77 replies to this topic

[MaddMaxx]

I am not sure why (shakes head) but I just have to ask.

What is the BT equivalent of the Goalkeeper CWIS system given the specs listed below and what Mech carries it Stock?

Quote

Specifications Weight 6,372 kg with 1,190 rds of ammunition (above deck), 9,902 kg (total). Height 3.71 m (above deck) 6.2 m (including deck penetration). Crew Automated, with human oversight Caliber 30 mm Barrels 7 Elevation +85 to −25 degrees at 80 degree/s Traverse 360° Rate of fire 70 rounds/second (4,200 rounds/minute) Muzzle velocity 1,109 m/s (MPDS round) Effective range 350 to between 1,500 and 2,000 meters dependent on ammunition Main
armament 1 x GAU-8/A Avenger 30 mm seven-barrel Gatling gun

Edited by MaddMaxx, 28 February 2012 - 09:18 AM.

[Dlardrageth]

Insidious Johnson, on 27 February 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

Okies, you can die now

Completely useless for the sake of this discusssion, sorry.

1. This thing weighs how much? Several tons, exactly...

2. It is to what percentage computer-conbtrolled? Yes, 99.9% (probably got an on/off switch), thank you.

3. You have any idea how small a BT LRM is in comparison to contemporary missiles?

Conclusion: Nice strawman, I'll rate it 3/10 for effort.

I frankly am sort of done with this discussion. If people still stupidly cling to their beliefs like stubborn mules they can shoot down a small-ish missile with their conventional Mech weaponry for whatever reason... let them. *shrug* Not my problem they need a reality check there, and the devs probably laugh their **** off about these delusions anyway.

As far as I am concerned, missiles can stay exactly the way they were in the past MW games, who gives a wet **** about them being a solid object or not, when the chance to hit them with Mech weaponry at all is ridiculously low anyway? Could as well save the bother to allocate development and system resources to extra modeling them as a "cloud of solid objects" or whatever. And despite spouting all sorts of nonsense (Since when are SRMs generally unguided? Some people... sheesh...) there won't be a complete nerf to missiles, no XAC or whatever will easily shoot them down.

Don't believe me? Well keep on arguing monkey business then. Reality+game balance > you, HAND.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 28 February 2012 - 09:19 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

Aegis Kleais™, on 28 February 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

Well, whether it's going Mach 3.5 or Mach 1, I don't think human skill can put weapons fire EXACTLY on the warhead to trigger an detonation while it's moving around in flight. It's the job of the L/AMS to do that.

On that we agree, Clansman.

Though, I would further stipulate "...can put weapons fire EXACTLY on the warhead to trigger an detonation with regularity..."
It can be done with a bit of luck (which some define as "where skill meets opportunity") and chance. However any practical and useful defense will need such regularity (or something much closer to it than any human can manage), which is accomplished by the use of the automated systems (AMS/LAMS).

What say you?

[Strum Wealh]

MaddMaxx, on 28 February 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

I am not sure why (shakes head) but I just have to ask.

What is the BT equivalent of the Goalkeeper CWIS system given the specs listed below and what Mech carries it Stock?

Given that the GAU-8 is (IMO) the equivalent of an AC-2 (specifically, IMO, a RAC-2), I wouldn't think the BT AMSs are similar to the Goalkeeper; I would imagine that they're more similar to the smaller Phalanx CIWS (with range adjusted to BT standards) or to a turret-mounted M2 Browning slaved to an automated targeting and fire-control system.

Also, the different AMS models (which also include a model named "Goalkeeper") and which 'Mechs and vehicles carry them are currently listed on the AMS page on Sarna...

[SilentObserver]

ManDaisy, on 28 February 2012 - 06:49 AM, said:

So what do you want to see? A man on a deck holding something or behind something? Thats not how its gonna work. If anything its gonna be the exact same video footage but the "manual" guy/girl will be in a control room somewhere.

This video doesn't exist because no anti missle system works this way. They are 100% computer controlled. the one that was shown even had a dedicated radar system. Thery are very expensive and use ammunition at an amazing rate. And they do that because thats what it takes to down a missle in flight. And the missles they are trying to shoot down are MUCH bigger than the canonlogical missiles fired from a battlemech.

The I was trying to make is the real world example shown just shows that AMS systems can work. It does not in any way bolster the claim that a human targeted weapon can successfuly engage and destroy an incoming missile. Its not impossible its just so improbably that for the sake of the game, making it impossible really doesnt change anything.

[TimberJon]

That Goalkeeper AMS is over-engineered with an extremely heavy base, on-unit ammo, radar, sensor suites and probably it's own computer.

An AMS on a 'Mech wouldn't have all that. The whole 'Mech is it's foundation, the ammo is going to be fed from inside the 'Mech somewhere or under under the armor it is mounted to, and it will utilize the score of sensors the 'Mech is already packing. It MIGHT have a few extra sensors on it and also a local CPU to boost tracking/reaction speed. So, minus the huge base, how much would it weigh then? I think a ton or two is reasonable if you include ammo. A laser based model might take up less weight because it would just be tied into the power and coolant grid.

Worth the trade off for some additional protection if you ask me, especially if I don't need to think about it.

[MaddMaxx]

Strum Wealh, on 28 February 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

Given that the GAU-8 is (IMO) the equivalent of an AC-2 (specifically, IMO, a RAC-2), I wouldn't think the BT AMSs are similar to the Goalkeeper; I would imagine that they're more similar to the smaller Phalanx CIWS (with range adjusted to BT standards) or to a turret-mounted M2 Browning slaved to an automated targeting and fire-control system.

Also, the different AMS models (which also include a model named "Goalkeeper") and which 'Mechs and vehicles carry them are currently listed on the AMS page on Sarna...

And those do not weight nearly 10T like the CWIS systems. I was hoping for a more comparable system, not machines that can do similar things. Hell I could stand on the Ships deck with a Automatic Shot gun, and if I was good enough, do the same thing, based on how some perceive how shooting done missiles is just easy peazy.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 28 February 2012 - 09:46 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

TimberJon, on 28 February 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

That Goalkeeper AMS is over-engineered with an extremely heavy base, on-unit ammo, radar, sensor suites and probably it's own computer.

An AMS on a 'Mech wouldn't have all that. The whole 'Mech is it's foundation, the ammo is going to be fed from inside the 'Mech somewhere or under under the armor it is mounted to, and it will utilize the score of sensors the 'Mech is already packing. It MIGHT have a few extra sensors on it and also a local CPU to boost tracking/reaction speed. So, minus the huge base, how much would it weigh then? I think a ton or two is reasonable if you include ammo. A laser based model might take up less weight because it would just be tied into the power and coolant grid.

Worth the trade off for some additional protection if you ask me, especially if I don't need to think about it.

You should sell your version to the Navy. Surely they would prefer it to the one they had designed for their needs. Money to be made for sure.

[ManDaisy]

Missiles will be able to be hit. They are fired in multiples, so 1 miss may hit another unintended missile. You have just seen a spray of bullet strike down a missile as demonstrated in the video. The only thing we have not seen is a human controlled AMS. Why? Because a computer controlled AMS is statistically more precise with uniform measures of performance. This DOES NOT however rule out humans being able to do it especially if they controlled similar weapons, WHICH they will in a battle mech.

Everyone seems to be so caught up on this "bulls eye" Idea. However one just needs to paint the area surrounding missile with bullets/ lasers in order to have a reasonable chance of hitting something.

Edited by ManDaisy, 28 February 2012 - 09:57 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

ManDaisy, on 28 February 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

Missiles will be able to be hit. They are fired in multiples, so 1 miss may hit another unintended missile. You have just seen a spray of bullet strike down a missile as demonstrated in the video. The only thing we have not seen is a human controlled AMS. Why? Because a computer controlled AMS is statistically more precise with uniform measures of performance. This DOES NOT however rule out humans being able to do it especially if they controlled similar weapons, WHICH they will in a battle mech.

The Pilot does not control the AMS system of their BattleMech. Or do you mean an AC/MG type system?

[ManDaisy]

Of course I mean the primary weapons, AC, LBX, Ultra, Rotatry AC, machine guns, lasers, pulse lasers, etc. Some may be better at hitting missiles then others.

Edited by ManDaisy, 28 February 2012 - 10:00 AM.

[SilentObserver]

ManDaisy, on 28 February 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

Missiles will be able to be hit. They are fired in multiples, so 1 miss may hit another unintended missile. You have just seen a spray of bullet strike down a missile as demonstrated in the video. The only thing we have not seen is a human controlled AMS. Why? Because a computer controlled AMS is statistically more precise with uniform measures of performance. This DOES NOT however rule out humans being able to do it especially if they controlled similar weapons, WHICH they will in a battle mech.

Everyone seems to be so caught up on this "bulls eye" Idea. However one just needs to paint the area surrounding missile with bullets/ lasers in order to have a reasonable chance of hitting something.

I'm not saying its impossible. I'm just saying that its imporbably. Its so unlikely, that even if the devs spent all the time putting the correct hit boxes on the missles and tested for collisions most players will never actually hit a missle.

So.... most players will never know if a missle can actually get hit or not. I'd prefer the devs spend there time on something else. Like making the missiles move at speeds and flight patterns that make sense.

[ManDaisy]

Well I can guarantee, once someone figures out they can shoot a missile there will be more to follow and soon it will be a skill everyone obsesses over. Hell you may even see rifle men on point as anti air units for missile defense.

Edited by ManDaisy, 28 February 2012 - 10:17 AM.

[TimberJon]

We agree then?

Missile Interception by:

• Ballistic AMS
  
• Laser AMS
  
• Possible ECM

Each to reduce % chance of missiles to hit AND/or % of damage of the missile group.

[SilentObserver]

ManDaisy, on 28 February 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

Well I can guarantee, once someone figures out they can shoot a missile there will be more to follow and soon it will be a skill everyone obsesses over. Hell you may even see rifle men on point as anti air units for missile defense.

That might happen. If it does then the dev's made missiles too easy to destroy in flight. Its not a skill thing, it would be pure luck to hit a missile with a Mech scale weapon. Even something with 4LB20X autocannons should rarely hit an incoming missile.

[TimberJon]

Ok I propose that be one of the "Badges" or medals you can achieve. Missile sniper, or dead-eye.

[Mautty the Bobcat]

Call is the 'Anti-Missle Platform' badge with a description of "For shooting down enemy missiles in mid flight...wait, why were you shooting at missiles?"

[Aegis Kleais]

Strum Wealh, on 28 February 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

On that we agree, Clansman.

Though, I would further stipulate "...can put weapons fire EXACTLY on the warhead to trigger an detonation with regularity..."
It can be done with a bit of luck (which some define as "where skill meets opportunity") and chance. However any practical and useful defense will need such regularity (or something much closer to it than any human can manage), which is accomplished by the use of the automated systems (AMS/LAMS).

What say you?

I'm NOTORIOUSLY unlucky. In fact, in real life, when always given the BEST ODDS (50/50), I will invariably take the wrong choice. I'm not kidding either; I'm literally breaking all the laws of averages here with fierce discrimination. This is coupled with my horrendous sense of direction and an inability to deal with double (or more) negatives in an efficient manner.

So for me, I'll just let my L/AMS handle my luck and I'll concentrate on the bigger picture.