19 replies to this topic

[ManDaisy]

I think Higher Capacity Missile Launchers should also have a higher reload time in between salvos.
For example an LRM 20 should take longer to reload then an LRM 5.

Also I think you should be able to fire a partially loaded LRM launcher.

For example if after you fired a launcher Your LRM 20 load count would go from 20 to 0
For each split second 1 LRM is loaded into your lrm 20 launcher.
so after a couple seonds you end up with 10of the 20 missiles loaded in your LRM 20 launcher.

You should be able to fire them off without having to reach 20 missiles being loaded.
This has the advantage of not having to wait for a full reload.
This has a disadvantage of only getting as much power as you have loaded currently, firing would also lock it out of reloading, so in the long run not waiting for a full load would make fire less missiles per minute.

Also I want to be able to shoot down missles.

Edited by ManDaisy, 06 December 2011 - 12:10 PM.

[Haeso]

if it takes longer to load an LRM20, then you just use two LRM10s or four LRM5s space permitting. That's why it doesn't.

[ManDaisy]

Weight and as you say space. Also heat? Weight and space being especially important. Thats why people will use 1 LRM 20 launcher rather then 4 lrm 5 launchers. And as to why it doesn't ... if you basing this off the current games out there no game has been able to replicate reality.

Edited by ManDaisy, 06 December 2011 - 11:40 AM.

[Xhaleon]

The entire point of the LRM20 is to empty the ammo bins four times faster than an LRM5. 20 tubes, 10 tubes, 5 tubes, or even a single tube, all of these can be an LRM20 so as long as they spew all of them out in the space of 10 seconds.

If you're going to conserve on space and weight, you might just go for a stack of 4 LRM5s instead, because they're 1 critical and 2 tons to the LRM20's 5 crits and 10 tons. Unless you're thinking about the erroneous MW4 system?

---

Actually, that does make me think. Since dice rolls aren't a factor for how many missiles get to hit a target (thus making 4x LRM5 just as likely to hit as 1x LRM20), there's gotta be something extra on the LRM20 side to compensate other than just a piddly 2 points of heat generated.

Edited by Xhaleon, 06 December 2011 - 11:53 AM.

[ManDaisy]

Hmm I guess if you went the pure LRM 5 way that the most efficient, then why have an lrm 20 at all if you can just alpha strike with 4 lrms 5s and have the same effect as an lrm 20? This is one aspect of table top that doesnt convert well to games. As for the table top LRM rule, you witht he way the dice worked you ahd to only roll to hit once then roll to see who many missles hit with an LRM 20 launcher.

With a4 lrms 5's you have to roll to hit 4 times, and roll to see how many missiles hit for each launcher.

1 single LRM 20 has a better missles hit table average then 4 lrms 5's

Edited by ManDaisy, 06 December 2011 - 12:02 PM.

[ManDaisy]

This brings me to another point. All LRM ammo types should be compatible as opposed to autocannon with use different caliber.

For example, LRM 20 ammo and LRM 5 ammo should come from the same ammo bin, bu ac 5 ammo and ac 20 ammo should come from different bins.

Same with SRM. SRM 4 should take ammo from the same ammo bin as an SRM 2 or 6.

IN short you should only need 1 ammo type for LRM launchers, instead of the traditional 5, 10, 15, and 20 ammo types.

Edited by ManDaisy, 06 December 2011 - 12:09 PM.

[CaveMan]

Xhaleon, on 06 December 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

Actually, that does make me think. Since dice rolls aren't a factor for how many missiles get to hit a target (thus making 4x LRM5 just as likely to hit as 1x LRM20), there's gotta be something extra on the LRM20 side to compensate other than just a piddly 2 points of heat generated.

Rate of fire once you pull the trigger.

Have all missile launchers take the same amount of time to launch a volley. So an LRM-5 launches 5 missiles over a period of 3 seconds, while the LRM-20 is dumping a stream of 20 missiles in that same 3 seconds.

Four LRM-5s in grouped fire then will launch 5 simultaneous clusters of 4 missiles over a 3 second period.
4 missiles, 0.75 second gap, 4 missiles, 0.75 second gap, 4 missiles, 0.75 second gap, 4 missiles.

The LRM-20 on the other hand launches a continuous stream of missiles over a 3 second period with just 0.15s between missiles.

What's the difference, you might ask? The difference is the LRM-5 attack is broken up into tight clusters that will spread out more over time, while the LRM-20 is more like a "missile hose" that sprays the target continuously, increasing the odds that the target will be hit.

[Red Beard]

ManDaisy, on 06 December 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

Also I want to be able to shoot down missles.

I agree. Chaff maybe?

ManDaisy, on 06 December 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

This is one aspect of table top that doesnt convert well to games.

E pluribus unum.

[Strum Wealh]

Red Beard, on 06 December 2011 - 01:29 PM, said:

ManDaisy, on 06 December 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

Also I want to be able to shoot down missles.

I agree. Chaff maybe?

The Federated Commonwealth canonically re-introduced the standard anti-missile system to the IS in 3040 (never lost by the Clans), and the laser-based version of the AMS was canonically introduced to the IS by the Federated Commonwealth in 3054 (introduced to the Clans by Clan Wolf in 3045).

ManDaisy, on 06 December 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

I think Higher Capacity Missile Launchers should also have a higher reload time in between salvos.
For example an LRM 20 should take longer to reload then an LRM 5.

Also I think you should be able to fire a partially loaded LRM launcher.

For example if after you fired a launcher Your LRM 20 load count would go from 20 to 0
For each split second 1 LRM is loaded into your lrm 20 launcher.
so after a couple seonds you end up with 10of the 20 missiles loaded in your LRM 20 launcher.

You should be able to fire them off without having to reach 20 missiles being loaded.
This has the advantage of not having to wait for a full reload.
This has a disadvantage of only getting as much power as you have loaded currently, firing would also lock it out of reloading, so in the long run not waiting for a full load would make fire less missiles per minute.

That sounds interesting.
One problem with that, however, would be scaling the recycle time among the launchers - if the LRM-20 launcher's reload time is "right", would the LRM-5 launcher's recycle time be too short? Conversely, if the LRM-5 launcher's reload time is "right", would the LRM-5 launcher's recycle time be too long?

Personally, I would lean in favor of the latter:
LRM-20 full recycle time: 10 seconds (one full TT turn, and represents a reload rate of 2 missiles per second)
LRM-15 full recycle time: 7.5 seconds
LRM-10 full recycle time: 5 seconds
LRM-5 full recycle time: 2.5 seconds

This would give all of the launchers the same DPS and the same time-required-to-empty-the-ammo-bin-if-one-holds-the-trigger, with the larger launchers having the advantage of greater instantaneous firepower at the cost of tonnage and higher instantaneous heat, while the smaller launchers have the advantage of being smaller and lighter (allowing them to be mounted on smaller 'Mechs) with lower instantaneous heat at the cost of instantaneous firepower.

And one problem with that is scaling between launcher types:

What of MRMs (introduced in 3058 by the Draconis Combine)? Should a MRM-40 take the same amount of time to recycle as a LRM-20, despite there being more missiles for the former? That would give us:

MRM-40 full recycle time: 10 seconds (one full TT turn)
MRM-30 full recycle time: 7.5 seconds
MRM-20 full recycle time: 5 seconds
MRM-10 full recycle time: 2.5 seconds
On the other hand, we can have the reload rate (missiles per second) be consistent across launchers, which would give us:
MRM-40 full recycle time: 20 seconds (same reload rate as proposed LRMs - 2 missiles per second)
MRM-30 full recycle time: 15 seconds
MRM-20 full recycle time: 10 seconds
MRM-10 full recycle time: 5 seconds

And what of SRMs?

SRM-6 full recycle time: 10 seconds (one full TT turn)
SRM-4 full recycle time: 6.7 seconds
SRM-2 full recycle time: 3.3 seconds
or
SRM-6 full recycle time: 3 seconds (same reload rate as proposed LRMs - 2 missiles per second)
SRM-4 full recycle time: 2 seconds
SRM-2 full recycle time: 1 second

And where do Narcs (which fire a single missile/beacon; introduced to the IS in 3035) fit in - 10-second reload, or 0.5-second reload, or somewhere in the middle?

Your thoughts?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 06 December 2011 - 06:56 PM.

[ManDaisy]

I mean ya know, with guns. Not AMS, but normal bang bang guns.

Strum Wealh, on 06 December 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

The Federated Commonwealth canonically re-introduced the standard anti-missile system to the IS in 3040 (never lost by the Clans), and the laser-based version of the AMS was canonically introduced to the IS by the Federated Commonwealth in 3054 (introduced to the Clans by Clan Wolf in 3045).

I pretty much agree with every second option you give, peg everything to LRM,

Strum Wealh, on 06 December 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

SRM-6 full recycle time: 3 seconds (same reload rate as proposed LRMs - 2 missiles per second)
MRM-40 full recycle time: 20 seconds (same reload rate as proposed LRMs - 2 missiles per second)
LRM-20 full recycle time: 10 seconds (one full TT turn, and represents a reload rate of 2 missiles per second)

Edited by ManDaisy, 06 December 2011 - 07:47 PM.

[wolf74]

Just Info out of the Solaris VII books. For those of you who hate TT info please skip this message.

I.S.
All LRM Delay of 2
All SRM Delay of 1
Narc Delay of 1

Clan
All LRM Delay of 1
All SRM Delay of 0
Narc Delay of 0


The Delay System in Solaris is the Number of Truns between firing. So a Delay of 1 is the weapon can fire every other trun.

Turn 0 0.0sec - 2.5sec All weapons Fired
Turn 1 2.5sec - 5.0sec (Clan SRM & Narc)
Turn 2 5.0sec - 7.5sec (Clan LRM, SRM & Narc) (I.S. SRM & Narc)
Turn 3 7.5sec - 10sec (Clan SRM & Narc) (I.S. LRM)
Turn 4 10sec - 12.5sec (Clan LRM, SRM & Narc) (I.S. SRM & Narc)
Turn 5 12.5sec - 15sec (Clan SRM & Narc)
Turn 4 15sec - 17.5sec (Clan LRM, SRM & Narc) (I.S. LRM, SRM, & Narc)

End of CBT Solaris Info.

[Raeven]

Woohoo!!! Another Sol7 fan!

[Dlardrageth]

So basically there needs to be a reason to make 1 LRM20 viable over 4 LRM5s. And vice versa as well perhaps?

I will somewhat discount the idea of interchangeable ammo, unless you absolutely want to assume each missile is loaded seperately, most likely loading will go with "ammo packs". Pretty much like in some RL MLRS/missile systems. Same issue would prevent fire from "half-loaded" missile racks pretty much. As you do have an autoloader in BT/MW. At least I didn't hear of little midgets doing the job inside the Mechs.

So... the LRM20 could in fact have a slower reload/RoF rate than the 4 LRM5 packs. Not that hard to accomplish, even scaling up via LRM10s and LRM15s. But what to compensate it with? As mentioned already, 2 measly heat points alone are likely not going to cut it. How about tonnage/slot usage though? If using 4 LRM5s means you'd have to use uo 0.5 tons more per launcher, that would give you a 2-ton net gain on the LRM20 as well. Real issue here would be the scaling of LRM10s and LRM15s though.

And GL shooting a missile swarm even from only one LRM5 down with anything but a machine gun. And even then... program a standard corkscrew approach into the missiles and any halfway realistic gaming will see you just waste ammo. One very obvious in-game advabtage for smaller launchers could lie within the damage modeling PGI will do. Pretty obviously a LRM20 being 4 times as big will be 4 times as easy to aim at and take out with a critical hit. I sincerely hope we will not see that simplified a damage system that weapon size doesn't matter at all in terms of aiming at. It would be a major "meh" factor if you could take out a LRM5 rack as easily as a LRM20 mounted in the same location, just because the damage modeling fails there.

[BerserX]

ManDaisy, on 06 December 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

I think Higher Capacity Missile Launchers should also have a higher reload time in between salvos.
For example an LRM 20 should take longer to reload then an LRM 5.

Also I think you should be able to fire a partially loaded LRM launcher.

For example if after you fired a launcher Your LRM 20 load count would go from 20 to 0
For each split second 1 LRM is loaded into your lrm 20 launcher.
so after a couple seonds you end up with 10of the 20 missiles loaded in your LRM 20 launcher.

You should be able to fire them off without having to reach 20 missiles being loaded.
This has the advantage of not having to wait for a full reload.
This has a disadvantage of only getting as much power as you have loaded currently, firing would also lock it out of reloading, so in the long run not waiting for a full load would make fire less missiles per minute.

Also I want to be able to shoot down missles.

Yes! Just like the pump-action shotgun in Crysis, Halo, and Battlefield! This would make a lot of sense. And, make them move a little quicker, or deal more damage - something like in the books.

Shooting down missiles would make a lot of sense. I even outfitted a Mad Dog with four medium pulse lasers, on four different triggers, to try and destroy missiles in flight - it can't be done! This would also make weapons like the MG more valuable - and not just a trinket that you sell for a few extra c-bills.

[Strum Wealh]

Dlardrageth, on 07 December 2011 - 12:42 AM, said:

So basically there needs to be a reason to make 1 LRM20 viable over 4 LRM5s. And vice versa as well perhaps?

I will somewhat discount the idea of interchangeable ammo, unless you absolutely want to assume each missile is loaded seperately, most likely loading will go with "ammo packs". Pretty much like in some RL MLRS/missile systems. Same issue would prevent fire from "half-loaded" missile racks pretty much. As you do have an autoloader in BT/MW. At least I didn't hear of little midgets doing the job inside the Mechs.

So... the LRM20 could in fact have a slower reload/RoF rate than the 4 LRM5 packs. Not that hard to accomplish, even scaling up via LRM10s and LRM15s. But what to compensate it with? As mentioned already, 2 measly heat points alone are likely not going to cut it. How about tonnage/slot usage though? If using 4 LRM5s means you'd have to use uo 0.5 tons more per launcher, that would give you a 2-ton net gain on the LRM20 as well. Real issue here would be the scaling of LRM10s and LRM15s though.

Well, that could work by going with individual ammo bins for each weapon (similar to MW4, except that the ammo may/must be placed in either the same location as the launcher itself, or an immediately-adjacent torso or arm; that is, a CT-mounted launcher may have ammo in the CT, LT, or RT, but not the LA or RA, a LT-mounted launcher may have ammo in the LT, LA, or CT, but not the RT or RA, and so on) rather than all weapons of the same type sharing one ammo bin (TT/canon) and no "partial-load firing".

That way, we'd get:

1 LRM-20 with 1 ton of ammo
Weight: 11 tons (10 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Criticals: 6 (5 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Number of Salvos: 6
Heat per salvo: 6
Proposed Recycle: 10 sec

vs

4 LRM-5s with 1 ton of ammo each
Weight: 12 tons (8 for weapons, 4 for ammo)
Criticals: 8 (4 for weapons, 4 for ammo)
Number of Salvos: 24
Heat per salvo: 8 (2 from each launcher)
Proposed Recycle: 2.5 sec

This way, the single LRM-20 has the advantage in weight and space spent (allowing for more additional weapons, armor, ammo, and/or equipment) and less heat generated per salvo, while the quartet of LRM-5s would have the advantage of more salvos (it is carrying four times as many missiles, after all), higher proposed ROF (each launcher cycles faster, with the launchers cycling in parallel with one another), and system redundancy (one non-ammo critical hit would take out one launcher, leaving the rest operational).

Likewise for 1 LRM-15 vs 3 LRM-5s:

1 LRM-15 with 1 ton of ammo
Weight: 8 tons (7 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Criticals: 4 (3 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Number of Salvos: 8
Heat per salvo: 5
Proposed Recycle: 7.5 sec

vs

3 LRM-5s with 1 ton of ammo each
Weight: 9 tons (6 for weapons, 3 for ammo)
Criticals: 6 (3 for weapons, 3 for ammo)
Number of Salvos: 24
Heat per salvo: 6 (2 from each launcher)
Proposed Recycle: 2.5 sec

However, for 1 LRM-10 vs 2 LRM-5s, the differences become much smaller in terms of heat generated (same) and weight and space used (same tonnage, with a 1 critical-space advantage to the LRM-10), which tips the scales more strongly favor the twin LRM-5s' greater ammo, faster proposed ROF, and redundancy:

1 LRM-10 with 1 ton of ammo
Weight: 6 tons (5 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Criticals: 3 (2 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Number of Salvos: 12
Heat per salvo: 4
Proposed Recycle: 5 sec

vs

2 LRM-5s with 1 ton of ammo each
Weight: 6 tons (4 for weapons, 2 for ammo)
Criticals: 4 (2 for weapons, 2 for ammo)
Number of Salvos: 24
Heat per salvo: 4 (2 from each launcher)
Proposed Recycle: 2.5 sec

Your thoughts?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 07 December 2011 - 07:37 AM.

[VanillaG]

I would balance them like this:


LRM-5
Weight: 3 tons (2 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Criticals: 2 (1 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Number of Salvos: 24
Heat per salvo: 2
Proposed Recycle: 3 sec

LRM-10
Weight: 5 tons (4 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Criticals: 3 (2 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Number of Salvos: 12
Heat per salvo: 4
Proposed Recycle: 5 sec

LRM-15
Weight: 7 tons (6 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Criticals: 4 (3 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Number of Salvos: 8
Heat per salvo: 6
Proposed Recycle: 7 sec

LRM-20
Weight: 9 tons (8 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Criticals: 5 (4 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Number of Salvos: 6
Heat per salvo: 8
Proposed Recycle: 9 sec

Basically the larger launchers are more compact and weigh less than any combination of smaller launchers. The only reason to go with a combination of smaller launchers would be that no 1 spot has enough criticals to place a larger launcher so you place them in 2 different locations.

Also you need to spread the recycle times as well because with the old values 4 LRM-5 could launch 80 missiles in the time it took an LRM-20 to launch 40, 10 secs. With the new values it would be 60 and 40 but to get those extra 20 missles the LRM-5 boat would be giving up 3 tons and 3 criticals.

[Strum Wealh]

VanillaG, on 07 December 2011 - 10:45 AM, said:

I would balance them like this:


LRM-5
Weight: 3 tons (2 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Criticals: 2 (1 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Number of Salvos: 24
Heat per salvo: 2
Proposed Recycle: 3 sec

LRM-10
Weight: 5 tons (4 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Criticals: 3 (2 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Number of Salvos: 12
Heat per salvo: 4
Proposed Recycle: 5 sec

LRM-15
Weight: 7 tons (6 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Criticals: 4 (3 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Number of Salvos: 8
Heat per salvo: 6
Proposed Recycle: 7 sec

LRM-20
Weight: 9 tons (8 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Criticals: 5 (4 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Number of Salvos: 6
Heat per salvo: 8
Proposed Recycle: 9 sec

Basically the larger launchers are more compact and weigh less than any combination of smaller launchers. The only reason to go with a combination of smaller launchers would be that no 1 spot has enough criticals to place a larger launcher so you place them in 2 different locations.

Also you need to spread the recycle times as well because with the old values 4 LRM-5 could launch 80 missiles in the time it took an LRM-20 to launch 40, 10 secs. With the new values it would be 60 and 40 but to get those extra 20 missles the LRM-5 boat would be giving up 3 tons and 3 criticals.

Nice.

How would you go about the MRMs and SRMs (post #9)?

[Dihm]

VanillaG, on 07 December 2011 - 10:45 AM, said:

I would balance them like this:


LRM-5
Weight: 3 tons (2 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Criticals: 2 (1 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Number of Salvos: 24
Heat per salvo: 2
Proposed Recycle: 3 sec

LRM-10
Weight: 5 tons (4 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Criticals: 3 (2 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Number of Salvos: 12
Heat per salvo: 4
Proposed Recycle: 5 sec

LRM-15
Weight: 7 tons (6 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Criticals: 4 (3 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Number of Salvos: 8
Heat per salvo: 6
Proposed Recycle: 7 sec

LRM-20
Weight: 9 tons (8 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Criticals: 5 (4 for weapon, 1 for ammo)
Number of Salvos: 6
Heat per salvo: 8
Proposed Recycle: 9 sec

Basically the larger launchers are more compact and weigh less than any combination of smaller launchers. The only reason to go with a combination of smaller launchers would be that no 1 spot has enough criticals to place a larger launcher so you place them in 2 different locations.

Also you need to spread the recycle times as well because with the old values 4 LRM-5 could launch 80 missiles in the time it took an LRM-20 to launch 40, 10 secs. With the new values it would be 60 and 40 but to get those extra 20 missles the LRM-5 boat would be giving up 3 tons and 3 criticals.

But... that doesn't make any sense. The LRM 5 is still vastly superior. 1 ton of ammo gives you 120 missiles for your proposal, no matter what the size of the launcher is. 1 LRM 20 has the same number of critical slots (4) as 4 LRM 5s. 4 LRM 5s with 1 ton of ammo between them is identical (heat, weight, slots, missles per ton of ammo) to the LRM 20, except that it's recycle rate is vastly improved. Thus, just link them up in a group and fire them together, and you're way better off than using an LRM 20.

MRMs are unimportant as they are introduced in 3058 (which would be 2021).

[KuruptU4Fun]

If you want to make a difference between LRM-20's and 4 stacked LRM-5's I think the answer is simple. A LRM 20 only has to lock onto a target once. Stacked LRM 5's each have seperate targeting systems and each one needs 1-2 seconds to lock onto a target and fire.

[VanillaG]

Strum Wealh, on 07 December 2011 - 10:58 AM, said:

Nice.

How would you go about the MRMs and SRMs (post #9)?

I don't have any numbers but the the goal would that there are no combinations of smaller launchers has less weight or criticals that a comparable large launcher. Keep in mind that this is only balancing within the LRM class. You still need to balance between the other types of weapons (SRM, MRM, Lasers, AC, etc) to ensure that all types have a purpose and a clear set of advantages and drawbacks.

Dihm, on 07 December 2011 - 12:05 PM, said:

But... that doesn't make any sense. The LRM 5 is still vastly superior. 1 ton of ammo gives you 120 missiles for your proposal, no matter what the size of the launcher is. 1 LRM 20 has the same number of critical slots (4) as 4 LRM 5s. 4 LRM 5s with 1 ton of ammo between them is identical (heat, weight, slots, missles per ton of ammo) to the LRM 20, except that it's recycle rate is vastly improved. Thus, just link them up in a group and fire them together, and you're way better off than using an LRM 20.

I was under the assumption that you could not share ammo between weapons. If you allow sharing 1 ton is 120 missiles so if you had 4 lrm-5 sharing 1 ton of ammo they would only get 6 salvos before they ran out of ammo. To get around this I would increase the number of each weapon critical slots by 1, so they become 2, 3, 4 ,5. It still does not benefit the trying to cram a bunch of smaller launcher into the same space.

For those that want to share ammo I would require that all of the shared ammo be in the same location or adjacent. Any critical ammo hit destroys all of the ammo and renders all of your weapons useless. For example you load 3 tons of LRM ammo, they must all be in the same location or spread across adjacent sections and a critical hit to any of the 3 criticals cause all of the ammo to be destroyed and renders your weapons useless. The benefit is that if a LRM was destroyed the remaining launchers would still be able to launch the shared ammo.

For non sharing, each ton would be linked to a launcher. If you had multiple tons they would be combined with the same rule above but that would only destroy the ammo for that one launcher. The other launchers would still function even if their ammo resides in the same location. The down side is that if the launcher is destroyed no other launcher could use the ammo and you are carrying around a potential explosive hazard.