system using guided missiles with auto avoidance coding and complete trajectory calculations on the fly in order to navigate around all potential obstetrical without any mitigating circumstances like turning arcs. Most of which, I take no issue with outside of believable turning arcs for missiles. Although the assumption would have to be that they are C3, Artemis using, swarm-I style missiles if you are referencing directly to existing named weapon systems in a cause and effect style correlation upon translation into the scenario depicted.

If we are talking dumb fire missiles guided by hand, like the IS weapons suggest (this would be opposed to pure lock weapons like streak or assumed guidance Artemis systems), then you are talking about laser guidance by the shooter steering the flight path of the missiles manually. This is also a possible situation, even when blind firing, but it isn't much different than trying to judge the detonation point of a grenade when rebounding it around a corner and forcing it to detonate mid air in close proximity to the target instead of coming to a rest and detonating expecting artillery style damage to occur to the intended target.

Also, not every machine is loaded on the frame like a catapult or archer implying a potential skyward facing missile system. Many are depicted as strictly forward facing missiles. 30m is a massive area to strike within as well (although i appreciate the conservative suggestion for weapon spread). Dismissing the mech's movement for a weapon with very real flight times and trajectory would be a fallacy though, as it implies the use of cover unimportant. That should never be the case. I'm not an advocate for hit scan ballistic weapons either. If it passes to the left or right of the machine due to flight time, it missed and not do the MW2 spin and swarm around the target until all missiles strike it for every missile system in the game.

[Gaius Cavadus]

Well, since LRM's are long range just pick a distance at which the warheads arm themselves. Say, 100 or 200 meters or something. Most real warheads of today do this to prevent the point of origin from being damaged by close proximity detonations.

As for PPCs, they're fine IMO. It's okay that they're accurate at point-blank range and, frankly, there's simply no plausible reason they shouldn't be.

[feor]

Phades, on 29 November 2011 - 11:46 PM, said:

That sounds a lot more like a C3 master taking over the firing of a C3 slave weapon system using guided missiles with auto avoidance coding and complete trajectory calculations on the fly in order to navigate around all potential obstetrical without any mitigating circumstances like turning arcs. Most of which, I take no issue with outside of believable turning arcs for missiles. Although the assumption would have to be that they are C3, Artemis using, swarm-I style missiles if you are referencing directly to existing named weapon systems in a cause and effect style correlation upon translation into the scenario depicted.

C3 doesn't directly guide anything, it just extends one mech's sensor data to others, letting them draw a more accurate picture of their surroundings. And all I think the missiles should be doing it a ballistic arc, up and over, possibly rather sharply up and over, but still just that.

Quote

If we are talking dumb fire missiles guided by hand, like the IS weapons suggest (this would be opposed to pure lock weapons like streak or assumed guidance Artemis systems), then you are talking about laser guidance by the shooter steering the flight path of the missiles manually. This is also a possible situation, even when blind firing, but it isn't much different than trying to judge the detonation point of a grenade when rebounding it around a corner and forcing it to detonate mid air in close proximity to the target instead of coming to a rest and detonating expecting artillery style damage to occur to the intended target.

LRMs aren't really dumb fire, they have limited guidance. Most of that is usually concentrated on keeping hte missile straight, but it would be childlishly simple to switch that part of it over to a ballistic arc.

Quote

Also, not every machine is loaded on the frame like a catapult or archer implying a potential skyward facing missile system. Many are depicted as strictly forward facing missiles. 30m is a massive area to strike within as well (although i appreciate the conservative suggestion for weapon spread). Dismissing the mech's movement for a weapon with very real flight times and trajectory would be a fallacy though, as it implies the use of cover unimportant. That should never be the case. I'm not an advocate for hit scan ballistic weapons either. If it passes to the left or right of the machine due to flight time, it missed and not do the MW2 spin and swarm around the target until all missiles strike it for every missile system in the game.

But every mech can look up. And in terms of ignoring flight times and trjectory, you're again making the mistake that you're shooting at something. If the target is moving the spotter should be leading him movement with his reticle. Indirect fire is a two part proposition. The Spotter is providing 100% of the targeting, the missile carrier is purely supply the firepower. (to the point that the missile carrier can treat his missiles as true fire & forget weapons in this case)

[MaddMaxx]

I would like to see a Ballistics trajectory systems such that if B & A were 100 meters farther North on the Map and F fired its Missiles by Leaning back to get them over the elevation 3 building in front of it, the Missiles would track on a Parabolic Arc trajectory from origin to the known target A's current location.

Now, if A was to get some indication that he/she had been fired on, and then ran 95 meters south to use the Elevation 2 building as cover, with B's input the Missiles in the air would simply adjust their Arc such that only the distance traveled (the calculated distance on the ground from origin to first calculated location) is reduced/reset to attempt to hit the now changed target location.

With that model, the Elevation 2 building now intersects with that new Arc calculation such that it intercepts (some random value - 50-75%) of the total flight with the other falling and splashing just beyond where A now stands.

None of this GO up, turn 90, fly down range 350 meters (to overhead), then turn another 90 and BOOM Missile strike on the targets head.

That is always a total immersion killer.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 30 November 2011 - 09:07 AM.

[feor]

MaddMaxx, on 30 November 2011 - 09:03 AM, said:

I would like to see a Ballistics trajectory systems such that if B & A were 100 meters farther North on the Map and F fired its Missiles by Leaning back to get them over the elevation 3 building in front of it, the Missiles would track on a Parabolic Arc trajectory from origin to the known target A's current location.

Now, if A was to get some indication that he/she had been fired on, and then ran 95 meters south to use the Elevation 2 building as cover, with B's input the Missiles in the air would simply adjust their Arc such that only the distance traveled (the calculated distance on the ground from origin to first calculated location) is reduced/reset to attempt to hit the now changed target location.

With that model, the Elevation 2 building now intersects with that new Arc calculation such that it intercepts (some random value - 50-75%) of the total flight with the other falling and splashing just beyond where A now stands.

None of this GO up, turn 90, fly down range 350 meters (to overhead), then turn another 90 and BOOM Missile strike on the targets head.

That is always a total immersion killer.

I'm actually of the opinion that once the missile carrier fires, his missiles' course is set. Travel time should not be more than a few seconds, even with the upwards arc. And it means that the Spotter either has to observe and plan for any movement the target is already making, or may make in the immediate future.

[MaddMaxx]

feor, on 30 November 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

I'm actually of the opinion that once the missile carrier fires, his missiles' course is set. Travel time should not be more than a few seconds, even with the upwards arc. And it means that the Spotter either has to observe and plan for any movement the target is already making, or may make in the immediate future.

So that means no changes after Launch? It is apparent the spotter cannot know in advance any change the target might make and if flight times are so limited any attempted corrections would be more than likely wasted effort?

Flight times should be calculated on missile type and distance traveled. a flight over a KM should take some measurable time, no? Otherwise Missile warning systems would be moot and the only defense would have to be on-board AMS.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 30 November 2011 - 09:36 AM.

[feor]

Missile times will be pretty fast, they are missiles, after all.

The slowest modern Air to Air missiles (which weigh about 10 times what an LRM does) travel at Mach 2, and it loks like some of them peak over mach 4. At mach 2 a missile would take just under 2 seconds to travel a kilometer. In fact the rocket pods typically mounted on the Apache would appear to have airspeeds closer to mach 2.5, reducing that time even more. So you'd be looking at travel times in a ballistic arc of say 3-4 seconds, tops.

so no, you should not be able to dodge a missile like bullet time, the difference between a missile's speed and that of a bullet is essentially non existent to human perception.

[MaddMaxx]

feor, on 30 November 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

Missile times will be pretty fast, they are missiles, after all.

The slowest modern Air to Air missiles (which weigh about 10 times what an LRM does) travel at Mach 2, and it loks like some of them peak over mach 4. At mach 2 a missile would take just under 2 seconds to travel a kilometer. In fact the rocket pods typically mounted on the Apache would appear to have airspeeds closer to mach 2.5, reducing that time even more. So you'd be looking at travel times in a ballistic arc of say 3-4 seconds, tops.

so no, you should not be able to dodge a missile like bullet time, the difference between a missile's speed and that of a bullet is essentially non existent to human perception.

I was thinking in-game terms. Probably best to modify those mach 2.5 missiles to allow for their splendor to be seen, if only for the brief moments before they tear the snot out of your/their ride, contrails as well perhaps.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 30 November 2011 - 11:20 AM.

[Manturell]

Psydotek, on 26 November 2011 - 06:57 PM, said:

I don't believe I've seen a thread dedicated to this "issue" yet. How will the difficulty of hitting a short range target with PPCs and LRMs be represented in the game? (Or how should the short range weakness of PPCs and LRMS be represented in the game?)

In previous games, PPCs were just different colored lasers and LRMs traveled in a straight line to the target (MW4 they arced up at long range but traveled in a straight line at short range). Both were great at all ranges and the only downside of firing at close range was some splash damage.

Perhaps LRMs could always have a forced upward arc (so even if you have a missile lock, the missiles won't be able to curve down in time to hit a short range target)? No ability to lock on inside the minimum range? Loss of missile lock if the target slips inside minimum range before the missiles are fired?

As for PPCs, perhaps spawn the PPC bolt at a certain range? Maybe have the PPC bolt arc wildly/randomly from the cannon to the short range mark making it difficult to hit anything up close (maybe you'll score a hit 1/10 times, maybe you'll hit your lancemate instead)?

Any other ideas? Throw them out here.

well i always got a kick put of PPC being turned into Lightning ....its a Particle Projection Cannon....hence the term why not it have it loose alot of its intended damage.....the point of contact the impact point is where the explosive damage applies from where the charged particles hit and the cascade out should do just that so if its to close the damage spreads out
like drip of water hitting a pond
and as for the LRM's what about the same thing they had in the game warheads not activating????
put a random arming time to each missile fired some detonate some don't in regards to the short rage issue

[MagnusEffect]

LRMs should handle somewhat similar like MWLL (basically useless at short range). PPCs should cause more diffused splash damage, less pinpoint damage at short range (also some splash to your own mech at extreme short range).

Problem solved

Edited by MagnusEffect, 30 November 2011 - 12:17 PM.

[Phades]

MaddMaxx, on 30 November 2011 - 09:03 AM, said:

I would like to see a Ballistics trajectory systems such that if B & A were 100 meters farther North on the Map and F fired its Missiles by Leaning back to get them over the elevation 3 building in front of it, the Missiles would track on a Parabolic Arc trajectory from origin to the known target A's current location.

Now, if A was to get some indication that he/she had been fired on, and then ran 95 meters south to use the Elevation 2 building as cover, with B's input the Missiles in the air would simply adjust their Arc such that only the distance traveled (the calculated distance on the ground from origin to first calculated location) is reduced/reset to attempt to hit the now changed target location.

With that model, the Elevation 2 building now intersects with that new Arc calculation such that it intercepts (some random value - 50-75%) of the total flight with the other falling and splashing just beyond where A now stands.

None of this GO up, turn 90, fly down range 350 meters (to overhead), then turn another 90 and BOOM Missile strike on the targets head.

That is always a total immersion killer.

Thank you for looking at it objectively, rather in the complete abstract. The actual positioning relative to the building was deliberate in order to try and gauge the response for actual missile flight behavior instead of overly focusing on who's button press initiates the flight and which control factors are in place (unfortunately, that isn't the response I received). You are totally correct in terms of relative positioning, however I wasn't trying to draw in an entire city street by street to make an attempt to simulate what an rural->urban setting transition would be like and give different firing position options rather than make the broad assumption that it just works for whatever implied reason.

Also, I have a hard time thinking of streets that are 100 meters wide fantasy, sci-fi, or realistic settings. The closest match that I would make would be some of china's freeway systems.

Again, Thank you for being objective in evaluating what I was trying to put forward.

[JC Daxion]

feor, on 29 November 2011 - 09:27 PM, said:

LRMs are actually slightly smaller than SRMs, an LRM round weighs roughly 8kg, while SRMs weigh about 10kg. (based on getting 120 Missiles into a ton of LRM ammo, and 100 missiles into a ton of SRM ammo)



For LRMs that makes a bit of sense (the computer takes over for a second to aim the actual launchers), but in the battletech universe heavy ACs are close combat weapons. Increasing size = decreasing range, to where an AC/20 has comparable range to a Medium laser and the AC/2 is able to match an LRM for reach. In universe explanation is that propellant load in larger shells does not increase as much as you'd expect for the increase in size of the actual bullet part of the shell for reasons of volume and mass.

can you explain this? How can a missle ment for long range, with a computer be smaller.. this makes zero sence. If your using different fuels, and such, wouldnt you just use the same stuff to make a shorter range missile without a guidance system?



As for the AC being ment for close combat,, definatly.. But that doesnt change the issue that a heavy gun would have some sort of recoil. It's physics. Newtons law and such. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It really doesnt mater what universe your in. (unless of course battle tech has something unique i don't know about)

But basically my point is, Why not Use physics as part of a weapon system. If your running in a mech and you blast a AC 20, from your right arm.. thats gonna cause some twist. Just like if you blasted a double barrel from your chest, its gonna slow you while walking, or tilt you back, or what ever. Your going to notice that weapon fire. Just like if your launching a huge salvo or LRMs, its going to give you some sorta back blow. Just watch some video of tanks, or rocket launchers, or what ever.. there isnt a single weapon that doesnt have recoil of some sort. A tank weighs something like 50-75 tons, depending what kind. when they fire their main gun, those things move and id have to think a tank is much more stable than a mech walking on two legs.. So why wouldnt a huge mech have the same effect?



Im not saying i have the answeres on how it should all work, but it would be nice to get some sort of feel that you are really driving a 65 ton mech, and have to think about that sorta stuff. You couldnt just run at full throttle twisting back and forth launching weapons at will, it would cause some sorta effect on how it works. Id just like to see something that makes it feel like im in something with some mass, and not a little spinning space ship firing at will. like you would in the game asteroids.

It would also give you reasons to load out smaller weapons, or atleast a varriety.. vrs just loading up 4 AC's running at full speed, half twist and pull the trigger.. In my world of physics that could knock you on your butt.. or atleast cause you to have to spend some time getting stable again.


(yea i know this thread isnt about the AC, But i gotta think a salvo of LRM's would be something similar, and the same principle could be used on the other weapon types. though this has me thinking.. How does a 50+ foot tall mech only weigh 100 tons.. when a little tank can get to 75+.. Perhaps im missing something.. or maybe they use different metals?)

[Black Sunder]

I think in the future we have inertial compensator. Hell I have a shotgun that doesn't have recoil. I've even fired it one handed. Thats how good it is.

I imagine we have similar tech in the future for large guns.

[MaddMaxx]

Phades, on 30 November 2011 - 05:54 PM, said:

Thank you for looking at it objectively, rather in the complete abstract. The actual positioning relative to the building was deliberate in order to try and gauge the response for actual missile flight behavior instead of overly focusing on who's button press initiates the flight and which control factors are in place (unfortunately, that isn't the response I received). You are totally correct in terms of relative positioning, however I wasn't trying to draw in an entire city street by street to make an attempt to simulate what an rural->urban setting transition would be like and give different firing position options rather than make the broad assumption that it just works for whatever implied reason.

Also, I have a hard time thinking of streets that are 100 meters wide fantasy, sci-fi, or realistic settings. The closest match that I would make would be some of china's freeway systems.

Again, Thank you for being objective in evaluating what I was trying to put forward.

And I just took the drawing literally when I moved 100m North. Given the average city street width any missiles would assuredly need an Up - 90 - over - 90 - down trajectory which never seemed very right.

[feor]

JC Daxion, on 01 December 2011 - 09:11 AM, said:

can you explain this? How can a missle ment for long range, with a computer be smaller.. this makes zero sence. If your using different fuels, and such, wouldnt you just use the same stuff to make a shorter range missile without a guidance system?

I believe the in universe explanation is that the SRM has more explosive and less fuel. (does twice as much damage as an LRM, at less than half the range)

Quote

As for the AC being ment for close combat,, definatly.. But that doesnt change the issue that a heavy gun would have some sort of recoil. It's physics. Newtons law and such. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It really doesnt mater what universe your in. (unless of course battle tech has something unique i don't know about)

But basically my point is, Why not Use physics as part of a weapon system. If your running in a mech and you blast a AC 20, from your right arm.. thats gonna cause some twist. Just like if you blasted a double barrel from your chest, its gonna slow you while walking, or tilt you back, or what ever. Your going to notice that weapon fire. Just like if your launching a huge salvo or LRMs, its going to give you some sorta back blow. Just watch some video of tanks, or rocket launchers, or what ever.. there isnt a single weapon that doesnt have recoil of some sort. A tank weighs something like 50-75 tons, depending what kind. when they fire their main gun, those things move and id have to think a tank is much more stable than a mech walking on two legs.. So why wouldnt a huge mech have the same effect?

Assuming it's not a recoilless model of AC (we can build recoilless rifles today, so shouldn't be too hard in the future) the mech can also brace against the weapon the same way a person would, planting a foot and leaning into the shot, for example. Recoil, at most, is probably going to give the gun some "kick" the same way you'd expect a regular gun would to a person.

Quote

Im not saying i have the answeres on how it should all work, but it would be nice to get some sort of feel that you are really driving a 65 ton mech, and have to think about that sorta stuff. You couldnt just run at full throttle twisting back and forth launching weapons at will, it would cause some sorta effect on how it works. Id just like to see something that makes it feel like im in something with some mass, and not a little spinning space ship firing at will. like you would in the game asteroids.

It would also give you reasons to load out smaller weapons, or atleast a varriety.. vrs just loading up 4 AC's running at full speed, half twist and pull the trigger.. In my world of physics that could knock you on your butt.. or atleast cause you to have to spend some time getting stable again.

Generally the larger weapons have strongly limited ammo loads (AC/20 gets 5 shots per ton of ammo), plus long recycle times. For example a small laser takes about 2.5 seconds to recharge, while an AC/20 takes 5 seconds to reload, and a PPC takes 7.5 seconds to recharge.

Quote

(yea i know this thread isnt about the AC, But i gotta think a salvo of LRM's would be something similar, and the same principle could be used on the other weapon types. though this has me thinking.. How does a 50+ foot tall mech only weigh 100 tons.. when a little tank can get to 75+.. Perhaps im missing something.. or maybe they use different metals?)

Yeah, material densities in Battletech are all over the place. They definitely use some kind of space age super-light & strong metal to be able to weigh as much as they do at the size they are.

[ChaosTicket]

Steel is steel, you can have an endo-steel chassis, ferro-fibrous armor, extra light engines and other things to save weight, but steel is still frequently used.

as for tech, LRMS use most of the space for fuel for range, and guidance. Variants use extra space for additional guidance, explosive content, or fuel usually by sacrificing something else.
--------------------------
like said, LRMS require activation time,

PPCs and Gauss Rifles dont, so its just an inbuilt weakness to make weapons like Large lasers and AC-10s seem better.

[JC Daxion]

feor, on 01 December 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

Assuming it's not a recoilless model of AC (we can build recoilless rifles today, so shouldn't be too hard in the future) the mech can also brace against the weapon the same way a person would, planting a foot and leaning into the shot, for example. Recoil, at most, is probably going to give the gun some "kick" the same way you'd expect a regular gun would to a person.

Yea, perhaps if your stationary.. But how would you explain a mech running and gunning? On one foot, twisted sideways, a gyro can only do so much.

there would have to be some sort of effect on a huge vehicle walking on two legs.. like i said, even a tank that weighs 70+ tons on 2 full tracks jumps, to me its impossible to thing that a mech even with all that future tech wouldnt feel some sort of effects from firing any sort of projectile weapon