70 replies to this topic

[LordKnightFandragon]

My guess is balance. Truth be told, a weapon that is 8 tons, 6 tons, 10 tons, 12 tons, yeah, you think something standing 40 feet tall would fire like we do in this game and NOT be royally rocked by the recoil.

Get like 2 Gauss Rifles firing up high like K2 and it would be having serious stability issues. Having the weapons mounted down around the Gyro, more centrally mounted would make for a far more stable gun platform, reducing the recoil.

Having really high mounted weapons would give you the same effect as you see in Crossout, when you put a 100mm on the BACK end of your tank, in a WWII German Marder fashion...your whole vehicle rocks back....same effect.

[HauptmanT]

kuma8877, on 01 November 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

Some good points here. If bipedal mech designs would become a thing, anything larger than a Heavy Gear would be entirely out of the question (a squat 15-20 ft in height). Battlemech designs aren't practical in any sense of the word. Simply too tall. The center of gravity is paramount when fielding enormous weapons with any kind of recoil or physical impact potential. Shots down range, or received from an AC-20 would simply knock them over (properly designed chicken legs would be better than a hominid design). A hunchback should actually have to stop, plant it's feet, then fire in order to stay upright while doing so.

From a realistic sense, a Heavy Gear type vehicle is something that could potentially be a reasonable military application. Battlemechs are giant robo-knights and robo-samurai....From the get go your going on the cool factor.

Yes it's all about the cool... it was a TV show for kids after all.

However you missed the point that Battletech uses low powered (thus low recoil) weapon systems. An AC20 is comparative to a mortar today. Very low muzzle velocity that packs it's punch in an explosive charge. Like the short barreled 150mm German Schweresinfantrie cannon used on the Brummbar, or a 90mm recoiless rifle. That's why an AC20 has less range than an AC2, which fires a smaller projectile faster.

So no our mechs wouldnt be plagued with recoil issues.

[Mystere]

Prosperity Park, on 01 November 2016 - 01:36 PM, said:

There are two reasons why many Mechs in MWO have low-mounted weapons:

1.) BattleTech Mechs were drawn by comic book artists, not military consultants.
2.) The neckbeards demand low-mounted weapons because redesigning the Mechs to have good weapons mounts would be "catering to the Tryhards" who want the game to be more of a combat sim.

You'll see the same names on this forum decry anyone who complains about low-mounted weapons because they say only "meta tryhards" want BattleMechs to have combat-proficient designs; they call it a sign of weakness when you say low mounts are poor for combat purposes. Apparently it's a sin to ask for nice things because we're supposed to want poor combat designs. Anyone who asks for nice things obviously sucks so bad that they need a crutch to stand on.

And then at the same time people are demanding that the KDK-3's mounts be lowered or better yet removed entirely.

Oh the irony!

Edited by Mystere, 01 November 2016 - 04:37 PM.

[dervishx5]

Max Liao was the Chancellor at the time.

That should be enough of an explanation.

[s0da72]

If this game was called 'practical warfare online', the Mech designers that came up with low mounted weapons points would be brought in front of a firing squad and shot for providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

Heck they would be designing Mech's with Arms slung high over the cockpit with a mirror allowing you to see what to shoot at while hiding in a trench waiting for that poor enemy Mech ******* to walk into the open.

[Y E O N N E]

s0da72, on 01 November 2016 - 04:58 PM, said:

Heck they would be designing Mech's with Arms slung high over the cockpit with a mirror allowing you to see what to shoot at while hiding in a trench waiting for that poor enemy Mech ******* to walk into the open.

Mirror?

Camera. We aren't barbarians here.

[Cyborne Elemental]

Low mounted weapons is almost entirely a visual thing, the Mechs visual concept and artistic value was just for definition, in terms of value in TT, it wasn't as big a deal as it is in MWO.

Mostly what mattered in TT was simply line of sight, obstacles and other terrain features weren't as big a deal.

In a FPS shooter like MWO, it makes all the difference. Only because of the format of the game though.

When you go from a flat chessboard game, to a game format with near realistic terrain, its a night and day difference in terms of game balance.

Just like in real life, a height advantage makes all the difference.

[FalconerGray]

If MWO was a simulator, there would be plenty of opportunity and potential for low mounted weapons to have a specific purpose.

Not just low mounts, but different styles of arms, different locations on the mech, different types of mounting points. It could all have meant something, had some variety, flavour, points of difference to it....

.....but this isn't a sim and never will be, so kiss those thoughts goodbye.

[TLBFestus]

Quite simply, Mechs with low arm mounted weapons are better at shooting underneath really low bridges and pedestrian walkways, and drive-thru windows.

So,....City mechs.

[Dee Eight]

HauptmanT, on 01 November 2016 - 04:30 PM, said:

However you missed the point that Battletech uses low powered (thus low recoil) weapon systems. An AC20 is comparative to a mortar today. Very low muzzle velocity that packs it's punch in an explosive charge. Like the short barreled 150mm German Schweresinfantrie cannon used on the Brummbar, or a 90mm recoiless rifle. That's why an AC20 has less range than an AC2, which fires a smaller projectile faster.

You've clearly never shot low velocity large caliber weapons, or even actually witnessed them being fired to have made such a ridiculously statement. My great uncle was part of the R.C.E. in WW2 and had to use a PIAT at times, and said they were NOT exactly low recoil for what was essentially a low velocity spigot mortar. Here, this video should explain things...dry fired the recoil shakes the user violently. This for a weapon with a muzzle velocity of only 76m/sec and which weighed 32 pounds.



Or this one that includes WW2 training footage...




Also... nowhere in the BT technology/lore, is it ever said that the autocannons are "low velocity" weapons. That's an assumption on your part. Just because in the flavour text they might describe the short-barrel LB-10X autocannon of a clan Mars assault tank as a '150mm' doesn't mean every 10 class autocannon was also of that caliber, or barrel length. For that matter, how they drew the thing in the TRO artwork, doesn't actually match to the actual firing arc for a front body mounted weapon (which covers an actual arc of 180 degrees).

[MechaBattler]

RAISE THE ARMS! It's not a hard concept to understand! Maybe they're concerned about the issues with hit boxes if they have to animate arms.

[Hunka Junk]

RestosIII, on 01 November 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

Trying to bring military hardware logic to our mech game?



They're just mechs that are built to look cool. Mechs would be terrible in actual combat once it gets taller than 12 feet at max. They're giant targets with less capabilities than a tank+helo combo, that would sink into the ground as soon as they touched the ground. Things like the Cataphract are just as they are to look nice.

That would be a cool game: co-op death match with tank-helo combos.

Crouching Abrams, Hidden Cobra

[Tarogato]

Nobody's mentioned the obvious reason - weight distribution.

Say you have mech rated at 65 tons. 36 tons are allocated to the chassis, engine, and armour. The remaining 29 tons goes to weapons and other equipment. That's about 45% of the asset's entire weight. If you put all of that weight in gauss rifles and particle cannons at the tippy top of the vehicle, it's not going to be very stable. It will want to topple over very easly and the gyros will have to work incredibly hard to keep balance in check.

So this is why low-mounted hardpoints are a good thing, and why high-mounted hardpoints should entail mobility penalties. Good for shooting, bad for moving.

[Davers]

Ideally, hard point location would help define a mech's role- High points for snipers to shoot over cover and low for brawlers who get in close. But since there is no role warfare...

[Y E O N N E]

Tarogato, on 01 November 2016 - 08:30 PM, said:

So this is why low-mounted hardpoints are a good thing, and why high-mounted hardpoints should entail mobility penalties. Good for shooting, bad for moving.

Only if the 'Mech is also tall. It's all about moment arm length.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

In Lore ,the arms have Movements like a Human , you can hold the weapon to firing on sides , over Covers, to the air , around Corners, hold arms in Covers against Infantry.
the Rifleman can pull the Weaponarms over the Head to the Back ...more like the Matrix ACUs...thats all not going in a PC Game today ,with no Real Armcontrol..and in MWO the Mechs taller as in Lore (with 16m the tallest is the Atlas)

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 01 November 2016 - 09:15 PM.

[Requiemking]

kuma8877, on 01 November 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

Some good points here. If bipedal mech designs would become a thing, anything larger than a Heavy Gear would be entirely out of the question (a squat 15-20 ft in height). Battlemech designs aren't practical in any sense of the word. Simply too tall. The center of gravity is paramount when fielding enormous weapons with any kind of recoil or physical impact potential. Shots down range, or received from an AC-20 would simply knock them over (properly designed chicken legs would be better than a hominid design). A hunchback should actually have to stop, plant it's feet, then fire in order to stay upright while doing so.

From a realistic sense, a Heavy Gear type vehicle is something that could potentially be a reasonable military application. Battlemechs are giant robo-knights and robo-samurai....From the get go your going on the cool factor.

Well, there are a few that break this rule. These are (mainly) energy boats such as the Grasshopper and the Black Knight, as well as Mechs with external missileboxes such as the Catapult. The reason the energy boats could be tall and not suffer balance issues is because of the lack of recoil on lasers. Missile boats with external missileboxes also don't suffer from recoil due to the fact that such structures have vents on the backs of the boxes, allowing exhaust from the missile to jettison safely without generating recoil.

[STEF_]

razenWing, on 01 November 2016 - 01:15 PM, said:

stuff

I'm ok with lore design.
I don't care about high or low mounted hardpoints: brawl doesn't require high monted weaponry.

So, if a "low mounted" mech has good acc/decel/twisting etc. can be good enough.

If OP wants to bring reality to BT/MW, then consider this: in reality not all machines are good; some cars are far better than others, some bicycles better than others, and so on.

CTF4X is a wrong design from the start.
4 ballistic low mounted in a slow mech. Terrible, even in lore. "The -4X is a Federated Suns prototype produced following the capture of Tikonov, but it never saw use due to a lukewarm reception."

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 01 November 2016 - 10:49 PM.

[razenWing]

Tarogato, on 01 November 2016 - 08:30 PM, said:

Nobody's mentioned the obvious reason - weight distribution.

Say you have mech rated at 65 tons. 36 tons are allocated to the chassis, engine, and armour. The remaining 29 tons goes to weapons and other equipment. That's about 45% of the asset's entire weight. If you put all of that weight in gauss rifles and particle cannons at the tippy top of the vehicle, it's not going to be very stable. It will want to topple over very easly and the gyros will have to work incredibly hard to keep balance in check.

So this is why low-mounted hardpoints are a good thing, and why high-mounted hardpoints should entail mobility penalties. Good for shooting, bad for moving.

I like this.

----------

For about 60% of the posters, we are not here to argue the viability of a mech. Of course I know conceptually they are mere artworks of someone's fantasy. These are the obvious real world reasons, breaking 4th wall.

But that's not what I am asking here. I am asking you to assume a little bit of suspension of disbelief (like when watching Star Wars, just go with it or you are not going to have fun) and put yourself in terms of an alternate reality where mechs are real.

Are there any practical reasons for those designers that might want to create low mount weapons vs pure high mount?

For the rest of the 40%, I appreciate your feedback. You truly understand what science FICTION meant.

----------------------

For practical purposes, this theoretical discussion is also meaningful. I've stayed to the theme of asymmetrical warfare for my past few topics. How to create unique mech piloting experiences? How to make you want to spend money on new models so that not all of them are mere art style differences? I discussed this from environment, mech roles, and mech geometry.

Now, PGI might not read and/or take any of my suggestions. But it's at least fun for me to explore how this game might be different. Imagine if PGI did program in recoil like MW3. Now it becomes interesting as different hardpoints will give you a more complex variables from recoil addition and/or reduction.

For example, KDK-3 will still reign on the first salvo on hilltop poking. But now, when you turn the corner and face tank. Would you want something like Cataphract type with no recoil, or would you still take KDK-3 with high recoil due to off-center of mass hardpoint locations? All of a sudden, these mechs are balanced because they individually excel at different situations.

THAT'S the point of these discussions. It's easy to rip apart saying, "well, because this guy drew it this way." It's a lot harder to expand your mind and try to create an "immersive" experience if not for the practical reason to make the game more fun.

Anyways, keep coming with meaningful discussions! I look forward to reading them.

[Chuck Jager]

Well humans have how many creation stories and Gods in their lore and we see how well that has worked out. Star Wars just eliminated whole parts of their lore and comics have had how many reboots, and this is what allows the story to continue.

The low mounts were kinda balanced before clan OP mechs, but now it really stinks. I think Zero IS mechs should have any mount lower than their current upper wait level. So about a 10-20% difference so it would stay pretty close to the art. If PGI was smart they could maybe compensate for this with just moving the projectile hit path up and not changing the model or averaging the visual move with the fudge factor.

Note - I do not think every mech needs 2-4 head level mounts.

Edited by Chuck Jager, 01 November 2016 - 11:44 PM.