97 replies to this topic

[Sirisian]

I didn't really read the thread before I posted earlier. I never noticed how many people here are quoting tabletop rules and realistic muzzle velocities. You guys realize this is a game right? Just because a laser in real life travels instantly to a target doesn't mean it has to in the game. Laser could be the fastest travel time for a weapon then just scale the other weapons so they fit into groups with unique gameplay. I think this is the purpose behind threads calling for ballistic arcs and other features. Basically increasing the skill for weapon groups. I'd personally enjoy having to lead a little bit with lasers to hit a cockpit or arm so I have groups for 1 or 2 lasers for getting an accurate long shot then aiming up a little and to the right and launching autocannons with a long reload. Basically cycling weapon groups for certain purposes and ranges to increase the skill.

I for one would be saddened if this game just turned into a game where I put my mouse over an enemy and clicked with all weapon groups and all my auto cannons and lasers land perfectly on my enemy's cockpit just because someone finds this "realistic" in the battletech universe because "computers do everything so there's no recoil, or accuracy problems" as has been brought up a lot.

[Mchawkeye]

Strum Wealh, on 10 February 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

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...

Riiiggghttt....

Yes, I am aware of the discussion. But thanks for the round up there.

I think the point I was rather glibly trying to make was that lasers are lasers, guns are guns...and missiles are missiles.

You see?

I actually think the only weapon we can't make a real world analogy for is the PPC, but even then we have a good idea.

[Redbrew]

All ballistic weapons have some delay from muzzle to target. A laser in the ranges we are talking about dont. The balance is the laser heats the Mech up more that an AC and missles have a very limited amout of ammo.

Lasers are fast.

[Outlaw2]

I'd rather have all weapons hitscan than all travel time honestly....

[Brakkyn]

Lasers should be instantaneous; they flash into existence, then fizzle out. Pulse lasers would have travel times if they fire like the laser machine gun they're supposed to be.

[Strum Wealh]

Brakkyn, on 11 February 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

Lasers should be instantaneous; they flash into existence, then fizzle out. Pulse lasers would have travel times if they fire like the laser machine gun they're supposed to be.

Well, what it is is that the travel times on lasers is so short (on the order of single-digit millionths of one second) that they appear to be instantaneous.

As for pulse lasers... they would have the same issue of "effectively instantaneous travel time".

What pulse lasers actually do is fire several times in rapid succession (around 20-30 times per second for those used in light pressure propulsion experiments), rather than fire a continuous, sustained beam over the course of longer periods.
Basically, BT/MW Pulse Lasers (including variants like the X-Pulse Lasers, ER Pulse Lasers, Variable Speed Pulse Lasers, and Laser Anti-Missile Systems) are weaponized versions of that used in Dr. Leik Myrabo's lightcraft experiments (see here (explanatory article), here (slow motion video), and here (full speed video)).

By contrast, other BT/MW laser weapons (Standard Lasers, ER Lasers, Blasers, and Heavy Lasers) fire a longer-duration, continuous beam rather than a series of short pulses; they behave more like systems such as MTHEL (see here and here), the cancelled Boeing YAL-1 (see here, here, and here), and the Navy Laser Weapon System (see here).

As such, the "laser machine gun" analogy used for pulse lasers is meant to emphasize their high pulse rate as a contrast to the single extended-duration beams projected by other laser types, and has nothing to do with the possibility of sub-lightspeed travel times.

[Yanker]

MilitantMonk, on 24 January 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

It avoids that whole 14 ER Sm Lasers on a Puma that'll run around jousting that was also in MW 3.

Um they were definitely on a Strider that never left water... geeze get it right. Pumas had the 14 machine guns...

(insert technical math equations here proving my point.)

[Liam]

guardiandashi, on 10 February 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

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.

I work in magnetoplasmadynamics, and I know what MHD generator is and how it works. Even MHD generator has limited efficiency and enough heat losses.

[Yeach]

Okay the thread was supposed to be about how all the mechwarrior games have different speeds for weapons yet... BattleTech table top doesn't account for this; ie there is no +'s for accuracy between the various weapons (other than the pulse laser).
Realistically it would make sense that the faster a weapons is, the more accurate it will be.... Or not.

[3Xtr3m3]

loving this discussion

[3Xtr3m3]

this is what I was referring to in another thread about how Mechwarrior/Battletech is reality based fun.

[3Xtr3m3]

Hey Developers,
I hope you are taking the time to follow this thread and understand the real world science that people have been bringing to the battletech universe since its inception. You can introduce new ideas for weapons and other improvements to the game but you better be able to back it up with the scientific data and research.

[3Xtr3m3]

And personally I have always wondered bout the difference between an AC2 and an AC20. Why one travels further than the other and just how the heck you get 20 shells out on the way to target without either blowing the barrels or knocking the mech on its rear.

[3Xtr3m3]

A lot of the math was over my head but it was explained in such a way that I could follow along and enjoy the ride. And I respect and admire the people who took the time to write the explanations for those who don't have access to this type of science on a daily basis.
Kudos Sirs.

[3Xtr3m3]

Strum Wealh, on 10 February 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

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...

Here is my solution:
You have your trigger set in Alpha Strike mode. Using your example of an ER Large Laser, an LB-X AC-5, and an LRM launcher. The computer fires them in the sequence and times necessary so that all three weapons systems impact in same place at same time. Or best possible combination. My choice would be to fire the AC-5 and LRMs simultaneously, wait the milliseconds necessary for the AC rounds to get there and then fire the Laser. This would, of course, probably be a set preference by either the pilot, or the mech manufacturer. The results at the target would be a hopefully simutaneous impact of AC and Laser, with a follow up impact of LRMs to take advantage of the previous damage and hopefully exploit any openings.

Your Thoughts?

[3Xtr3m3]

Strum Wealh, on 07 February 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

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?

My thoughts on this is: These weapons are designed to be ACCURATE at those ranges. The shells obviously are not going to travel to their extreme range and then just drop to the ground with forward momentum spent. They obviously can travel farther, just with an almost nil chance of hitting the target.

I found it fascinating that your data suggests accuracy drops off to the point of usellessness for each projectile after 0.60 - 0.67 seconds.

[3Xtr3m3]

Combining the above two posts. A Mech manufacurer could set the Alpha Strike to use a 0.50 second delay between the firing of the AC-5 and the Large Laser, ensuring both arrive simultaneously depending on range of target. Other manufcturers could use a diffenrent value. Some could even fire all three simultaneously and let them hit the target spread out over the different travel times. If it is still there and still standing. Or moving towards you.

[Polymorphyne]

Lasers should be instantaneous, however, the fact they are fired in a beam means that you have to lead the target anyway to keep the beam on the target for as long as possible.