Jump to content

Random Thought, What Is The Logic Behind Machine Gun And Crit Anyways?!?


62 replies to this topic

#21 razenWing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fearless
  • The Fearless
  • 1,694 posts

Posted 24 April 2018 - 07:33 AM

View PostIdToaster, on 24 April 2018 - 05:24 AM, said:

So the Gauss Rifle, which is a pure kinetic weapon that only fires solid blobs of metal and still has to ablate armor away to reach internals, has the 'specialized shells' to penetrate structure and components, which are super duper spaceage magic alloys that apparently suck at being armor (otherwise why use this lame ablative crap?), but machineguns, which (you have apparently forgotten) can and do have explosive armor-piercing cartridges, don't?

wut


Dude, do you even know how tank rounds work? It's not just a piece of metal, but specific shaped with different combination of density of metal to penetrate. And nowhere in lore does it say that mg bullets have explosive rounds. By same token, you can also put explosive rounds on Gauss rifle. So your argument is moot.

Also, all ballistic based on weapon are kinetics, the difference being if it penetrates. Tank rounds (like the uranium/tungsten rounds) of real world is the closest comparison to a Gauss round. Those WILL pierce armors. The hunk of metal that you are referring to, that's more AC rounds.

Now if you are suggesting different ammunition that can affect characteristics of weapons, I'm all for it. But that's not what we have now.

Edited by razenWing, 24 April 2018 - 09:58 AM.


#22 Metus regem

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sureshot
  • The Sureshot
  • 10,282 posts
  • LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses

Posted 24 April 2018 - 07:45 AM

To be blunt, it goes back to TT, you had two weapon types:

Can opener's
Crit Seekers


Can openers typically did 10+ damage to one location

Crit Seekers typically did 5 or less to one location, sometimes multiple locations.

This is what made LB's great in TT you could use them as a can opener then as a crit seeker the next turn. (S)SRM/s were typically used for crit seeking as low damage per hit with multiple locations. LRM/s were in a odd place, as they could be used for both crit seeking and opening armour. MG's fall into the crit seeking department, with the added benifit of being great against infantry....

As far MWO goes, well they dropped the ball on the crit system, so a lot of the additional uses for lower damage weapons are flat out gone...

#23 Asym

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • 2,186 posts

Posted 24 April 2018 - 11:52 AM

View PostrazenWing, on 24 April 2018 - 07:33 AM, said:


Dude, do you even know how tank rounds work? It's not just a piece of metal, but specific shaped with different combination of density of metal to penetrate. And nowhere in lore does it say that mg bullets have explosive rounds. By same token, you can also put explosive rounds on Gauss rifle. So your argument is moot.

Also, all ballistic based on weapon are kinetics, the difference being if it penetrates. Tank rounds (like the uranium/tungsten rounds) of real world is the closest comparison to a Gauss round. Those WILL pierce armors. The hunk of metal that you are referring to, that's more AC rounds.

Now if you are suggesting different ammunition that can affect characteristics of weapons, I'm all for it. But that's not what we have now.

Ok, ok, ok,,,,,,..geeze.

Where to start:

1) are you a USA MOS 19 or OSI 12? If not, stop Googling, please. It causes those of us who are 19/12's shivers like finger nails being dragged on a chalkboard. Oh God, stop.....
2) Ah,........ Gauss, Coil, Rail guns are accelerated KE weapons... The logic being that KE rounds are safer to store cause they don't go "boom" when you get hit and hit you will be in combat... Extreme acceleration.... Even if you could place an explosive charge in a G/C/R projectile, it wouldn't likely work because of the extreme inertia and acceleration causes anything but solids to do stupid stuff......or not work at all; if electrical.....Liquids do not compress........explosives are mostly.........and contain...... Then, let's talk about temperatures at WARP 9 speeds. Let's use warp instead of real words; it's easier... Extreme temps melt......just about everything....etc, etc, etc,....
3) I'm not sure what you were trying to say with the "all ballistic based on weapon are kinetics" comment? HEAT/HEP-HESH rounds are truly ballistic ammunition with chemical energy warheads.... (utilizing different destructive principles no less)
4) Rail and coil guns are the most similar to Gauss technologies...

OK, I'm tired now........ Sigh.

#24 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 26,888 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 24 April 2018 - 11:56 AM

PGI made MGs into crit-seekers because they somehow got the idea into their heads that the TT MG was only effective against infantry. They've been wrong about that since this game's inception. Anyone can open a TT rule book and see that it does 2 points of damage to Battlemech armor (same as the AC/2).

#25 Variant1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 24 April 2018 - 12:11 PM

I personaly like the mwo mgs, they feel different and now that their crit has been buffed feel useful. Also to people that complain about losing weapons, any other weapon would simply destroy the torso and the weapons with it so what is the problem? Gives an intersting battlefield of choosing to go for weapons rather than torsos.

#26 MechaBattler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,122 posts

Posted 24 April 2018 - 12:23 PM

Their critting is too good. 4 LMGs can strip all the weapons off a mech in less than 4 seconds. They don't need extra crit damage. They have a high rate of fire so it has a much higher chance to crit. That should be the only real bonus it gets. Same with LBX. They have a higher chance to crit because each pellet has a chance to crit. As it stands MGs are too good at critting. At least LBX have to work with a cooldown.

#27 Variant1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 24 April 2018 - 12:40 PM

View PostMechaBattler, on 24 April 2018 - 12:23 PM, said:

Their critting is too good. 4 LMGs can strip all the weapons off a mech in less than 4 seconds. They don't need extra crit damage. They have a high rate of fire so it has a much higher chance to crit. That should be the only real bonus it gets. Same with LBX. They have a higher chance to crit because each pellet has a chance to crit. As it stands MGs are too good at critting. At least LBX have to work with a cooldown.

If the armor is exposed any weapon will rip apart the torsos and destroy the weapons with it, again what is the problem? If your armor is exposed already the weapons are as good as gone

#28 MechaBattler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,122 posts

Posted 24 April 2018 - 12:45 PM

That's part of the problem. What's the point if weapons are deleted instantly? They need to increase component health to actually be noticeable. But with MGs having a high rate of fire a crit is guaranteed, it doesn't need extra damage.

#29 Athom83

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Death Wish
  • The Death Wish
  • 2,529 posts
  • LocationTFS Aurora, 1000km up.

Posted 24 April 2018 - 12:47 PM

View PostrazenWing, on 24 April 2018 - 03:38 AM, said:

Like I get it, you want to create a video game weapon that "crits" or take out enemy components...

But like, what is the basis of them being a "crit" weapon? It's obviously very hard to debate how a fictional weapon "should" work, but with certain things, you kind of expect how a certain things would work based on popular pop culture references such as movies, tvs, other games, and etc.

And of course, some real world experiences too.

The way I see crit... is like this... say you have a tank. What is the best way of killing the crew inside? Is it:

A: Fire a bunch of small arms and hope one bullet would "crit" and kill the crew inside?
B: Fire a big armor penetrating round that pierce the armor and shred the crew inside?

Most people would pick B right? Cause, in reality, that's how it works. That's honestly what a Gauss Rifle round should do. It should be the one that's penetrating armors and shredding the internal components.

Ironically, with knowing armor in BTech being ablative, you expect machine guns to be MORE effective against armors, by shredding and peeling away those armors designed to absorb big kinetic blast by falling off (which, machine guns essentially are just a bunch of small kinetic rounds), than the ability to puncture a steel support and what not. So, it's exactly the opposite of how the game works.


I like how people forget in TT MGs do even more damage than AC/2s.

#30 Variant1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 24 April 2018 - 12:53 PM

View PostMechaBattler, on 24 April 2018 - 12:45 PM, said:

That's part of the problem. What's the point if weapons are deleted instantly? They need to increase component health to actually be noticeable. But with MGs having a high rate of fire a crit is guaranteed, it doesn't need extra damage.

deleted instantly, how?Posted Image for mgs to crit a weapon the armor would have to be exposed first, which would need to be done with a different weapon since mg dmg to armor is negligible in a fight.

#31 Angel of Annihilation

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Infernal
  • The Infernal
  • 8,881 posts

Posted 24 April 2018 - 02:09 PM

View PostSavage Wolf, on 24 April 2018 - 04:00 AM, said:

They did it to make the weapon worth taking despite it's pitiful DPS. This also created a new battlefield role for some to be the finishers. Not that I for a second would give PGI enough credit to realise this and how to manage it, like most interesting game design choices they make, they tend to be accidental.

So short version: They did it to make MGs worth taking.


Yes and it was absolutely fine with no mech was taking more than 4 MGs. Now that we have mechs boating up to 12 of them, it is a major issue. Time for PGI to figure out another way to make them worth taking.

#32 Shadowomega1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 987 posts

Posted 24 April 2018 - 04:37 PM

From TT, to MW3/MW4 MGs have been pretty much short range higher fire rate versions of the AC2 as they both deal 2 damage. However in those version of MW/BT they fired kind of slowly and had 100 rounds of ammo per ton. (Could be 100 bursts like AC/UACs but not clearly stated). In MWO they are a constant stream of bullets with 2000 round of ammo per ton. Furthermore the weapons weigh 1/4 of a ton or 500 pounds for the Clan Light and Normal Machine guns, 1/2 of a ton or 1000 pounds for the IS Light/Normal Machine guns as well as the Clan Heavy Machine gun, and a full 1 ton or 2000 pounds for the IS Heavy Machine gun.

The closest weapon that I found to the Clan Light and Normal Machine gun in weight was the Bushmaster III which is a 35mm system weighing in at 480 pounds (Barrel and Feeder system) I am erroring more in favor of BT due to larger feeder system (IE rollers) increasing the weight. While it is not stated the Bushmaster III likely uses a good deal of Titanium in its construction so it is likely the weight is as low as it is so it is close the clan weight. IS on the other hand likely don't use as much Titanium as they lost a lot of facilitates during the four succession wars so their likely using steel which increase the weight to its 1000 pound weight.

The biggest factor is the weight of the rounds as there are 2000 pounds in a ton, and we have 2000 rounds per ton, making the rounds 1 pound per round. As for why MGs have more rounds then the AC 2 is size of the ammo. The smallest 20mm round I found was a 20mm*70mm, the smallest 25mm round I found was 25*40mm. While the ammo we might see for the AC 2 could be 20*400 or 25*400 in size as the round has to penetrate BT's highly resilient armor.

Edited by Shadowomega1, 24 April 2018 - 04:38 PM.


#33 Tincan Nightmare

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,069 posts

Posted 24 April 2018 - 04:53 PM

View PostIdToaster, on 24 April 2018 - 04:23 AM, said:

I love this meme.

You are aware that those 'small arms' normally weight half a ton each (four times the weight of, say, an M61 vulcan cannon) and fire 'small kinetic rounds' that weigh about a pound (0.45kg) each in rapid succession, with velocity fast enough that you don't need to lead targets? Anything you're hitting that's softer than armor should be torn to absolute shreds by that.

View PostNightbird, on 24 April 2018 - 05:32 AM, said:

In real life, the tonnage of MG is equivalent to the nose gun on this tank killing aircraft:
https://en.m.wikiped..._Thunderbolt_II

In Battletech, MG does the same DPS and Damage as the A/C2, with the only difference being a lot less range for a low less tonnage. PGI did not want to give it the same DMG or DPS as the A/C2, so they gave it crit as a gimmik.

View PostMawai, on 24 April 2018 - 05:35 AM, said:

Since this is Battletech physics we are free to make up whatever explanation we like Posted Image

However, "machine guns" in Battletech/MWO weigh 1/2 ton or 500kgs, the ammunition contains 2000 rounds/ton. This makes EACH round weigh in at 0.5 kgs or over 1lb for each projectile. For comparison a M242 Bushmaster autocannon fires 25mm rounds that weigh in at 500g.

http://www.inetres.c...eapon/M242.html
https://en.wikipedia...M242_Bushmaster

So ... Battletech machine guns are actually more like small calibre autocannons firing 25mm shells. In Battletech terms these do not do that much damage to armor (since great armor! lol). However, in theory, a large number of high velocity 25mm shells rattling around inside the structure of a battlemech have a greater chance of hitting something critical (despite the hardening and the armored internal structure) than one large hit from a larger calibre autocannon or laser.

This at least could be a possible explanation for a greater chance of critical hits from an MWO machine gun. However, I need to mention that all comparisons between Battletech and reality are pretty much BS since there are lots more physics issues than the capability of a "machine gun".

View PostNightbird, on 24 April 2018 - 07:30 AM, said:

In BT it's a MG. Unless you think the mechs are mounting a 5 pound anti infantry weapon?

View PostShadowomega1, on 24 April 2018 - 04:37 PM, said:

From TT, to MW3/MW4 MGs have been pretty much short range higher fire rate versions of the AC2 as they both deal 2 damage. However in those version of MW/BT they fired kind of slowly and had 100 rounds of ammo per ton. (Could be 100 bursts like AC/UACs but not clearly stated). In MWO they are a constant stream of bullets with 2000 round of ammo per ton. Furthermore the weapons weigh 1/4 of a ton or 500 pounds for the Clan Light and Normal Machine guns, 1/2 of a ton or 1000 pounds for the IS Light/Normal Machine guns as well as the Clan Heavy Machine gun, and a full 1 ton or 2000 pounds for the IS Heavy Machine gun.

The closest weapon that I found to the Clan Light and Normal Machine gun in weight was the Bushmaster III which is a 35mm system weighing in at 480 pounds (Barrel and Feeder system) I am erroring more in favor of BT due to larger feeder system (IE rollers) increasing the weight. While it is not stated the Bushmaster III likely uses a good deal of Titanium in its construction so it is likely the weight is as low as it is so it is close the clan weight. IS on the other hand likely don't use as much Titanium as they lost a lot of facilitates during the four succession wars so their likely using steel which increase the weight to its 1000 pound weight.

The biggest factor is the weight of the rounds as there are 2000 pounds in a ton, and we have 2000 rounds per ton, making the rounds 1 pound per round. As for why MGs have more rounds then the AC 2 is size of the ammo. The smallest 20mm round I found was a 20mm*70mm, the smallest 25mm round I found was 25*40mm. While the ammo we might see for the AC 2 could be 20*400 or 25*400 in size as the round has to penetrate BT's highly resilient armor.


Omg people, stop with real world comparisons due to weight, because in BT that brakes real quick. Some of the 'mg's' actually have their caliber listed in the TRO's, and it doesn't make a lick of sense with the guns weight. Scorpion light tank is a good example, it lists it's mg as a 20mm weapon, EXACTLY the same caliber of a modern day Vulcan, but for some reason it weighs 4 times as much. The Bulldog tank actually lists it's mg as a 7.62mm MINIGUN, how in hell that gun weighs half a ton who knows. The blueprint of the Timber Wolf/Mad Cat shows that the .5 ton mg's it carries are .50 caliber guns! Even in the novels (think one of the Grey Death books) they state that a T-bolts mg's are 15mm. Real world math just does NOT WORK in BT, so citing it as why mg's should work like they do in MWO is really silly.

The main concern is that having a weapon in the game that is useless is just plain stupid, and if it exists it should have some use/point to be carried. Debate on how you believe mg's should be characterized in game, but please stop citing real world examples that don't sync up with the 'space magic' of BT science.

#34 LordBraxton

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,585 posts

Posted 24 April 2018 - 05:14 PM

MGs are really dumb in solaris. I see them allllll the time. In a real match the need to get so close in a risk, in Solaris it is almost an inevitability.

#35 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 26,888 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 24 April 2018 - 05:18 PM

View PostTincan Nightmare, on 24 April 2018 - 04:53 PM, said:


Omg people, stop with real world comparisons due to weight, because in BT that brakes real quick. Some of the 'mg's' actually have their caliber listed in the TRO's, and it doesn't make a lick of sense with the guns weight. Scorpion light tank is a good example, it lists it's mg as a 20mm weapon, EXACTLY the same caliber of a modern day Vulcan, but for some reason it weighs 4 times as much. The Bulldog tank actually lists it's mg as a 7.62mm MINIGUN, how in hell that gun weighs half a ton who knows. The blueprint of the Timber Wolf/Mad Cat shows that the .5 ton mg's it carries are .50 caliber guns! Even in the novels (think one of the Grey Death books) they state that a T-bolts mg's are 15mm. Real world math just does NOT WORK in BT, so citing it as why mg's should work like they do in MWO is really silly.

The main concern is that having a weapon in the game that is useless is just plain stupid, and if it exists it should have some use/point to be carried. Debate on how you believe mg's should be characterized in game, but please stop citing real world examples that don't sync up with the 'space magic' of BT science.

People bring up the real world comparisons as a response against the popular argument of "MG should only hurt infantry and be nearly or entirely useless against mechs because it's unrealistic."

But yes, in the grand scheme of things it is more important to ensure that everything in the game has a niche regardless of how realistic it may be.

#36 Athom83

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Death Wish
  • The Death Wish
  • 2,529 posts
  • LocationTFS Aurora, 1000km up.

Posted 24 April 2018 - 05:30 PM

View PostTincan Nightmare, on 24 April 2018 - 04:53 PM, said:


Omg people, stop with real world comparisons due to weight, because in BT that brakes real quick. Some of the 'mg's' actually have their caliber listed in the TRO's, and it doesn't make a lick of sense with the guns weight. Scorpion light tank is a good example, it lists it's mg as a 20mm weapon, EXACTLY the same caliber of a modern day Vulcan, but for some reason it weighs 4 times as much. The Bulldog tank actually lists it's mg as a 7.62mm MINIGUN, how in hell that gun weighs half a ton who knows. The blueprint of the Timber Wolf/Mad Cat shows that the .5 ton mg's it carries are .50 caliber guns! Even in the novels (think one of the Grey Death books) they state that a T-bolts mg's are 15mm. Real world math just does NOT WORK in BT, so citing it as why mg's should work like they do in MWO is really silly.

The main concern is that having a weapon in the game that is useless is just plain stupid, and if it exists it should have some use/point to be carried. Debate on how you believe mg's should be characterized in game, but please stop citing real world examples that don't sync up with the 'space magic' of BT science.

Actually they could be quite fair comparisons as the BT weight includes expanded and thickened barrels and breaches alongside autoloading mechanisms and heat pumps. Like going from a Mk47 40mm gun to a Bofors L/70 40mm gun.

#37 kuma8877

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Tip of the Spear
  • The Tip of the Spear
  • 691 posts
  • LocationCO

Posted 24 April 2018 - 05:39 PM

View PostTincan Nightmare, on 24 April 2018 - 04:53 PM, said:


Omg people, stop with real world comparisons due to weight, because in BT that brakes real quick. Some of the 'mg's' actually have their caliber listed in the TRO's, and it doesn't make a lick of sense with the guns weight. Scorpion light tank is a good example, it lists it's mg as a 20mm weapon, EXACTLY the same caliber of a modern day Vulcan, but for some reason it weighs 4 times as much. The Bulldog tank actually lists it's mg as a 7.62mm MINIGUN, how in hell that gun weighs half a ton who knows. The blueprint of the Timber Wolf/Mad Cat shows that the .5 ton mg's it carries are .50 caliber guns! Even in the novels (think one of the Grey Death books) they state that a T-bolts mg's are 15mm. Real world math just does NOT WORK in BT, so citing it as why mg's should work like they do in MWO is really silly.

The main concern is that having a weapon in the game that is useless is just plain stupid, and if it exists it should have some use/point to be carried. Debate on how you believe mg's should be characterized in game, but please stop citing real world examples that don't sync up with the 'space magic' of BT science.

I pay less mind to the fluff/stories (as it's often poorly researched to represent the TT rule set or real world) and more to what the TT rule set is implying is happening in game (the reason for the fluff). Extrapolating from there to the real world is a different mental exercise from what you're implying. From the rules, we can take away that the Mech mounted MG's are of significant enough caliber to damage mech and MBT armor at the same rate as an small autocannon at range. There are real world counterparts to these kinds of weapons today with similar (minus the range change for TT game play) differences between the classes of weapon.

If you could mount (IRL physics are the real question) 6-12 30mm onto a stable frame (maintain all guns on target while engaged) and then engage a target at 300m.... I can't think of a single MBT that stands in front of that for very long at all.

The interesting question would be for Jordan and what they had intended the real world basis for the weapons to be. My guess would be the 20mm as it's prevalent across a lot of the airframes from the time period (70-80's).

Edited by kuma8877, 24 April 2018 - 05:41 PM.


#38 Erronius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 348 posts

Posted 24 April 2018 - 06:12 PM

A lot of this is really pointless, particularly the weights. It was never supposed to be some kind of accurate representation - it was just a game system with arbitrary values and vague real-world concepts brought in to give it a veneer of realism.

#39 Tincan Nightmare

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,069 posts

Posted 24 April 2018 - 06:20 PM

View PostFupDup, on 24 April 2018 - 05:18 PM, said:

People bring up the real world comparisons as a response against the popular argument of "MG should only hurt infantry and be nearly or entirely useless against mechs because it's unrealistic."

But yes, in the grand scheme of things it is more important to ensure that everything in the game has a niche regardless of how realistic it may be.


Agreed, game functionality over 'reality'.

View PostAthom83, on 24 April 2018 - 05:30 PM, said:

Actually they could be quite fair comparisons as the BT weight includes expanded and thickened barrels and breaches alongside autoloading mechanisms and heat pumps. Like going from a Mk47 40mm gun to a Bofors L/70 40mm gun.


It still doesn't explain a 7.62mm, .50 cal, and 20mm gun systems weighing the same (all of which weigh far more than contemporary systems despite coming from a much higher tech base, since we don't have FTL, mechs, or fusion engines.) Even if they have thicker breeches/barrels due to higher pressure from more advanced propellants, different calibers would not weigh the same at exactly half a ton.

View Postkuma8877, on 24 April 2018 - 05:39 PM, said:

I pay less mind to the fluff/stories (as it's often poorly researched to represent the TT rule set or real world) and more to what the TT rule set is implying is happening in game (the reason for the fluff). Extrapolating from there to the real world is a different mental exercise from what you're implying. From the rules, we can take away that the Mech mounted MG's are of significant enough caliber to damage mech and MBT armor at the same rate as an small autocannon at range. There are real world counterparts to these kinds of weapons today with similar (minus the range change for TT game play) differences between the classes of weapon.

If you could mount (IRL physics are the real question) 6-12 30mm onto a stable frame (maintain all guns on target while engaged) and then engage a target at 300m.... I can't think of a single MBT that stands in front of that for very long at all.

The interesting question would be for Jordan and what they had intended the real world basis for the weapons to be. My guess would be the 20mm as it's prevalent across a lot of the airframes from the time period (70-80's).


The point I'm making is that 'real' world physics do not apply, all that matters is having something useful (but hopefully not OP) in the game.

Also, the typical caliber for WWII tank guns at the start of the conflict were around 37.5mm to 50mm, and that soon proved inadequate to breach a tanks armor reliably. Most modern MBT's are designed to defend against 120mm+ attacks, so your bunch of 30mm guns strapped together would be just as useless as multiple .30 or .50 cal mg's at trying to penetrate their armor (might chew up tracks, exposed view ports etc...). It only works for aircraft like the A-10 because they are attacking the thin top armor (something most new anti-tank weapons are starting to do, like the Javelin).

And I'm pretty sure the TRO's came out under the supervision of Jordan, as they are official game products, and they list the caliber of several mech/vehicle mg's. So the Bulldog mounting a 7.62 gun that can hurt a mech is exactly what he imagined, it just doesn't line up with 'real' world science. Just like a platoon of infantry carrying rifles can also hurt a mech in BT.

#40 kuma8877

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Tip of the Spear
  • The Tip of the Spear
  • 691 posts
  • LocationCO

Posted 24 April 2018 - 06:44 PM

View PostTincan Nightmare, on 24 April 2018 - 06:20 PM, said:


Agreed, game functionality over 'reality'.



It still doesn't explain a 7.62mm, .50 cal, and 20mm gun systems weighing the same (all of which weigh far more than contemporary systems despite coming from a much higher tech base, since we don't have FTL, mechs, or fusion engines.) Even if they have thicker breeches/barrels due to higher pressure from more advanced propellants, different calibers would not weigh the same at exactly half a ton.



The point I'm making is that 'real' world physics do not apply, all that matters is having something useful (but hopefully not OP) in the game.

Also, the typical caliber for WWII tank guns at the start of the conflict were around 37.5mm to 50mm, and that soon proved inadequate to breach a tanks armor reliably. Most modern MBT's are designed to defend against 120mm+ attacks, so your bunch of 30mm guns strapped together would be just as useless as multiple .30 or .50 cal mg's at trying to penetrate their armor (might chew up tracks, exposed view ports etc...). It only works for aircraft like the A-10 because they are attacking the thin top armor (something most new anti-tank weapons are starting to do, like the Javelin).

And I'm pretty sure the TRO's came out under the supervision of Jordan, as they are official game products, and they list the caliber of several mech/vehicle mg's. So the Bulldog mounting a 7.62 gun that can hurt a mech is exactly what he imagined, it just doesn't line up with 'real' world science. Just like a platoon of infantry carrying rifles can also hurt a mech in BT.

I'd like to see the demo of an MBT just standing up to that like it was just hanging out in a spring shower. We're not talking a single shell here, or a single weapon system. 8-12 at 300m, it'll do more than chew up the tracks. Not to mention a mech stands considerably taller than a tank so it would be able to take advantage of angles of attack another tank could not.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users