146 replies to this topic

[Johannes Falkner]

There have been numerous threads about ACs and whether they should do all of their damage to a single location, how fast they should refire and whether the shells should drop in flight. Few of the discussions have addressed fire rate itself. In many of the fluff books an AC (particularly the AC/20 and AC/10) fires a stream of shots for a short time.

What would you think of having an AC fire several shots over approximately 0.5 to 1.0 seconds? This would allow us to walk fire over the target mech and address accuracy concerns by making it more difficult to CT spam.

For a hypothetical AC/20 we would see a salvo of say 100 shots over 1 second, each doing a small fraction of the total damage. There would have to be tracers so we could see mech X getting blown to smithereens by Hunchback Y.

[Ragotag]

An AC/20 uses roughly a ~200mm shell; can you really envision a stream of one hundred 200mm shells firing in a second? Or are you suggesting turning a weapon systems that fires a ~200mm shell into a weapon system that fires one hundred 2mm shells? I'd prefer to stick as close to BattleTech TT as possible on this one.

I prefer the idea of AC's being direct-damage weapon systems; with missiles and the way standard lasers have been described to work as spread-damage weapon systems (damage over time or multiple impacts spread over the target's chassis), I still want to see a few weapon systems do direct-damage (all damage focused in a specific location) -- AC's, PPC's, Gauss Rifles, and Pulse Lasers traditionally fit this bill.

...but those are just my opinions.

[Snotling]

I really liked the way they were in MW3, short 5 shot bursts, pretty easy to center in one spot, but also could spread a little on fast targets

[Johannes Falkner]

Battletech specifically has multiple manufacturers of of ACs. Each manufacturer chooses caliber and fire rate. So one manufacturer might use a single 200mm shell where another would fire 10 or 100 smaller shells. The AC/20 designation is one of total damage not cannon caliber.

Gauss rifles should absolutely be a single hit. Pulse lasers, not so much. Fluffwise they also fire a stream of darts.

BTW where did you find that reference for using a 200mm shell? I am wondering if it was a retcon, fanon or something else.

[Ian MacLeary]

Johannes Falkner, on 10 April 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

Battletech specifically has multiple manufacturers of of ACs. Each manufacturer chooses caliber and fire rate. So one manufacturer might use a single 200mm shell where another would fire 10 or 100 smaller shells. The AC/20 designation is one of total damage not cannon caliber.

See, I have two problems with the fluff description of ACs being multi-round firing weapons and of varying calibers.

1) It makes no logistical sense. If you consider that almost all of the weapons systems are designed to be used on 'mechs that were standardized for a single military organization (the SLDF), then having multiple types of weapons classified the same leads to a logistical nightmare. You might have 5 different types of AC/20 within a single regiment; that means ordering 5 different types of ammunition for that one weapon system. So if the wrong type gets ordered, or the right amounts and types are ordered but delivered to the wrong units, you wind up with lots of 'mechs who aren't able to function at peak efficiency. A military organization like the SLDF would insist on commonality, leading to manufacturers adhering to a standard.

2) [This is the big one.] If the weapons are really firing multiple shells, why do they do their damage to one location? If the servos and computers are accurate enough to compensate for recoil and relative motion between the two 'mechs in order to land multiple rounds on the same location, why then do we not have pin-point accuracy for all weapons?

It makes more logical sense to have them firing single shells, given their game mechanics. Besides, if ACs all fire bursts of shells, that marginalizes Ultra and Rotary ACs when they get introduced.

Edited by Ian MacLeary, 10 April 2012 - 10:04 AM.

[Fomorian]

Here you go
From Sarna.net
[color=#000000]
The Autocannon is a direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) rounds at targets either singly or in bursts.[/color]
[color=#000000]
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.[/color]
[color=#000000]
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.[/color]

[BarHaid]

I'm all for multiple round ACs. The single shot style makes me think of mounting old pirate-ship cannons on my mech. Distasteful. I think that the Ultra and Rotary versions of the various ACs would be easy to implement as just doubling (or more for Rotary) the rate of fire for that particular version. If you've got a massive single-slug cannon, you fire two shots, pop-pop! If you have a magazine-style, you get dakka-dakka! As stated in a previous thread, this would give you choices based on your preference of fighting styles.

[LaorDeLove]

A short stream would fit with lore. It could have been a 3-5 shell burst that could miss with some of the shells. Should all of them hit? No. Let us say that the big bad centurion is trying to gimp the Jenner. The Cent fires his AC10 for a 5 round burst. 2 rounds hit the left leg one flies between the leg and one hits the right leg as the last flies in the dirt. It would make sense if you are trying to hit something small with a twitch shot that some rounds miss. The thing is that some did hit. If you were using the PPC or Gauss you shot would have missed and you would have to wait until you get a recharge/reload. This setup still separates the AC10 from the rotary AC5 because the rotary is last three times as long, and it won't be created until 3060.

[Kenyon Burguess]

easy enough to split it up
machine guns= short bursts by sound not damage
ac2/5 = 1
ac10=2
ac20=4
ultra doubles
rac triples
gauss =1

[Ragotag]

Johannes Falkner, on 10 April 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

BTW where did you find that reference for using a 200mm shell? I am wondering if it was a retcon, fanon or something else.

Chiefly Sarna.net since my TRO's are all in storage.

I wrote "~200 mm", "~" means "approximately" not "exactly"; but you are correct -- the "20" designation is really a reflection of damage potential and different manufactures did indeed use slightly different-sized shells. However, the idea of a manufacturer using 10 or 100 smaller shells is pure speculation unless you know of some canon-based make/model of AC/20 that specifically did this. In the end though, the Dev's could do it if they so chose to; I'd just prefer they stick to canon damage/recycle times since I *know* from my own past multiplayer online gaming experiences that this does indeed work well to create an engaging combat environment.

What amazes me is that some people are already up in arms over Battle TT recycle stats, which have yet to even be specifically confirmed by the Dev, yet they haven't even given it a try yet. I say wait for beta and see for yourself how it will work out before demanding/speculating on proposed changes.

[Sven Svenson]

I would like to see both kinds of autocannons in the game. Let the player choose if they want a single shot that does point damage or a rotary that fires a stream .. tracers would be cool ..and try to hold it over a location if they want . would look great and good for straffing down that pesky Jenner. As for regiment having trouble supplying so many diff guns ammo .. you do know this is a game right.

[Ian MacLeary]

Sven Svenson, on 10 April 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

As for regiment having trouble supplying so many diff guns ammo .. you do know this is a game right.

*sigh*

Yes, it's a game. However, I prefer my game-backgrounds to make sense... it's much easier to immerse myself in something that doesn't constantly smack my willing suspension of disbelief in the face with such nonsense. Especially when it's built upon real-world underpinnings. It's much easier to ignore nonsense when there's magic involved; BattleTech and MechWarrior do not have magic.

[Kartr]

AC/s need to do all their damage to a single location, or at least 90% of their damage to a single location. Its a matter of game balance.
Missile Weapons: Low crit slots, low to medium weight, and high potential damage. Handicapped by ammo constraints, missed shots and grouping damage, damage distributed across multiple areas.

Energy Weapons: Low crit slots, low weight, medium damage, no ammo, all damage done by a weapon hits one location. Handicapped by high heat generation.

Ballistic Weapons: High damage, all damage done by a weapon hits one location. Handicapped by ammo constraints, high weight, high crit slots and short ranges.

The only real reason to use ballistics is to get as much damage as possible into a single location. If you take that away they become a short ranged LRM-20 and energy weapons (which already have a lot of reasons to use them) even more desirable.

Johannes Falkner, on 10 April 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

Battletech specifically has multiple manufacturers of of ACs. Each manufacturer chooses caliber and fire rate. So one manufacturer might use a single 200mm shell where another would fire 10 or 100 smaller shells. The AC/20 designation is one of total damage not cannon caliber.

Gauss rifles should absolutely be a single hit. Pulse lasers, not so much. Fluffwise they also fire a stream of darts.

BTW where did you find that reference for using a 200mm shell? I am wondering if it was a retcon, fanon or something else.

According to the fluff there is an AC/20 that fires 10 155mm shells per burst, that means you can get a rough number for all AC/20 bursts by taking a ratio of their caliber and number of shells.

So a 203mm AC/20 (Cauldron Born IIRC) would have to fire a number of shells roughly equal to (10*155)/203=7.6 rds. So between 7 and 8 rounds to achieve AC/20 levels of damage.

There is no way any AC/20 can fire a single round unless it was 1,550 mm shell.

Ian MacLeary, on 10 April 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

See, I have two problems with the fluff description of ACs being multi-round firing weapons and of varying calibers.

1) It makes no logistical sense. If you consider that almost all of the weapons systems are designed to be used on 'mechs that were standardized for a single military organization (the SLDF), then having multiple types of weapons classified the same leads to a logistical nightmare. You might have 5 different types of AC/20 within a single regiment; that means ordering 5 different types of ammunition for that one weapon system. So if the wrong type gets ordered, or the right amounts and types are ordered but delivered to the wrong units, you wind up with lots of 'mechs who aren't able to function at peak efficiency. A military organization like the SLDF would insist on commonality, leading to manufacturers adhering to a standard.

Finally someone else who sees it the way I do! It does make absolutely zero sense, even when you bring in the Great Houses and their designs you would expect them to work off the SLDF standard much like all the nations of NATO use the same caliber weapons. After the fall of the Star League it would become even more important as people begin to really start using salvage. "oops I salvaged and AC/20 but our supply of ammo doesn't work for it so we're back to square 1."

Ian MacLeary, on 10 April 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

2) [This is the big one.] If the weapons are really firing multiple shells, why do they do their damage to one location? If the servos and computers are accurate enough to compensate for recoil and relative motion between the two 'mechs in order to land multiple rounds on the same location, why then do we not have pin-point accuracy for all weapons?

A very good question and one without a plausible in universe explanation. Gamewise though it has to be for balance, if all non-AC weapons had pinpoint accuracy everyone would just take headshots and insta-kill their targets.

Ian MacLeary, on 10 April 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

It makes more logical sense to have them firing single shells, given their game mechanics. Besides, if ACs all fire bursts of shells, that marginalizes Ultra and Rotary ACs when they get introduced.

In real life terms it makes sense for them to be firing a single round for reasons you pointed out in #2. However think of the game mechanics of those weapons like an M-16 rifle. A normal AC fires a burst of shells so that they're closely grouped, an Ultra is like firing a double tap with your rifle on burst and RACs are basically fully automatic versions.

Fomorian, on 10 April 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

Here you go
From Sarna.net

The Autocannon is a direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) rounds at targets either singly or in bursts.

Except Sarna is most likely wrong about that "singly" bit. Since AC/s are of multiple calibers it is very unlikely that any of them fires a single round. The whole concept of the Auto-Cannon is that you fire multiple rounds to defeat extremely thick armor, much like an M-16 can fire bursts to help defeat body armor.

Fomorian, on 10 April 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

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.

Once again the Chemjet cannot possibly fire a single round and achieve the same levels of damage. You'd have to have a 1.55m shell to achieve even similar damage as the Crusher. The Chemjet must fire around (10*155)/185=8.4 shells per burst, so 8 shells per burst.

[The Smith]

I've always thought about AC2s as ranging from 20-40mm, and being both semi, and fully automatic, with AC5s the same but running from 40-70 mm. this would be very similar to real life automatic cannons in these size ranges which are capable of automatic fire but are normally not used that way. I have always thought of AC 10, and AC 20 models as much larger calibers with mechanical auto loading systems that would limit them to very low rates of fire. Although there are real world examples of very large automatic canons like the AK-130-MR-184 from Russia. http://militaryforce...n-2-34-209.html this gun only runs at 20-30 rounds per minute. I would say that the idea of a gun firing even 10 150+mm shells in second is sort of insane. The recoil forces would be way to much even for a 100ton mech to deal with.

[Kartr]

The Smith, on 10 April 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

I would say that the idea of a gun firing even 10 150+mm shells in second is sort of insane. The recoil forces would be way to much even for a 100ton mech to deal with.

Just one example of the extremely implausible universe we accept for the joy of stomping around in cool robot/mechs and blasting the living crap out of other robot/mechs. Also the "tonnage" system does not refer to actual mass in universe, its just a handy way of classifying 'Mechs by rough capabilities/roles/etc. Think of it as an in universe BV system rather than a measurement of weight, as none of the weights ever listed can possibly be true.

[UncleKulikov]

you can have both with different brands of autocannon. One produces an AC20 that fires a single 200mm round, another that fires a burst of smaller shells, and finally a 3rd company that fires a stream of rounds.

[Jiynx]

Quote

Once again the Chemjet cannot possibly fire a single round and achieve the same levels of damage. You'd have to have a 1.55m shell to achieve even similar damage as the Crusher. The Chemjet must fire around (10*155)/185=8.4 shells per burst, so 8 shells per burst.

now on this i'll have to speak up. velocity is a killer. your mistake is assuming that the only thing that matters is the size of the round fired. that's not the case.

consider this real-life example: the main gun on the M1 abrams is a 120mm cannon that fires a saboted round that's approximately 50mm wide.

this round is capable of killing a tank at about 4km. without explosives. it's pure kinetic kill.

by contrast a 155mm round from an artillery gun(which can be dropped for direct fire, which is really impressive to watch) does nowhere near the same damage from kinetic impact alone, even though the round that strikes the target is three TIMES the size. it has to use explosives to have a chance to open a tank up, because velocity amplifies damage far more than size/mass or explosive content.


so the chemjet could indeed do a massive amount of damage from a single shell, if that single round was freaking BOOKING. if you jack the velocity up by 10x the kinetic energy multiplies even further(by the square of mass, so doubling quadruples the force, you get the idea).

so unlike the wimpier different autocannon which goes 'chakchakchakchakchak' the chemjet by comparison goes WHKOOM and makes a most distinctive muzzle flash, sound, and possibly mech-staggering recoil.

and the mech on the other end all of a sudden is wondering what the hell all the contents of its right toso section are doing 100 meters behind it.


i could see allowing A/Cs of different styles in the game. the option for a single-fire high-velocity type for those who like sniping, and the rapid-firing burst models. both models would have their place. the chain-firing models would excel at close-quarters and fast-paced fighting because they'd raise your hit probability significantly(more lead in the air more likely to hit the target), whereas if you can connect with the big boy... land's sake you best not get hit by the big one. if you crank velocity up high enough impact tends to be less along the lines of making a neat hole and more along the lines of things start converting to energy. explosively.


overpenetration effects from things like high-velocity A/Cs would be kind of awesome.

Edited by Jiynx, 10 April 2012 - 02:40 PM.

[Kartr]

Jiynx, on 10 April 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

now on this i'll have to speak up. velocity is a killer. your mistake is assuming that the only thing that matters is the size of the round fired. that's not the case.

consider this real-life example: the main gun on the M1 abrams is a 120mm cannon that fires a saboted round that's approximately 50mm wide.

this round is capable of killing a tank at about 4km. without explosives. it's pure kinetic kill.

However sabot rounds are becoming more difficult to make as armor increases in hardness and thickness. The problem being encountered is the "shatter gap" where above certain velocities the round will actually shatter before it penetrates. That's why penetrators and sabots are no long made from steel, or even tungsten which is what they started using in WW2 when they first encountered the shatter gap. Eventually armor will reach the point where it cannot be penetrated by any kinetic kill round such as the sabot.

We can see from the fluff and the rules that this has already happened in the BattleTech universe. If kinetic kill rounds were effective you wouldn't see armor blasted away bit by bit, and the Gauss Rifle (ultimate kinetic kill weapon) would one shot enemy vehicles. Instead the Gauss shatters some armor and AC/s fire multiple rounds to crater their way bit by bit through the armor.

Combine this with the fact that 'Mechs are horrible gunnery platforms means you want to keep velocities as low as possible to reduce as much recoil as possible. This points to high caliber, low velocity howitzer style weapons that use HEAT rounds fired in burst to literally blow craters in the armor in rapid succession and close proximity.

Jiynx, on 10 April 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

by contrast a 155mm round from an artillery gun(which can be dropped for direct fire, which is really impressive to watch) does nowhere near the same damage from kinetic impact alone, even though the round that strikes the target is three TIMES the size. it has to use explosives to have a chance to open a tank up, because velocity amplifies damage far more than size/mass or explosive content.


so the chemjet could indeed do a massive amount of damage from a single shell, if that single round was freaking BOOKING. if you jack the velocity up by 10x the kinetic energy multiplies even further(by the square of mass, so doubling quadruples the force, you get the idea).

so unlike the wimpier different autocannon which goes 'chakchakchakchakchak' the chemjet by comparison goes WHKOOM and makes a most distinctive muzzle flash, sound, and possibly mech-staggering recoil.

and the mech on the other end all of a sudden is wondering what the hell all the contents of its right toso section are doing 100 meters behind it.

Except that it doesn't strike with that kind of force, it strikes with the same amount of destructive energy as any other AC/20 and merely knocks off some armor. HEAT rounds can achieve the same results as kinetic kill penetrator without the same velocities which means less recoil, less wear on the barrel, etc.

Past armor and weapon trends show us that as armor gets more effective rounds either have to find a stronger material or come up with a new method of defeating the armor. Depleted Uranium penetrators are one of the strongest/most dense materials we know of. Since we're limited to the elements on the periodic table there's not many elements past that that we could replace DU with, which means DU is approaching the upper end of kinetic kill penetrators.

This leaves us with the prospect of "sanding" down armor, which in my opinion at least, makes more sense when you use explosive jets to crater armor. Especially since rounds fired with enough velocity to shatter/crack/abrade armor are most likely going to shatter upon impact doing very little actual damage to the armor.

Jiynx, on 10 April 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

i could see allowing A/Cs of different styles in the game. the option for a single-fire high-velocity type for those who like sniping, and the rapid-firing burst models. both models would have their place. the chain-firing models would excel at close-quarters and fast-paced fighting because they'd raise your hit probability significantly(more lead in the air more likely to hit the target), whereas if you can connect with the big boy... land's sake you best not get hit by the big one. if you crank velocity up high enough impact tends to be less along the lines of making a neat hole and more along the lines of things start converting to energy. explosively.

This actually already exists in the current BattleTech/MechWarrior universe:
Gauss Rifle: single fire high velocity used for sniping
AC/s: burst fire. Larger calibers have more recoil so don't have as tight groups at range. Small calibers have less recoil so the have a tighter groupings and greater ranges, but do less damage.
LB-X AC/s: same as AC/s but higher quality engineering gives greater effective range.
Ultra AC/s: rapid burst fire. These weapons have shorter ranges than their cousins because they can fire a double tap, nearly doubling the felt recoil (perhaps more).
RAC/s: fully automatic AC/s.

Jiynx, on 10 April 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

overpenetration effects from things like high-velocity A/Cs would be kind of awesome.

Its called criticals and occurs when there's not enough armor to protect a location from the damage a weapon does.

[Solis Obscuri]

I like the idea of bursts, since that's how autocannons are described per canon, but I don't like the idea of spreading damage so much. The advantage of an AC vs lighter-weight missile and energy weapons is the ability to concentrate damage, and if that goes away, ACs become disadvantageous.

Edited by Solis Obscuri, 10 April 2012 - 05:05 PM.

[BarHaid]

Solis Obscuri, on 10 April 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

I like the idea of bursts, since that's how autocannons are described per canon, but I don't like the idea of spreading damage so much. The advantage of an AC vs lighter-weight missile and energy weapons is the ability to concentrate damage, and if that goes away, ACs become disadvantageous.

There might not be much that can be done about damage spread with burst-fire, but if the burst length is kept to a second maximum, it wouldn't be too bad, IMHO.