90 replies to this topic

[Hayashi]

zwaps, on 20 March 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

I love the efford you put in this but starting to argue about the realism of giant future fighting robots will lead to more questions than we can possibly answer.

Imo knockback needs to feel right and if there is a feasable scientific explanation then great but it still needs to feel right.

I'd be not opposed to the "knockforward" laser thing, though then I'd doubt the gyro would have much trouble with a couple of armor plates missing.

To be honest I'd prefer it have no knocking effect at all. Makes it easier on the devs. And even if there was some kind of armour melting effect, its momentum effect would likely be less than that of a Machine Gun.

I do prefer things to make sense. It doesn't need to be fully realistic, but it shouldn't act contrary to physical principles. After all, the ability to project 1000 grams of protons at 500 ms-1 with a 1m3 device is hardly realistic anyway.

Though honestly, I can't help but wonder if actual calculations like what we did are necessary. I get the impression that if I were to make up 70% of my calcs nobody would even notice anything is wrong, judging by some of the responses to the thread so far.

[Strum Wealh]

Hayashi, on 20 March 2012 - 04:09 AM, said:

Given again a 10 ton Atlas arm as a target at which we shoot the AC, we would achieve 3333 ish kgms-1, or 3.333 tonms-1. This would move the 10 ton arm approximately 0.33ms-1 backward, or 1.188km/h. Repeating calculations we obtain 2.16km/h for the AC/5, 4.32km/h for the AC/10 and 8.32km/h for the AC/20. This gives the knockback velocity of an AC 5 a similar, but slightly higher value to that of a PPC, which is within reasonable estimates. And it gives people a reason to use the AC/5 over the PPC when IIRC they have the same damage values, the PPC is lighter, and it has no ammunition restrictions/explosion risk.

I approve of these calculations. Not that a random player's approval matters, but I think we got something going here.

However, this is for a single shell. If we're talking 10 of them AC/20s, your calculations give the weapon the capability to accelerate the Atlas arm at 80km/h, which is faster than the velocity of the entire Atlas itself, while also accelerating the entire Atlas backwards at approximately 8km/h. This basically knocks the Atlas over while the arm flies backwards at an appallingly fast rate.

Therefore, we'd probably have to either drop the size of the AC/20 estimate, or reduce the AC to only 1 shell per fire.

Well, what I posted was supposed to represent the high-end of each weapon's per-shell damage capability in terms of raw energy.

The numbers could easily change due to a variety of factors - higher or lower muzzle velocities, higher or lower percentages of explosive material vs total shell weight, use of different explosive material (those that I cited are among the most powerful, but are still in the experimental/developmental stages).
For example, the AC-20 shell I described (20 kg mass, ~600 m/s velocity, explosive charge is ~15% of shell mass, charge has a R.E. Factor of 2.7 (representing Octanitrocubane)) should have a total energy output (KE + explosive energy) of about 37.49 MJ.
By contrast, a different AC-20 shell (20 kg mass, ~600 m/s velocity, explosive charge is ~4% of shell mass, charge has a R.E. Factor of 1.0 (representing TNT)) should have a total energy output (KE + explosive energy) of about 6.95 MJ.
And even then, not all of the shells' energy is going to be transferred to the BattleMech instantaneously - there would be losses and inefficiencies.

Also, as BattleMech armor is ablative, a large portion of that energy (mainly the explosive component) would be carried away by the ablating armor material, sparing the 'Mech from most of its effects, yes?

So, for most cases, we'd probably be looking at ~3-4 MJ being transferred to the target 'Mech per AC-20 shell, yes?
Assuming 10 such shells (from, say, a Hetzer's gun) struck a 100-ton (100,000 kg) Atlas, the ~40 MJ being transferred to the Atlas - together with the loss of over a ton of armor - should produce a noticeable but reasonable effect...

(Though, the lower energy outputs for high-damage weapons do make 'Mech armor seem so much less impressive... )

Your thoughts?

[Togg Bott]

to set the rcord straight, yes lasers have knockback.

not from the kenetic energy transfer of solid objects impacting each other.

BUT from the release of energy in the reaction of metal being transformed from a solid to a gas. thats alot of energy being released ,and in the span of milli-seconds would feel similar if not exactly like a solid impact.

yes. i have the engineering background to say this with confidence. if you need a reference then here is one you MIGHT trust.. http://en.wikipedia....rm_dense_matter this is the action created by hitting a object with a laser

[StaIker]

Romeox, on 20 March 2012 - 12:23 AM, said:

I do not undersatnd why Lazzors should knockback your enemy. Lasers are beams of light resulting to melt the enemys armor because of the heat they produce. There s no kinetic energy involved which could knockback the enemy mech.

Would you "knockback" when i ´d show you a lamp ?

Lasers, that is real lasers, vaporise the material they hit rather than melt it and the rapidly expanding bubble of gas (the vaporised material) acts exactly the same as the rapidly expanding gas from a chemical explosion, such as an artillery shell. Having a laser vaporise 20kg of material in milliseconds is physically the same as detonating a quantity of explosives to achieve the same effect. The knock effect is the impact of the expanding gas, whether from an explosion or vaporisation.

lol, Togg beat me to it.

Edited by StaIker, 22 March 2012 - 10:33 PM.

[Howlin Wolf]

I dont know the math I only know what i saw. Watching a military grade laser cut a large square out of a piece of titanium. The back side of the plate looked as if a blow torch hit it. A very very powerful blow torch. The chunks of molten metal flying from the back side and the red hot metal gives a look of being melted not becoming a gas . Not to mention the solidified metal blown out at a 90 degree angle to the target plate. As I said I dont know the math i just saw what i saw.

Interesting topic.

Edited by Howlin Wolf, 22 March 2012 - 10:53 PM.

[StaIker]

Cutting lasers are a different thing. While they do vaporise material as well, the quantities are so small that the gas and particulates floats away into the atmosphere without any noticable effect. Some materials vaporise completely and others also throw off melt, it's all a matter of material, cutting speed, laser power, cooling and so on. But to turn a giant hunk of metal into a hole in 100ms requires a staggering amount of energy. The process will be explosive.

[CCC Dober]

Hayashi, on 20 March 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

This is all about prior to gyro correction. If there is gyro correction the 'Mech would lean forward first and immediately lean back after to avoid falling over, if hit by a laser. Conversely, if hit by a projectile type, the 'Mech would be hit back first and immediately lean forward to avoid falling over.

This thread explains how and why that would happen, ad nauseum, not just by myself, but several other posters as well. So i take it you haven't been fortunate enough to read the preceding posts yet.

Gremlich Johns, on 20 March 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

Not so, theoretically the onboard stabilization systems would make the effect unnoticeable to you motion wise. Heat, now, that is a different story. Plus, Lasers have no noticeable Mass (not noticeable to a Human, anyway). Pulse lasers (a fiction atm) are wholly different, I imagine because of the amount of heat they would kick up after repeatedly hitting a spot/area on the mech (causing, I would think, a rapid expansion and contraction of air at the point of impact, imparting pseudo impact) But I am not sure, It sounded good to me at the time.

To both of you gents:
The good thing about BT is the adherence to basic physics. I take it that you have a good enough grasp on them to understand how energy weapons can cause knockback in MW. They do it indirectly by making the target shed armor layers and thus offset the center of gravity, as opposed to ballistic weapons that cause direct knockback on top of the indirect knockback effects. I have given you the clue and if you don't take them, I'm fine with that.

Given the way this thread is driven it would appear that certain unnamed people want energy weapons not to cause knockback and claim that physics don't allow for that (breaking news: they do!). If that is indeed so, come out and show your true colors. I've seen my share of 'lobbying' on forums and this thread is no different.

[Wild Cat]

I don't recall playing any game including the MechWarrior games on the PC where when you got hit, your aim got screwed up. The only thing I've see was camera shake, and that screws around with your mind more than it actually does with your true aim.


I'm really interested in actually seeing this in action and see how things balance out.

[Trogusaur]

Interestingly enough, I made a poll about this very subject almost two months ago, found here:
http://mwomercs.com/...375#entry112375

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Given that the consensus of opinion is for knockback what are your views on knockdown, which is actually in the rules. I started a thread quite a while back http://mwomercs.com/...e-of-knockdown/.
Looking at Strums figures the bottom end, ie 20 points would appear likely to be mostly affecting light mechs. Its equivalent to 1.25 tons of armour lost.

[LordDeathStrike]

StaIker, on 22 March 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

Lasers, that is real lasers, vaporise the material they hit rather than melt it and the rapidly expanding bubble of gas (the vaporised material) acts exactly the same as the rapidly expanding gas from a chemical explosion, such as an artillery shell. Having a laser vaporise 20kg of material in milliseconds is physically the same as detonating a quantity of explosives to achieve the same effect. The knock effect is the impact of the expanding gas, whether from an explosion or vaporisation.

lol, Togg beat me to it.

so a laser shot is like a single missile of an lrm salvo, a single missile of an lrm 20 wont knock ****, its all 20 hitting in a couple seconds 5 at a time that makes you shake, and in the case of star of vultures, 10 lrm 20 launchers all fireing on you at once = you gonna fall down teehee.

[Hayashi]

Strum Wealh, on 22 March 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

Well, what I posted was supposed to represent the high-end of each weapon's per-shell damage capability in terms of raw energy.

The numbers could easily change due to a variety of factors - higher or lower muzzle velocities, higher or lower percentages of explosive material vs total shell weight, use of different explosive material (those that I cited are among the most powerful, but are still in the experimental/developmental stages).
For example, the AC-20 shell I described (20 kg mass, ~600 m/s velocity, explosive charge is ~15% of shell mass, charge has a R.E. Factor of 2.7 (representing Octanitrocubane)) should have a total energy output (KE + explosive energy) of about 37.49 MJ.
By contrast, a different AC-20 shell (20 kg mass, ~600 m/s velocity, explosive charge is ~4% of shell mass, charge has a R.E. Factor of 1.0 (representing TNT)) should have a total energy output (KE + explosive energy) of about 6.95 MJ.
And even then, not all of the shells' energy is going to be transferred to the BattleMech instantaneously - there would be losses and inefficiencies.

Also, as BattleMech armor is ablative, a large portion of that energy (mainly the explosive component) would be carried away by the ablating armor material, sparing the 'Mech from most of its effects, yes?

So, for most cases, we'd probably be looking at ~3-4 MJ being transferred to the target 'Mech per AC-20 shell, yes?
Assuming 10 such shells (from, say, a Hetzer's gun) struck a 100-ton (100,000 kg) Atlas, the ~40 MJ being transferred to the Atlas - together with the loss of over a ton of armor - should produce a noticeable but reasonable effect...

(Though, the lower energy outputs for high-damage weapons do make 'Mech armor seem so much less impressive... )

Your thoughts?

My physics training is insufficient to deal with assumptions of nonelastic collisions and/or explosion effects, only enough to deal with basic momentum calculations. So I can't comment on something of this level confidently.

Lord Trogus, on 23 March 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

Interestingly enough, I made a poll about this very subject almost two months ago, found here:
http://mwomercs.com/...375#entry112375

From the results, it seems people don't like knockback on lasers much. Maybe that inspired the following:

CCC_Dober, on 23 March 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

To both of you gents:
The good thing about BT is the adherence to basic physics. I take it that you have a good enough grasp on them to understand how energy weapons can cause knockback in MW. They do it indirectly by making the target shed armor layers and thus offset the center of gravity, as opposed to ballistic weapons that cause direct knockback on top of the indirect knockback effects. I have given you the clue and if you don't take them, I'm fine with that.

Given the way this thread is driven it would appear that certain unnamed people want energy weapons not to cause knockback and claim that physics don't allow for that (breaking news: they do!). If that is indeed so, come out and show your true colors. I've seen my share of 'lobbying' on forums and this thread is no different.

To which I have nothing new to add except to repeat that the loss of balance via armour loss on the front side will lead to a knockforward. And no, I'm not a lobbyist, applying assumptions you've formed on others on me works rarely since I don't function like most people do, though your theory might be true on some of the other posters who hold the same view as me. To avoid derailing the topic by describing what motivates me to do stuff in general, let's say that I'm only interested in finding out what would be the most physically realistic effect, and I would support whatever that effect is, if: A. there is a good argument for it or B. there is real-world experimental data for it. The armour melting one doesn't make any logical sense to me due to the opposite direction of movement it would cause, though I have no doubt you will disagree with me on that since you already have. But I don't want to start drawing diagrams, ASCII or otherwise to illustrate why.

I don't personally care whether or not lasers actually get knockback, knockforward, or just damage in the final product, as long as whatever is most accurate is reflected. It is entirely up to you whether or not you wish to believe me.

Nik Van Rhijn, on 23 March 2012 - 03:07 AM, said:

Given that the consensus of opinion is for knockback what are your views on knockdown, which is actually in the rules. I started a thread quite a while back http://mwomercs.com/...e-of-knockdown/.
Looking at Strums figures the bottom end, ie 20 points would appear likely to be mostly affecting light mechs. Its equivalent to 1.25 tons of armour lost.

Knockdown will occur on a strictly physical sense if the moment exerted by the weapon on the 'Mech on its impact site exceeds the momentum imparted to the 'Mech in general to a sufficient extent that its centroid of gravity is no longer contained within the base area in contact with the ground. To be more specific, if I shoot a Jenner in the head, it should fall down. If I shoot it in the arm, it should swing away from the impact, and if this twisting effect is large enough it may cause it to fall down. If I shoot it in the leg, it should not fall unless the leg itself flies off. And of course, a Catapult will be less likely to fall over than a Jenner. Gyro factors also matter in retarding the movement of the centroid of gravity towards/over the edge of its base area, so 'Mechs with better gyros should be more stable. Crouching 'Mechs should not be easily knocked over. 'Mechs that are already descending a slope should be more easily knocked over if shot from behind.

I didn't like the way in which MW4 handled it, i.e. that damage to tonnage ratio alone determined the knockover potential, regardless of where I shot the 'Mech, but I've no objections to knockover in general, if well-executed.

Wild Cat, on 23 March 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:

I don't recall playing any game including the MechWarrior games on the PC where when you got hit, your aim got screwed up. The only thing I've see was camera shake, and that screws around with your mind more than it actually does with your true aim.


I'm really interested in actually seeing this in action and see how things balance out.

MW4 implemented this. In low levels it moves your targeting reticle. In higher levels it can move your torso. At the highest levels it can knock your 'Mech over. In MW4, knock effects are determined by combined damage potential of the strike vs the tonnage of the target. The quad-PPC and triple LBX AC-20 arrangements I used knock over every light mech in the game, and most mediums up to an Argus.

Togg Bott, on 22 March 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

to set the rcord straight, yes lasers have knockback.

not from the kenetic energy transfer of solid objects impacting each other.

BUT from the release of energy in the reaction of metal being transformed from a solid to a gas. thats alot of energy being released ,and in the span of milli-seconds would feel similar if not exactly like a solid impact.

yes. i have the engineering background to say this with confidence. if you need a reference then here is one you MIGHT trust.. http://en.wikipedia....rm_dense_matter this is the action created by hitting a object with a laser

Firstly, I should state the first two things:

• The usage of heat to change phase is an absorptive reaction, not a release reaction; unless we're talking internal ammo explosions, the effect of the laser on the armour absorbs, not releases, heat.
  
• The above is irrelevant to your main assertion, as explosions are not a result of heat (a misconception so common it's quite sad really). Explosions only occur because of rapid volume expansion down the pressure gradient due to a vastly larger amount of gas formation relative to its components and can thus occur even with benign components like flour and air.

If the armour melts off a 'Mech this would definitely not be a factor, but if it vapourises, then it would depend on how much of the armour vapourises and at what speed. At a high enough vapourisation speed, this mechanism you mentioned can possibly explain a laser-based knockback. Sadly, Wikipedia was unable to provide much information as to this WDM phenomenon you mentioned, nor could its attached links. Do you have any other information on this topic? It seems rather intriguing.

StaIker, on 22 March 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:

Cutting lasers are a different thing. While they do vaporise material as well, the quantities are so small that the gas and particulates floats away into the atmosphere without any noticable effect. Some materials vaporise completely and others also throw off melt, it's all a matter of material, cutting speed, laser power, cooling and so on. But to turn a giant hunk of metal into a hole in 100ms requires a staggering amount of energy. The process will be explosive.

On the same topic as the previous post by Togg, is there any source I can view as to this effect? I've seen many cases of lasers melting stuff down before, but never a vapourisation process fast enough to cause an explosion, even a small one. This is not to say that I don't believe you right off the bat; rather, I'd like to see this for myself, or at least an article to the same effect. If there's something like this, you'll have convinced me at least. Though I can't speak for any of the other posters.

[Thomas Hogarth]

Hayashi, on 23 March 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

I've seen many cases of lasers melting stuff down before, but never a vapourisation process fast enough to cause an explosion, even a small one. This is not to say that I don't believe you right off the bat; rather, I'd like to see this for myself, or at least an article to the same effect. If there's something like this, you'll have convinced me at least. Though I can't speak for any of the other posters.

That may be problematic. We don't have laser technology that can match the power of BT systems, and that's just talking about homogeneous steel. If we consider the level of damage lasers do to the magical composite ablative armor of BT (which we can safely assume has better resistance to energy weapons than steel), then the power requirements are even that much more staggering.

I too look forward to seeing hard numbers on this subject, but I'm inclined to agree that lasers should cause knock. That much weight of material being destroyed in that timespan would have to be a phase change process - an explosive one.

[Trogusaur]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 23 March 2012 - 03:07 AM, said:

Given that the consensus of opinion is for knockback what are your views on knockdown, which is actually in the rules. I started a thread quite a while back http://mwomercs.com/...e-of-knockdown/.
Looking at Strums figures the bottom end, ie 20 points would appear likely to be mostly affecting light mechs. Its equivalent to 1.25 tons of armour lost.

Honestly, I am kind of mixed on that. I don't know enough about TT to understand how much this rule would affect gameplay. My question being: was it common enough to knock over lighter 'mechs that there was little purpose to even bring them? If so, I still think this rule should be implemented, but with some sort of restriction to renew total assault 'mech dominance. (ie: light 'mechs are extremely hard to hit when running top speeds, or at least a slightly decreased knockdown rate.)

My two biggest concerns are with close-in fighting and alpha striking. The first weapon that comes to mind is the AC-20. As the name suggests, it would be capable of knocking down anything in a single hit, which may not necessarily be bad. However, as shown in the ingame video, there seems not to be much lag between firing and weapon impact, meaning we are back to point-and-shoot, also meaning lights are in very real danger of getting throttled if they dare close in with their SRMs, or even Medium Lasers. Speaking from a game mechanics viewpoint (and not of skill), I see a problem with anti-scouting. In essence, the only hope for a smaller 'mech to even scratch a Hunchback is to load up on LRMs and distance weapons (which, I might add, is very limited to the lighter chassis). Furthermore, a single AC-20 round would be ample weaponry alone to two-shot kill any light 'mech. I cannot tell you how frustrating it was to fight a Hunchie IIC and it's dual LBX cannons in MW4. Regardless of what 50 tonner I brought, I was always subject to falling over after the first shot, then subsequently exploding after the recycle.

Secondly, I fear this may give even more power to long-range alpha striking. From day 1 of playing Mechwarrior 2 I felt alphas were far too powerful, and the succeeding games did not disappoint either. When talking about knockover being yet another side effect to group firing the Gauss Rifles and ERPPCs , what, then, is preventing every player from loading up on the biggest, baddest ordinance possible and two-shotting everything around?

I am certainly not against knockdown. It has been there since the beginning, and it makes sense to have it. However, I just don't want it used as a means of exploitation to keep the big 'mechs king of everything, like in the previous games. As the developers have stated and restated, all sizes will have their purposes.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Knockdown can happen to any mech - 8 ML do 40 points of damage. If you look at the linked thread you will see all the arguements. basically the devs need to decide how to apply the physics model ie decide what the force is foe 1 point of damge. Whereas in the TT the pilot has to make saving rolls that doesnt apply here. The general idea is that for certain levels of damage, depending on where the hit is and mech weight the mech would start to fall over. If a pilot can move the mech in the opposite direction he has a chance to avoind being knocked down. Massive ammounts of damage from multiple mechs would probably be unavoidable. Given the damage, being knocked down may be the least of his worries. It would probably be that ballistics would apply the most force, especially the Gauss Rifle - the projectile is hypersonic so thats a lot of force.

[Solis Obscuri]

Doesn't help that we're discussing two separate principles - jarring from projectile impacts, and knockdown/loss of balance from gyro disruption due to losing large amounts of armor in a short space of time.

For knockdown/stagger from rapid armor loss, the weapons types wouldn't matter, just the damage received by the target 'mech, relative to its overall mass.

For a jarring effect, I'd expect lasers and smaller projectile weapons to have little effect, but moderate sized weapons like the AC/10, PPC, LRM-10, and SRM-4 and -6 racks to produce some jarring if they hit. Gauss Rifles and AC/20s should definitely produce some shaking and swaying, since they both have a lot of momentum and instantly destroy a ton of armor or more on the target 'mech. Again, I'd expect effect to be somewhat based on the overall mass of the target 'mech - an Atlas might only get a jolt from taking an AC/20 or Gauss slug, but a Commando should be reeling from the impact, if it survives.

As regards alpha-boating, I'm hoping that strict heat rules and weapons convergence delays will make it a less optimal tactic than it was in prior games.

[Howlin Wolf]

Thomas Hogarth, on 23 March 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

That may be problematic. We don't have laser technology that can match the power of BT systems, and that's just talking about homogeneous steel. If we consider the level of damage lasers do to the magical composite ablative armor of BT (which we can safely assume has better resistance to energy weapons than steel), then the power requirements are even that much more staggering.

I too look forward to seeing hard numbers on this subject, but I'm inclined to agree that lasers should cause knock. That much weight of material being destroyed in that timespan would have to be a phase change process - an explosive one.

I'm not saying this to be agumentative, but i would think The US has laser technology that could equal laser technology in this game. I watched 'Strange Weapons' on the history channel that showed footage of a USAF jet that was full of chemicals and electronics to fire a laser beam 8 feet in diameter at ballistic missles taking off. Its range is 700 miles.

Their most powerful laser can burn a large square hole in titanium plate in a matter of seconds. If this stuff is on TV I wonder what is in the arsenal that is still classified and cant be shown.

btw Whatever the devs decide on the knockback/losing aim and knockdown I'm fine with.

Edited by Howlin Wolf, 23 March 2012 - 11:23 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I think the knockback experienced by a Mech should equal the total knockback force minus the gysoscope's ability to mitigate knockback (where a "gyroscope" can "mitigate" a certain quantity of transfered momentum/force).

Momentum effects can be calculated by (velcity and mass of the projectile) + (warhead explosive force imparted)

• Where the proejctile is an autocannon, the momentum of the projectile is high, the warhead is low.
  
• Missiles could be assigned a medium momentum value, but a higher warhead value.
  
• Lasers have no projectile momentum, but their effect of causing explosive armor vaporization can be scripted as a warhead detonation of mild to moderate consequence.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 23 March 2012 - 11:31 PM.

[Gabriel Amarell]

Well, it isn't exactly where I envisioned this thread going, but good thoughts none the less. That said, let me see if I can steer things back more in the direction I intended.

As I stated in the original posting, I was playing mechwarrior 4 and I couldn't help but notice just how much interference taking fire produced with regards to targeting. I think that this interference could be useful as a means of diminishing the offensive efficacy of other units I.E. pelting attackers with certain rapidly firing weapons as a means to reduce their ability to accurately return fire. (maybe interfearing with the convergence on their arm mounted weapons, or changing the angle of their torso twist/pitch?)

Obviously if the effect is too pronounced it would be a major source of frustration, but if implimented carefully, and not too heavy-handedly I think It would add a lot to the defensive role.

So a scenario: I am a defensive player, myself and 3 others are holding a strategic position while our offensive players are initiating an attack. The enemy has slipped by our scouts and they are approacing. Our defensive group is 1 heavy and 3 mediums, but they have 3 assaults on the way. We call in our scouts to help, but they are 1 minute out. With the help of the scouts we have 6/3 advantage, and we can probably hold them, but they need 1 minute to get back to us.

If we could survive long enough for our scouts to arrive we will have enough of an advantage to fend them off. If each of the 3 mediums takes one of the assaults and peppers it with (insert the name of a rapidly firing weapon with decent knockback) we might just be able to interfere with their targeting long enough for the heavy we have to hurt one of them. If it works the scouts might be able to get in behind and finish it off.

Spin whatever scenario you want if you dont like mine, but I think that the ability to interfere with the targeting ability of an enemy and diminish it effective firepower could go a long way toward strategic gameplay.

[Pht]

Gabriel Amarell, on 24 March 2012 - 12:46 AM, said:

Spin whatever scenario you want if you dont like mine, but I think that the ability to interfere with the targeting ability of an enemy and diminish it effective firepower could go a long way toward strategic gameplay.

All it would do is encourage everyone to use massive knock setups and make sure they got the first shot in... just like "juggling" opposing characters in the tekken video game.

Whoever gets the first shot wins.