50 replies to this topic

[Vyx]

The6thMessenger, on 23 November 2020 - 04:06 PM, said:

[more words]

What is the effective range of a 20mm cannon? Is it best measured in meters? kilometers? Are 20mm rounds limited to an effective range of 130m? Let's think.

You consistently mix terms: stating Sarna says a mech MG is "it's actually between 12.5mm and 20mm". What then would be the caliber of the average mech LMG -- emphasis on the L. Well, it stands to reason it would be less. Possibly 7.62mm? Maybe 9-10mm? Hmm ... a 7.62mm round modeled with a 250m effective range -- seems real close to small arms fire to me. How about an HMG? Presumably larger, right?

The problem is:
1) a GAU-8 which is presumably a HMG by these standards at 30mm, is not. It has an effective range of 1220m (according to the text). This would be 12x the range of our HMG. Hmm. Seems like RAC2 territory, eh?
2) a M242 which is also presumably a HMG by these standards at 25mm, is not. It has an effective range of 3000m -- 30x the range of a HMG. Again, RAC territory for sure.
3) a M61 Vulcan at 20mm is also not a HMG. Again with API ammo, it has an effective range of 1000m. You might see a pattern here.

So what we're left with is:
1) a 20-30mm repeating cannon seems to be a RAC2, not a HMG -- who knew?
2) logically, a HMG must be less than this. A good model might be a 7.62mm minigun like a M134. Versus mech sized targets, in a small array, these kinds of HMGs are halfway believable.
3) Less than this power and we have the XM214 -- a man-portable microgun using 5.56mm. I would venture to say this is the territory of MGs and LMGs. Again, in a small array, these might do minimal damage to a mech.

But the point to take away from this is we are dealing with "small arms" calibers -- just being thrown downrange in vast quantities. Anything larger and we are venturing into RAC territory due to range and weapon size.

Also, in order to actually do non-negligible damage to a mech, I would think these weapons would need to be in small arrays already -- possibly 3 to 6 of them in each group -- and called a single weapon. Since the premise of this thread is to "introduce" MG arrays, I posit the weapons as they stand in MWO already are. If I am wrong then why does a single 20kg fully loaded microgun "weigh" 250kg in MWO?

Anyway, have at it.

Edited by Vyx, 23 November 2020 - 11:24 PM.

[LordNothing]

Johny Rocket, on 23 November 2020 - 02:05 PM, said:

I mean its a game where a computers are measured by tonnage....

id say they were quantum, which requires huge refrigeration hardware. the actual processor is small but you need a bulky multi-tier cryogenic system for it to work. that or they are rad hard tube computers.

they were probably thinking something along the lines of a cray-1 (5.5 tons). i think that was the state of the art in computing around the time battletech came about.

Edited by LordNothing, 23 November 2020 - 11:56 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Vyx, on 23 November 2020 - 10:54 PM, said:

What is the effective range of a 20mm cannon? Is it best measured in meters? kilometers? Are 20mm rounds limited to an effective range of 130m? Let's think.

That depends actually on what "effectiveness" do you require. Projectiles slow down because of air-resistance, and thus a bullet fired at the muzzle won't be as powerful as they are at a distance. Energy is needed to penetrate through anything, so the closer you are, the more likely you are to penetrate. Even the ability to hit targets is a factor, point targets or area targets.

An "effective range" at this measure means the distance it still does what said cartridges are meant to do, as in if it still has enough energy to brute-force itself through a plate of armor. Funnily enough, if they are truly high-explosive anti-tank, then ACs shouldn't really have less damage at a distance in this game -- so chock that up to game balance

Likewise there are different 20mm as well, mainly because 20mm is just the nominal diameter of a shell. A 20mm Mauser with less powder charge than a 20mm hispano-suiza, likewise there is also a 20mm "grenade" which the Denel Neopup uses. These will obviously have different effective range, considering different powder charges and different barrel lengths.

You frame "20mm" as if there is only one 20mm, and that is exactly the problem of your thinking. 20mm in BT may also be something different.

Vyx, on 23 November 2020 - 10:54 PM, said:

You consistently mix terms: stating Sarna says a mech MG is "it's actually between 12.5mm and 20mm". What then would be the caliber of the average mech LMG -- emphasis on the L. Well, it stands to reason it would be less. Possibly 7.62mm? Maybe 9-10mm? Hmm ... a 7.62mm round modeled with a 250m effective range -- seems real close to small arms fire to me.

https://www.sarna.ne...chine_Gun#Notes Yes.

"L" as in "light"

I don't know what to tell you, if by your metric that a Light-Machine-Gun that uses 7.62mm meter is only effective at 250m, then you got that wrong. The 7.62mm Soviet (7.62x39mm) is effective outwards 350m out from an AK47, a 7.62mm NATO (7.62x51mm) fired from M60 is effective outwards 1100 meters. Do you know that the 50-Cal Ma-Duce was used as anti-infantry in quartet? Meat-Chopper it was called, and it has an effective firing range of 1800m.

How could that be? A heavier larger round more effective at a distance? Are you going to tell me next that HMG, because it only has 130m effective range, must be a 5.56mm, whereas the LMG is at 50-BMG? Or maybe the 50-BMG round being effective at 1800m range, it's an AC2 don't you think?

Your caliber-by-effective-range is just that, fallacious logic that had we followed down the rabbit hole, would have you arguing 50-BMG as an AC2, or a 7.62mm Soviet as AC20. There's a lot more things going on here to just dilute it to just-effective-range. ******* ********.

That being said, that is a measure of killing infantry, so "effective" in terms of armored, might be different. "Light" in this case doesn't need to mean "small arms", it just needs to be a little smaller than basic MG.

So if the MG is 20mm, it is reasonable to assume that it could be as small as 14.5mm or 12.7mm, and HMG could be at 25mm.

Vyx, on 23 November 2020 - 10:54 PM, said:

1) a GAU-8 which is presumably a HMG by these standards at 30mm, is not. It has an effective range of 1220m (according to the text). This would be 12x the range of our HMG. Hmm. Seems like RAC2 territory, eh?
2) a M242 which is also presumably a HMG by these standards at 25mm, is not. It has an effective range of 3000m -- 30x the range of a HMG. Again, RAC territory for sure.
3) a M61 Vulcan at 20mm is also not a HMG. Again with API ammo, it has an effective range of 1000m. You might see a pattern here.

Well, I see a pattern of you not understanding how it works.

That you simply think by nominal-diameter and effective-range. If I told you that there once was a 7.92x107mm that was originally used for anti-tank role, you'd probably just ignore it despite being true.

Consider the actual effective range of small arms up above I mentioned, those are rather inconsistent of what you insist "small-arms" machine gun should be. If that is the case, maybe BT machinegun has something else going for them don't you think? It's not just the size, it what is effective with respect to its contemporaries.

Obviously the 7.92x107mm used to be effective until they brought better tanks. The 20mm Solothurn used to be effective in Anti-Tank, until they made better tanks. So the BT MG should be a lot better than what we have considering that it's still effective to an alot better armor than what we have.

"250m because you need to stand closer for a 7.62mm to have acceptable penetration power" you say? Now why won't you afford that same logic to the autocannon calibers? Wouldn't that also ruin the placement?

Because they are high-explosive anti-tank? You know inert AP rounds exist for autocannon rounds.

Vyx, on 23 November 2020 - 10:54 PM, said:

So what we're left with is:
1) a 20-30mm repeating cannon seems to be a RAC2, not a HMG -- who knew?
2) logically, a HMG must be less than this. A good model might be a 7.62mm minigun like a M134. Versus mech sized targets, in a small array, these kinds of HMGs are halfway believable.
3) Less than this power and we have the XM214 -- a man-portable microgun using 5.56mm. I would venture to say this is the territory of MGs and LMGs. Again, in a small array, this might do minimal damage to a mech.

"Logically" only works to people who don't know how it works.

Quote

Autocannons range in caliber from 30mm up to 203mm and are loosely grouped according to their damage versus armor. The exact same caliber of shell fired in a 100 shot burst to do 20 damage will have a shorter effective range than when fired in a 10 shot burst to do 2 damage due to recoil and other factors. Autocannon are grouped into the following loose damage classes[/color]

https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon

BT lore, ACs and MGs have different calibers and burst sizes, only combined to designations of AC2/5/10/20s. An AC20 could have the same caliber as an AC2, provided that the AC20 has 10x as much power than the AC2. RACs, "rotary" in the name. These are just mechanism of how to fire a weapon and BT RACs like UACs are made to be able to shoot multiple times in a round, and RAC2s and RAC5s are oddly so specific. They could fire the same caliber, but not with the same fire-rate because of different mechanisms.

Their recoil and "other factors" whatever may be, also affects their effective range. Factors that may be different than what we have. Your idea of scaling is just that, misunderstanding both the BT lore and current weapons.

Your argument fails on the very first premise. 20-30mm doesn't need to be RAC territory immediately.

Vyx, on 23 November 2020 - 10:54 PM, said:

But the point to take away from this is we are dealing with "small arms" calibers -- just being thrown downrang
e in vast quantities. Anything larger and we are venturing into RAC territory due to range and weapon size.

What I took away from that is you don't really know what you are talking about.

Vyx, on 23 November 2020 - 10:54 PM, said:

Also, in order to actually do non-negligible damage to a mech, these weapons would likely need to be in small arrays already -- possibly 3 to 6 of them in each group -- and called a single weapon. Since the premise of this thread is to "introduce" MG arrays, I posit the weapons as they stand in MWO already are. If I am wrong then why does a single 20kg fully loaded microgun "weigh" 250kg in MWO?

So you assert this because. "They can't be big rounds, thus they must be small arms else they would be autocannon round"?

You do realize that there also ammunition that lies in between right? They are called Anti-Materiel -- not cannon, but not small-arms either, they are anti-materiel which is french for "equipment" but it is understood as military equipment. These are in the lines of 50-Cal and 14.5mm Soviet, because you literally do not need that much to kill a human, it is however effective to lightly-armored vehicles.

In BT lore, as cited above, anything below 30mm can be used as MG. So an HMG at 25mm, MG at 20mm, and LMG between 12.7 and 14.5mm both of which are still effective at military equipment, Is still plausible.

Likewise it doesn't need to be an array of machine-guns, it could also be a gatling-type weapon that could match the same rate of fire without going that heavy. What requires MG to be heavy however is having a large caliber -- there's no way around it unlike turning to Gatling-Style.

And finally, BT do have a separate MG Array. ( https://www.sarna.ne...chine_Gun_Array )

So I don't know what to tell you, aside from you're wrong on so many levels; BT lore and modern weapons.

tl:dr

Why you are wrong:
- 20mm is just nominal, there are diverse 20mm rounds that have different effective ranges
- Small Arms ammunition such as 7.62mm actually have longer effective ranges, so by your logic they could be at AC2 ranges, which would have been absurd
- BT AC calibers are between 30 to 205mm, ACs are actually diverse and merely loosely grouped based on their output.
- Effective range in BT ACs are also affected by recoil and "other factors" which would have the same caliber doing different effective ranges.
- there are such a thing that is called "Anti-Materiel", which is between autocannon and small-arms, and that is the lines of 50-BMG, 14.5mm Soviet, 15.5mm FN
- The MGs could still fit between 12.7mm and 25mm which aren't small-arms, but satisfies the classification of "cannons" in the world of BT.
- MG Arrays actually exists as a separate weapon in game.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 November 2020 - 06:02 AM.

[LordNothing]

i think the effective range of ballistics is based on what you can reliably hit with it. people have been known to be killed by rounds fired straight up into the air. this means they turned and re-accelerated to a lethal velocity under gravity. the gau-8's effective range is based on the point at which the spread is larger than a tank. its never due to how much the rounds have decelerated due to wind resistance. that does bleed off energy but not at such an extreme rate as depicted in the weapon ranges of bt ballistics. range usually goes up with caliber, not down.

its all about energy. i computed the energy of an ac20 slug to be about 26.4 megajoules. thats roughly equivalent to an 8" naval gun with an effective range of 13 kilometers. my ac20 certainly doesnt go 13 kilometers. an ac2 is like 18.6 megajoules and they should do more damage than they do. handwavium battletech armor is stronk.

[The6thMessenger]

LordNothing, on 24 November 2020 - 01:03 AM, said:

i think the effective range of ballistics is based on what you can reliably hit with it. people have been known to be killed by rounds fired straight up into the air. this means they turned and re-accelerated to a lethal velocity under gravity. the gau-8's effective range is based on the point at which the spread is larger than a tank. its never due to how much the rounds have decelerated due to wind resistance. that does bleed off energy but not at such an extreme rate as depicted in the weapon ranges of bt ballistics. range usually goes up with caliber, not down.

its all about energy. i computed the energy of an ac20 slug to be about 26.4 megajoules. thats roughly equivalent to an 8" naval gun with an effective range of 13 kilometers. my ac20 certainly doesnt go 13 kilometers. an ac2 is like 18.6 megajoules and they should do more damage than they do. handwavium battletech armor is stronk.

Exactly, this is why it's rather pointless to just reduce it to merely effective range, especially when we have completely different military equipment to contend with to gauge the effectiveness of which weapon fits which.

Best we could do is follow the BT convention of caliber, and reference that from real life. 12.7mm upwards 25mm satisfies both criteria of being able to damage military hardware, and under 30mm which would have been autocannon caliber of BT.

[VonBruinwald]

People comparing battletech guns to real world guns...

And you people call me the potato, _{which I am.}

[Monkey Lover]

VonBruinwald, on 24 November 2020 - 03:06 PM, said:

People comparing guns to real world guns...

And you people call me the potato, _{which I am.}

Isn't battletech based on something more realistic than wizards and magic?

[General Solo]

With the state of hit reg buffing short range weapons clearly benefits those with better network connections.

As hitreg is at its worst at close range.

Not only has that been my experience playing the game on a mobile phone with 3rd World internet from Australia

But think about it

A mech moves 10 metres at a 1000 metres away.
One or two pixels change on your monitor.
So its easy for HSR to guess because their are less pixels changing involved.


A mech moves 10 metres at a 10 metres away.
The mech crossed your entire monitor, lets say 1080 pixels on 1080p..
So its harder for HSR to guess because their are heaps more pixels changing & involved and more ways for HSR to make errors and mini desync.

Thus bad hit reg and why that red CT that you made red with two shots at long range, you cant finish with 7 shots at knife fighting range.

So no buff to MG's till they fix that

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 25 November 2020 - 02:21 AM.

[General Solo]

Monkey Lover, on 25 November 2020 - 12:15 AM, said:

Isn't battletech based on something more realistic than wizards and magic?

Mmm maybe?


I googled Comstar space wizards

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 25 November 2020 - 12:25 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Monkey Lover, on 25 November 2020 - 12:15 AM, said:

Isn't battletech based on something more realistic than wizards and magic?

Well, we do need a basis to start and get a grasp of the franchise. I mean imagine if we didn't even know any idea of firearms, how alien would BattleTech to us would be?

However basing the weapons by effective-range is ******** though, as the ammunition Vyx listed actually goes way farther, which would have been inconsistent with his assertion and the weapons by lore.

[Curccu]

Vyx, on 22 November 2020 - 11:33 PM, said:

Remove MGs entirely. They have no place in a mech game. They were only ever meant to deal with infantry.

If 20 IS LRMs fired within 180m does zero damage to a mech (remember: 20 heavy, rocket-propelled metal tubes longer than you are tall, even with a "dead" warhead), then why should LMG/MG "small arms fire" do anything at all? How many FN FALs does it take to penetrate an armored car? Answer: Trick question -- they can't.

Look at the range of LMGs/MGs. They don't model RAC2s. They model mounted 7.62mm - 50cal weapons. What you want is a mini-RAC2. It's a pipe dream.

Possibly keep HMGs. They halfway make sense. Junk the rest.

Cool one of "these" persons again, or troll.

How many FN FAL 50s you can fit onto half ton or quarter ton?

if you take a ton of 7.62×51mm NATO how many rounds you got?
then compare 20mm, 25mm and maybe even 30mm cartridges.
how many 20-30mm bullets you need to penetrate armored car? ( oh yeah .50 cal already does penetrate those)

PS. Lets update MG damage AGAINST MECHS same as AC2 LIKE THEY ARE IN THE BATTLETECH

[LordNothing]

Monkey Lover, on 25 November 2020 - 12:15 AM, said:

Isn't battletech based on something more realistic than wizards and magic?

yes and no. yes in that they try to explain everything in a logical and consistent way with real world weapons systems. no in that if they did that every weapon would be op and it wouldnt matter what you use. most battles would be over with the opening salvo.

[VonBruinwald]

Monkey Lover, on 25 November 2020 - 12:15 AM, said:

Isn't battletech based on something more realistic than wizards and magic?

Yes. Giant robots!

[Der Geisterbaer]

Curccu, on 25 November 2020 - 12:57 AM, said:

PS. Lets update MG damage AGAINST MECHS same as AC2 LIKE THEY ARE IN THE BATTLETECH

Although the idea would bring (short-lived) fun for light mechs with more than 2 ballistic slots, I just cannot take such a suggestion more serious than "real world" comparisons of hand-held machine guns vs. weapons that - by definition of the game model - are anti-material / anti-mech weapons in both damage an weight despite references to (also) being anti-infantry weapons ... in a game where weapon ranges are generally unrealistic due to the necessities and limitations of the originating table top wargame

[Vyx]

The6thMessenger, on 24 November 2020 - 12:11 AM, said:

[more words]

You mention in your thesis that "There's a lot more things going on here to just dilute it to just-effective-range" ... and my point is the designers of the original game (as well as the designers of MWO), set LMG, MG, and HMG effective ranges very low. Why? I can posit that it may be because these type of low-energy, non-heat-generating weapons generally suffer from vastly lower destructive power vs armor as the range increases. Would you not agree?

What type of modern weapons generally have limited ranges and have vastly lower destructive power vs armor? Dare I say it?

Believe what you like. I am trying to look at it from a balance/modeling standpoint. Increasing the effectiveness of MGs of any size would be devastating to the balance of the game. We've seen this when they introduced MG/Flamer changes during the release of the Piranha. Few would refute this.

It was a mistake then and it would be a mistake now to up the ante again as you describe in your original post.

Edited by Vyx, 25 November 2020 - 12:01 PM.

[Nightbird]

In the table top game, where the range comes from, the 0.5 ton MG has the same damage as the 6 ton AC/2. Range was made low to make it balanced, real life range wasn't considered here

For people arguing MG shouldn't do damage against armor, the 0.5 ton MG is a mech weapon, it weighs the same as the real life GAU-8, which serves as the nosegun of the A-10 Warthog, a tank killing plane. We're not talking about an infantry weapon here.

Edited by Nightbird, 25 November 2020 - 10:58 AM.

[Vyx]

Nightbird, on 25 November 2020 - 10:53 AM, said:

In the table top game, where the range comes from, the 0.5 ton MG has the same damage as the 6 ton AC/2. Range was made low to make it balanced, real life range wasn't considered here

For people arguing MG shouldn't do damage against armor, the 0.5 ton MG is a mech weapon, it weighs the same as the real life GAU-8, which serves as the nosegun of the A-10 Warthog, a tank killing plane. We're not talking about an infantry weapon here.

I think you've hit upon something here. This is where I get stuck. Something just doesn't jive when you consider it all together. Yes, the MG seems to be modeled on the GAU-8, from the standpoint of weapon mass and size. But ... from the standpoint of damage and range it's just waaay off. If you reason that "well, for balance purposes we needed to tone down the range -- but it's still the same weight and size as the nose gun of a Warthog -- yeah, that's the ticket" ... it starts running into logical issues like the ones we've been wrestling with.

The only solution then, is to take MGs (as they are defined) on face value and see them for the attempt at game compromise/balance that they are. We should not try to find specific examples in our modern world that satisfy their reputed parameters (i.e., size, weight, range, damage) -- we wont find any.

If we look at them solely from this conceptional viewpoint, I feel that the MG Arrays you describe are too strong. Personally, my sense of logic sees all MGs as too strong, but I'm sure you can already identify that.

IMO, versus armor, MGs should do 1/2 the damage they are doing now. Versus internal structure, they are probably fine.

From my vantage, anything that increases the power of MGs (or their ilk) is a mistake. They actually should have been toned-down years ago.

Once again, my opinion.

But, from a sake of variety standpoint, I must say, I do like the idea of introducing a new weapon option in this regard.

Edited by Vyx, 25 November 2020 - 11:52 AM.

[Nightbird]

Vyx, on 25 November 2020 - 11:16 AM, said:

But ... from the standpoint of damage and range it's just waaay off.

In terms of range, the GAU-8 has a range rating of 1.3 KM, obviously higher than ingame, but keep in mind the AC10 corresponds to the main gun of a main battle tank today, those have an effective range of 4-8 KM. Scale both down by factor of 10 for game design reasons and you what we have. From this view, the MG was not unfairly penalized for range.

In terms of damage, the GAU-8 kills tanks but from the weak top armor. It does not penetrate the front. In game, it kills fresh mechs from the back but not the front.

[Vyx]

Nightbird, on 25 November 2020 - 11:25 AM, said:

[words]

I see where you are coming from here ... I do. It makes sense.

But when I look back at the GAU-8 ... at the right of the page, under weapon "Type" ... I see "Gatling-style autocannon" ... and it hurts my sensibilities. To me, it is an autocannon/RAC. But as before, I see your viewpoint.

Edited by Vyx, 25 November 2020 - 11:39 AM.

[Nightbird]

Vyx, on 25 November 2020 - 11:38 AM, said:

But as before, I see your viewpoint.

And I yours. You can think of it as BT having a higher threshold for when a "gun" turns into a "cannon" than IRL. The truth of the matter is that the owners of the BT universe are notorious bad at researching science topics.