55 replies to this topic

[Barbaric Soul]

I like the idea of damage drop off. I know MW4 weapons ranges, so I'll use those in my examples.

I'd like to see lasers have damage drop off so that at a quarter past thier thier max range they do no damage. Take the erll of MW, at 800 meters(thier max range) they do full damage, and at 1000 meters, they do no damage. Have thier damage drop off past max range be match how far out of max range the target is. At 850 meters have them do 75% damage, 900. they do 50% damage, 950m 25%, and 1000m zero damage.

Ballistic weapons I'd like to see damage drop off and projectile drop past max range, damage drop off same as lasers, but with projectile drop, make it so I would have to aim above my target to arc my shot to hit the target if firing past max range. If your target is within max range, there should be no damage drop off or projectile drop.

Missles should not get damage drop off. Just have the missle fall to the ground after reaching max range, maybe even have them explode when they hit the ground

Edited by Barbaric Soul, 30 January 2012 - 03:51 AM.

[firefox117]

The realistic falloff would be better IMO. Just as they do in FPS with bullets, they can easily do in this game. Everyone has already stated it, and it makes sense. You have, what we call, a maximum effective range. Meaning that at *** meters, you will do the maximum damage. Then you have maximum range, or how far something will travel before stopping. Yes, on paper a laser will travel forever, and that doesnt necessarily need to be scripted in, but having a laser that does 100% damage at 500m, 50% damge at 800m, and 10% at 1000m or something like that would be more realistic, and I feel make the game better and more challenging to play.

But dont just think of it in terms of lasers. Apply it to all projectile weapons as well (missiles, bullets, gauss). By adding that in, you are ensuring that a player does stand at *** meters, fire a weapons, then step back so he is out of range of the enemy. If you are taking damage no matter what, its going to force you to think more on you actions in combat, and how you either fight or select your loadouts.

[Solis Obscuri]

MaddMaxx, on 28 January 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

We are talking about Lasers here right? If a Laser beam is sent out and hits nothing but air, how far does it really go? Setting fall off rates is a subjective and likely moot discussion. Surely a scientific Paper has been done do describe all that funky wavelenght stuff.

Past a point the beam focus is shot, and refraction from the atmosphere takes its toll as well. Then it turns into a flashlight.

Strattus, on 29 January 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

As for the other ballistics (gauss, ac, etc...) I'd like to see a sliding scale for damage. If you haven't ever seen one, just google a ballistics chart for rifle rounds, and you'll see what I'm talking about. As range increases, the amount of energy delivered decreases. It's just how it works. Balancing would have to take place, and I know the calculations would get a bit complicated, but I'm sure that with the proper balancing, this would only enhance how the game is played. Let's face it... You SHOULD get rewarded for using this particular type of weapon at a closer range.

So if an AC/20 still does 5 points of damage at 540 meters...

zverofaust, on 30 January 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

Autocannons are a different matter; they seem to fire some variation of HEAT/HESH warhead and so would not be limited in damage by range (perhaps a unique property of the weapon). Instead, their slower velocities should lead to high ballistic trajectories making accurate fire beyond their effective ranges much harder.

I've always seen them described as High Explosive Armor Piercing shells, no specifics on whether they are HEAT rounds. My impression was always that they required a pretty high velocity to penetrate armor.

[Strum Wealh]

Solis Obscuri, on 30 January 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

I've always seen them described as High Explosive Armor Piercing shells, no specifics on whether they are HEAT rounds. My impression was always that they required a pretty high velocity to penetrate armor.

They are described as HEAP shells.

Quote

An armor-piercing shell must withstand the shock of punching through armor plating. Shells designed for this purpose have a greatly strengthened case with a specially hardened and shaped nose, and a much smaller bursting charge. Some smaller-caliber AP shells have an inert filling, or incendiary charge in place of the HE bursting charge. The AP shell is now little used in naval warfare, as modern warships have little or no armor protection, but it remains the preferred round in tank warfare, as it has a greater "first-hit kill" probability than a high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) round, especially against a target with composite armor, and because of higher muzzle velocity, is also more accurate than a HEAT round.

BattleMech armor is a variant of composite armor.

Quote

Standard BattleMech armor is composed of several layers providing various degrees of protection and support. The first layer is extremely strong steel, the result of crystal alignment and radiation treatment, which is also very brittle. The second layer is a ceramic, cubic boron nitride, which combined with a web of artificial diamond fibers acts as a backstop to the steel layer. These two layers rest atop a titanium alloy honeycomb structure which provides support, and a layer of self-sealing polymer sealant which allows for space and underwater operations.

Quote

Composite armour is a type of vehicle armour consisting of layers of different material such as metals, plastics, ceramics or air. Most composite armour are lighter than their all-metal equivalent, but instead occupy a larger volume for the same resistance to penetration. It is possible to design composite armour stronger, lighter and less voluminous than traditional armour, but the cost is often prohibitively high, restricting its use to especially vulnerable parts of a vehicle. Its primary purpose is to help defeat high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds.

As for the velocity issue (at least, with regard to HEAT rounds):

Quote

Adaptations to existing tank guns were somewhat more difficult, although all major forces had done so by the end of the war. Since velocity has little effect on the armor-piercing capability of the round, which is defined by explosive power, HEAT rounds were particularly useful in long-range combat where the slower terminal velocities were not an issue. The Germans were again the ones to produce the most capable gun-fired HEAT rounds, using a driving band on bearings to allow it to fly unspun from their existing rifled tank guns. HEAT was particularly useful to them because it allowed the low-velocity large-bore guns used on their numerous assault guns to become useful anti-tank weapons as well.

So, HEAT rounds have their AP capability defined by their explosive power, are not heavily dependent on round velocity, and are less effective against composite armor.

HEAP rounds are more accurate due to their generally higher muzzle velocity and are more effective against composite armor than HEAT rounds.

[zverofaust]

Strum Wealh, on 30 January 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

So, HEAT rounds have their AP capability defined by their explosive power, are not heavily dependent on round velocity, and are less effective against composite armor.

HEAP rounds are more accurate due to their generally higher muzzle velocity and are more effective against composite armor than HEAT rounds.

You seem to be making the mistake of attributing HEAP to regular, traditional modern-day Armor Piercing rounds, which clearly they are not -- AP shells fire solid slugs of metal at things and hope to do catastrophic damage through the transfer of kinetic energy with no explosive bits whatsoever (except in the propellant charge). HEAP by definition is a High Explosive shell, and from everything I've seen of BT lore it suggests it is analogous with our HEAT shells, the only difference being in BattleTech their main target are BattleMechs, not tanks, and calling it "High Explosive Anti-BattleMech" doesn't have that same ring to it.

[Liam]

VYCanis, on 29 January 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

lasers fade off in damage amount. The degree by which they fade off depends on their size, small lasers experience drastic damage falloff quickly, large lasers not so much. ER models push the optimal range out and decrease the damage falloff/distance rate.

Yep.
its about beam waist at effective range. Everything out of this range means higher beam waist, damage decrease.
I don't think they have fixed focused range, or just parallel beam (beam divergence), especially if we want maximize the damage and weapon efficiency.

http://mwomercs.com/...6785#entry76785

btw. I would like to see higher hex scale compared to previous games. 80 m?

Edited by Liam, 30 January 2012 - 02:49 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

zverofaust, on 30 January 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

You seem to be making the mistake of attributing HEAP to regular, traditional modern-day Armor Piercing rounds, which clearly they are not -- AP shells fire solid slugs of metal at things and hope to do catastrophic damage through the transfer of kinetic energy with no explosive bits whatsoever (except in the propellant charge). HEAP by definition is a High Explosive shell, and from everything I've seen of BT lore it suggests it is analogous with our HEAT shells, the only difference being in BattleTech their main target are BattleMechs, not tanks, and calling it "High Explosive Anti-BattleMech" doesn't have that same ring to it.

That may be true... except when it's not.

Quote

The earliest naval and anti-tank shells had to withstand the extreme shock of punching through armour plate. Shells designed for this purpose sometimes had a greatly strengthened case with a small bursting charge, and sometimes were solid metal, i.e. shot. In either case, they almost always had a specially hardened and shaped nose to facilitate penetration. This resulted in armour-piercing (AP) projectiles.

A further refinement of such designs improved penetration by adding a softer metal cap to the penetrating nose giving armour-piercing, capped (APC) design. The softer cap dampens the initial shock that would otherwise shatter the round. The best profile for the cap is not the most aerodynamic; this can be remedied by adding a further hollow cap of suitable shape: APCBC (APC + ballistic cap).

AP shells with a bursting charge were sometimes distinguished by appending the suffix "HE". At the beginning of the Second World War, solid shot AP projectiles were common. As the war progressed, ordnance design evolved so that APHE became the more common design approach for anti-tank shells of 75 mm caliber and larger, and more common in naval shell design as well. In modern ordnance, most full caliber AP shells are APHE designs.

AP shells with a bursting charge are, in fact, APHE (or HEAP) shells, which are not the same thing as kinetic energy penetrators (despite the fact that both may be a type of AP shell - like how "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares").

I'm quite clear on the difference between HEAP/APHE and KEP munitions.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

You forgot the "shaped charge" type HESH round.which can work against composite armour.The AC20 cannot be high velocity given it's pitiful range. Maybe it lobs a low velocity shaped charge magnetic mine which sticks to the mech before going off. It certainly cannot be called an "Autocannon" or a cannon of any sort. To be honest I wish they would either make AC's actually behave like cannon or drop them altogrthrer.

[Steel Talon]

AC/10,20 are using HEAT based projectile, while AC2/5 focusing on APDSFS kinetic shell
If customization options goes far, we should be able to choose what ammo to use

[Strum Wealh]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 30 January 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

You forgot the "shaped charge" type HESH round.which can work against composite armour.The AC20 cannot be high velocity given it's pitiful range. Maybe it lobs a low velocity shaped charge magnetic mine which sticks to the mech before going off. It certainly cannot be called an "Autocannon" or a cannon of any sort. To be honest I wish they would either make AC's actually behave like cannon or drop them altogrthrer.

Well, since BT/MW ACs are explicitly stated to fire HEAP rounds and I wasn't being accused of not knowing the difference between HESH and HEAP, it didn't seem necessary to mention HESH shells.

As to the AC-20 range (canonically, a mere 270 meters)... well, the other AC classes aren't much better.
AC-10: 450 meters
AC-5: 540 meters
AC-2: 720 meters

I mentioned in the other thread that there is a variant of BattleTech called BattleForce that attributes to each hex 180 meters rather than 30 meters (the latter being used for normal BT).
Under the BF ranges, an AC-20 (along with the Medium Laser and the SRMs) has a reach of 1620 meters, with the longest-range direct fire weapon (the Clan LB 2-X AC) seeing a range increase from 900 meters (normal BT) to 5400 meters (BF), LRMs seeing a range increase to 3780 meters, and artillery seeing a range boost from roughly 10km to roughly 61km.

Gameplay would certainly be very different with BF ranges for the weapons - 'Mechs would generally never get close to one another, or armor values would have to be boosted (probably even higher than what was done for MW4) so that 'Mechs would be able to survive being pounded on with "short range" weapons for so long.
And map size would be an issue - unless the maps are truly huge (on the order of 6-12km per side), most opponents will start inside of weapons range (or close enough that they'll be in range shortly).

While the BF ranges may be closer to real-world ranges, it seems like it would take away from the "in-your-face 'Mech-on-'Mech action" that gives BT/MW it's unique character, yes?

Also, what do you mean by having the AC-20s (and, presumably, the other ACs) "behave like cannon" (other than firing shells instead of bullets and having an automatic shell/magazine loading mechanism that grants a faster ROF than manually-loaded cannons)?

[Liam]

Strum Wealh, on 30 January 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

I mentioned in the other thread that there is a variant of BattleTech called BattleForce that attributes to each hex 180 meters rather than 30 meters (the latter being used for normal BT).
Under the BF ranges, an AC-20 (along with the Medium Laser and the SRMs) has a reach of 1620 meters, with the longest-range direct fire weapon (the Clan LB 2-X AC) seeing a range increase from 900 meters (normal BT) to 5400 meters (BF), LRMs seeing a range increase to 3780 meters, and artillery seeing a range boost from roughly 10km to roughly 61km.

Gameplay would certainly be very different with BF ranges for the weapons - 'Mechs would generally never get close to one another, or armor values would have to be boosted (probably even higher than what was done for MW4) so that 'Mechs would be able to survive being pounded on with "short range" weapons for so long.
And map size would be an issue - unless the maps are truly huge (on the order of 6-12km per side), most opponents will start inside of weapons range (or close enough that they'll be in range shortly).

Is BF part of canon BT?
I like it.

Quote

Mechs would generally never get close to one another, or armor values would have to be boosted (probably even higher than what was done for MW4) so that 'Mechs would be able to survive being pounded on with "short range" weapons for so long.

This is true for flat terrain. In my opinion It depends on terrain / map design:
for ex.:
City map
mountains and hills

[Strum Wealh]

steel talon, on 30 January 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

AC/10,20 are using HEAT based projectile, while AC2/5 focusing on APDSFS kinetic shell
If customization options goes far, we should be able to choose what ammo to use

Source?

----------

Strum Wealh, on 24 December 2011 - 12:59 PM, said:

The standard ACs (and their lightweight cousins, canonically due in the late 3050s) normally fire high-explosive armor-piercing (HEAP) shells, while also having access to a variety of special munitions (though, most of those don't canonically appear until the mid-to-late 3050s).

• Armor-piercing (AP) munitions (as distinct from the "standard" (HEAP) munitions) were prototyped by the FedSuns in 3053, and went into production in 3059.
  
• Caseless munitions were put into production by the FedSuns in 3055.
  
• Flak munitions were produced in 2310 for anti-air duty and have been available since, but were only occasionally popular (due to the superior anti-'Mech capabilities of the similar cluster rounds used by the LB-X series... when they were in production and available).
  
• Flechette munitions were put into production by the FedSuns in 3055.
  
• Precision munitions were put into production by the FedSuns in 3062.
  
• Tracer munitions were produced in 2300 and have been available since.

What would be canonically available at the game's start point are: Standard (HEAP), Flak, and Tracer rounds.

It should be noted at the links above that while each of the special munitions offers a unique advantage or capability (increased damage or storage or effectiveness against certain types of targets), each also comes with a disadvantage (increased likelihood of jamming, reduction in ammo capacity or precision) as well.

Canonically, neither LB-X nor Ultra autocannons can use special munitions (nor can the Rotary or Hyper-Velocity ACs).
The LB-X ACs can fire both standard (HEAP) and specialized (LB-X only) cluster rounds at slightly longer ranges than standard ACs, at the cost of having to carry both and the time needed to switch the ammo feeds from one to the other.
The Ultra ACs fire standard (HEAP) rounds, and can be fired at double the standard ACs' rate-of-fire (two rounds per salvo) at the cost of increased ammo consumption and heat build-up, reduced accuracy, and increased risk of jamming the weapon, or fire at the standard ROF (and act as essentially a slightly longer-ranged version of a standard AC).

From Sarna:

Quote

Armor-Piercing ammunition is used solely in standard and light autocannons. It was first prototyped by the Federated Suns in 3053, with full production beginning in 3059. AP ammo uses advanced ballistics materials and improved anti-armor warheads, allowing them to punch through otherwise fresh armor and damage internal systems. However, their increased weight negatively affects the weapon's accuracy and allows for less ammunition to be stored.

There is no specific mention of KEPs, much less APDSFS rounds, being available to BT ACs, with the closest thing - the AP munitions described above as using an "improved anti-armor warhead" (which implies some variant of HE shell, though it could refer to a KEP) - not being available until almost a decade after the game's start date (full production of AP munitions in 3059; MWO starts in mid-3049).

The point being: what's (canonically) available for Standard ACs at the game's start point are standard (HEAP) shells, tracer shells, and flak shells.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 30 January 2012 - 04:29 PM.

[VYCanis]

Having longer ranges for weapons really wouldn't necessarily turn the games into sniper battles. That is primarily a factor of map design.

because If you give players absolutely no reason to close range, then yeah, they'll sit back and plink away at whatever their max ranges are.

but if you add in bits of cover here and there, countermeasures, concealment, objectives that require players to move into areas if they want to complete them, then having weapons that could hypothetically fire across a map wouldn't even be an issue, because a mech's ability to capitalize on that is kept in check.

I mean look at any battlefield 1942-bf3 map. Any given tank could shoot to the horizon easily, but how often was shooting to the horizon used vs blasting at tanks within spitting range due to map design? I'll tell ya, i think most of my tank fights involved rounding the wrong corner somewhere, not necessarily shooting at a few pixels that might be tank, even when i could shoot that far.

[DarkTreader]

I can definitely see where falloff would be an interesting thing to implement, particularly for the realism factor... but that then brings up a good question.

You have a pair of AC/20s and are loaded to the brim with ammo (necessary for this exercise). You have a decent idea of where they are, but you can't reach them due to, lets say, they all have JJs and are in a caldera, and you're stuck at ground level. What's stopping you from using that additional falloff range to use your pair of AC/20s like artillery shells today - rough judge of trajectory and range, and let 'em fly. You may miss, you may drop a pair of shells on an unsuspecting Valkyrie's head and one-shot them. </devil's advocate>

I'm for it, if a) bugs can be worked out, it won't cause the coders to have to deal with too much BS, and c) PGI is still able to get this game out when they want.

[Kenyon Burguess]

when talking weapons, its the penetration of the round that matters not how far it goes.
so visually the rounds/lasers shouldnt stop at the end of their range. but the penetration will fail and the damage wont occur. the devs could do some really nice additional effects with that. lasers just doing an odd color glow, ac rounds bouncing off.

missles can be thought of as signal detonation warheads. the targeting computer tells them when to go off so if they go out of range they dont know when to go off and just dud and fll to the ground.

it wouldnt be a perfect system but its better than ending at the invisible wall or having to drag out the laser alpha strikes to longer ranges

[RoninV3]

Game mechanics vs. reality - If you try to push to much reality into your game mechanics then you will lose the flow of the game as you add to many varibles for various factors (physics, known technology issues, Etc..) that bogs your game down.

[VYCanis]

if someone is good enough to arc ac20s like on the spot poor man's artillery, and hit a moving target at some extreme range, they deserve to get that shot.

bear in mind though, its unlikely that ac20s will be doing 20 damage or whatever in 1 shot, at least going by the 2009 trailer, and/orif they go by fluff rather than rules. So even if you manage to land an extreme range hit with an ac20, assuming that were possible, i doubt you'd have to worry about 1SK headshots

actually come to think of it. If ACs are firing at any ROF dividing up their damage, they wouldn't even need damage falloff to balance them, especially if there were recoil/drop/and MOA factors, all those things put together would naturally cause less shots to hit at long range, effecting less damage totaling up, even if each shot is hitting for full damage.

Conversely, APFSDS style AP rounds would naturally suffer damage falloff over range since they'd likely do their damage through momentum rather than by explosives, which would make them far less useful at extreme range plinking than standard rounds but more useful up close. Their AP effect could also have a falloff in effectiveness up to a point where they only do normal damage and lose their ap effect all together.

[Solis Obscuri]

So, thus far we've established that, per canon:
Autocannons are decribed as using High Explosive Armor Piercing (HEAP) rounds of some type
Heavy autocannons do massive damage but are only effective at close range
Light autocannons do less damage but are effective out to a long distance
Autocannons can use multiple types of ammunition (but not Linear Ballistics cluster munitions or ultra autocannon rounds)

I agree it doesn't make perfect sense for autocannon shells to have the punch to drill out armor in close, then suddenly fall out of the air, but it becomes necessary if you're trying to at least loosely stick to canon and maintain balance between weapon systems - if you design autocannons to let people bypass the limitations of heavy autocannons to a degree that missiles, lasers, PPCs, and Gauss Rifles are not, you really begin to screw up the balance with those other weapons, as well as with the role of light autocannons.

I think the stats of the HEAP ammo were left intentionally vague, as were a lot of details about 31st century technology - it's not like HEAT rounds weren't the standard when the game was designed (even if you want to drop the "Anti-Tank" part they could still have described them as "shaped charge" warheads), but it allowed more leeway about why the weapons work the way they do, how far they should fire, how much armor they should actually penetrate, etc. etc. translated directly into the real-world technology of the 1980s. I think it gets disingenuous to the spirit of the game, after a certain point, to begin ascribing too many new characteristics to BT technology based on conjecture.

[VYCanis]

it would affect the balance, yes, but the particulars of the characteristics of the weapons could always be adjusted to maintain the relative relationships. So long as an ac5 can outperform an ac20 at long range but not at close, does it really matter what range the shell is likely to smack dirt? So long as large lasers are more attractive options for doing consistent accurate damage out to decent ranges, and smalls and mediums are more apt for being cheap hot short range firepower, then you still have the same balance. With the proper adjustments, you could probably get realistic weapon ranges that could effectively shoot clear across any map for most weapons, and still retain the tabletop relationships, provided you simulate the appropriate factors. With proper map design you could even still retain the short range brawls too.

i mean, take an srm vs an lrm. instead of focusing on weapon range, you could instead focus on the guidance/maneuverability/speed factors of the missiles instead. If srms behave in a crosshairs guided fashion, maintaining high speed, but shallow turning radii, then they become effective direct fire weapons that are largely dependent on your ability to aim them. and would largely be ineffective at hitting moving targets at long range combat and useless for indirect fire, even if you could hit the other side of the map with them. Lrms conversely could do indirect fire, and have a more fire and forget nature, that makes it effective at long range, but poor close range behavior/minimum range issues would be it's weakness. Thus giving both weapons their own unique performance niches without slapping an arbitrary short range where stuff suddenly hits an invisible wall

besides, BT hexes change size depending on what rules you are playing with. Range limits were merely a way to preserve table space, not necessarily representative of the technological limits of the weapons.

Edited by VYCanis, 31 January 2012 - 03:38 PM.

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

"So long as an ac5 can outperform an ac20 at long range but not at close, does it really matter what range the shell is likely to smack dirt?"

How do you prevent the AC/5 from performing the same from its max range and into where the AC/20 can be used? (if one Mech carries one and the other the other)

The AC/5 does 5 points out to 18 hexes (500m+) and all the way in to 3 Hexes (90m)

The AC/20 does 20 points out to 9 hexes (270m+) and all the way in to 0 Hexes (0m)

That means the AC/5 is damaging a target from +500m into 90m = a 410m damage zone.

While the AC/20 is damaging a target from 270m to 0m = a 270m damage zone.

With Ammo a wash per ton. The AC/5 pilot need only stay out of that 270m damage zone (the same as any ML he may be carrying as well) and the AC/20 user saves on ammo, generates no HEat, but dies a slow and horrible end.

Perhaps I misunderstood the premise of that quote though.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 31 January 2012 - 03:59 PM.