41 replies to this topic

[Mims]

hey kartr, we're not really talking about the atributes of the weapons. just how to limit the effective range of weapon types. Even if the AC is burst, there will still be a limit to the distance the rounds travel. Also if the spread is too great on an AC i wont use it at all, this is not tabletop. Rounds should travel parallel and damage distibution is cause by the victims movement or your own. (if you and your enemy are not moving all damage hits the same location.)

[Strum Wealh]

Kartr, on 27 February 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

Most of that sounds pretty reasonable except for the part I quoted. This part I have issue with because the ranges aren't based on how far the shells will travel for AC's, but rather on when the grouping exceeds a certain diameter. The rounds should travel much further, but their divergent paths means they don't strike close enough to do full rated damage and eventually will spread out enough that they'll fly past a 'Mech sized target on all sides.

I think it'd add a nice level of strategy if we could buy/salvage AC's that were rated the same, but were from different manufacturers. That way if one driver preferred a very large bore AC who's rounds would separate faster so that each round would do half damage to which ever location they hit past maximum range (20pts to center torso at and below max, 10 center 10 left/right just past max for example) or more smaller rounds of which more would strike in the same area for longer. The second might do 10 center, 5 left 5 right at just past max or maybe 15 center 2 left 3 right depending on the physics/dice. Something to think about and it would add variety.

There would also be the issue of shells per salvo, where larger-bore ACs in each damage-class might actually fire only a single shell per salvo while smaller-bore ACs in the same class might fire multiple shells per salvo to achieve the same level of damage as the single large shell.

For example, the 203 mm UAC-20 on the Cauldron-Born A might fire a single shell per salvo (in standard ROF mode), while each of the two 185 mm AC-20s on the Demolisher might fire more than one shell per salvo to achieve the same level of damage.

While I agree that grouping at range should be an issue when there are multi-shell salvos (where each shell is modeled as a separate projectile), it's all for naught if the target is too far away for any of the shells to reach (which seems to be the issue at hand), right?

Damocles, on 27 February 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

what is missing in most of these arguments is the effectiveness and properties of the armor which these ballistics are striking against.

Possible it is a very specific amount of energy required to cause damage and that efficiency is immediately dropped off after that range is expended.

The canon damage listings represent damage against Standard Armor (which is ablative), where one unit of damage is negated by one unit of Standard Armor.

Granted, some armors have specific effects against certain weapons - Hardened Armor can take two units of damage from any weapon per unit of armor (plus some other effects), Reflective Armor takes 0.5 units of damage from energy weapons (while taking normal damage from ballistics and missiles, plus some other effects) per unit of armor, and Reactive Armor takes 0.5 units of damage from missile weapons (while taking normal damage from ballistic and energy weapons, plus some other effects) per unit of armor.

The issue at hand, though, seems to be the range of the weapons - how much of the weapons' energy/output is arriving at the target in the first place, before the effects of armor come into play...

[Kartr]

Not sure if we're having a difference opinion or my point isn't getting made properly and the attributes of the weapons are vitally important to the discussion because it's their attributes that determine the max effective ranges.

Ok I'm going to give an example of what I'm trying to say.
AC/20
short range, 90m
medium range, 180m
long range, 270m
125mm cannon, 4rd burst

Enemy target: Atlas moving directly toward your Hunchback.

You have 8 potential places you can hit: Head, Center Torso, Left/Right Torso, Left/Right Arm, Left/Right Leg.

You fire your AC/20 at 350m which is beyond the maximum range, so the rounds stay grouped within one hit location. After 270m they start spreading out. At 350m they've spread out so much that only the first round strikes the chest dealing 1/4th the damage of a full AC/20 shot, the second round strikes the left arm dealing 1/4 full AC/20 damage. The 3rd and 4th rounds missed entirely.

The Atlas is 300m from you and you fire your AC/20 again. This time you aim a little to the left because you saw your rounds strike the Atlas's center and left torso (your right). You over corrected slightly and your first round misses, second round strikes right torso dealing 1/4th the AC/20's total damage. 3rd round strikes the left torso dealing 1/4th AC/20 damage and the 4th strikes the left arm dealing 1/4th AC/20 damage.

The Atlas is now within 260m from you which is within maximum effective range. You aim center mass again and the recoil throws the aim off a little bit and you strike the left torso. This time since you're within max effective range all 4 rounds strike the left torso dealing full AC/20 damage.

This has nothing to do with table top and everything to do with real world effects. Also yes while there is a limit to the range an AC shell will travel it's much much much much much further than 270m. For example an M1A2 Abrams can fire a 105mm round through a building window from 4km away while on the move. Even if the AC/20 shell's are more like howitzer rounds they'll still travel much much further than the ranges given for them. Everything comes down to the max effective range, the point where the spread on the grouping is no longer close enough to strike roughly the same area on the target. Lighter AC's have a longer effective range because they either fire smaller shells with less recoil per shell or fewer total shells per burst which equals less recoil. Less recoil means tighter groups over a longer distance.

Rounds shouldn't travel parallel because that wouldn't reflect real world dynamics. It also would allow people much greater ranges on their weapons unless the max effective range was coded as a hard stop and after that the shells did decreased damage to the same area. With a system that has the flight paths diverge, it makes it much harder for someone to snipe using an AC/20 since the rounds would spread out.

[Kartr]

Dang you Sturm, posting at the same time so I can't use multi-quote!

Strum Wealh, on 27 February 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

There would also be the issue of shells per salvo, where larger-bore ACs in each damage-class might actually fire only a single shell per salvo while smaller-bore ACs in the same class might fire multiple shells per salvo to achieve the same level of damage as the single large shell.

For example, the 203 mm UAC-20 on the Cauldron-Born A might fire a single shell per salvo (in standard ROF mode), while each of the two 185 mm AC-20s on the Demolisher might fire more than one shell per salvo to achieve the same level of damage.

While I agree that grouping at range should be an issue when there are multi-shell salvos (where each shell is modeled as a separate projectile), it's all for naught if the target is too far away for any of the shells to reach (which seems to be the issue at hand), right?

First there's no fluff saying the 203mm only fires one round, that aside I personally feel every AC no matter what it's caliber needs to fire multiple rounds. The first reason is because even a 203mm cannon would still be able to achieve much greater accuracy than a mere 270m. The recoil wouldn't significantly affect the first shot, only the second shot would be effected. So a 203mm AC/20 that only fired one round should have an effective range of much closer to a modern M1 round. Not quite as far because the larger, heavier round wouldn't fly as far as a lighter 105mm, but still it should easily achieve a greater than 1km max effective range.

The second reason is that I believe that AC's were developed to counter increasing armor strengths. A similar thing happened in WW2 where armor got so thick that standard rounds didn't work. Tungsten cores, HEAT, Sabot and a couple other methods were developed to counter the increasing thickness.

Right now tanks can only carry armor of a certain weight because any heavier and the current engine technology wouldn't be able to propel them as fast as modern tanks need to go. However with the advent of fusion engines and future drive systems the weight of armor could be and was increased. Eventually it reached the point where a single round was unable to penetrate armor. Cannons were redesigned to fire a burst of HEAT rounds that would create a series of craters in a close area to chew away the armor and the AC was developed.

Gauss's simply strike the target with enough force to start fracturing and stressing the armor causing some of it to spall off or simply be weakened past the point of being useful.

[Mims]

Unfortunantly you cannot throw out numbers and tell me they are not from tabletop, and tell me they are realistic. These machine and weapons have never actually been built. Whats most important is that they can be implimented into the game with balance. moving+ weapon convigance+ weapon spread+ firing at a moving target = Inaccuracy to the point i wont even use the weapon. i rather use a ppc or gauss with more chance to hit doing more damage to one spot. I really do like realism, but your not going to get that in a video game. And you would not get greater range from parallel fire, because loss of kinetic energy is still the same. i recomended parallel fire because it is already implimented in mechwarrior games. you still usually hit different parts of the target mech because they are moving. but if they make the mistake of stoping, you can make a better use of the weapon.

I get where your coming from, but we know loss of energy in cannons happens, so we know it has fixed effective range no matter how many rounds are fired simultaneously. Your not talking about maximum range. your talking about effective damage within the maximum range, and not what happens to the rounds there after.

[Strum Wealh]

Kartr, on 27 February 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

This can't be the case because missiles have a very low velocity when compared to AC's and AC's have a much much lower velocity than Gauss rifles and Lasers have no mass therefor no velocity.

Lasers do have a muzzle velocity - they emit photons (which have no rest mass, but can impart momentum and kinetic energy while in motion) at c, the speed of light.

The rest, I would generally agree with.

Kartr, on 27 February 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

Not sure if we're having a difference opinion or my point isn't getting made properly and the attributes of the weapons are vitally important to the discussion because it's their attributes that determine the max effective ranges.

Ok I'm going to give an example of what I'm trying to say.
AC/20
short range, 90m
medium range, 180m
long range, 270m
125mm cannon, 4rd burst

Enemy target: Atlas moving directly toward your Hunchback.

You have 8 potential places you can hit: Head, Center Torso, Left/Right Torso, Left/Right Arm, Left/Right Leg.

You fire your AC/20 at 350m which is beyond the maximum range, so the rounds stay grouped within one hit location. After 270m they start spreading out. At 350m they've spread out so much that only the first round strikes the chest dealing 1/4th the damage of a full AC/20 shot, the second round strikes the left arm dealing 1/4 full AC/20 damage. The 3rd and 4th rounds missed entirely.

The Atlas is 300m from you and you fire your AC/20 again. This time you aim a little to the left because you saw your rounds strike the Atlas's center and left torso (your right). You over corrected slightly and your first round misses, second round strikes right torso dealing 1/4th the AC/20's total damage. 3rd round strikes the left torso dealing 1/4th AC/20 damage and the 4th strikes the left arm dealing 1/4th AC/20 damage.

The Atlas is now within 260m from you which is within maximum effective range. You aim center mass again and the recoil throws the aim off a little bit and you strike the left torso. This time since you're within max effective range all 4 rounds strike the left torso dealing full AC/20 damage.

This has nothing to do with table top and everything to do with real world effects. Also yes while there is a limit to the range an AC shell will travel it's much much much much much further than 270m. For example an M1A2 Abrams can fire a 105mm round through a building window from 4km away while on the move. Even if the AC/20 shell's are more like howitzer rounds they'll still travel much much further than the ranges given for them. Everything comes down to the max effective range, the point where the spread on the grouping is no longer close enough to strike roughly the same area on the target. Lighter AC's have a longer effective range because they either fire smaller shells with less recoil per shell or fewer total shells per burst which equals less recoil. Less recoil means tighter groups over a longer distance.

Rounds shouldn't travel parallel because that wouldn't reflect real world dynamics. It also would allow people much greater ranges on their weapons unless the max effective range was coded as a hard stop and after that the shells did decreased damage to the same area. With a system that has the flight paths diverge, it makes it much harder for someone to snipe using an AC/20 since the rounds would spread out.

Kartr, on 27 February 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

Dang you Sturm, posting at the same time so I can't use multi-quote!

First there's no fluff saying the 203mm only fires one round, that aside I personally feel every AC no matter what it's caliber needs to fire multiple rounds. The first reason is because even a 203mm cannon would still be able to achieve much greater accuracy than a mere 270m. The recoil wouldn't significantly affect the first shot, only the second shot would be effected. So a 203mm AC/20 that only fired one round should have an effective range of much closer to a modern M1 round. Not quite as far because the larger, heavier round wouldn't fly as far as a lighter 105mm, but still it should easily achieve a greater than 1km max effective range.

The second reason is that I believe that AC's were developed to counter increasing armor strengths. A similar thing happened in WW2 where armor got so thick that standard rounds didn't work. Tungsten cores, HEAT, Sabot and a couple other methods were developed to counter the increasing thickness.

Right now tanks can only carry armor of a certain weight because any heavier and the current engine technology wouldn't be able to propel them as fast as modern tanks need to go. However with the advent of fusion engines and future drive systems the weight of armor could be and was increased. Eventually it reached the point where a single round was unable to penetrate armor. Cannons were redesigned to fire a burst of HEAT rounds that would create a series of craters in a close area to chew away the armor and the AC was developed.

Gauss's simply strike the target with enough force to start fracturing and stressing the armor causing some of it to spall off or simply be weakened past the point of being useful.

Standard IS AC-20 with standard (high-explosive, armor-piercing) munitions
Standard BT rules dictate that 1 hex = 30 meters
short range: up to 3 hexes (90 meters)
medium range: up to 6 hexes (180 meters)
long range: up to 9 hexes (270 meters)
extreme range: up to 12 hexes (360 meters)
estimated caliber range: 150-203+ mm

(See here for my estimates for AC calibers and muzzle velocities...)

Said AC-20 doesn't do any damage - at all - beyond 12 hexes (360 meters, under standard BT rules) - that is the absolute maximum range, because that is how the game is made.

I, myself, have previously suggested using the BattleForce conversion (1 hex = 180 meters) for weapon ranges; this would give the same AC-20 (along with Medium Lasers and SRMs, which share the same range brackets) a long range of 1,620 meters and an extreme range of 2,160 meters.
(Incidentally, it brings a fair number of weapons into range brackets that better reflect their real-life equivalents fairly well... )

Part of the problem with using the BF values is that the maps would need to be enormous (on the order of 14+ km on a side) in order to accommodate the actual long-range weapons (as LB-X AC-2s would then have an extreme range of 6,480 meters, Gauss Rifles and PPCs would have extreme ranges on the order of 4.3 to 5.4 km, and artillery would have a range of ~61 km), and a lot of combat would become "use of traditional close-quarters-combat weapons to snipe from kilometers away" and "beyond visual range bombardment".
Not to mention that, at common 'Mech speeds (50-80 kph for all but the lightest and most fleet-footed of designs), getting even half-way across said map will take a significant amount of the total time (the Devs' target, IIRC, being on the order of 20 minutes).
(Though, if they are aiming for 20-minute company vs company (12 vs 12) matches, perhaps the maps will be that big anyway? )

So, the weapons have artificially short ranges, to basically force the 'Mechs into close-range, in-your-face combat.

Though, you're right - the fluff, to the best of our knowledge (who knows - there may be some throw-away line in one of the novels ) doesn't indicate how many shells the Cauldron-Born's UAC-20 fires, nor does it indicate (again, to the best of our knowledge) whether the Demolisher's AC-20s fire more shells, or if it fires the same number of shells at a higher velocity (though, slightly smaller shells at a higher muzzle velocity should increase the range of the weapon...), or how different the other dimensions or the composition of UAC HEAP shells is from that of standard AC HEAP shells (though, the differences are obviously enough that UACs cannot use special munitions, while standard ACs can do so).

Part of what is being discussed is the justifications for the rather short ranges (e.g. blooming for lasers and PPCs).

Considering that the recoil of the GAU-8 Avenger (pretty much the equivalent to a RAC-2) is on the order of 10,000 pound-force (45,000 newtons, or a little over 4.5 metric tons of force) and a 203 mm AC is roughly the equivalent of an 8" howitzer (like the M110, for example) with a rather short barrel, they may use relatively light charges to avoid knocking the firing 'Mech over (especially when mounted high above the CG, as would be the case with something like a Hunchback, for example) or ripping the arm off if mounted in the arm (as was the case with the aforementioned Cauldron-Born and the Centurion known as Yen-Lo-Wang, with recoil ripping the arms off being explicitly stated to be the reason why Heavy Gauss Rifles cannot be mounted in the arms of 'Mechs).

So, it's an issue of "we know what the ranges are, but what should happen (or is happening) between range brackets - specifically, between the 'long' and 'extreme' range brackets - to justify such short ranges and how should that generally affect any given weapon's performance in the long-to-extreme bracket"...

Your thoughts?

[Kartr]

Mims, on 27 February 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

Unfortunantly you cannot throw out numbers and tell me they are not from tabletop, and tell me they are realistic. These machine and weapons have never actually been built. Whats most important is that they can be implimented into the game with balance. moving+ weapon convigance+ weapon spread+ firing at a moving target = Inaccuracy to the point i wont even use the weapon. i rather use a ppc or gauss with more chance to hit doing more damage to one spot. I really do like realism, but your not going to get that in a video game. And you would not get greater range from parallel fire, because loss of kinetic energy is still the same. i recomended parallel fire because it is already implimented in mechwarrior games. you still usually hit different parts of the target mech because they are moving. but if they make the mistake of stoping, you can make a better use of the weapon.

I get where your coming from, but we know loss of energy in cannons happens, so we know it has fixed effective range no matter how many rounds are fired simultaneously. Your not talking about maximum range. your talking about effective damage within the maximum range, and not what happens to the rounds there after.

Ok first I understand, every game needs balance and sticking perfectly to real world mechanics isn't possible. Second we already have games where moving+convergance+weapons spread+firing at moving targets are all calculated and exist.

First example that comes to mind is Mass Effect. Based on the amount of training and experience you had with a particular weapon, the quality and type of weapon and whether or not you were moving were all factored into how accurate you were, as was recoil. The game was very fun and sighting was very simple and intuitive. It was a simple circle that grew smaller the higher your training and the better quality weapon you had. Movement and recoil increased the diameter of the circle temporarily. Any time you fired your shots could go anywhere in the circle.

The second example is World of Tanks which uses a very very similar system. WoT is also a F2P only multiplayer game that the devs said has had an influence on the MW:O design. MW:O also sounds like it's going to have many similar components. So the balance can be achieved and can be fun.

Third point, it doesn't matter what numbers I use for the ranges, whether they're from table top or based on real world weapons. Either way the burst firing nature of AC's is going to cause the shells to take divergent courses. It also doesn't matter that none of these weapons have been built. The concept of burst weapons and it's effects on recoil is something well covered in real life. I personally have experience with the M-16 and firing it on burst vs firing it on single fire.

Fourth the weapons aren't going to be any different in profile than they were in the TT or previous iterations of the game. Gauss weapons and PPC's are going to have a much much greater range than AC/20's that's how it's always been. Only now while your AC/20 is only going to do it's full damage within it's short-extreme range envelope, it will also do damage beyond it's extreme range, only now the damage is going to be partial and spread out.

If an AC/20 has a range of Xm it will do max damage to one location if fired from Xm or less. X+1m or greater the damage is going to start to spread out across multiple locations and is going to be a ratio of the total damage based on how many shells are fired.

Lastly there is a large difference between effective range and absolute range. For example an M-16 has a max effective range of 500m that being the greatest distance you can expect it to reliably hit it's target. It has a max range of 800m which is as far as you can expect it to travel and still have enough force to kill someone. However you have to be insanely good, be firing the right kind of round with perfect conditions to even expect to hit anything at 800m. 800m isn't even the range at which the round looses it's momentum and falls to the ground. It will keep flying even further, though I'm not sure how much further.

When I say max effective range I'm not talking about the point where the rounds loose their kinetic energy. I'm talking about the point where the group of rounds is no longer going to be striking in close proximity. That point defines the max effective range because beyond that the weapon will no longer achieve the desired effects because the actual bullets fired in the burst will have spread out too much.

If the weapon fired all rounds from a burst in parallel, or more accurately along the exact same trajectory, then they would all impact on the exact same point no matter how far from the barrel they were. The reality is much different where a burst of three rounds is going to see the bullets traveling on slightly different trajectories due to recoil.

Now I think you believe I'm saying that every time you fire an AC it's rounds are going to travel on wildly different paths. That's not the case, every time you fire an AC the rounds should go where you aimed and if you aimed at the same spot then they should land in roughly the same spot as long as nothing major changed. What I'm saying is that every time you fire an AC you're not firing one bullet you're firing several and if you fire at something outside your max effective range then those multiple bullets from you shot are going to spread out and not hit all in the same spot. If you're firing within maximum range then all those bullets from the shot you just fired will hit in the same spot.

Strum Wealh, on 27 February 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

Standard IS AC-20 with standard (high-explosive, armor-piercing) munitions
Standard BT rules dictate that 1 hex = 30 meters
short range: up to 3 hexes (90 meters)
medium range: up to 6 hexes (180 meters)
long range: up to 9 hexes (270 meters)
extreme range: up to 12 hexes (360 meters)
estimated caliber range: 150-203+ mm

(See here for my estimates for AC calibers and muzzle velocities...)

Said AC-20 doesn't do any damage - at all - beyond 12 hexes (360 meters, under standard BT rules) - that is the absolute maximum range, because that is how the game is made.

I, myself, have previously suggested using the BattleForce conversion (1 hex = 180 meters) for weapon ranges; this would give the same AC-20 (along with Medium Lasers and SRMs, which share the same range brackets) a long range of 1,620 meters and an extreme range of 2,160 meters.
(Incidentally, it brings a fair number of weapons into range brackets that better reflect their real-life equivalents fairly well... )

Part of the problem with using the BF values is that the maps would need to be enormous (on the order of 14+ km on a side) in order to accommodate the actual long-range weapons (as LB-X AC-2s would then have an extreme range of 6,480 meters, Gauss Rifles and PPCs would have extreme ranges on the order of 4.3 to 5.4 km, and artillery would have a range of ~61 km), and a lot of combat would become "use of traditional close-quarters-combat weapons to snipe from kilometers away" and "beyond visual range bombardment".
Not to mention that, at common 'Mech speeds (50-80 kph for all but the lightest and most fleet-footed of designs), getting even half-way across said map will take a significant amount of the total time (the Devs' target, IIRC, being on the order of 20 minutes).
(Though, if they are aiming for 20-minute company vs company (12 vs 12) matches, perhaps the maps will be that big anyway? )

So, the weapons have artificially short ranges, to basically force the 'Mechs into close-range, in-your-face combat.

Honestly it doesn't really matter what ranges are used. The absurdly short tabletop rules or more realistic ranges. Either way the concept is going to stay the same, bursts will fire rounds on slightly diverging trajectories, once the group is no longer tight enough to achieve the desired results then it is beyond the maximum effective range or "extreme" range by TT parlance. However since the rounds aren't going to say to themselves "this is as far as mommy gun says I can go I'd better stop" and just drop from the sky at that point there is a chance for individual rounds to still strike a target. Which is why I feel the rounds should be tracked individually and do partial damage if even one hits the target.

As for the Battle Force numbers I had no idea that even existed and I'm going to have to look it up. I understand that the TT games use much shorter ranges to keep the maps manageable and to keep 'Mech speeds from either being insanely fast or only being able to move one or two hexes per round, I just wish that the authors hadn't been so literal when they wrote the books using TT distances.

Strum Wealh, on 27 February 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

Though, you're right - the fluff, to the best of our knowledge (who knows - there may be some throw-away line in one of the novels ) doesn't indicate how many shells the Cauldron-Born's UAC-20 fires, nor does it indicate (again, to the best of our knowledge) whether the Demolisher's AC-20s fire more shells, or if it fires the same number of shells at a higher velocity (though, slightly smaller shells at a higher muzzle velocity should increase the range of the weapon...), or how different the other dimensions or the composition of UAC HEAP shells is from that of standard AC HEAP shells (though, the differences are obviously enough that UACs cannot use special munitions, while standard ACs can do so).

Part of what is being discussed is the justifications for the rather short ranges (e.g. blooming for lasers and PPCs).

Considering that the recoil of the GAU-8 Avenger (pretty much the equivalent to a RAC-2) is on the order of 10,000 pound-force (45,000 newtons, or a little over 4.5 metric tons of force) and a 203 mm AC is roughly the equivalent of an 8" howitzer (like the M110, for example) with a rather short barrel, they may use relatively light charges to avoid knocking the firing 'Mech over (especially when mounted high above the CG, as would be the case with something like a Hunchback, for example) or ripping the arm off if mounted in the arm (as was the case with the aforementioned Cauldron-Born and the Centurion known as Yen-Lo-Wang, with recoil ripping the arms off being explicitly stated to be the reason why Heavy Gauss Rifles cannot be mounted in the arms of 'Mechs).

Well we actually know that the UAC-20 has to be firing at least 2 rounds when fired using the UAC's special ability. Though if I recall correctly you have to roll a different location for damage for the second set of damage. If so it lends credence to the "recoil affects effective range" idea I've been pushing. I still don't think there can be any real justification for the 203mm AC or UAC for not firing at least 2 rounds, unless maybe you're using Battle Force ranges. Anything shorter than Battle Force ranges and you have to have multiple rounds from the 203mm or the 270m max range doesn't make sense.

Strum Wealh, on 27 February 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

So, it's an issue of "we know what the ranges are, but what should happen (or is happening) between range brackets - specifically, between the 'long' and 'extreme' range brackets - to justify such short ranges and how should that generally affect any given weapon's performance in the long-to-extreme bracket"...

Your thoughts?

Personally the way I see it is that every weapon has a cone of probablity. The closer to the shooter that cone is the smaller the cone is going to be. Skill, quality of the weapon, quality of the ammo, how recent the last maintainance was, etc. all go to factor the size of the cone. It's an idea that's fairly well grounded in reality.

So the short, medium, long and extreme ranges are just arbitrary measurements. Perhaps they're based on taking the effective range and dividing it into 4 even chunks. The modifier just represents that it's harder to hit something in that bracket because there's a much larger potential area for the round to land in. Simplifies the system to make it easy to play on a table top.

In a computer game we shouldn't have to break the ranges up into brackets and average the increase in difficulty. A cone is projected out and represented by a circle for a targeting cue instead of the traditional crosshairs in a shooter. The further away the target the less of it is in your cone of probablity and the less likely you're going to hit it.

Once you reach the Maximum effective range or the "extreme" range then the damage done is based on a ratio of the number of rounds in the burst. Making it theoretically possible to hit multiple targets with the same AC/20 shot only with reduced damage on each, if you can get them all in your cone and far enough away from you

As for justifying the short ranges, if that's the way you want to go. The musculature of a 'Mech means that it cannot handle the extreme recoil of a high velocity round such as would be fired by an M1 Abrams. This isn't a big deal because a HV round would a) shatter before it's HEAT warhead went off, b ) make accurate burst firing at any range impossible, c) likely knock a 'Mech over from recoil if fired in bursts. Larger caliber lower velocity weapons are used because of lower recoil and the fact they can carry a more potent HEAT charge. Lower velocity means shorter range, coupled with the concept of maximum effective range being based on the grouping of a burst you decrease the range even more. Stretch this reasoning a little and you have a close enough reason for the short ranges.

Back to you Strum.

Edited by Kartr, 27 February 2012 - 09:26 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Kartr, on 27 February 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

Ok first I understand, every game needs balance and sticking perfectly to real world mechanics isn't possible. Second we already have games where moving+convergance+weapons spread+firing at moving targets are all calculated and exist.

First example that comes to mind is Mass Effect. Based on the amount of training and experience you had with a particular weapon, the quality and type of weapon and whether or not you were moving were all factored into how accurate you were, as was recoil. The game was very fun and sighting was very simple and intuitive. It was a simple circle that grew smaller the higher your training and the better quality weapon you had. Movement and recoil increased the diameter of the circle temporarily. Any time you fired your shots could go anywhere in the circle.

The second example is World of Tanks which uses a very very similar system. WoT is also a F2P only multiplayer game that the devs said has had an influence on the MW:O design. MW:O also sounds like it's going to have many similar components. So the balance can be achieved and can be fun.

Third point, it doesn't matter what numbers I use for the ranges, whether they're from table top or based on real world weapons. Either way the burst firing nature of AC's is going to cause the shells to take divergent courses. It also doesn't matter that none of these weapons have been built. The concept of burst weapons and it's effects on recoil is something well covered in real life. I personally have experience with the M-16 and firing it on burst vs firing it on single fire.

Fourth the weapons aren't going to be any different in profile than they were in the TT or previous iterations of the game. Gauss weapons and PPC's are going to have a much much greater range than AC/20's that's how it's always been. Only now while your AC/20 is only going to do it's full damage within it's short-extreme range envelope, it will also do damage beyond it's extreme range, only now the damage is going to be partial and spread out.

If an AC/20 has a range of Xm it will do max damage to one location if fired from Xm or less. X+1m or greater the damage is going to start to spread out across multiple locations and is going to be a ratio of the total damage based on how many shells are fired.

Lastly there is a large difference between effective range and absolute range. For example an M-16 has a max effective range of 500m that being the greatest distance you can expect it to reliably hit it's target. It has a max range of 800m which is as far as you can expect it to travel and still have enough force to kill someone. However you have to be insanely good, be firing the right kind of round with perfect conditions to even expect to hit anything at 800m. 800m isn't even the range at which the round looses it's momentum and falls to the ground. It will keep flying even further, though I'm not sure how much further.

When I say max effective range I'm not talking about the point where the rounds loose their kinetic energy. I'm talking about the point where the group of rounds is no longer going to be striking in close proximity. That point defines the max effective range because beyond that the weapon will no longer achieve the desired effects because the actual bullets fired in the burst will have spread out too much.

If the weapon fired all rounds from a burst in parallel, or more accurately along the exact same trajectory, then they would all impact on the exact same point no matter how far from the barrel they were. The reality is much different where a burst of three rounds is going to see the bullets traveling on slightly different trajectories due to recoil.

Now I think you believe I'm saying that every time you fire an AC it's rounds are going to travel on wildly different paths. That's not the case, every time you fire an AC the rounds should go where you aimed and if you aimed at the same spot then they should land in roughly the same spot as long as nothing major changed. What I'm saying is that every time you fire an AC you're not firing one bullet you're firing several and if you fire at something outside your max effective range then those multiple bullets from you shot are going to spread out and not hit all in the same spot. If you're firing within maximum range then all those bullets from the shot you just fired will hit in the same spot.



Honestly it doesn't really matter what ranges are used. The absurdly short tabletop rules or more realistic ranges. Either way the concept is going to stay the same, bursts will fire rounds on slightly diverging trajectories, once the group is no longer tight enough to achieve the desired results then it is beyond the maximum effective range or "extreme" range by TT parlance. However since the rounds aren't going to say to themselves "this is as far as mommy gun says I can go I'd better stop" and just drop from the sky at that point there is a chance for individual rounds to still strike a target. Which is why I feel the rounds should be tracked individually and do partial damage if even one hits the target.

As for the Battle Force numbers I had no idea that even existed and I'm going to have to look it up. I understand that the TT games use much shorter ranges to keep the maps manageable and to keep 'Mech speeds from either being insanely fast or only being able to move one or two hexes per round, I just wish that the authors hadn't been so literal when they wrote the books using TT distances.



Well we actually know that the UAC-20 has to be firing at least 2 rounds when fired using the UAC's special ability. Though if I recall correctly you have to roll a different location for damage for the second set of damage. If so it lends credence to the "recoil affects effective range" idea I've been pushing. I still don't think there can be any real justification for the 203mm AC or UAC for not firing at least 2 rounds, unless maybe you're using Battle Force ranges. Anything shorter than Battle Force ranges and you have to have multiple rounds from the 203mm or the 270m max range doesn't make sense.



Personally the way I see it is that every weapon has a cone of probablity. The closer to the shooter that cone is the smaller the cone is going to be. Skill, quality of the weapon, quality of the ammo, how recent the last maintainance was, etc. all go to factor the size of the cone. It's an idea that's fairly well grounded in reality.

So the short, medium, long and extreme ranges are just arbitrary measurements. Perhaps they're based on taking the effective range and dividing it into 4 even chunks. The modifier just represents that it's harder to hit something in that bracket because there's a much larger potential area for the round to land in. Simplifies the system to make it easy to play on a table top.

In a computer game we shouldn't have to break the ranges up into brackets and average the increase in difficulty. A cone is projected out and represented by a circle for a targeting cue instead of the traditional crosshairs in a shooter. The further away the target the less of it is in your cone of probablity and the less likely you're going to hit it.

Once you reach the Maximum effective range or the "extreme" range then the damage done is based on a ratio of the number of rounds in the burst. Making it theoretically possible to hit multiple targets with the same AC/20 shot only with reduced damage on each, if you can get them all in your cone and far enough away from you

As for justifying the short ranges, if that's the way you want to go. The musculature of a 'Mech means that it cannot handle the extreme recoil of a high velocity round such as would be fired by an M1 Abrams. This isn't a big deal because a HV round would a) shatter before it's HEAT warhead went off, b ) make accurate burst firing at any range impossible, c) likely knock a 'Mech over from recoil if fired in bursts. Larger caliber lower velocity weapons are used because of lower recoil and the fact they can carry a more potent HEAT charge. Lower velocity means shorter range, coupled with the concept of maximum effective range being based on the grouping of a burst you decrease the range even more. Stretch this reasoning a little and you have a close enough reason for the short ranges.

Back to you Strum.

"Either way the concept is going to stay the same, bursts will fire rounds on slightly diverging trajectories, once the group is no longer tight enough to achieve the desired results then it is beyond the maximum effective range or "extreme" range by TT parlance."
This is where we seem to be having an issue.

I'm using the TT's "long range" in the same way that you're using "maximum effective range" ("once the group is no longer tight enough to achieve the desired results"), while I'm using the TT's "extreme range" to mean "the distance where external ballistics shows/determines that bullet drop has resulted in the shell hitting the ground and going no further".

As such, in a real-time computer game, the short-to-medium and medium-to-long range brackets would no longer be necessary - what would be needed are the minimum range bracket (for things like PPCs and missiles) and the long-to-extreme range bracket, where:
long range -> "maximum effective range", the distance from the weapon where shell-spread/KE/blooming/expending-all-fuel/etc begins to have a significant effect on the weapon' effectiveness
extreme range -> "absolute maximum range", the distance from the weapon where blooming has rendered the energy weapons inert and ballistic and missile rounds have met the ground (and most likely detonated, if explosive)

Is there some specific, technical term for "the maximum distance across flat-and-level terrain from the firing platform (placed at some standardized height) where an unpowered projectile, after having traveled through a ballistic trajectory, is no longer airborne and has struck the ground"?
Whatever that is, that's what I'm taking to be what the TT's "extreme range" represents.

As far as BattleForce, some info is here and here, with mention of the scale difference here.

"Well we actually know that the UAC-20 has to be firing at least 2 rounds when fired using the UAC's special ability. Though if I recall correctly you have to roll a different location for damage for the second set of damage. If so it lends credence to the "recoil affects effective range" idea I've been pushing. I still don't think there can be any real justification for the 203mm AC or UAC for not firing at least 2 rounds, unless maybe you're using Battle Force ranges. Anything shorter than Battle Force ranges and you have to have multiple rounds from the 203mm or the 270m max range doesn't make sense."

Well, what we know is that the UACs alternate fire mode makes them "capable of maintaining a substantially increased rate of fire over traditional or LB-X autocannons at the cost of higher heat and the risk of jamming".

Personally, I've taken the ammo counts in the TT to represent clips or magazines that hold one or more individual shells.
As an example, the TT lists AC-20 ammo as having five "units of ammo" per ton. Those units of ammo, however, could be (for example) en-bloc clips with (for example) ten 2-damage shells per clip (representing a total of 50 individual shells per ton), allowing the weapon to fire at an average rate one shell per second over the course of a TT turn (10 seconds) to empty one clip (thus decreasing the clip count by one).
Alternatively, each of the five clips could contain twenty 1-damage shells, or four 5-damage shells, or each "unit of ammo" could even represent a single, massive 20-damage shell.
(And, having to fit a variable number of shells into the same tonnage and volume limit would imply the different shell-per-clip groupings having different calibers but are fired in such a way that the average damage dealt per unit time is equal, which also helps to explain why ACs are grouped by "damage class" rather than by caliber.)

The UAC-20, then, could have some variant of dual-feed mechanism, which could allow it to have two clips loaded simultaneously and increase the action of the firing mechanism to achieve a higher average ROF by firing more shells per salvo (but firing salvos with the same frequency) or firing salvos with greater frequency (with the same number of shells per salvo), or both (firing salvos with greater frequency and having more shells per salvo).
Or, it could just have two clips in it and fire at the normal AC-20 ROF.

Also, the LB-X autocannons likely use a similar dual-feed mechanism to be able to switch between cluster rounds and slug rounds - the M242 Bushmaster apparently does this with its belt feed system, providing a real-life precedent for dual-feed weapons.

Your thoughts?

[MaddMaxx]

Just can't see 1hex = 180m. Assuming the Dev stay close to BT, not TT, a 6 fold increase in over-all Ranges would so shatter the known game rules as to be near untenable.

Given a supposed Urban environment (plus others) 1600m + ranges seems a bit over the top. Maps would have to be HUGE and unit scales would have to be Massive in order to see anything to shoot at out to those Ranges.

Tracking individual Ballistics beyond what is known to be Extreme range is obviously doable, but is it really practical? One has to assume that said tracking is wanted in case the intended target is missed, but that still leaves a "chance" the initial Miss is not total.

Perhaps a unit standing down range of the intended target may get struck and although the damage imparted would be reduced, due to known Ballistic maths, well represented in the thread, one could be consoled in the thought that at something was hit and my ammo was not a total waste.

Given the amount and weight of the ammo in the case of, for example, the AC10, 10/T or the Gauss Rifle 8/T weapons it is quite understandable the want/need for every shot to have the best chance available to damage an enemy target, but going to extremes to achieve it seems a tad to much.

The thought process behind these ideas are a marvel, yes we can track 500 missiles and each AC shell etc etc with trajectories and Ballistic speeds, most of which we can't even see in the game play environment and that bring me to my point I guess.

It is a game. The game will be confined to a finite space, The Maps. To achieve anything close to realistic Ballistics would required the expansion of these finite space so much as to make them become unrealistic for a proper game environment. Thus we have come full circle.

Does taking the known Game rules, then expanding them into our known reality, until they once again become so unrealistic as to once again be fanciful really help?

We are already using fanciful values, at fanciful ranges, driving fanciful machines. Does engorging them until we make them unrealistic again, given the finite game space we will face, do anything constructive?

It is matter of opinion I guess. All we can do is wait to see what the Devs opinion on the matter turns out to be.

[Kartr]

Strum Wealh, on 27 February 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

Is there some specific, technical term for "the maximum distance across flat-and-level terrain from the firing platform (placed at some standardized height) where an unpowered projectile, after having traveled through a ballistic trajectory, is no longer airborne and has struck the ground"?
Whatever that is, that's what I'm taking to be what the TT's "extreme range" represents.

I'm not 100% but I believe it's called terminal. A round is terminal when gravity finally pulls it into the ground. Even if it's not correct, it's close enough and gives us a common term to reduce confusion. So from this point forward I will refer to the point where missiles and ballistic weapons impact into the ground as the terminal point, or when they go terminal.

Strum Wealh, on 27 February 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

Quote

"Either way the concept is going to stay the same, bursts will fire rounds on slightly diverging trajectories, once the group is no longer tight enough to achieve the desired results then it is beyond the maximum effective range or "extreme" range by TT parlance."

This is where we seem to be having an issue.

I'm using the TT's "long range" in the same way that you're using "maximum effective range" ("once the group is no longer tight enough to achieve the desired results"), while I'm using the TT's "extreme range" to mean "the distance where external ballistics shows/determines that bullet drop has resulted in the shell hitting the ground and going no further".

Ah ok, my only problem with this is that using the TT values the extreme range is much to short for that point. The rounds should travel at least a km before they go terminal. Using Battle Force numbers it would be acceptable.

Strum Wealh, on 27 February 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

As such, in a real-time computer game, the short-to-medium and medium-to-long range brackets would no longer be necessary - what would be needed are the minimum range bracket (for things like PPCs and missiles) and the long-to-extreme range bracket, where:
long range -> "maximum effective range", the distance from the weapon where shell-spread/KE/blooming/expending-all-fuel/etc begins to have a significant effect on the weapon' effectiveness
extreme range -> "absolute maximum range", the distance from the weapon where blooming has rendered the energy weapons inert and ballistic and missile rounds have met the ground (and most likely detonated, if explosive)

Personally I think the terminal range is something we shouldn't have to worry about, except perhaps with missiles.

No matter which system TT or BF missiles are going to have a short terminal range, but a longer effective range because of their guidance. Bullets have a much greater velocity so they travel much further for every meter they drop than a missile does.

If the devs use close to or TT ranges, which I expect and hope for as engaging at 2km is going to be extremely difficult without the targeting systems modern tanks use. Then the terminal point for any round will be outside the map.

So if long range is the maximum effective range, then after that the shells should be dispersed beyond the point where they would all strike a single facing. Eventually the would be spread so far apart the fly around 'Mech sized targets in the center of your reticle. By the time they go terminal they will be outside the map and beyond our need to worry about them.

Strum Wealh, on 27 February 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

As far as BattleForce, some info is here and here, with mention of the scale difference here.

Thanks I'll look at that this evening.

Strum Wealh, on 27 February 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

Quote

"Well we actually know that the UAC-20 has to be firing at least 2 rounds when fired using the UAC's special ability. Though if I recall correctly you have to roll a different location for damage for the second set of damage. If so it lends credence to the "recoil affects effective range" idea I've been pushing. I still don't think there can be any real justification for the 203mm AC or UAC for not firing at least 2 rounds, unless maybe you're using Battle Force ranges. Anything shorter than Battle Force ranges and you have to have multiple rounds from the 203mm or the 270m max range doesn't make sense."

Well, what we know is that the UACs alternate fire mode makes them "capable of maintaining a substantially increased rate of fire over traditional or LB-X autocannons at the cost of higher heat and the risk of jamming".

We actually know more from the way they work on the TT. Fire an UAC like a normal AC and it behaves like a normal AC, use it's special UAC ability and it fires twice per attack. In TT terms you roll to hit and you get to deal 40 pts of damage, 2 20pt attacks with separate location rolls. We also know it eats up double the ammunition. In real world terms it fires a hammer pair.

Strum Wealh, on 27 February 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

Personally, I've taken the ammo counts in the TT to represent clips or magazines that hold one or more individual shells.
As an example, the TT lists AC-20 ammo as having five "units of ammo" per ton. Those units of ammo, however, could be (for example) en-bloc clips with (for example) ten 2-damage shells per clip (representing a total of 50 individual shells per ton), allowing the weapon to fire at an average rate one shell per second over the course of a TT turn (10 seconds) to empty one clip (thus decreasing the clip count by one).
Alternatively, each of the five clips could contain twenty 1-damage shells, or four 5-damage shells, or each "unit of ammo" could even represent a single, massive 20-damage shell.
(And, having to fit a variable number of shells into the same tonnage and volume limit would imply the different shell-per-clip groupings having different calibers but are fired in such a way that the average damage dealt per unit time is equal, which also helps to explain why ACs are grouped by "damage class" rather than by caliber.)

I agree with you 100% here, the ammo is always listed as shots per ton rather than as rounds. For a Gauss rifle there's likely no difference, one shot one round. For AC's though since they fire bursts there has to be more than one round per point of ammo. Clips makes though clips would be hard to feed, so maybe there's a sort of trough or built in clip. Each point of ammo contains enough rounds to fill that trough/integral clip and the weapon only fires once that clip is full and then it fires all the rounds in the clip in quick succession.

I just don't think it's going to fire 1rd/s if it has 20 rounds per clip. That ROF is way to slow to fit in with burst firing. On the range using semi-auto I could fire a hammer pair (2rds) at a targets center hit box and fire an aimed shot at the head in about 1s. Using burst mode that went up to 9rds and took about twice as long.

The AC likely fires it's entire clip in just a couple seconds, regardless of how many individual rounds are in it. Then the rest of the game round is spent reloading the clip. This also helps the rounds strike closer together as they're firing quick enough that it helps minimize the amount recoil will throw them off. Plus striking as quickly as possible against the target could possibly induce shockwaves that slam into each other the way they do in a human body that'* *** by a burst or hammer pair.

Strum Wealh, on 27 February 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

The UAC-20, then, could have some variant of dual-feed mechanism, which could allow it to have two clips loaded simultaneously and increase the action of the firing mechanism to achieve a higher average ROF by firing more shells per salvo (but firing salvos with the same frequency) or firing salvos with greater frequency (with the same number of shells per salvo), or both (firing salvos with greater frequency and having more shells per salvo).
Or, it could just have two clips in it and fire at the normal AC-20 ROF.

Also, the LB-X autocannons likely use a similar dual-feed mechanism to be able to switch between cluster rounds and slug rounds - the M242 Bushmaster apparently does this with its belt feed system, providing a real-life precedent for dual-feed weapons.

Your thoughts?

An AC/20 could have 2 integral clips and be designed to take feed from both. Fire it normally and only one clip is emptied, fire it in Ultra mode and it empties one and then the other in rapid succession. An a LB-X on the other hand probably only has one clip but it can be fed from two different locations. Select cluster rounds and the clip is fed from the cluster ammo, select normal rounds and it's fed from the normal rounds. Once loaded it spits out the clip in rapid succession and then once done firing the feeder fills the clip back up with the appropriate roungds.

That's how I see it working and fitting with both the rules and fluff. I'm pretty sure AC's are not belt fed weaponry otherwise they wouldn't fire bursts according to the fluff. Also what point would the RAC's be if you already had fully automatic (ie beltfed) ACs?

MaddMaxx, on 28 February 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

Tracking individual Ballistics beyond what is known to be Extreme range is obviously doable, but is it really practical? One has to assume that said tracking is wanted in case the intended target is missed, but that still leaves a "chance" the initial Miss is not total.

Perhaps a unit standing down range of the intended target may get struck and although the damage imparted would be reduced, due to known Ballistic maths, well represented in the thread, one could be consoled in the thought that at something was hit and my ammo was not a total waste.

Given the amount and weight of the ammo in the case of, for example, the AC10, 10/T or the Gauss Rifle 8/T weapons it is quite understandable the want/need for every shot to have the best chance available to damage an enemy target, but going to extremes to achieve it seems a tad to much.

The thought process behind these ideas are a marvel, yes we can track 500 missiles and each AC shell etc etc with trajectories and Ballistic speeds, most of which we can't even see in the game play environment and that bring me to my point I guess.

It is a game. The game will be confined to a finite space, The Maps. To achieve anything close to realistic Ballistics would required the expansion of these finite space so much as to make them become unrealistic for a proper game environment. Thus we have come full circle.

Does taking the known Game rules, then expanding them into our known reality, until they once again become so unrealistic as to once again be fanciful really help?

We are already using fanciful values, at fanciful ranges, driving fanciful machines. Does engorging them until we make them unrealistic again, given the finite game space we will face, do anything constructive?

It is matter of opinion I guess. All we can do is wait to see what the Devs opinion on the matter turns out to be.

I agree with you that we can't have game maps that would allow for realistic ranges on the weapons. I also agree that we will probably see ranges more in line with TT numbers, especially since the devs have stated they don't want this to turn into a sniping game.

I still think we can and should have rounds that continue to disperse and travel even after they've passed the extreme range according to TT rules. The point anything de-rezzes should be when it passes outside the game map boundries. Up until that point there's a chance that an understrength PPC/Laser beam, or a single shell from an AC burst could still strike a target and do partial damage.

You don't even really have to render the rounds, it's almost impossible to see a bullet in flight unless you're positioned almost directly behind the shooter and know what you're looking for. All that has to be done is plot trajectories, which should already be done when you're aiming anyway and then attach damage values to a point on the trajectory based how long it's been since the round exited the barrel. All values and trajectories go away when they reach the map edge or strikes a 'Mech or building. At the speed which these weapons travel it wouldn't take long for the rounds to pass out of the map or strike something.

[Roh]

My comp isn't great. No real need to push things more than needed. I would rather those bits of processing power be spent on things that matter more.

[Sug]

Roh, on 28 February 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

My comp isn't great. No real need to push things more than needed. I would rather those bits of processing power be spent on things that matter more.

Most pc games that aren't a direct console port allow you to tweak the graphic effects to whatever your comp can handle. Even the ports usually have a Low, Med, High, setting.

[Leetskeet]

As much as I would like everything to have full physics, it's probably not going to be the case.

What I expect to see is AC20's and AC10's arcing down severely after their effective range, and doing less damage the farther they travel past that point. This way you can certainly engage some one outside of your range with AC's, but it's going to take a bit of aiming prowess and they're not going to hurt near as much as they ought to. AC5's and 2's may get the physics treatment as well, but it isn't going to be as noticeable or important as the larger shells, so they may just travel a bit past their range and disappear.

But as a side note, I REALLY hope that the larger autocannons fire something that functions like a tank shell in say, Battlefield 3. Most games tend to portray them as a slow moving(in relation to an actual cannon) yellow ball and it drives me crazy. And in MW4 they shared their visual and functionality with pulse lasers and were just recolored yellow. They literally were a pulse laser than did more damage and pushed whatever they hit harder.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

From the fluff we do have some AC's firing one shell rather than a burst
Description

The Autocannon is a direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) rounds at targets either singly or in bursts.
Different manufacturers and models of autocannons have different calibers (25mm-203mm) and rates of fire. Due to this, autocannons are grouped into generic "classes" of autocannons with common damage ratings, with Autocannon/20s doing massive damage while having very short range.
An example of the rating system: the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon is a 150mm weapon firing ten shells per "round" while the Chemjet Gun is a 185mm weapon firing much slower (possibly 1 shell), and causing higher damage per shell. Despite their differences, both are classified as Autocannon/20s due to their damage output.

There is other info elsewhere which references the larger calibres firing 1 shell. These AC20's woul;d appear to be howitzers rather than cannon. ie similar to rhise used on the StuIG33 or the SturmTiger. These would be visible as they would have to be low velocity to have an effective range of only 270m (ie the range at which a target can be expected to be hit) .
This subject (AC's) has been kicked around since the '80s when BT came out as it has always been counter intuative.

[Kartr]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 28 February 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

From the fluff we do have some AC's firing one shell rather than a burst
Description

The Autocannon is a direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) rounds at targets either singly or in bursts.
Different manufacturers and models of autocannons have different calibers (25mm-203mm) and rates of fire. Due to this, autocannons are grouped into generic "classes" of autocannons with common damage ratings, with Autocannon/20s doing massive damage while having very short range.
An example of the rating system: the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon is a 150mm weapon firing ten shells per "round" while the Chemjet Gun is a 185mm weapon firing much slower (possibly 1 shell), and causing higher damage per shell. Despite their differences, both are classified as Autocannon/20s due to their damage output.

There is other info elsewhere which references the larger calibres firing 1 shell. These AC20's woul;d appear to be howitzers rather than cannon. ie similar to rhise used on the StuIG33 or the SturmTiger. These would be visible as they would have to be low velocity to have an effective range of only 270m (ie the range at which a target can be expected to be hit) .
This subject (AC's) has been kicked around since the '80s when BT came out as it has always been counter intuative.

Source? Not that I doubt you, I'd just like to look it up for myself and see what else it says.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Sarna, quote is from the section on AC's. This has been edited and earlier section was more emphatic about the larger calibres firing 1 shot. The links from mechs to the individual weapons are slightly different. Was also refererred to in the original ruleset.

[Strum Wealh]

Kartr, on 28 February 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Source? Not that I doubt you, I'd just like to look it up for myself and see what else it says.

It's from the AC-20 entry on Sarna.

From TechManual (pgs. 207-208):

Quote

For what amounts to one of the most basic combat systems on the modern battlefield, autocannons (often abbreviated as ACs) are a broadly varied class of rapid-firing, auto-loading, heavy ballistic weaponry — gigantic machine guns, in other words. With calibers ranging from 30 to 90 millimeters at the lighter end, to as much as 203 millimeters or more at the heaviest, most autocannons deliver their damage by firing high-speed streams or bursts of high-explosive, armor-defeating shells through one or more barrels. While caliber and firing rate can vary greatly, four main classes have emerged over the centuries, setting the standards by which all other ACs are rated, based on their relative ballistic damage. At the lightest end is the AC/2 class, followed by the long-time standard AC/5, then the heavy punch of the AC/10 class, and finally the brutal, close-in AC/20.
At the dawn of the BattleMech era, only two proven autocannon models existed: the AC/2 and the AC/5. Production model versions of the heavier AC/10 and the ’Mech-killing AC/20 did not appear until after 2460 and 2500, respectively (though the Mackie sported a prototype of the AC/10 as far back as its 2443 battlefield debut).
In the centuries since, additional autocannon variants have evolved, including the cluster-style LB-X, the high-speed Ultra and the multi-barreled, high-cycle rotary. These three autocannon styles — as well as the standard models — are discussed below.

-----

An improvement on the common autocannon intended to expand the weapon’s role into anti-vehicle and anti-infantry work, the LB-X makes use of light, heat-dissipating alloys to reduce its weight and thermal buildup. These materials, coupled with a smooth-bore, multi-munition feed mechanism, make the LB more expensive than standard autocannons. However, the slight range increase and the ability to switch between standard-style bursts and explosive cluster munitions — both specially developed for this weapon system — more than mitigate this higher cost.

-----

After spending nearly a decade in the prototype stages — long enough to actually give rise to the rotary AC — light autocannons (abbreviated as LACs) only hit full-scale production with the unveiling of Yeffters Weapons’ Mydron Flyswatter and Mydron Snakekiller models in 3068.
Ironically, what spurred this production was the destruction of the NAIS, where these weapons were first developed. It may be a bit of poetic justice that the first models were rushed to the battlefields of New Avalon to help drive back the Blakists’ first assault against the planet. Since then, however, Imperator Automatic Weaponry has begun producing its own versions for the Free Worlds League and their Robe allies.
Built smaller and with shorter ranges, light ACs exist only in the lower calibers (LAC/2 and LAC/5), but benefit from the ability to use the advanced munitions that LB-X, rotary and Ultra ACs cannot. The Clans, who have not seen much use for specialized ammunition and who still possess autocannons superior to even these versions, have shown little interest in duplicating this innovation, though the same cannot be said of the other Inner Sphere states.

-----

Another product of our own New Avalon Institute of Science, the rotary autocannon (RAC for short) is, at its heart, an effort to obtain an even higher rate of fire than the Ultra-class autocannon outlined below. Using multiple barrels to attain up to three times the volume of an Ultra burst, this weapon is much heavier and bulkier than its standard-model cousins, and lacks the effective reach of even the Ultra AC series. Its inability to make use of most specialized munitions, coupled with its sheer expense, have prevented the rotary concept from entering the heavier-caliber brackets at this time. Balancing this, however, is the ability to clear weapon jams in the field—a feature lacking in Ultra autocannons. This is especially welcome as the RAC is particularly prone to jams at its higher firing rates.

-----

Today’s standard autocannon (identified as AC in shorthand) is functionally identical to the models used as far back as the days of the Terran Alliance. Designed to cope with improvements in armor technologies of the day, these weapons maintained their destructive edge through more than 800 years of battlefield evolution. Even so, their time was nearing its end when the newer Ultra and LB-X autocannon classes emerged. In fact, among the Clans these weapons have apparently ceased to exist (their last shots reportedly fired in the early 3050s, when they were mounted on machines largely regarded as refit museum pieces). Only their relatively inexpensive design, and the advent of specialized munitions usable by these weapons alone, has prevented the likes of Armstrong’s J11, Mydron models A through D, SarLon’s MaxiCannon and the Luxor Devastator-20 from becoming the next forgotten relics of history.

-----

The advanced Ultra autocannon system (UAC for short) was first developed at the height of the original Star League by Kawabata Weapons, Inc. of the Terran Hegemony. Capable of higher sustained rates of fire than standard or LB-X autocannons, Ultra ACs could dish out twice the punishment in the same amount of time. Unfortunately, these weapons are prone to occasional misfires and arming failures when pushing their maximum fire rates — a factor that forced many UACs into early retirement after the fall of the original Star League. Nevertheless, the Clans (and the Inner Sphere, after encountering the Clans) found enough merit in Ultra ACs to expand the concept across all the same grades as standard-model autocannons. Even though they cannot use special munitions (their own magazines are tailored to the high-speed firing modes, which can be dangerous or detrimental to most specialty ammo), these weapons remain popular for attack and assault units.

-----

Having long maintained an almost romantic affinity for the classic autocannon, the Federated Suns — primarily through the NAIS — expended enormous amounts of time and resources to expand the utility of these old reliable weapons. While some efforts wound up merely refining the likes of up-and-coming autocannon models such as rotaries and Ultras, the debut of specialized ammunitions — many first test-fired in the mid-3050s — breathed new life into the older standard classes.

The Clans have yet to field any specialized autocannon munitions in combat, save for LB-X cluster munitions. The reasons why are unclear, but engineers have considered the lack of standard-style ACs in the Clan arsenal as one possible reason, coupled with the usage of different alloys and propellants than those of Spheroid autocannons that render such specialty ammo more a liability than a boon.

Armor-Piercing Ammunition: First prototyped by the FedSuns in 3053 and reaching standard production by 3059, armor-piercing (AP) ammo uses advanced ballistic materials and improved anti-armor warheads to deliver a punch hard enough to damage internal systems through otherwise fresh armor. Available solely to standard AC types, the drawback to this greater punch is the fact that the increased weight of this ammo impairs its firing accuracy and the number of rounds that can be loaded into a given bin.

Flechette Ammunition: Developed by the FedSuns in 3055 for standard ACs, flechette munitions deliver a shotgun-like blast of metal shards rather than a stream of shells. Intended for use against infantry, flechette rounds can wipe out entire platoons of conventional troops in seconds and can even ravage battle-armored squads, but this ammo type loses effectiveness against armored targets such as vehicles and ‘Mechs.

Precision Ammunition: The most sophisticated of the advanced munitions for standard ACs, precision ammo was developed in 3062. This ammo type uses specialized gyrojet shells that incorporate advanced targeting circuitry, enabling them to auto-correct their aim while in flight. Highly expensive and heavy to boot, use of precision ammo—particularly in the higher calibers—can leave an attacker empty in surprisingly short order.

LB-X Cluster Ammunition: Cluster munitions for the LB-X AC series debuted, went extinct and were recovered at the same time as the LB-X class of ACs themselves. These munitions may only be used by LB-X class autocannons and do not benefit from targeting computer assistance because of their scattershot nature, but are effective against nearly all battlefield units, particularly vehicles and aircraft.

Also of interest is the entry on the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon:

Quote

Ceres Metals Industries/Ceres Arms/Crusher/Super Heavy Cannon (AC-20)

Mounted on the Quickscell Hetzer Combat Vehicle, this weapon fires shells in the 150 mm range in ten shot bursts.
=== Canon vs Not ===
The Fluff is rephrased Canon, but the RPG Stats are derivative using the IPCR for the Damage Stats, and doing a formulaic extrapolation from 180 meters at Short Range to the MechWarrior, Third Edition ranges incorporating the +1 modifier that a "Regular" MechWarrior Starts at in the RPG. When using in the RPG, use the gunnery skill bonus in addition to the +2 bonus that Combat Vehicles and BattleMechs get because they automaticly carry the equivelent of an Advanced Fire Control system.

So, we know that one variant of AC-20 fires ten 150 mm shells per burst.
This, however, doesn't necessarily preclude other, larger-bore models from firing fewer shells (or even single shells) per burst, yes?

[Sug]

God I love fluff.

[MaddMaxx]

or the thought of 400lbs slugs (+/- 8" diameter) traveling @ 1.5 mach slamming into the enemy.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 28 February 2012 - 12:08 PM.

[Kartr]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 28 February 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

Sarna, quote is from the section on AC's. This has been edited and earlier section was more emphatic about the larger calibres firing 1 shot. The links from mechs to the individual weapons are slightly different. Was also refererred to in the original ruleset.

Quote

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. [...] With the fluffed number of shells and caliber being specified, no Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each "round" or burst of fire. | http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon |

It won't let me access the page history right now, but I know this is what the AC entry has said for a while. Note that an autocannon is defined as an auto-loading direct-fire ballistic weapon that fires rounds in bursts. Also no caliber has been specified to shoot only one round per "burst."

I need to get a copy of the original ruleset, but from what I remember of the Revised Master Rules it doesn't say anything about heavier AC's only firing one round.

Quote

An example of the rating system: the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon is a 150mm weapon firing ten shells per "round" while the Chemjet Gun is a 185mm weapon firing much slower (possibly 1 shell), and causing higher damage per shell. Despite their differences, both are classified as Autocannon/20s due to their damage output. | http://www.sarna.net...i/Autocannon/20 |

The AC/20 page says that the 185mm cannon may fire one round. However it's only "possible" not 100% and the idea that a 1x185mm shell does as much damage as 10x150mm shells is rather unbelievable in my mind. The two main articles on large caliber AC's does not say certain calibers fire a single shot, in fact it seems pretty heavily weighted towards firing bursts.

Strum Wealh, on 28 February 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

From TechManual (pgs. 207-208):

Quote

For what amounts to one of the most basic combat systems on the modern battlefield, autocannons (often abbreviated as ACs) are a broadly varied class of rapid-firing, auto-loading, heavy ballistic weaponry — gigantic machine guns, in other words. With calibers ranging from 30 to 90 millimeters at the lighter end, to as much as 203 millimeters or more at the heaviest, most autocannons deliver their damage by firing high-speed streams or bursts of high-explosive, armor-defeating shells through one or more barrels. While caliber and firing rate can vary greatly, four main classes have emerged over the centuries, setting the standards by which all other ACs are rated, based on their relative ballistic damage. At the lightest end is the AC/2 class, followed by the long-time standard AC/5, then the heavy punch of the AC/10 class, and finally the brutal, close-in AC/20.

Sounds like what we've been theorizing.

Strum Wealh, on 28 February 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

From TechManual (pgs. 207-208):

Quote

An improvement on the common autocannon intended to expand the weapon’s role into anti-vehicle and anti-infantry work, the LB-X makes use of light, heat-dissipating alloys to reduce its weight and thermal buildup. These materials, coupled with a smooth-bore, multi-munition feed mechanism, make the LB more expensive than standard autocannons. However, the slight range increase and the ability to switch between standard-style bursts and explosive cluster munitions — both specially developed for this weapon system — more than mitigate this higher cost.

If it utilize a built in clip like I theorized it would need a special "multi-munition feed mechanism" to allow it to take ammo from different "bins."

Edited by Kartr, 28 February 2012 - 02:38 PM.