60 replies to this topic

[Tannhauser Gate]

Mason Grimm, on 13 February 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

In Tabletop plenty of my modified rides carry 1 ton Slug, 1 ton Cluster and I switch between them. If you want both types you gotta pay (tonnage) for both types. This essentially would be "two feed bins". Switching ammo types should take say... 5 seconds max...

+1 Make it so

[Volkite]

While I agree wholeheartedly that LBX cannons should have the option to equip and switch to/from standard and cluster rounds, I disagree on what I see as being suggested; that with an LBX comes a minimum of 2T ammo, and it only comes in 2T increments for 1T each. Sure the standard AC was outdated, and it's good that the 20 is still unaugmented as we play so it can remain king (very much so), but that's the nature of improving tech, sometimes your older equipment is just obsolete.
I say the ammo should be added in the stadard 1T increments, and you select what type as you allocate. Just as the TT, because this makes sense to do.
And if not doing so normally is an issue, I do seem to recall very few if any 'mechs that mount LBX and only 1 type of ammo. So it would, if maintained as the TT, be a callout to the engineer in us all as we customise that there are multiple types.
Though we won't need the prompt, most likely.
Just my 2 C-bills

[Jeager51]

I also toss in my two cents for the LBX class autocannon being able to fire both standard and cluster munitions. Its a basic feature of the weapon in TT and has been so for 20+ years. I would also point out that we can make guns that can do this now, in personal and Vehicle calibers. I was always sort of suprised that Autocannons had access to only the one type of ammo. I mean you pay for the range and firepower with tonnage already, some ablilty for versatility seems to make sense balance wise. I.E. Your AC can act as a direct fire LRM at the cost of rate of fire, damage potental and loss of the indirect fire capability of true LRM's.

[Gremlich Johns]

My experience with tanks. Say, in combat (like the phelan example from Barantor), if you have a sabot in the tube and a target presents itself that requires a different kind of ammo, like a cannister round (which is a flechette round designed like a shotgun shell) shoot the one in the tube downrange and load the ammo you need, screw unloading from the breech. Takes too much time. Sure you've wasted a round, but you'll probably get a kill with the next one.
An LBX is probably a smoothbore, not needing rifling. The AC/UAC are obviously rifled. If the LBX rounds are like shotgun shells with sleeves holding the projectiles until it exits the tube, there will be little to no tube wear. having an AC/UAC available and being able to load up LBX as necessary is NOT a technological hurtle and could be used in the MW universe (as indicated in the fiction) The only problem is that in choosing multiple ammo types, you might limit you usefulness in certain combat circumstances. (I need moar UAC ammo!!)

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 25 February 2012 - 09:46 AM.

[Lycan]

If you want to sacrifce the tonnage to carry both types of ammo . . . no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to switch from regular ammo to LBX ammo at will.

[Stripes]

I am both hands for switching ammo types if it's a canon - and it is!
We all missing technical aspect of that little problem: how about that mechs with torso mounted ballistic weapons (HunchBack or Atlas) have a option of switching ammo on the fly - torso have much more space for machinery and less restrictions to equipment geometry (at least in my mind - BT provides very little insight in that kind of little details). On the other side of equation - arms mounted weapons (think about Centurion AC\10) do this old fashioned way - fire not needed ammo first, load neded after.

Even with Ascession Wars tech downfall we dealing with ballistic machenery way ahead of present time tanks (most closest example - naval ship based 120mm full auto cannons) - and most of modern tanks still use hands load!

Well - this all one big IMHO...

[Petroff Northrup]

Switching on the fly between different ammo types seems fine to me, though there should be a short period where the weapon cannot fire as the feed is switching.

[Omigir]

Was doing some research actually last night for a custom mech, never really delved into TT, used to just using what i'm given on Megamech.

But if i am understanding this right, an LBX AC 10 does not just shoot further then a standard AC 10, but is lighter as well?

It really does sound like standard AC's are going to be low end weapons that you use until you can afford an LBX or UAC >_>

[Petroff Northrup]

Omigir, on 25 February 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

Was doing some research actually last night for a custom mech, never really delved into TT, used to just using what i'm given on Megamech.

But if i am understanding this right, an LBX AC 10 does not just shoot further then a standard AC 10, but is lighter as well?

It really does sound like standard AC's are going to be low end weapons that you use until you can afford an LBX or UAC >_>

That is what they became which is why they came out with a bunch of special ammo types, like AP, caseless, and pre-x.

http://www.sarna.net...ecial_Munitions

[Skylarr]

"An Autocannon is a type of rapid-firing, auto-loading direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) or kinetic rounds at targets in bursts. It is, basically, a giant "machine gun" that fires predominantly cased explosive shells though models firing saboted high velocity kinetic energy penetrators orcaseless ordnance do exist."

Originally developed in2595 byLubalin Ballistcs for the Terran Hegemony, the LB-X 10 Autocannon was a derivative of the standard and relatively primitive Autocannon/10 design used for centuries by every military in the Inner Sphere. Taking advantage of advanced materials such asEndo Steel, the company was able to reduce the weight of the weapon for only a slight increase in bulk and mated it with the advanced Mercury-VII targeting system to boost its effective range. The most notable feature of the weapon was its ability to fire both standard HEAP rounds as well as a specialized anti-'Mech cluster round.
The cluster round fragmented in flight, peppering the target with submunitions. The cannon was able to punch through an opponent's armor with standard rounds, and then fire cluster rounds to increase the chance of getting a critical hit on a target's internal systems. The LB-X's 'shotgun' flak-like effect also makes it an effective and deadly weapon against AeroSpace Fighters, VTOLs and Infantry."

You need to take into account the weight, cost, and cric slots of each weapon.

http://www.sarna.net...Equipment_Lists

[Omigir]

Petroff Northrup, on 25 February 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

That is what they became which is why they came out with a bunch of special ammo types, like AP, caseless, and pre-x.

http://www.sarna.net...ecial_Munitions

TBH, I like wat MW4 did. they made the LBX scatter shot only. This gave a place for every AC type (save for clan tech... clan tech always over rights IS tech)

As cool as different amo types would be, it just makes no sens that a lighter gun would shoot further and be able to swap to scatter shot. Making regular AC's cheap is one way to help.. but that would mean people are going to lean toward the LBX's pretty much every time, or at least until the get the UAC's

[Sug]

I'd like the ability to toggle if the damage modeling is handled in a way that slug vs. cluster actually makes any difference.

Edited by Sug, 25 February 2012 - 01:47 PM.

[Petroff Northrup]

Omigir, on 25 February 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

TBH, I like wat MW4 did. they made the LBX scatter shot only. This gave a place for every AC type (save for clan tech... clan tech always over rights IS tech)

As cool as different amo types would be, it just makes no sens that a lighter gun would shoot further and be able to swap to scatter shot. Making regular AC's cheap is one way to help.. but that would mean people are going to lean toward the LBX's pretty much every time, or at least until the get the UAC's

it is lighter and shoots further as it is more advanced and if they include alternate ammo types of there is a noticeable cost difference between LBX and standard I would pick standard as I do not usually use cluster much anymore.

[MajorLeeHung]

Dlardrageth, on 13 February 2012 - 06:15 AM, said:

Canon doesn't help much here unfortunately. Because canon/TT is round-based, so any ammo-switching mechanics there don't likely translate well into a computer game. In a computer game that is realtime-based (no matter the actual speed scaling), you will have to allocate some time frame for ammo reload/switch. An immediate switch is both unrealistic and game-breaking.

Why the latter you ask? Well, let's assume I want to exploit the instant ammo switch. I load up one ton of pellet and one ton of slug ammo. Then, instead of waiting for the normal reload time on the ACs between rounds/bursts, I just swap ammo between shots/salvos and keep thus bypassing the reload time. Nice cheat, eh?

This is simple. WoT did this thing right. wanna switch ammo? thats fine. It fully resets your reload timer. Only thing to look at maybe is if you already have a full salvo of ammo loaded that it should take longer to load the new ammo cus I mean your gonna wanna save the ammo that was already loaded right? Also could make it so if your thinking ahead you could toggle the new ammo for load after you blow your current load with no penalty to load time. ez peezy =)

edit: wow thats a lot of loads in one place!

Edited by MajorLeeHung, 25 February 2012 - 12:29 PM.

[VYCanis]

don't be so literal minded guys

who says that an LBX AC has to behave 1:1 like a standard AC but better and with ammo swapping?

Think about reload times, think about shots per burst, or if they fire continuously, think about projectile speeds, and all that.

Each could easily be given their own performance characteristics that allow them to both be effective at their particular roles without necessarily driving the other out of business.

sure an lbx may shoot farther for less tonnage, but maybe it's got painfully slower fire rates. maybe the standard ACs can fire their standard shots a little better or in a more easy to handle fashion than the LBXs fire their non cluster rounds.

Edited by VYCanis, 25 February 2012 - 12:32 PM.

[Petroff Northrup]

VYCanis, on 25 February 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

don't be so literal minded guys

who says that an LBX AC has to behave 1:1 like a standard AC but better and with ammo swapping?

Think about reload times, think about shots per burst, or if they fire continuously, think about projectile speeds, and all that.

Each could easily be given their own performance characteristics that allow them to both be effective at their particular roles without necessarily driving the other out of business.

That was the whole point behind the UAC and LBX though, to make a better AC. All the AC advancements have pretty much been made to keep the weapon system relevant, lasers were looking like such a better weapon something had to be done to keep the ACs equitable so the UAC and LBX series were release making lighter. better, and harder hitting weapons, this made standard ACS nearly pointless so special ammo and light ACs were developed.

[MajorLeeHung]

VYCanis, on 25 February 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

don't be so literal minded guys

who says that an LBX AC has to behave 1:1 like a standard AC but better and with ammo swapping?

Think about reload times, think about shots per burst, or if they fire continuously, think about projectile speeds, and all that.

Each could easily be given their own performance characteristics that allow them to both be effective at their particular roles without necessarily driving the other out of business.

sure an lbx may shoot farther for less tonnage, but maybe it's got painfully slower fire rates. maybe the standard ACs can fire their standard shots a little better or in a more easy to handle fashion than the LBXs fire their non cluster rounds.

He brings up a good point and I think a modern day shotgun would make a good example.

I personally have a 10 gauge shotgun that I have fired slugs and buckshot from. I also have TWO barrels:

Barrel 1 (LBX): Smooth on the inside. this is a buckshot barrel. it fires lots of small objects so no need for anything fancy
Barrel 2 (True AC): This barrel is spiral grooved. this is a slug thrower barrel. The spirals spin the round as it accelerates causing it to have more range and be more accurate

A few things between the two are:
1. yes you can fire a slug from a smooth barrel but you lose range and accuracy but do not damage the barrel in any way
2. yes you can fire buckshot from a grooved barrel but over time you damage and destroy the inside of the barrel

So, as you see a "pure blood" AC in the long run would have more range, more accuracy, and LESS upkeep costs then the LBX.

I personally want LBX to be able to fire both cus on table top I always used LBX, was just trying to give credence to the idea of giving normal AC's better performance index stats. Im not a technical guy so if this post is confusing Im sorry

[Aokarasu]

As a long-time tabletop and MegaMek player, I am fully in favor of implementation of both standard (slug) and pellet (shotgun) ammo types being available for LB-X ACs. Switching between the ammo types should invoke, perhaps, a 1 or 2 second cooldown. That, or it resets the reload time on the weapon (if there is one).

For most players that I've ever discussed things of this nature with, the primary reason for carrying the pellet ammo is for crit-seeking. If they aren't going to implement critical hits, then the value of the pellet ammo will decrease for some folks. It does have its value in trying to hit VTOLs, but if those aren't present, then, again, its usefulness to some is diminished.

[Yggr]

Changing type would be easy, just like a modern 2000s era Bushmaster cannon on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle it has dual ammo feeds allow ammo switchs nearly at will. A simple toggle is all it should take with minimal delay.

[El Loco]

Yes. If you don't want to field normal AC ammo, then don't. If you want to use that extra versatility the LB-X allows for, you should be given the option of doing so. I'm convinced that the implementation of such feature wouldn't be too hard to do... and it doesn't change balance. For switching between the two types I agree with those suggesting a cooldown or recycle reset. It would also be possible and feasible that you'll have to switch one cycle in advance. I.e. that you change the ammo bin, but have to empty your gun before you can load the other ammo.

Personally, I would only field a LB-X on my 'Mech if I was given the option of using standard AC ammo as well. It is always reassuring to have a ton of the good old shells at my service