129 replies to this topic

[Endless Ike]

I know I read a post talking about this, but someone refresh me, what's the canon explanation for why a bigger gun has a shorter range?

[Bobfrombobtown]

Endless Ike, on 08 July 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

I know I read a post talking about this, but someone refresh me, what's the canon explanation for why a bigger gun has a shorter range?

Think about a 12 gauge shotgun (using solid slug ammunition) vs say an M16. The M16 is accurate on a point target up to 500 yards while I don't know what the exact specs are for the accuracy of a shotgun at range but I'm willing to bet its accuracy wouldn't surpass much more than a hundred yards or so.

Edit: Also, gravity. Oh, and space limitations inside the 'mech.

Edited by Bobfrombobtown, 08 July 2012 - 06:32 AM.

[mullet steve]

larger calibre shell kind of like a shotgun vs a 9mm pistol i guess. the larger shell will carry more kenetic energy but will be slowed much faster byu gravity and friction

[Future Perfect]

Different case lengths maybe?

[mullet steve]

I voted AC 20 due to the fact that I can't aim for (insert vulgar expletive of your choice here)

[Endless Ike]

Bobfrombobtown, on 08 July 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

Think about a 12 gauge shotgun (using solid slug ammunition) vs say an M16. The M16 is accurate on a point target up to 500 yards while I don't know what the exact specs are for the accuracy of a shotgun at range but I'm willing to bet its accuracy wouldn't surpass much more than a hundred yards or so.

Edit: Also, gravity. Oh, and space limitations inside the 'mech.

mullet steve, on 08 July 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

larger calibre shell kind of like a shotgun vs a 9mm pistol i guess. the larger shell will carry more kenetic energy but will be slowed much faster byu gravity and friction

The problem with the shotgun analogy is that they're not a shotgun...thats the LB-X autocannon. In any event, it's silly to say that the AC-2 is a slug while the AC-20 is a shotgun. Either they're all shotguns, or they're all slugs.

The problem with the gravity explanation is that it simply ignores IRL physics. In the real world larger calibers typically have longer ranges. That's why we don't give snipers .22s. If that's the actual canon explanation its disappointing to say the least.

Edited by Endless Ike, 08 July 2012 - 06:42 AM.

[Feindfeuer]

@Bobfrombobtown
The primary reason for the damage/range stats were gameplay decisions, based on balancing and niches for different weapons.

The AC classification does not describe single weapon designs though. Different weapons of different design and calibre are all grouped into the same category cause they all do about the same damage on target in a certain span of time, they are abstract categories and not linked to specific weapons. An AC/20 could be a fast firing lower calibre gun using electricaly fired caseless, linked amunition, or a big-bore gun with low rate of fire and a conventional ammunition and auto-loader (not taking into consideration that many tech ideas passed as sci-fi by the authors and designers where already pretty common in military technology back in the 80s).
So a bigger gun (for example AC/20 vs AC/10) could actually feature a smaller calibre in fluff, and maybe even smaller dimensions. Though it will still share the same tonnage/critslots and weapon-stats as all other AC/20s.

[The Basilisk]

I wouldn't say the ac 10 is a sniper rifle. Its more like an weapon akzeptable in many roles but excellent in none of them. The ac 10 in Battletech TT was the ideal balistic partner for the large laser.
So I think in MWO the AC10 could be the weapon of choice when it comes to mid distance fights, when fighting an enemy advancing force or when fighting smaler mechs.
It has some range, it has enough firepower to be taken serious and it has enough ammo to be of use in an prolongened fight.
The AC20 is a headhunter weapon.
A single hit to a mechs head and thats it.
Most light mechs would nearly instantly loose a limb ore all of their torso armor.
In a team fight a AC20 equipt Mech is both, valuable for its capability to deliver devestating killing blows and very vulnerable because its main weapon has such a short range and low ammo reserves.
So a AC20 is more a specialized weapon suitable for spezial tascs.
A AC10 is a allround weapon suitabel for a whide array of situations.

Ps.: And I like beeing flexible.

Edited by The Basilisk, 08 July 2012 - 06:59 AM.

[Pat Kell]

Engineering, on 08 July 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

Actually if the game follows canon for ammo amounts it's 5 shots per ton. Hence why the OP mentioned ammo as one of the reasons why the AC/10 is better. (AC/10 has 10 shots per ton)

yea I was thinking you could spend an additional ton to get 5 more shots rather settleing for just 5 shots with 1 ton, spend 2 tons and get 10 but thats all weight dependant

Future Perfect, on 08 July 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

You forgot to put your vote on the AC 20 then.

yep sorry, been fixed:)

[EmptySkull]

I would choose most time the 20. If I'm using that on purpose I would be looking to close in fight. I want the extra punch. I also like bringing srm to blanket them whilst they are knocked on their behinds. It is situational also, The may be some times I chose the 10 over the 20.

My guess is that higher the caliber, it requires exponentially more "powder" to propel it. So from ac10 to 20 it would take 4 times(which would add more weight) the propellent to get the ac 20 the range of the ac10. Or it could be design, like length of barrel or a factor of both.

Edited by EmptySkull, 08 July 2012 - 07:00 AM.

[AgentHarbinger]

I'll agree with the multiple posters that talk about the choice should be more situational to the task at hand or pilot skills. Both are effective weapons in the right situations.

The AC20 gets a boatload of respect on the battle field and it's large amount of damage to a single location can be crippling. You get just one volley at the back of an enemy mech before the turn to face you, i'd rather make that shot with an AC20.

The AC10 adds the utility of range to the mix with a decent punch. If you are snipping from the flanks or just engaged at longer ranges this weapon is obviously better suited over the ac20.

This being said, i read enough from the dev blogs that talk about their desire to cut down on long range combats (to what degree only beta players know) so that if more/most of the fights are now a short and medium ranges the ac20 may be the better choice due to the fact that if you are in range most of the time you'll get to use your big gun a lot more.....

]-[arby

[Strum Wealh]

AC-10
Mass: 12.0 tons
Volume: 7 criticals
Max. Effective Range: 450 meters
Damage per Salvo: 10 units
Heat per Salvo: 3 units
Salvos per Ton of Ammunition: 10 salvos
Cost (weapon): 200,000 c-bills
Cost (ammunition): 6,000 c-bills per ton

AC-20
Mass: 14.0 tons
Volume: 10 criticals
Max. Effective Range: 270 meters
Damage per Salvo: 20 units
Heat per Salvo: 7 units
Salvos per Ton of Ammunition: 5 salvos
Cost (weapon): 300,000 c-bills
Cost (ammunition): 10,000 c-bills per ton

-----

Two important elements that are missing are the recycle rates and projectiles' muzzle velocities for each weapon.

If the two have the similar or muzzle velocities, the AC-10's greater range would be much more difficult to utilize (as the projectile would have a greater time-to-target ar range, and require more leading)..
If the AC-10's muzzle velocity is greater (such that both weapons would have similar or equal times-to-target at range), it would present a substantial advantage in dealing with further-away and/or fast-moving targets.

If the recycle rate of the AC-10 is higher, it could present the advantage of being more forgiving with regard to missed shots, but it could present the advantage of faster ammunition consumption.

-----

There is also the issues of cost over time and damage per c-bill.

A single AC-10 with one ton of ammunition would cost 206,000 c-bills.
One ton of AC-10 ammunition (100 units of damage) costs 6,000 c-bills (or 60 c-bills per unit of damage).

A single AC-20 with one ton of ammunition would cost 310,000 c-bills.
One ton of AC-20 ammunition (100 units of damage) costs 10,000 c-bills (or 100 c-bills per unit of damage).

-----

I would say that, based on the above, the AC-10 is the more tactically flexible, more forgiving, and more economically-efficient weapon.
In my personal opinion, that makes it better to me.

Your thoughts?

[Kotsuno]

Strum Wealh, on 08 July 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

Your thoughts?

Nice break down -- and I am tempted to agree - but again, as others have pointed out, the effectiveness of weapons is inherently contextual: who / what / when / where / why -- how? -- a weapon is not universally better, but provisionally better - a superiority that is defined by situational usage and competency of the pilot.

A testament to this would be the number of people posting preferences based on their own ability to utilize one weapon or the other =)

[Bishop Steiner]

AC/20 gets my vote.

At least for now. True it has only 2/3 the range of the AC/10, and half the ammo per ton, but it does twice the damage, concentrated in one hit, whereas the AC/10 is likely to spread the damage into at least 2 areas, for the same numerical damage, but less penetration. And of course, that is IF your second shot is a hit.

As noted, at least in most instances, the projectile weapons in the game seem to move at low velocity (IMO too low.... most of these projectiles should be moving at least 3000-4000 ft per second, which would be invisible to the eye, and "lag" would only really be seen at ranges of a mile or more..... since the AC/2 of this era of battletech is the current longest range weapon (24 hex or 720 meters, or 2362 ft, it should be covered in somewhere between 1/2-2/3 of a second....generally faster than our brain allows us to react and start moving. An AC/20 with a max range of 270 meters, (a whopping 885 feet) at a max about .20 seconds of flight time), Whereas in all the previous releases outside of 200 meters or so, there was a good chance for movement to cause a miss. For the "visible" trajectory they give things like a Gauss, traditionally, a round would be going between 800-900 ft/ps, akin to an old Colt 45, and be sub-sonic. Since a Gauss is stated to launch a projectile at Mach 2, obviously something isn't mixing)

Therefore, even with AC/10s I always found myself relying more on energy weapons (faster travel time and no wasted ammo) or LRMs (at least a tentative lock), and reserving my ACs of almost all calibers for medium range, unless a target was near immobile.

Crap I just typed a lotta techno babble, for what was gonna be a simple comment.

ANYHOW ALL MIGHT CHANGE BASED ON 2 UNKNOWN FACTORS:
1: The actual game muzzle velocity. If the cannons have a more realistic flight time than previous versions, longer range will be a bonus.

2: Cycle rate. Will there be a noticeable difference between reloads on the AC/s? If they lean toward realism, there really should not be, but if they go toward "balance" AC/20s will almost certainly take longer to cycle. In that case, again an argument could be made for the AC/10.

And when the LB-X 10/AC hits the market at a ton less than the original, with TWICE the range of the AC/20, then all bets are off.

And if the mechanics are anything like MW4, for my money nothing beats the Rotary AC/2. Stupid amount of firepower (aka magazine size), long range, low heat, and when used en masse, there is no greater short range armor shredder. My fafnir variant w/4 RAC/2s and 2 ER Heavy Laserss was tough to stop. Of course it'll be 18 years or so before any of THAT tech really shows up, lol.

Thats said, with succession war tech, I will almost always take an AC/20 over the 10. But a pair of PPC's trumps either every time!


-Just my 2 cts.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 08 July 2012 - 07:18 AM.

[Haroldwolf]

Future Perfect, on 08 July 2012 - 05:10 AM, said:

The AC-10 has a longer range and ten shells per ton than the five shells per ton for the AC-20.

What do you think?

Maybe a better question is AC5 Vs AC10 Vs AC20. My vote would be AC5.

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 08 July 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

AC-10
Mass: 12.0 tons
Volume: 7 criticals
Max. Effective Range: 450 meters
Damage per Salvo: 10 units
Heat per Salvo: 3 units
Salvos per Ton of Ammunition: 10 salvos
Cost (weapon): 200,000 c-bills
Cost (ammunition): 6,000 c-bills per ton

AC-20
Mass: 14.0 tons
Volume: 10 criticals
Max. Effective Range: 270 meters
Damage per Salvo: 20 units
Heat per Salvo: 7 units
Salvos per Ton of Ammunition: 5 salvos
Cost (weapon): 300,000 c-bills
Cost (ammunition): 10,000 c-bills per ton

-----

Two important elements that are missing are the recycle rates and projectiles' muzzle velocities for each weapon.

If the two have the similar or muzzle velocities, the AC-10's greater range would be much more difficult to utilize (as the projectile would have a greater time-to-target ar range, and require more leading)..
If the AC-10's muzzle velocity is greater (such that both weapons would have similar or equal times-to-target at range), it would present a substantial advantage in dealing with further-away and/or fast-moving targets.

If the recycle rate of the AC-10 is higher, it could present the advantage of being more forgiving with regard to missed shots, but it could present the advantage of faster ammunition consumption.

-----

There is also the issues of cost over time and damage per c-bill.

A single AC-10 with one ton of ammunition would cost 206,000 c-bills.
One ton of AC-10 ammunition (100 units of damage) costs 6,000 c-bills (or 60 c-bills per unit of damage).

A single AC-20 with one ton of ammunition would cost 310,000 c-bills.
One ton of AC-20 ammunition (100 units of damage) costs 10,000 c-bills (or 100 c-bills per unit of damage).

-----

I would say that, based on the above, the AC-10 is the more tactically flexible, more forgiving, and more economically-efficient weapon.
In my personal opinion, that makes it better to me.

Your thoughts?

Seems I should have jumped to page two.... your points and mine being nearly identical. And hey, if ther eis one thing a Davy like you should know, it's AutoCannons!

[UmbraMech]

I vote for the AC 20 (AXM-1N). As i tend to go for an all round mech. Unfortunately i assume my 5 ton Hatchet would be useless.

[Captain Fabulous]

Pat Kell, on 08 July 2012 - 05:14 AM, said:

plus for just the measly cost of 1 ton you can give your ac20 10 shots. I don't know...just my opinion, I prefer the ac/20

Unless they redid Ammo distribution, one ton of AC-20 ammo is 5 shots. Break down is that AC(rating) times (number of rounds) = 100.

AC-2 has 50 shots
AC-5 has 20 shots
AC-10 has 10 shots
AC-20 has 5 shots.

Not to mention that an AC-20 takes up ten crit slots on a mech.

[Future Perfect]

Captain Fabulous, on 08 July 2012 - 07:18 AM, said:

Unless they redid Ammo distribution, one ton of AC-20 ammo is 5 shots. Break down is that AC(rating) times (number of rounds) = 100.

AC-2 has 50 shots
AC-5 has 20 shots
AC-10 has 10 shots
AC-20 has 5 shots.

Not to mention that an AC-20 takes up ten crit slots on a mech.

45 shots for the AC-2.

[00seven]

AgentHarbinger, on 08 July 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

This being said, i read enough from the dev blogs that talk about their desire to cut down on long range combats (to what degree only beta players know) so that if more/most of the fights are now a short and medium ranges the ac20 may be the better choice due to the fact that if you are in range most of the time you'll get to use your big gun a lot more.....

]-[arby

I agree on the guess regarding the proximity of most of the fire fight exchanges. It seems the game is going to drive the combat to a more close range...and I don't think many people here are going to run the other way from an enemy blip on the map...they're going to close that distance with weapons blazing!

Oy of MidWorld, on 08 July 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

I love all my autocannons the same...

"This is my autocannon, this is my gun, this one's for fighting, this one's for FUN!"

-edit: consolidate post-

Edited by 00seven, 08 July 2012 - 07:27 AM.