97 replies to this topic

[FACEman Peck]

And why is this topic still here? Lasers travel at the speed of light, missiles are missiles, and bullets obey the laws of Exterior Ballistics. Enough said.

[Strum Wealh]

So, about those Gauss Rifle travel times...

Canon Range: 900 meters (based on extreme range listed here and "1 hex = 30 meters")

Time-to-Target for v = 748.638m/s (Mach 2.2): 1.202 seconds
Time-to-Target for v = 1,710m/s (Mach 5.0): 0.526 seconds
Time-to-Target for v = 3,420m/s (Mach 10.0): 0.263 seconds

One of the fastest 'Mechs is the Fire Moth with MASC activated, at 216kph (60m/s); without MASC, top speed is 162kph (45m/s).
The slower 'Mechs, like the Annihilator, top out at 32.4kph (9m/s).

Personally, I'm a fan of the Mach 10 value - a Fire Moth can displace itself by 11.842-15.789 meters in 0.263 seconds (depending on whether MASC is active), while an Annihilator could displace itself by 2.368 meters in 0.263 seconds.

Your thoughts?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 07 February 2012 - 06:11 PM.

[Liam]

Black Sunder, on 07 February 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

You're not going to be happy until you get all the real life realism you can get into the game are you? Every post of yours i see its all about realism. Get over it. Stuff in the BT universe works because it just does.

You miss the point, its not about realism, it never will be real, because real will be different anyway.
I only try to bring some simulation aspects into community, spreading seeds ... nothing more, nothing less.
There are lot of logical aspects that can be transfered from real world physics, such as inertia, heat, efficiencies etc. what do you think where all this stuff came from?
If you think all these discussions about real physics are useless, then think about what BT universe will be without it ...
Wait I will tell you: a fantasy lore, where you and other players control "world of warcraft like" robots driven by magic power and shooting big fireballs.

EDIT: sry for OT

Edited by Liam, 07 February 2012 - 05:29 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Also, perhaps the ACs need revisiting...?

AC-2:
Caliber Range: 20mm to 40mm
Muzzle Velocity Range: 800-1700 m/s
Basis: M61 Vulcan, GAU-8 Avenger, RARDEN, Rheinmetall MK 20 Rh 202, Bofors 40 mm

AC-5:
Caliber Range: 50mm to 90mm
Muzzle Velocity Range: 550-1130 m/s
Basis: 5 cm Pak 38, 90 mm Gun M1/M2/M3, Cannone da 90/53, Ordnance QF 75 mm, Bofors 57 mm Gun

AC-10:
Caliber Range: 100mm to 140mm
Muzzle Velocity Range: 590-1750 m/s
Basis: BL 5.5 Inch Medium Gun, 13.5 cm K 09, BL 4 Inch Naval Gun Mk VII, D-10 Tank Gun, Rheinmetall 120 mm Gun

AC-20:
Caliber Range: 150mm to 203mm
Muzzle Velocity Range: 300-950 m/s
Basis: 8"/55 caliber gun, 20.3 cm K (E), 15 cm K (E), Skoda 150 mm Model 1918

Based on the above, I would suggest the following values for average muzzle velocities:
AC-2: ~1500 m/s
AC-5: ~1200 m/s
AC-10: ~900 m/s
AC-20: ~600 m/s

Canon ranges (based on extreme ranges listed here and "1 hex = 30 meters"):
AC-2: 960 meters
AC-5: 720 meters
AC-10: 600 meters
AC-20: 360 meters

This would give average travel times of:
AC-2: 0.64 seconds
AC-5: 0.60 seconds
AC-10: 0.67 seconds
AC-20: 0.60 seconds

Your thoughts?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 07 February 2012 - 06:14 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Your figures seem about right Strum and would certainly give an idea of how much lead is needed on targets. The only way to find out that of course is when we get to play the game and see what values PGI have plugged in. Based on the figures given all we would need to do now is calculate "drop off" in damage and accuracy over max range I could see that being related to their max ranges with the most drop off being for an AC20 and least for an AC2 (would have to use fractional values for that). Same for energy weapons due to diffusion etc. Missiles would just run out of fuel.
The problem with that is the Gauss Rifle. Given it is hypersonic I can't see any significant reduction in velocities/damage occurring in the distances likely to be involved in the map sizes used, although I could be wrong?

[Strum Wealh]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 08 February 2012 - 07:33 AM, said:

Your figures seem about right Strum and would certainly give an idea of how much lead is needed on targets. The only way to find out that of course is when we get to play the game and see what values PGI have plugged in. Based on the figures given all we would need to do now is calculate "drop off" in damage and accuracy over max range I could see that being related to their max ranges with the most drop off being for an AC20 and least for an AC2 (would have to use fractional values for that). Same for energy weapons due to diffusion etc. Missiles would just run out of fuel.
The problem with that is the Gauss Rifle. Given it is hypersonic I can't see any significant reduction in velocities/damage occurring in the distances likely to be involved in the map sizes used, although I could be wrong?

Well, I went with the ranges as given in the BT rules and the fact that Gauss Rifle slugs are hypersonic as given from the fluff.
Beyond that... well... c'est la BattleTech, right?

-----

So, about those missiles...

LRM ammo: 120 missiles per ton, 1000 kg per ton -> 120 missiles per 1000 kg -> 8.33 kg per missile
SRM ammo: 100 missiles per ton, 1000 kg per ton -> 100 missiles per 1000 kg -> 10.0 kg per missile
Narc Missile Beacon: 6 missiles per ton, 1000 kg per ton -> 6 missiles per 1000 kg -> 166.67 kg per missile

These weights put individual LRM and SRM rounds in the same weight category as man-portable shoulder-launched missiles like the FIM-43 Redeye (8.3 kg), 9K38 Igla (10.8 kg), 9K32 Strela-2 and 9K34 Strela-3 (9.8 kg), Grom (10.5 kg for the missile), and FIM-92 Stinger (10.1 kg for the missile).

Most of the missiles in this class seem to have flight speeds between 400 m/s and 800 m/s (~Mach 1.15 to ~Mach 2.29); see comparison charts here and here.

Canon ranges (based on extreme ranges listed here and "1 hex = 30 meters"):
LRM: 840 meters
SRM: 360 meters
Narc: 360 meters

For v = 800 m/s: LRM travel time = 1.05 seconds and SRM/Narc travel time = 0.45 seconds
For v = 400 m/s: LRM travel time = 2.10 seconds and SRM/Narc travel time = 0.90 seconds

Personally, I would prefer the higher velocity (800 m/s) for LRMs and SRMs and the lower velocity (400 m/s) for the much heavier Narc beacons.

Your thoughts?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I agree with using the higher figure for missils and lower for Narc. Travel times seem about same as previous games, "feel" seems to be right..
At least we can justify no extended range due to fuel running out. The problem with accuracy/damage dropping off for the other weapons is the Gauss Rifle which has totally different flight characteristics. I must admit I like the idea that if you have a group of mechs at max range you stand a chance of hitting one of them and doing some damage, even if not the one you are aiming at. All it needs is the game programmed to project flight paths accordingly. It would make sense if they appeared overlapping from your point of view that you could hit one. Could give more life to weapons like the AC2 for harrassing fire at range.

[WingMcCallister]

But ct >> x, where x is the distance between mechs. I don't think a laser travel time is a burden the developers needs to embrace. I mean, if we all really want to be physically sound on all of this, then we should start applying the farce called the Coriolis force to projectiles.

[ExAstris]

WingMcCallister, on 08 February 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

But ct >> x, where x is the distance between mechs. I don't think a laser travel time is a burden the developers needs to embrace. I mean, if we all really want to be physically sound on all of this, then we should start applying the farce called the Coriolis force to projectiles.

The first time mankind ever had to compensate for this effect in warfare was when the Germans started trying to hit London with artillery that was in Germany. So until you start having travel times in the minutes, you can safely ignore Coriolis. So as you say, modelling it or actually travel times for light beams is just a waste.

Also, a note on lasers. Different mechwarrior games have presented lasers differently, as does science fiction. Some mechwarrior games present them as lightspeed beams, while others present them as pulses of energy. Some games even have regular lasers as the former and pulse lasers as the latter. MWO could go either route. Both are often called lasers even though only the former is the only one that actually could be (but isn't necessarily one). Just like how Star Wars calls their energy weapons lasers when they clearly are not operating anything like what we call lasers.

So one question we can ask from the beginning is: Should MWO lasers represent our current lasers or the jacketed energy weapons that are basically just guns shooting packets of energy instead of metal slugs? I'm ok with either. In fact, I'm ok with both simultaneously to provide more differentiation between lasers and pulse lasers.

And we can still provide ways to balance them. Both weapon types could begin losing coherence at their operational ranges, reducing the damage they deal past that point. Both could have a built-in spread to their firing patters, meaning they won't always land at the exact point they're aiming. And before you rage at that suggestion for the traditional laser beams, there are easy ways to justify it in battletech. For example, even while the weapon itself may be perfectly accurate, it is still strapped to a giant moving machine trying to use bulky actuators to aim the weapon. Just like sniper rifles are more accurate than any human being who is free-arming one (standing without an additional rest for the gun), the laser weapon itself can be more accurate than the mech can make it practically be. Furthermore, the spread could still be extremely minimal or non-existent if balancing allows it. And lastly, the jacketed energy weapons could have travel times very similar to ballistic weapons and have bullet drop just as they do, making them very easy to balance in that regard.



So to tow my general line on this. We can balance weapons around physical properties that are modeled more accurately than any previous game has done. It isn't introducing hard realism or strict adherance to physics as that would destroy game balance, but it is making thing behave more believably and giving us more variables to manipulate to provide variety between weapon types (and maybe even between manufacturers of the same weapon).

[Yeach]

Logan Solo Sinclair, on 07 February 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

I take your point. It obviously is never going to be perfect, at least not for everyone. The way I see it is there are at least three major things that need to be satisfied in the game, whatever gets decided, or has been decided to be in it.

They are;
1.Fun
2.Realism(includes staying true to canon, also more importantly imo true to the original MW/Crescent Hawk games which are sim before fun)
3.What I will arbitrarily call "proper tactical usefulness for anything that goes onto a battlefield"

Balancing these things while obviously not easy(or even possible to do to everyone's satisfaction), is a noble goal, and one that should make for a great game. Every potential players opinion of how they want MWO to be, should be welcomed, 'cause this game deserves to be bigger then WoW, and I would like to see the casual gamer community in on it too.

Thats why I started this thread. Its more of a brain-storm.

Fun > Realism
Does having instant hit lasers make MW3/4 fun as compared to MW2?
ie with the uber supremacy of the alpha-strike instant-hit all on one-spot Laserboats mentioned in almost every thread?

Maybe its nostalgia but Wingcommander, X-Wing vs Tie fighter, Mechwarrior 2 were fun when you had to "lead" a little to the target.

In regards to TT rules, other than pulse lasers, all other weapons had no advantages over another in hitting a mech; in mechwarrior 2/3 games so far, ballistic generally were harder to aim and hit the targets when then beam weapons.

Aside can anyone remember if you can you fire a weapon twice before an LRM has reached its target in MW4?

Edited by Yeach, 08 February 2012 - 08:57 PM.

[WingMcCallister]

ExAstris, on 08 February 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

The first time mankind ever had to compensate for this effect in warfare was when the Germans started trying to hit London with artillery that was in Germany. So until you start having travel times in the minutes, you can safely ignore Coriolis. So as you say, modelling it or actually travel times for light beams is just a waste.

Also, a note on lasers. Different mechwarrior games have presented lasers differently, as does science fiction. Some mechwarrior games present them as lightspeed beams, while others present them as pulses of energy. Some games even have regular lasers as the former and pulse lasers as the latter. MWO could go either route. Both are often called lasers even though only the former is the only one that actually could be (but isn't necessarily one). Just like how Star Wars calls their energy weapons lasers when they clearly are not operating anything like what we call lasers.

So one question we can ask from the beginning is: Should MWO lasers represent our current lasers or the jacketed energy weapons that are basically just guns shooting packets of energy instead of metal slugs? I'm ok with either. In fact, I'm ok with both simultaneously to provide more differentiation between lasers and pulse lasers.

And we can still provide ways to balance them. Both weapon types could begin losing coherence at their operational ranges, reducing the damage they deal past that point. Both could have a built-in spread to their firing patters, meaning they won't always land at the exact point they're aiming. And before you rage at that suggestion for the traditional laser beams, there are easy ways to justify it in battletech. For example, even while the weapon itself may be perfectly accurate, it is still strapped to a giant moving machine trying to use bulky actuators to aim the weapon. Just like sniper rifles are more accurate than any human being who is free-arming one (standing without an additional rest for the gun), the laser weapon itself can be more accurate than the mech can make it practically be. Furthermore, the spread could still be extremely minimal or non-existent if balancing allows it. And lastly, the jacketed energy weapons could have travel times very similar to ballistic weapons and have bullet drop just as they do, making them very easy to balance in that regard.



So to tow my general line on this. We can balance weapons around physical properties that are modeled more accurately than any previous game has done. It isn't introducing hard realism or strict adherance to physics as that would destroy game balance, but it is making thing behave more believably and giving us more variables to manipulate to provide variety between weapon types (and maybe even between manufacturers of the same weapon).

So essentially the point in me bringing math -- and the Coriolis Effect -- into this thread was to poke a bit of fun at the tables of figures people are coming up with. Since I'm a physicist in my daily life, I don't particularly mind a game that doesn't take realism to its fullest extent. However, the scientist in me is always lingering in the background with random comments to make. The first regards the statement about jacketed energy. Every weapon deposits energy of some form, right? If it didn't, then it would be a terrible weapon and completely useless. Lasers, however, always imply that light is the focus of such a transaction. It doesn't matter if it's pulsed or not. The second an electron changes an energy level and unleashes a photon into the world, that photon is traveling with a speed c.
Now, you mentioned something that could be taken into the game and become quite interesting, and that is attenuation. A beam will lose focus in the atmosphere thanks to scattering, so the greater the distance between enemies, the less damage the weapon would deliver. This, however, to me seems over the top. We don't necessarily need realism. We just need a functioning game that is fun to play. If things were truly physics-pure, mechs would have a hard time even existing. They are top heavy machines with an absurd number of moving parts that could fail. I'd rather just take a tank in that world.
In my eyes, suggestions regarding these types of things really can't be addressed until we have a beta to see how the game play actually holds up. Until then, we only have memories from old games, and each game is its own beast with its own set of problems.

[Liam]

Fun and Realism doesn't exclude each other ...
you don't need to pick exact numbers, so that there will be enough room for balancing.

ExAstris, on 08 February 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

So to tow my general line on this. We can balance weapons around physical properties that are modeled more accurately than any previous game has done. It isn't introducing hard realism or strict adherance to physics as that would destroy game balance, but it is making thing behave more believably and giving us more variables to manipulate to provide variety between weapon types (and maybe even between manufacturers of the same weapon).

This!

Edited by Liam, 09 February 2012 - 09:38 AM.

[ExAstris]

WingMcCallister, on 09 February 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

The first regards the statement about jacketed energy. Every weapon deposits energy of some form, right? If it didn't, then it would be a terrible weapon and completely useless. Lasers, however, always imply that light is the focus of such a transaction. It doesn't matter if it's pulsed or not. The second an electron changes an energy level and unleashes a photon into the world, that photon is traveling with a speed c.

Yes, every weapon is manipulating energy in some fashion, and yes, lasers (in our world) always imply the use of photons which always travel at c (or a bit below due to interference like the atmosphere). However, jacketed energy weapons obviously are not lasers in many cases. Many mechwarrior games and every incarnation of Star Wars shows lasers as as slow moving bolts. This is clearly not a laser as it has a travel time below alot of real world guns, and its clearly not just a ballistic weapon because its glows in the wrong way and conditions. So the exact form of energy that is being jacketed is mysterious (it could be a heap of protons, or electrons, or a highly excited chunk of atmospheric particles the weapon is throwing, who knows), but its still clearly not what we call a laser. Which is just what I already said. And the fact that it isn't what we call a laser isn't the point.

And attenuation could indeed be used as a balancing effect on the maximum range of lasers, we just don't have to impliment it realistically. The basic property that it would bestoy upon a laser is that it would lose damage as its range increases, but it need not follow the exact curve of realistic attenuation, it could be given whatever curve balancing desires (see thread Physics Based Weapons for more of my suggestions on this topic). So the end result is that the weapon does not behave utterly realistically, but looks much better than the previous status quo of simply having the beam/bullet magically disappear at the maximum range.

Hence once again: Utter realism = no. Closer approximations to physical behaviors with 'unrealistic' balancing = yes.

[Yeach]

ExAstris, on 09 February 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Hence once again: Utter realism = no. Closer approximations to physical behaviors with 'unrealistic' balancing = yes.

Then why should we be limited to around 900 m in TT weapon distance?

[Sug]

*turns on flashlight*

*turns off flashlight*

*turns on flashlight*


Yep. Looks pretty instantaneous to me. Need to try it with a laser pointer to be certain though.

[guardiandashi]

battletech lasers in game, tech notes and fiction are "true" lasers IE beam or DEW (directed energy weapons) devices that fire a beam of photons that cause burning (theremal transfer) damage to the target at power levels that cause steel based armors to "instantly" melt and/or vaporize

battletech pulse lasers are a modified version of the laser weapon, that instaid of having the laser click on and stay on for ~1-2 seconds, instaid "pulses" so in the same 1 second firing period the pulse laser may fire 10, 20, 30 or some other number of "pulses" that each inflict a smaller amount of damage, but are as a group more powerful than the "beam style laser"

battletech PPC's (Particle Projection Cannons) are in general particle beam or particle "bolt" weapons in the tech they typically fire either proton or ion based attacks, these in the descriptions that I remember are ~80% of c or faster and thus should be for all practical purposes instantanious just like a laser.



Liam I believe you are making a mistaken assumption about battlemech energy generation common to many people. Modern fission reactors take up a lot of room not vecause of the reactor itself, but due to the power generation and cooling systems, while battlemech fusion reactors might still have issues with cooling system size. their power generation stage is relatively dinky and can generate huge amounts of power. the primary power generation system is MHD (Magneto-Hydro Dynamic) based how this works is essentually there is a fusion "core" in the reactor the reactor then draws some of the "hot" plasma out of the "core" and channels it through loops, where the magnetic fields of the plasma induce power into the power generation coils (much like dragging a magnet along wires induces electricity through field effect in a standard generator. The part that is deleted is the massive steam and turbine stages in a modern generator.

re the autocannon and gauss rifles the general consensus is that the "yellowjacket" gauss rifles muzzle velocity is incorrect, and the "true" speed of gauss rifles is closer to the mach 5-10 range

Edited by guardiandashi, 10 February 2012 - 07:23 AM.

[Sym]

I think the purpose of these discussions is to make MWO better than what came before. I think we all understand that it will never be exactly real world physics but I do feel there should be a difference between the near instant laser, the hypersonic ballistic and ever so slow rocket fired weapons.

This at least would keep skill at the most forefront instead of just alpha striking everything.

[Mchawkeye]

Laser are lasers, guns are guns, missiles are missiles.

I do not understand the issue.

[Strum Wealh]

Mchawkeye, on 10 February 2012 - 08:00 AM, said:

Laser are lasers, guns are guns, missiles are missiles.

I do not understand the issue.

Well, the current discussion has moved away from the OP's gripe about having lasers being insta-hit weapons (which actual laser weapons would be in all but the most strange conditions) and more into the realm of how much difference there should be between the various weapons' travel times, which in turn affects how weapons tend to be placed into firing groups.

For example:
Should a Medium Laser, an AC-20, an SRM launcher, and a Narc beacon launcher (same max. extreme range; see here) all have the same time-to-target?
Should a PPC, an AC-5, and an LB-X AC-10 (same max. extreme range) necessarily have the same time-to-target?
Should an ER Large Laser, an LB-X AC-5, and an LRM launcher (same max. extreme range) necessarily have the same time-to-target?

The discussion, using physics and the examples of close-to-comparable real-world weapon systems, would seem to indicate that the answers should generally (but not necessarily) be "no - different weapon systems should have different muzzle velocities and correspondingly different travel times"... which then leads to the question "how much difference should there be between Weapon System A and Weapon System B?" and the discussion of that point...

[Sym]

yep