Even with as advanced as our guns are getting, even this almost self sufficient carriage still requires 8 people to perform various tasks.
In battle tech, every single one of those excess bodies needs to be replaced with even more equipment so that the pilot alone can perform all actions with the push of a button.
So again, the gun is the breach and barrel. Everything else is to control, aim, stabalize, load, and make the thing work. This is where all our weight comes from in Battletech.
By the way on the topic of the thread... Nerf nothing. MGs are fun and useful now. I've had the Arrow for like a year, just now started using it. Love the new MystLynx as well... CHANGE NOTHING!
Even with as advanced as our guns are getting, even this almost self sufficient carriage still requires 8 people to perform various tasks.
In battle tech, every single one of those excess bodies needs to be removed with even more equipment so that the pilot alone can perform all actions with the push of a button.
So again, the gun is the breach and barrel. Everything else is to control, aim, stabalize, load, and make the thing work. This is where all our weight comes from in Battletech.
By the way on the topic of the thread... Nerf nothing. MGs are fun and useful now. I've had the Arrow for like a year, just now started using it. Love the new MystLynx as well... CHANGE NOTHING!
Just... just read what I wrote before your comment. Quoting myself because my reply ended up placing at bottom:
The Lighthouse, on 27 August 2017 - 03:22 PM, said:
I just fought with someone claiming that Gauss Rifle is not made for long range purpose in lore, and now I am seeing this.
In lore, AC20 is never really implied that it has to be a larger bore than AC2. Surprised? AC2 can be actually a bigger bullet that does 2 damage per hit, and AC20 can be stream of 20 bullets that does 20 damage total. It is said that this behavior is depended on manufacturers. It is simplified in TT that in the end AC20 does just 20 damage.
People raise their eyebrows when they see a Hunchback in the original Mech Commander opening video. It seems instead of shooting one big round to Mad Cat (Timber Wolf), the effects indicate that it is shooting burst of bullets. It is actually very accurate based on lore. Actually in-game where all mechs shooting just one round is more weird.
By the way, you really do not want to apply real-world military stuffs into Battletech too much. There are a lot of nonsense that defiles common sense such as AC20 having less range than AC2 (in real world larger caliber usually has longer range.) If you read novels, the authors just do not make their minds regarding actual combat distance of mechs. Some do go for mechs fighting within 1~2km just like in TT and games, while others vaguely indicate battle where weapons reach tens of kilos.
So it is pretty messed up and I suggest you guys to restrain from using real-world examples too much.
Like... please. In Battletech, weapons jam all the time with the rate that if they were modern weapons they would had been tossed away. The whole weapons were balanced for TT play in the first place.
...And not to mention having bipedal robots for battle is utter nonsense in the first place. ;p
Even with as advanced as our guns are getting, even this almost self sufficient carriage still requires 8 people to perform various tasks.
In battle tech, every single one of those excess bodies needs to be removed with even more equipment so that the pilot alone can perform all actions with the push of a button.
So again, the gun is the breach and barrel. Everything else is to control, aim, stabalize, load, and make the thing work. This is where all our weight comes from in Battletech.
Computers used to fill multiple rooms. Now? Vastly more powerful computers can fit in your hand. That's after 60-ish years, imagine how compact things could be in hundreds of years?
You are an idiot, that is a mech sized MG. Weights match, damage potential seems right on mech internals.
That being said, I agree with you about MG's in game.
Here's a good vid comparing steel vs ceramic. You can see that shooting the steel repeatedly does nothing to it. Without a penetration, the steel is almost indestructible. Not so with ceramic. when you hit ceramic, it absorbs that blow, but in the process becomes weaker. Repeated hits in the same location would lead to a penetration. Aka ablative. Armored glass works the same way. So with ceramic, for much reduced weight you can stop the same amount of energy, but only a few times.
This is why even an MG can strip armor from a mech.
If Battletech wanted to introduce steel armor, they could do it at a 10-20 to one ratio, and you could theoretically make a mech impervious to all but the heaviest of weapons.
Im not sure I'm responding to nerfing anything. A nerf is when you reduce something's effectiveness.... MG's are mis-applied damage that is inconsistant with the concept of enhanced mech armor....
MG's never should be able to attrit MWO armor that is un-damaged..... Damaged mechs, where the energy and kinetic weapons designed to defeat that armor have removed a vast majority of that armor, is another topic.... MG's on their own logically could not defeat un-damage armor.... Point blank illogical......
Now, does anyone know the diameters of the light, normal and heavy mg's? Are they say, less than a 20mm??? How is it a light MG can shoot farther than a heavy MG? Take the 7.62 effective range and the 12.7 effective range as an example.... the 50 cal shootes fastly further with a larger round.... Why is MWO different?
Maybe, the term MG itself is causing confusion...... machine, chain or Gaitlin guns all operate on different principles...
can anyone out there help me out?
Yes. You're wrong, because Battletech's armor doesn't work like modern tank armor. It's ablative- that is, it gains the ability to defeat high-energy weapons that would turn an modern tank into a multi-million dollar exploding donut by taking away weapon energy via crumbling/melting away armor.
It's not picky. While much smaller bits will crumble away from a rifle hit vs. a Gauss rifle, you're still gradually defeating the armor a bit at a time. It's why a platoon of rifle infantry can and will take down lighter 'Mechs on occasion, given luck and a bit of cover. A machine gun will do the job. In fact, MWO armor is considerably more resistant to MG fire than Battletech armor is- 8 LMGs would sandpaper away half a ton of armor or so per hit (assuming they all did), while it'd take considerably more time for them to do the same in even a full ten-second burst in MWO.
You are an idiot, that is a mech sized MG. Weights match, damage potential seems right on mech internals.
That being said, I agree with you about MG's in game.
That is not a mech sized MG.
Mechs arent as big as you are imagining... I mean I'm looking at a raven right now on this websight. That cockpit is only the size needed to allow the pilot to see. I'm sure the pilot fills the majority of that nose. If you replaced legs with tracks, it's going to be about the size of a 35 ton tank (like a Sherman). That arm with the 2 lasers, probably quite comparable to a twin 50 mount on an M13 half track. Granted the M13 is a copula, with the gunner seated in it, but again he would be replaced with autoloader and motorized aiming equipment (arm actuators etc).
Yeonne Greene, on 27 August 2017 - 03:30 PM, said:
That piece doesn't fire a pre-packaged round. BattleMechs do.
The main gun on a modern European MBT is much more analogous than the fixed place piece.
That was just to demonstrate the size of all the extra equipment and it's clearly visible without tons of armor being in the way. And it's still not enough equipment to make the gun function without 8 other people having to be involved.
But yes a MBT with autoloader would be a good comparison. I think the French build a tank where there is no actual bodies in the turret at all. Yet it's still fairly large and bulky.
This is just my argument against those who claim only the guns weight is what counts. There is so much more involved than just the gun. That GAU-8 is HUGE, and it's in a fixed mount that cant be aimed/moved, which requires a huge jet to hold. Shorten that barrel, add a motorized pintle mount, and ammo drums, you have something the size a mech's torso (or an assault mech's whole arm)... not a half ton's worth of filler machine gun.
That was just to demonstrate the size of all the extra equipment and it's clearly visible without tons of armor being in the way. And it's still not enough equipment to make the gun function without 8 other people having to be involved.
But yes a MBT with autoloader would be a good comparison. I think the French build a tank where there is no actual bodies in the turret at all. Yet it's still fairly large and bulky.
This is just my argument against those who claim only the guns weight is what counts. There is so much more involved than just the gun. That GAU-8 is HUGE, and it's in a fixed mount that cant be aimed/moved, which requires a huge jet to hold. Shorten that barrel, add a motorized pintle mount, and ammo drums, you have something the size a mech's torso... not a half ton's worth of filler machine gun.
The motorized mount is there on the 'Mech regardless of what weapon you have; it's a part of the arm. Ergo, you can't count that toward the weight. You can make a case for the feed mechanisms, but we can also make the case that those mechanisms have to be there anyway because BattleMechs are supposed to be as-is from the factory and you'll have the feed mechanisms even if you modify the mount to take a laser array instead.
The reality is that they just assigned the mass to items based on what they thought would be balanced (at least within the IS tech tree). Nothing more, nothing less.
Yeonne Greene, on 27 August 2017 - 05:11 PM, said:
The motorized mount is there on the 'Mech regardless of what weapon you have; it's a part of the arm. Ergo, you can't count that toward the weight. You can make a case for the feed mechanisms, but we can also make the case that those mechanisms have to be there anyway because BattleMechs are supposed to be as-is from the factory and you'll have the feed mechanisms even if you modify the mount to take a laser array instead.
The reality is that they just assigned the mass to items based on what they thought would be balanced (at least within the IS tech tree). Nothing more, nothing less.
Look... let me have my fun and rationalize it the way I want alright!~
Im not sure I'm responding to nerfing anything. A nerf is when you reduce something's effectiveness.... MG's are mis-applied damage that is inconsistant with the concept of enhanced mech armor....
MG's never should be able to attrit MWO armor that is un-damaged..... Damaged mechs, where the energy and kinetic weapons designed to defeat that armor have removed a vast majority of that armor, is another topic.... MG's on their own logically could not defeat un-damage armor.... Point blank illogical......
Now, does anyone know the diameters of the light, normal and heavy mg's? Are they say, less than a 20mm??? How is it a light MG can shoot farther than a heavy MG? Take the 7.62 effective range and the 12.7 effective range as an example.... the 50 cal shootes fastly further with a larger round.... Why is MWO different?
Maybe, the term MG itself is causing confusion...... machine, chain or Gaitlin guns all operate on different principles...
can anyone out there help me out?
Every Heard of the Gray Death Legion, maybe you need to read up on how Grayson killed a Stinger pilot using a heavy MG in Decision at Thunder Rift......
Now I always asumed the BattleTech MG was the .50cal... but then MW4 happened, and they refered to it as a "machine gun array" which had 3 barrels poking out as a graphic. So this made .30cals viable. Now that we have heavy and light MGs in game... I just assumed it was .223, .30, and .50. Because that's what a machine gun is. Anything bigger, and we call it an autocannon.
Even those small caliber projectiles are no slouch when it comes to wrecking equipment. a .30 cal rifle round will destroy an engine block. Tanks exist because of that .30 cal. Any thing with enough armor to stand up to a single rifle round is an AFV. The first tanks, with just enough armor to stop a normal machine gun (2 points of steel armor) weighed 10-20 tons. Hell the M3 halftrack pic I posted is a 10 ton vehicle without weapons.
With autocannons, you are talking bigger rounds. a 20mm autocannon being the mainstay of WW2 era air combat for Europeans, whilst we Amerifats kept Heavy machine guns.. Today, we replace them with 20mm rotary autocannons. The GAU-8 is a 35mm rotary.
SRM/LRM launchers are like those little pods we put on Hueys in Vietnam, just reloadable. Those rockets are not very large... like your forearm.
Hellfires and those bigger anti-tank missles, well those are Arrow IV missiles in Battletech.
The Longtom, your typical 105mm howitzer.
Anyways, I feel the need to blow some stuff up now. See you fools in game.
A machine gun array is a totally different thing, actually.
It basically lets you link multiple MG's into a single target, effectively combining them into a larger-damage gun. They're still the same MGs.
Like autocannons, MGs in Battletech vary in ROF and ammo size. You'll actually see 20mm machineguns, but they also show up in smaller (and more shells per "shot") versions, "gatlings", and so on. It's a broad coverage of different kinds of bullet-chuckers in fluff glommed into one thing (and of course, light and heavy versions of same).
Machine guns go up to ~15 mm; that's a grey area where some call it a cannon and others still call it an MG. Really depends on the party you are asking, there's nothing especially technical about it.
At 20 mm, though, just about everybody agrees it's a cannon. I know the Oerlikon 20 mm is referred to as a machine gun sometimes, but that's really just the semantics of its national origins.
Plenty of effort, maybe your just a bad mechwarrior
Lol
Ruar is getting almost 300 average match score and yours is under 200, you should be careful who you call out, considering most mech warriors are better than you.
Here's a good vid comparing steel vs ceramic. You can see that shooting the steel repeatedly does nothing to it. Without a penetration, the steel is almost indestructible. Not so with ceramic. when you hit ceramic, it absorbs that blow, but in the process becomes weaker. Repeated hits in the same location would lead to a penetration. Aka ablative. Armored glass works the same way. So with ceramic, for much reduced weight you can stop the same amount of energy, but only a few times.
This is why even an MG can strip armor from a mech.
If Battletech wanted to introduce steel armor, they could do it at a 10-20 to one ratio, and you could theoretically make a mech impervious to all but the heaviest of weapons.
Modern armor is not steel its a composite of many materials. Battletech armor is ablative while if you were using real world physics armor you would need to do a set number of damage with one shot to breach the armor. So most battletech weapons would be useless.
6
This topic is locked
