FupDup, 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'.
Athom83, 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.
kuma8877, 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.