146 replies to this topic

[LordDeathStrike]

peve, on 11 April 2012 - 03:22 AM, said:

My take on the subject. It is very unorthodox.

Why not just make small autocannon rounds travel fast and big autocannon rounds travel slowly? That way the big guns would be affected by gravity and thus be very hard to use beyond their effective range. For example, AC/2 could fire at 800m/s and AC/20 at 200m/s. As for fire rate, the smaller the slug, the faster it reloads.

It has always bugged me that AC/20 rounds just vanish in the air one meter before hitting the enemy just beyond the max range. They should hit.

So, if they are pure kinetic weapons, damage should be reduced smoothly over distance. If they use explosive ammo, they should just be harder to aim.

Basically I am suggesting that autocannons are more like Long Tom and not so much as direct fire only weapons. That way you could point your AC/20 at an enemy 500m away, but you should aim a few mechs above his head to hit and hope he doesn't move.

As for shotgun-type autocannons, they should behave the same way.

One other thing: Since the chambers in AC/20 are quite short, accuracy both in x and y should be lower over a distance. But you shouldn´t limit the max range artificially. We already have gravity to take care of everything returning to ground eventually.

I think it would create a beautiful scenery watching those explosive AC/20 rounds lift dust up next to enemy mechs at the horizon.

theyre already crying that the ac 20 will core their unarmored 20 ton firefly or whatever mech at 300m, imagine the **** storm if you could lob rounds 600m and get a lucky hit on them because their lancemate has radar on and you are chuckin shots for ***** and giggles over walls and crap.

[Ragotag]

Belisarius†, on 10 April 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

The almighty sarna (http://www.sarna.net...i/Autocannon/20) gives a few examples for an AC20 and says that autocannons in general range from 25-203mm, with those differences balanced by altered rates of fire.

Well, Sarna also says the same exact thing on *all* of the other autocannon pages (AC/10, AC/5, and AC/2) as well; so I think we could agree that the 25-203mm is a general description encompassing all autocannon damage classifications.

[WithSilentWings]

Kartr, on 10 April 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

There are no 2mm AC weapons, they range from 30mm to 203mm IIRC. Secondly they're not designed to take out a 'Mech or even do significant damage to a 'Mech with a single round. The idea is that you use multiple rounds to crater or "sand down" the enemy armor. As the armor ablates away you eventually will achieve penetration and start damaging the soft innards. Again this why it makes more sense for HEAT rounds then kinetic kill rounds.

Apparently they get much bigger than 200mm. It sounds like you are agreeing that an AC20 should not pack all it's punch in a single hit?

Kartr, on 10 April 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

AC/s are not auto-loaders, though they do have an auto-loading function. Rather they are burst fire weapons probably using a clip style design in which the auto-loader feeds ammunition into the clip and then when the weapon fires it chambers a new round every time the recoil drives the breech back. In this way it would function much like an M-16 or any other magazine fed rifle with the ability to fire bursts.

I believe the vast majority of things I've seen or read including the games showcase AC2/AC5 as firing more or less as if it's running off of a giant box of ammo like a GAU-8, does anyone know a reference where it talks about this system and the idea that it is limited in the way that a "clip" loaded system is? The only game in which "bursts" were depicted that I know of was MW3, and in that case I thought the argument was more along the lines of it bursts to help with aim etc. Just like an M16A4 only has a burst mode and not full auto doesn't mean it would be a weapon physically incapable of full auto if the limitations were removed.

Kartr, on 10 April 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

And yes AC/s are supposed to do "solid" damage with shorter ranges, less ammo and most likely slower rates of fire due to the need to load the clip after every firing. As for belt fed machine gun style, thats more like a RAC, though that is technically more of a Gatling gun.

I thought an AC2 was supposed to have several times the range of smaller/medium lasers? Even longer than a large laser IIRC. (EDIT: just looked it up, an AC2 outranges even a PPC. In fact, according to TT rules it outranges a Gauss Rifle.) Also, I thought some mechs packed AC2's for antiaircraft purposes?

Kartr, on 10 April 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Actually it is for game balance, you need some reason to mount weapons that have such a huge space and mass requirement. Packing a huge amount of damage into a single location every time you hit is that incentive.

What about heat and ammo? What about range? Any AC besides the 20 should outrange SRM weapons, and so we suddenly have another balancing factor. Ammunition is also much less expensive. We're also talking direct fire weapons vs missiles--assuming you have good aim an AC will still have a much better chance of landing the majority of it's damage on target, where the SRMs will land in a spread.

Kartr, on 10 April 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Also it makes sense from a realistic stand point. If you have to take multiple shots on a single location to ablate away armor, then you want a method to deliver as many shots as possible onto a small area. If you can do that you will defeat the armor much much faster. Hence the design of burst firing heavy weapons. If you take that away from them by making the rounds spread out all over the place then you take away the AC/s one advantage.

I didn't say anything about having the rounds spread. Basically I'd like it to work like MW3 for such a type--this means a concentrated burst that fires quite quickly. Only faster mechs would have a chance of dodging and in those cases the weapon is still able to score a few hits as the target moves through your crosshairs.

Kartr, on 10 April 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

How about no. This totally negates the whole point of using an AC/20 as you'll be doing 5pts here, 5 pts there, 5pts there and 5pts missed. It has literally become an LRM with very short range. Just keep the 20pts of damage on a single location, and because it has to load around 7-10rds between shots and the rounds are very large and heavy it makes sense for a 10s reload.

It doesn't negate the whole point at all--as long as it can do the eqivalent of 20 damage in 10 seconds then it is the same DPS and is following the tabletop guidelines. Why is it your decision regarding the time it takes an AC to cycle? The idea that "it's big and the ammo is heavy" is completely arbitrary and unscientific. If there can be an AC that uses a 500mm shell and fires once ever 5 seconds and an AC that uses a 150mm shell and fires a burst of 5 with a 5 second recycle, where is the logic in saying you can't simply take the same mechanics behind the first option and apply it to a faster firing weapon with a smaller round that adds to the same 20 rating of damage over 10 seconds?

Kartr, on 10 April 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Again no as this makes your basic AC/s into Ultra AC/s that do half damage. Also the number of rounds you're firing doesn't correspond to the Fluff. Every AC/20 fires a number of rounds roughly equal to (10*155)/caliber.

But... the description of an Ultra AC is essentially an AC that fires twice as fast and does twice the damage.............. And so essentially all ACs are Ultra ACs that do half the damage....

My primary point in terms of "number of rounds" or "rate of recycle" in regards to the fluff is on the lines of this: do we really all believe that the heavier single shell launching autocannons literally ALL fire exactly ONCE ever TEN SECONDS? Why can there not be a heavier single shell AC that fires once ever 5 or once ever 3 or every 8 for an over-all eqivalent rating? Can anyone find fluff that affirms or disputes the idea that all AC20's fire a sigle shot or a single burst exactly every 10 seconds?

Kartr, on 10 April 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

No because now you have an SRM launcher. 2pts of damage here, 2 there, 2 over there, etc.

An SRM with higher velocity, cheaper ammo, longer range at the smaller AC sizes, with more precision. If you point an SRM 6 at an enemy mech in game do you think every missile will hit their head if you point at their head? In the case of the AC you are refuting, you would be able to land every round in the same place. Again, do you really believe that every single autocannon in the entire game should only be able to fire once every 10 seconds and be guaranteed that ever single round hits the same place?

Kartr, on 10 April 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Actually it totally destroys the point of having AC/s. With their weight and critical requirements, not to mention the ammo which can be depleted or blown up, you'd be much better off taking all energy weapons. Using your examples:
1. a) 4 medium lasers grouped in pairs, does the same damage in a similar fashion at the same range generates 5 extra heat but saves you 6 criticals and 10 tons.
b ) 2 PPCs gives you the same damage at twice the distance and saves you 4 critical slots, but generates an extra 13 heat.

2. same reasons as 1.
3. 4 medium pulse lasers act in a similar fashion, do more damage save you 6 tons and 6 criticals and only costs 9 extra heat.

Except that the smaller ACs all outrange every single energy weapon you just mentioned... Also, you are essentially arguing in my favour by saying that the energy weapons are balanced becuase they generate more heat, and so you can fire much less frequently. Additionally, it's already been shown that lasers will deal damage over time, and so they are not the pin-point weapons they were in many of the earlier games. I would think that given the velocity of an autocannon, at shorter ranges it should be roughly just as difficult to land all your AC shots on a specific location as it is to land you entire laser beam on the same location, difference is you need to lead a little (but that depends on speed.)

Kartr, on 10 April 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Oh not to mention that laser weapons have instant "flight" times as opposed to ballistics (though at MW ranges they're practically instant as well) making it easier to hit what you're aiming at.

Except you can fire much leass frequently due to heat and so the AC can potentially make up this difference with volume of fire.

Edited by WithSilentWings, 11 April 2012 - 09:39 AM.

[Leetskeet]

I'm kind of hoping(wishful thinking, it won't happen) that we're able to buy weapons from different manufacturers.

You can slap a big 200mm single shot AC/20 on a Hunchback because you want all of the damage up front in a single pop, but if you miss that shot you've done absolutely nothing with your only real threat. Or, you can slap on a 150mm 4 round burst AC/20 that gives you a better chance to at least slap some damage on that Jenner running around you. The 200mm can have a huge screen shake that disorients them for a second, whereas the 150mm could just rattle their aim around a little bit.

This way customization is deepened even further without breaking anything, and you get the choice(s) between

"Do I want to hit him hard with a single shot that shakes the hell out of his cockpit so he has to readjust to shoot back at me, but that runs the risk of doing absolutely nothing for a miss because it's a single shell?"

or

"Do I want to pop him a couple times possibly spreading damage, only stopping him front targeting me accurately while the shells are hitting, but giving me a better fighting chance against a target that isn't quite so easy to hit?"

The same thing can go for LRMs. do you prefer missiles that arc up shortly after being launched or do you prefer direct fire missiles that don't arc? Arcing missiles have a minimum range because they have to arc back down, but lets you fire from behind cover or land missiles over their cover, direct fire has a more difficult time in the fire support role but gives you the option of firing at some one relatively close but downhill or using them in a more offensive manner

[WithSilentWings]

Kartr, on 10 April 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Again the only reason to have AC/s is to get as much damage in a single location as possible with one shot. Any modification to that paradigm makes them completely worthless thanks to their high costs in terms of resources, their extreme vulnerability and the very short ranges.

AC's don't have a very short range, only the AC20 has a cruddy range. An AC10 has the same range as a large laser. If they were specifically made to get as much damage to a single location with one shot, why do they fire bursts in the fluff? Surely you must agree that a burst will always under any circumstances leave room for missed rounds or rounds off target if we were to compare to say, a laser.

Kartr, on 10 April 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Funny, you are advocating the opposite. By altering the AC/s to your ideas it takes away their one big advantage over beam and missile weapons. To make the choice as hard as possible you have to make the AC unique so people have to choose whether they want the massive damage in one location with all the drawbacks or do they want to go with less damage in a location and reap the benefits of other weapon types.

I don't understand this argument, it isn't logical. This is like saying you're going to go on a trip on the autobahn. Your only goal is to get you and your girlfriend from point A to point B in as little time as possible. You then have 3 vehicles to choose from: a Honda Civic, a Porche Boxter, and an 18 wheeler transport truck. By your logic, because these vehicles are all very different and fit their own paticular roles, strenghts and weaknesses, tell me how this makes your choice DIFFICULT? I would say short of not having a choice, having a concrete notable disctiction from every perspective makes this essentially the easiest choice it could be. Now, same situation, except all 3 choices are different Porche models. Suddenly the decision becomes a little more difficult and you need a little more education depending on the specifics of the trip. You need to put more time into considering logicstical differences. This is what more choice will advocate.

Kartr, on 10 April 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Like I said I'm all for there being variation in the types of AC/s. Perhaps one fires 10 rds per burst and another fires 7 rds, it would feel different and look different, maybe even play a little different. However all AC/s must put all their rounds on target in such a quick succession that all their damage is done to one location.

It doesn't make sense to have every single autocannon fire different bursts and still push the idea that it's physically impossible for rounds to miss or go off-target. What if you're spinning in circles while you fire? What if you're tracking a fast moving target? Should the 10 or 7 round burst just be a graphical effect and even though you watch half the shots miss the mech will still sustain 20 damage to their leg?

[Kartr]

Johannes Falkner, on 10 April 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

I guess I simply have very little faith in people not learning to time their shots to hyper accuracy. In theory, many of the same balance techniques are at work in WoT, but th results are lackluster to say the least. The matchamker throwing tier 6s (Bait) into matches with tier 10 tanks (Wolves) does not help, at all. I would avoid that if possible. Also, fluffwise (canon fluff) the ACs are supposed to shoot multiple projectiles per salvo. Multiple shots over a short duration salvo would distribute the damage a little, difffuse the twitch aspect and allow for a better visual experience.

This is cooler than this (note the yawn).

Firstly there are no tiers in BattleTech so you don't have to worry about your T6 French light getting tossed in with T10 Maus's and IS-7s. Even if your scout 'Mech gets dropped in with an Atlas or Awesome on the other side, you will still do the exact same amount of damage if you were going up against a Hunchback or Centurion.

Secondly WoT only has single shot cannons, even the French auto-loaders only fire 1 round at a time, they just have extremely short load times between rounds. The twitch aspect/all damage in one location is the whole point behind AC/s, PPCs and Gauss rifles. This is especially true now that even basic lasers are on for a second then turn off, which means lasers are no longer pinpoint accurate.

Also I'm completely happy with AC/s firing multiple rounds per burst as long as the burst duration is very very short, fractions of a second. That way they don't become a larger version of the laser.

Vollstrecker, on 10 April 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

My line of thinking was more that we do have some very compelling reasons to go with a short burst style of AC, not to strictly adhere to canon. Frankly, quite a bit of this was founded on "rule of cool" along with some heavy artistic license. You've got examples in novels where a pilot survives an ERPPC to the face, so I'm not truly inclined to follow it to the letter in many respects.

ER PPC only does 10pts of damage unless you're piloting a light 'Mech you can survive a headshot from that. It's the Gauss rifles and AC/20s that'll blow your head clean off with one shot.

Vollstrecker, on 10 April 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

In a game balance aspect, I would rather work against people being taken down in one shot, which can happen with a King Crab or Annihilator if ACs are a single projectile. The issue is only compounded with the introduction of Ultra ACs so a slight spread to the damage isn't terrible in my eyes, and helps give more value to the faster designs.

That's why you load AC/20s, their terrible range and accuracy is compensated for their extremely high damage. Also if you're in a scout 'Mech you shouldn't be engaging someone with and AC/20 in an arc where they can bring it to bear on you. Your job as a light 'Mech is to find them so that your bruisers can engage, only then would you move to engage and then you'd do it from the rear. Otherwise stay out of AC/20 range and use your speed and agility to avoid getting shot.

Gunmage, on 10 April 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

Also, when you compare different caliber rounds, you forget that besides barrel diameter there are such parameters as round length, mass of explosive matrerial, propellant's mass, propellant type, gross round weight... So saying that 150 mm round equals 1.5*100 mm rounds isn't exactly correct.

On the subject of all salvo hitting one location - modern 30 mm cannons shoot at ~6000 rounds per minute rates (~1000 for single-barreled ones). It means that 40 rounds are shot in under half of a second, and because recoil doesn't affect aim too much in such a short amount of time, this salvo hits in a circle with diameter of 3 meters at 500 meter distance (for Soviet GSh-6-30 cannon). So, if you are willing to believe that progress makes it possible to make a 150mm cannon shoot at 6000 rpm, then it's possible that at AC/20 extreme range it can still shoot whole salvo in one location (Mechs are big targets, after all).

I know that the ratio method isn't 100% accurate probably not even 80% accurate, however assuming all rounds are HEAT/HEAP it gives a general idea of how many rounds you would need of a different caliber.

guardiandashi, on 10 April 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

now on another note re rocket "shells" there is a thing called a RAP round, mostly used in artillery the acronym stands for Rocket Assisted Projectile these exist and have for years. basically it is a cannon or artillery round with a rocket motor attached (or built into its rear) it can be used to effectively give a cannon or artillery round a much longer "effective barrel length" by continueing to accelerate the round for several seconds after it leaves the barrel. plus considering many rounds are fin or spin stabalized you won't loose as much accuracy as you might think as long as the round doesn't tumble.

Spin stabilizing makes HEAT rounds less effective in the terminal phase. Also arty rounds aren't generally trying to defeat armor, just cause a huge explosion. From my forward observer training I seem to recall that arty generally didn't adjust fire in anything smaller than hundred meter increments, if you called for a 50m adjust that told them to fire once they'd made the adjustment. So artillery just wants to get their shells within a hundred meter square and rely on the explosive effects of multiple shells landing in that grid to kill the target.

Also I'm not sure but I think RAPs have an even larger grid, though you'd have to ask an actually cannon cocker to find out.

Johannes Falkner, on 11 April 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:

With HEAP/HEAT the numbers would be truly abysmal on paper. Because the penetration poweer of shaped charges is directly related to their diameter (which determines maximum focus) and the force (determined by explosive) behind the penetration jet. A smaller projectile will have a nearly cubically smaller volume for explosive (if you model the bullet as a sphere volume scales to r³. A bullet actually scales to more than the 3rd power because length is more scaled than diameter.) .

The diameter merely determines the stand off. We used 2/3s the diameter for a rough stand off when making improvised shaped charges in the school of infantry. So the only thing the diameter would really effect is the total volume and how much of the shell is empty (for stand off) to achieve the proper detonation distance.

The larger the diameter the more stand off, the greater the volume but also less useable space since you need that greater stand off. There has to be a point where increasing the diameter is no longer worthwhile because the stand off and wasted space in the round is to great. That would be where you standardize your shell size.

Johannes Falkner, on 11 April 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:

Physics and real life wise it is looking like a fast firing clip of 3-10 shots from a 180-100mm cannon would be the way to go. Then you keep ammo consistent with reasonable weights, keep caliber under control and can even use proven methods like magazine based autoloader systems from tanks. (most tank autoloader magazines were based on revolver designs with ~6 shots.)

Agreed to bad the fluff writers didn't ask our opinions eh?

LackofCertainty, on 11 April 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

My point was that if you have lasers (that deal damage over a period of a second) and burst fire AC's (that deal their damage over the period of a second) then you have suceeded in making two different types of weapons that perform and feel very similar. I worry, because I'd rather have AC's function like single shot cannons with short reload times rather than have them feel like reskinned lasers. (but this is all very speculative, seeings as none of us have played with them yet.)

Not sure why we've been arguing because we essentially want the same thing, AC/s that deal their damage over a very very short time period. The main difference is that you want them to do it with a single shell, while I want them to do it with a burst because that fits cannon and makes more sense given the nature of BTech armor. Looking at the game play trailer the lasers are on for 1s and the AC/20 fires its full salvo over maybe an 1/10th of a second, which should make us both happy.

[Sgt Kartr]

Quote buffer since the forums like to ruin my posts if I do two back to back.

[Strum Wealh]

I generally agree with the OP in that I would personally prefer to see ACs implemented as burst-fire weapons with their TT-listed damage-per-turn (which is, essentially, damage per second multiplied over the duration of a TT turn (10 seconds)) divided among the shells in each burst (as opposed to having all of the per-salvo damage "front-loaded" and the multiple shells simply being a graphical trick).

As far as the number of shells per burst:
GM "Whirlwind" (AC-5)

Quote

Mounted on the GM Marauder BattleMech, this weapon is approximately the size of a tree and fires shells in the 120 mm range in three round bursts.

Ceres Arms "Crusher" Super Heavy Cannon (AC-20)

Quote

Mounted on the Quickscell Hetzer Combat Vehicle, this weapon fires shells in the 150 mm range in ten shot bursts.

Enforcer BattleMech with "Federated" AC-10 (circa 2777)

Quote

Enforcers use big, ten-round clips that are easily slipped into and out of the 'Mech's back. If possible, a truck and crane system are parked close to Enforcers during battle to allow quick reloading of the 'Mech's autocannon. If the battle is too mobile and the Enforcer has no opportunities to reload, its pilot has no option but to mother his ten shots.

MechBuster Aerospace Fighter with "Zeus 75" AC-20 (circa 3023)

Quote

The one asset to the MechBuster is its Zeus 75 Autocannon/20, which fires a four-round burst of hyper-velocity depleted uranium armor penetrators (HDUAP).

Schwerer Gustav BattleMech with experimental Clan RAC-5 (circa 3073)

Quote

...three tons of reloads for the ammo hungry Rotary Autocannon, equal to sixty bursts, in the 'Mechs' CASE protected right-torso give the Gustav good endurance in the field.

It would seem that the canon's intent is to have each listed "shot"/"unit of ammunition" represent a magazine/clip, where the entire magazine/clip is expended in a single burst of multiple (~3 to ~10) shells.
IMO, a better real-time adaptation would be to implement them more similarly to real-world assault rifles, where each magazine/clip carries a sufficient number of shells for some given duration of sustained fire (say, ~7 seconds of (1-second) bursts and (1-second) cool-downs, with 3 seconds needed to replace a spent magazine/clip with a fresh one from the ammunition bin) and the user determines when and how often bursts are fired.

IMO, burst duration should be on the order of ~1 second (with a ~1-second cool-down between bursts) with the number of shells fired dependent on both the weapon class and the burst duration:
AC-2: generally 1 shell each 0.25 to 0.20 seconds (4-5 shells per 1-second burst)
AC-5: generally 1 shell each 0.33 to 0.25 seconds (3-4 shells per 1-second burst)
AC-10: generally 1 shell each 0.53 to 0.33 seconds (2-3 shells per 1-second burst)
AC-20: generally 1 shell each 1.00 to 0.50 seconds (1-2 shells per 1-second burst)

The TT-listed damage per turn would be evenly divided by the number of bursts per 10-second period (~4 or so) to determine the per-burst damage output, with said per-burst damage output then being evenly divided among the shells in each burst.
The result should/would be that, assuming the trigger were held continuously, one magazine/clip would be expended and replaced every 10 seconds, and the shells fires between the loading of any one magazine/clip and the replacement of the same magazine/clip (a 10-second period) would produce the TT-listed per-turn damage output.

The design of the Ultra ACs is said to have "most notably allowed the weapon to fire at twice the rate of the standard model", which IMO would imply a higher sustained ROF (e.g. delivering two full bursts in the same amount of time needed by the corresponding Standard AC to deliver a single burst - and likewise and expending two full magazines/clips in the same amount of time needed by the corresponding Standard AC to expend a single magazine/clip) rather than the MW4-inspired "double-tap/two-shells over 0.25 seconds" description.

Likewise, RACs (if/when they become available) at their highest-ROF setting should, IMO, be able to deliver six full bursts in the same amount of time needed by the corresponding Standard AC to deliver a single burst (and likewise and expend six full magazines/clips in the same amount of time needed by the corresponding Standard AC to expend a single magazine/clip).

LB-Xs, LACs (if/when they become available), and HVACs (if/when they become available) should, IMO, have the same ROF as the corresponding Standard ACs (as described above).

As a side note:
1.) Machine Guns, IMO, should/would work similarly, but would be able to fire in one long (~7-second) burst per magazine/clip with a bullet firing every 0.10 seconds (10 bullets per second -> 70 bullets per magazine/clip, 200 magazines/clips per ton) and the magazine/clip taking ~3 seconds to replace if the trigger is held continuously.
2.) Gauss Rifles should, IMO, be able to fire a single slug every 7-8 seconds

Your thoughts?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 11 April 2012 - 10:51 AM.

[Corbon Zackery]

Based on the Battletech Wiki The size of a autocannon is (25mm-203mm)

An example of the rating system: the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon is a 150mm weapon firing ten shells per "shot", while the Chemjet Gun is a 185mm weapon firing much slower, but causing higher damage. Despite their differences, both are classified as Autocannon/20s due to their damage output.

Based on this example any cannon over 150mm would be a AC/20

So for scale take a basic 30mm cannon that you would put on a airplane during WW2 this gives you a basic platform for a AC/2

Now look at a 75mm tank gun on WW2 sherman and you have a basic AC/5

105mm M1A1 is going to be the basics for a AC/10

150mm gun the base for the smallest AC/20

So you can imagine the dmg a computerized auto-loading 105mm M1A1 tankgun is going to do. What the muzzle flash will look like the type of recoile your looking at.

Once you have those numbers you will be able to graphic what a auto cannon firing would be like.

Thanks

[Johannes Falkner]

I will be interested in what the devs choose to do. We have established that the canon says different ACs fire different combinations of calibers and clips. Player concerns are over the ability to have absurd accuracy with player control versus TT damage spread and player desires to have a high alpha damage weapon that can concentrate its damage. Logical concerns center on ammo size/style/weight, loader characteristics and barrel length.

Lets see if I have all of the positions so far.

Camp 1:
ACs should fire a single full damage projectile that is as large as needed to do the job.

Camp 2:
ACs should fire a short burst of 3-10 shells over a short time 0.25-1.0 seconds with damage assigned to each shell according to its fractional damage.

Camp 3:
ACs should all fire approximately the same projectile/burst and the refire rate would determine the AC damage. So an AC/20 has double the refire rate of the AC/10 and quadruple the fire rate of the AC/5.

Camp 4:
ACs should fire big, fat and slow for the AC/20 and fast, quick and zippy for the AC/2

Camp 5:
You should be able to buy AC models from any of the other camps. If you want a big single shot AC or a clip firing AC or a fast refire AC it should be available and your choice whether to install it.

Did I miss anyone?

[WithSilentWings]

That's about right it seems....

[Pale Rider 010]

I was thinking about this recently, and I think the best option is to offer choice.

The term AC/20 is not in reference to a single weapon, but a class of weapon based on damage output. It could be a slow firing 200mm shell, or it could be a smaller, more rapid fire weapon. In the Mechwarrior games of the past, the AC/20 has been a specific weapon, a slow refire, big punch gun. In the tabletop game, it didn't matter, it was damage in a turn. Here, it can make a difference, and we don't have to repeat the mistakes of Mechwarrior past.

Allow the AC/20 to be a class of weapon, not a single weapon.

EXAMPLE:

200mm AC/20:14 tons, 20 damage, 10 second refire, 400m range. 20 ammo/ton

150mm AC/20:14 tons, 15 damage, 7.5 second refire, 400m range. 30 ammo/ton

100mm AC/20:14 tons, 10 damage, 5 second refire, 400m range. 40 ammo/ton

50mm AC/20:14 tons, 5 damage, 2.5 second refire, 400m range. 80 ammo/ton

Notice how as damage is reduced, so is reload time? Each would do the same amount of base damage over time, meaning they all fall in the category of AC/20, but if someone wants a faster weapon, they can get one. Also note that ammunition would increase with smaller weapons so that the same total damage can be done, thus not punishing a rapid fire weapon with excessively reduced endurance. All of this also gives more variety, more opportunity to build a mech that fits our own play style and needs while still remaining withing the bounds of canon.

This also works for smaller autocannons (AC/2, AC/5, AC/10), though smaller weapons could be skewed more towards faster refire times. I am not advocating that we fold RAC's into the AC category, I imagine those would have a MUCH faster fire rate, and also are at least 12 years away.

In summery, if the autocannon ratings are for a category of weapon rather than a single corresponding weapon system, everyone wins. We get more variety to play with, people who want a rapid fire weapon can get theirs while people who want a big smasher of a gun can be happy too. It all fits within the canon too. My ChemJet Gun 185mm, your Crusher Super Heavy Cannon 150mm, and that other guy's Pontiac 100 are all considered AC/20. If there is such variety in existing lore, why can't we have it in game?

[Corbon Zackery]

There are other factors:

3-25 round burst your going to have tracer rounds that help you track to the target otherwise your going to be firing blind.

At some point your going to calibrate your cannon or cannons to shoot angled in a crisscross to max the dmg output.

If you are using cannons you might have a fighter jet like hud to help with lead and angle of attack.

I think basics have been covered its now about taking it to the next level and doing more with it.

[WithSilentWings]

Pale Rider: I agree with the basics of your concept. But: in MW2 even an AC20 expended all of it's 5 rounds in a matter of a few second. IIRC all ACs had a similar rate of fire just the lighter ones had more range and ammo. In MW3 every AC fired a big burst per shot, the lighter ones having more range and ammo as well as a faster recycle (I think). MW4 was the same. I'm not sure what Mechwarrior game you're talking about where the AC20 fired single shots as the only one I know of is Mechwarrior Living Legends

[Solis Obscuri]

Strum Wealh, on 11 April 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

I generally agree with the OP in that I would personally prefer to see ACs implemented as burst-fire weapons with their TT-listed damage-per-turn (which is, essentially, damage per second multiplied over the duration of a TT turn (10 seconds)) divided among the shells in each burst (as opposed to having all of the per-salvo damage "front-loaded" and the multiple shells simply being a graphical trick).

As far as the number of shells per burst:
GM "Whirlwind" (AC-5)

Ceres Arms "Crusher" Super Heavy Cannon (AC-20)

Enforcer BattleMech with "Federated" AC-10 (circa 2777)

MechBuster Aerospace Fighter with "Zeus 75" AC-20 (circa 3023)

Schwerer Gustav BattleMech with experimental Clan RAC-5 (circa 3073)


It would seem that the canon's intent is to have each listed "shot"/"unit of ammunition" represent a magazine/clip, where the entire magazine/clip is expended in a single burst of multiple (~3 to ~10) shells.
IMO, a better real-time adaptation would be to implement them more similarly to real-world assault rifles, where each magazine/clip carries a sufficient number of shells for some given duration of sustained fire (say, ~7 seconds of (1-second) bursts and (1-second) cool-downs, with 3 seconds needed to replace a spent magazine/clip with a fresh one from the ammunition bin) and the user determines when and how often bursts are fired.

IMO, burst duration should be on the order of ~1 second (with a ~1-second cool-down between bursts) with the number of shells fired dependent on both the weapon class and the burst duration:
AC-2: generally 1 shell each 0.25 to 0.20 seconds (4-5 shells per 1-second burst)
AC-5: generally 1 shell each 0.33 to 0.25 seconds (3-4 shells per 1-second burst)
AC-10: generally 1 shell each 0.53 to 0.33 seconds (2-3 shells per 1-second burst)
AC-20: generally 1 shell each 1.00 to 0.50 seconds (1-2 shells per 1-second burst)

The TT-listed damage per turn would be evenly divided by the number of bursts per 10-second period (~4 or so) to determine the per-burst damage output, with said per-burst damage output then being evenly divided among the shells in each burst.
The result should/would be that, assuming the trigger were held continuously, one magazine/clip would be expended and replaced every 10 seconds, and the shells fires between the loading of any one magazine/clip and the replacement of the same magazine/clip (a 10-second period) would produce the TT-listed per-turn damage output.

The design of the Ultra ACs is said to have "most notably allowed the weapon to fire at twice the rate of the standard model", which IMO would imply a higher sustained ROF (e.g. delivering two full bursts in the same amount of time needed by the corresponding Standard AC to deliver a single burst - and likewise and expending two full magazines/clips in the same amount of time needed by the corresponding Standard AC to expend a single magazine/clip) rather than the MW4-inspired "double-tap/two-shells over 0.25 seconds" description.

Likewise, RACs (if/when they become available) at their highest-ROF setting should, IMO, be able to deliver six full bursts in the same amount of time needed by the corresponding Standard AC to deliver a single burst (and likewise and expend six full magazines/clips in the same amount of time needed by the corresponding Standard AC to expend a single magazine/clip).

LB-Xs, LACs (if/when they become available), and HVACs (if/when they become available) should, IMO, have the same ROF as the corresponding Standard ACs (as described above).

As a side note:
1.) Machine Guns, IMO, should/would work similarly, but would be able to fire in one long (~7-second) burst per magazine/clip with a bullet firing every 0.10 seconds (10 bullets per second -> 70 bullets per magazine/clip, 200 magazines/clips per ton) and the magazine/clip taking ~3 seconds to replace if the trigger is held continuously.
2.) Gauss Rifles should, IMO, be able to fire a single slug every 7-8 seconds

Your thoughts?

I generally agree, though I'd rather see burst duration below a full second - more like a half second or so.

[Pale Rider 010]

WithSilentWings, on 11 April 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

Pale Rider: I agree with the basics of your concept. But: in MW2 even an AC20 expended all of it's 5 rounds in a matter of a few second. IIRC all ACs had a similar rate of fire just the lighter ones had more range and ammo. In MW3 every AC fired a big burst per shot, the lighter ones having more range and ammo as well as a faster recycle (I think). MW4 was the same. I'm not sure what Mechwarrior game you're talking about where the AC20 fired single shots as the only one I know of is Mechwarrior Living Legends

I'm playing a lot of MW4 Mercs lately. In MW4 Mercs, The AC2, AC5, AC10, and AC20 are all single shot, with progressively slower cycle times as you get into bigger guns. The Ultra AC versions fire two shots at once, but otherwise still have increasing cycle times.

[WithSilentWings]

Pale Rider 010, on 11 April 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

I'm playing a lot of MW4 Mercs lately. In MW4 Mercs, The AC2, AC5, AC10, and AC20 are all single shot, with progressively slower cycle times as you get into bigger guns. The Ultra AC versions fire two shots at once, but otherwise still have increasing cycle times.

Ah ok. I didn't remember MW4 Mercs. It's been a long time since I've played MW4, I've played MW2 more recently lol.

[Kartr]

WithSilentWings, on 11 April 2012 - 07:36 AM, said:

Apparently they get much bigger than 200mm. It sounds like you are agreeing that an AC20 should not pack all it's punch in a single hit?

The largest mentioned on Sarna.net is 203mm. I don't think AC/20s should fire a single shell, however I think all the shells fired in a burst should strike the same location. So if you consider a burst that lasts a fraction of a second long and does 20pts of damage to one location and only that location then yes I think they should pack all the AC/20 damage, in fact all AC damage in one "hit" but that hit needs to be made up of multiple rounds striking the target at the same time.

WithSilentWings, on 11 April 2012 - 07:36 AM, said:

I thought an AC2 was supposed to have several times the range of smaller/medium lasers? Even longer than a large laser IIRC. (EDIT: just looked it up, an AC2 outranges even a PPC. In fact, according to TT rules it outranges a Gauss Rifle.) Also, I thought some mechs packed AC2's for antiaircraft purposes?

The AC/2 is a worthless weapon, weighs more than an ER Heavy laser, does 1/4th damage, its only two advantages are heat and range, but it also suffers from needing ammo.

WithSilentWings, on 11 April 2012 - 07:36 AM, said:

What about heat and ammo? What about range? Any AC besides the 20 should outrange SRM weapons, and so we suddenly have another balancing factor. Ammunition is also much less expensive. We're also talking direct fire weapons vs missiles--assuming you have good aim an AC will still have a much better chance of landing the majority of it's damage on target, where the SRMs will land in a spread.

Short Range:
1. Medium Lasers x4: 20 damage, 12 heat, 4 tons, 4 criticals, deals damage in 4 beams over 1s, damage wanders across target, ammo independant.
2. SRM/2s x5: 20 damage, 10 heat, 5 tons, 5 criticals, deals damage per missile, 10 missiles, every missile has a chance to miss or strike a different location, ammo dependant 10 shots per launcher per ton.
3. SRM/4s x3: 24 damage, 9 heat, 6 tons, 3 criticals, deals damage per missile, 12 missiles, every missile has a chance to miss or strike a different location, ammo dependant 8.33 shots per launcher per ton, plus one extra shot for 1 launcher.
4. SRM/6s x2: 24 damage, 8 heat, 6 tons 4 criticals, deals damage per missile, 10 missiles, every missile has a chance to miss or strike a different location, ammo dependant 7.5 shots per launcher per ton.
5. AC/20 x1: 20 damage, 7 heat, 14 tons, 10 criticals, all damage applied to one location over a fraction of a second, 5 shots per ton.

Medium-Medium/Long Range:
1. Large Laser x1: 8 damage, 8 heat, 5 tons, 2 criticals, deals damage over a 1s shot duration, damage wanders across the target, ammo independant, medium range.
2. ER Large Laser x1: 8 damage, 12 heat, 5 tons, 2 criticals, presumably deals damage over a 1s shot duration, ammo independant, medium/long range.
3. AC/10 x1: 10 damage, 3 heat, 12 tons, 7 criticals, all damage applied to one location over a fraction of a second, 10 shots per ton, medium range.
4. AC/5 x2: 10 damage, 2 heat, 16 tons, 8 criticals, damage applied to 2 locations over a faction of a second, 10 shots per weapon per ton, medium/long range.
5. LB/10X AC x1(slug): 10 damage, 2 heat, 11 tons, 6 criticals, deals all damage to one location over a fraction of a second, 10 shots per ton, medium/long range.
6. PPC x1: 10 damage, 10 heat, 7 tons, 3 criticals, presumably damage dealt to one location, ammo independant, medium/long range.

Long Range:
1. LRM/10 x1: 10 damage, 2 heat, 5 tons, 2 criticals, deals damage per missile, 10 missiles, every missile has a chance to miss or strike a different location, ammo dependant 12 shots per ton.
2. ER PPC x1: 10 damage, 15 heat, 7 tons, 3 criticals, presumably damage dealt to one location, ammo indpendant.
3. Gauss Rifle x1: 15 damage, 1 heat, 15 tons, 7 criticals, damage dealt to one location, 8 shots per ton of ammo.
4. AC/2 x5: 10 damage, 5 heat, 30 tons, 5 criticals, damage dealt to 5 locations, 9 shots per weapon per ton.

That's how its balanced currently and as you can see AC/5s and AC/2s are essentially worthless, while AC/20s are less desirable than Medium Lasers, unless you put all the AC damage into one location quickly. The only way AC/5s and 2s become worth while is if you have them on a very rapid reload cycle so you can keep putting lots of low damage bursts on targets at extreme ranges.

Put another way the AC is the right hook that puts a guy down for good, lasers are the stinging jabs and missiles are the fients that keep him from connecting with his own hits. If the AC doesn't really deliver that knock out blow, its not doing its job and isn't worth the extra weight and criticals.

WithSilentWings, on 11 April 2012 - 07:36 AM, said:

I didn't say anything about having the rounds spread. Basically I'd like it to work like MW3 for such a type--this means a concentrated burst that fires quite quickly. Only faster mechs would have a chance of dodging and in those cases the weapon is still able to score a few hits as the target moves through your crosshairs.

Except the rounds should be grouped so closely together that if one misses, they all miss, if one hits they all hit. This makes it a very high risk/reward weapon and makes the player really think about how they want to play, reliable low damage from lasers or that knock out punch that has to be timed just right.

WithSilentWings, on 11 April 2012 - 07:36 AM, said:

It doesn't negate the whole point at all--as long as it can do the eqivalent of 20 damage in 10 seconds then it is the same DPS and is following the tabletop guidelines. Why is it your decision regarding the time it takes an AC to cycle? The idea that "it's big and the ammo is heavy" is completely arbitrary and unscientific. If there can be an AC that uses a 500mm shell and fires once ever 5 seconds and an AC that uses a 150mm shell and fires a burst of 5 with a 5 second recycle, where is the logic in saying you can't simply take the same mechanics behind the first option and apply it to a faster firing weapon with a smaller round that adds to the same 20 rating of damage over 10 seconds?

It's not arbitrary and un-scientific. We know of three AC/20 rounds 150mm, 185mm and 203mm, those are huge and heavy rounds, that's not a guess that's fact.

As for the DPS there are many ways of achieving it. one way is that you actually do x amount of damage every second, another way is to do 10(x) damage once every 10 seconds. The AC has to be in the latter catagory because if it fired multiple shells over a 10s period those shells would land all over the enemy target and even miss entirely. The whole point behind using a burst fire is to get all your shells into the same area before recoil and relative movement throw your aim off. Since the ACs do all their damage to one location they have to be doing all their damage in a fraction of a second and be loading/cycling for the other 9.8s.

Since all AC/s do their damage in this fashion all AC/s must fire their rounds in very short bursts. Even the Ultra AC/s fire bursts, they just fire two bursts and that's why you have damage in two different locations, recoil and movment during/after the first burst causes the second burst to land in a different location.

WithSilentWings, on 11 April 2012 - 07:36 AM, said:

But... the description of an Ultra AC is essentially an AC that fires twice as fast and does twice the damage.............. And so essentially all ACs are Ultra ACs that do half the damage.... My primary point in terms of "number of rounds" or "rate of recycle" in regards to the fluff is on the lines of this: do we really all believe that the heavier single shell launching autocannons literally ALL fire exactly ONCE ever TEN SECONDS? Why can there not be a heavier single shell AC that fires once ever 5 or once ever 3 or every 8 for an over-all eqivalent rating? Can anyone find fluff that affirms or disputes the idea that all AC20's fire a sigle shot or a single burst exactly every 10 seconds?

First off their is no such thing as a single shell AC.

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....no Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each "round" or burst of fire.

Because disregarding fluff we know that in the ten second window all the damage is done in a single location. Consider that if you have 2 'Mechs both moving at 60kph then each one is moving at 1,000m/minute or 166.7m every 10 seconds. Their combined movement will be over 330m in that 10s window. If they're moving on the same exact axis ie, directly towards/away from each other that isn't such a big deal. If they're moving along different axis the point of aim is going to shift by collosal amounts in 10s. None of this is even accounting for the recoil of a 150+mm shell, the rising and falling or the swaying of a 'Mech in motion.

These factors are why an AC has to fire all its rounds in a burst that lasts only a fraction of a second long. That minimizes the amount of movement between the 'Mechs between shots, minimizes the impact of recoil and the motion of the firing 'Mech. You still have to account for deflection, but at least you've minimized as many of the variables as possible. If AC/s fired bursts twice a round you would see them strike different areas on the enemy 'Mech, which is what happens with Ultra AC/s meaning they do fire bursts twice a round.

Also no we're(I am) saying that the AC/s fire multiple rounds(bullets/shells) every game round, they just fire all of them in a fraction of a second emptying the magazine/clip which takes another 10s to refill from the ammo storage bins. For example the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon fires 10 times every game round, however all ten shots are fired off in the first 0.5s or less and the other 9.5s is the auto-loader reloading a 10shot clip with 150mm shells.

[Sgt Kartr]

space so I can post the second half of my post

Edited by Sgt Kartr, 11 April 2012 - 05:15 PM.

[Kartr]

Post temporarily removed so I can fix it, stupid browser ate the second half of my post
Ah screw it, I spent half the day working on that between classes and now half of it is gone.

AC/s fire multiple shells in less than a tenth of a second ensuring that even a BattleMech running at 120km/h will take all the shells on the same area. If an enemy 'Mech is running 120km/h at 90 degrees from the trajectory of your AC burst the last round in a 10rd burst will land less than 3.5 meters from the first one (I did the math). If they are running more towards or away from you, or they are moving slower then that area shrinks. So a burst easily puts all shells into one location to achieve its full potential damage.

Lasers, missiles and AC/s need to be very unique, each with their own sets of advantages and disadvantages. If this isn't the case then Lasers become the default choice because they can do equivalent damage with less tonnage, and critical space, have no ammo consumption and no chance of ammo explosions. Since lasers have a 1s duration every time you fire them (see the game play trailer) and that causes them to spread their damage across multiple facings, and missiles spread their damage across multiple facings, but have the greatest potential damage at the greatest range, then AC/s need to do all their damage to a single facing in an extremely short amount of time to make up for their significantly greater weight and critical space, and their ammo dependency.

In your car analogy:
Porsche 1 = Medium Laser
Porsche 2 = ER Medium Laser
Porsche 3 = Medium Pulse Laser

They're all the same thing with slightly different capabilities and performance. AC/s, Missiles and Lasers have extremely different capabilities and performance profiles and so are more like the Civic, Boxer and 18 Wheeler. This is good because you have to pick one based on all its differences rather than minimal ones. This makes choices harder because you have to weigh very different capabilities with no clear superior set.

Smaller AC/s should fire faster because the rating isn't a function of DPS its function of damage per shot. AC/2s should be able to fire much faster than AC/20s because they're smaller rounds and only do 2 pts of damage to whatever they hit. Fire it 10 times you're going to hit 4-5 different locations and only do a little damage to each. Fire the AC/20 once in that same time frame and you're going to completely destroy whatever it hits.

Rate of fire is dependent on what the devs set the cycle times to not heat. It is absurdly easy to create a heat neutral beam boat that can fire its lasers non stop. Replace an AC/20 with 4 medium lasers and 5 HS and you do the same amount of damage and have the same amount of heat, save 6 tons and 2 critical. If you use double HS and you have no weapons mounted you can throw on 6 Medium Lasers, before you have to add heat sinks. Those six MLs will do 30pts of damage and save you 9 tons and 5 criticals over mounting an AC/20 with 1 ton of ammo.

A 60 ton 'Mech utilizing standard chassis, engine, and armor and double HS can carry 2 AC/20s (40pts of damage), 2 tons of ammo, 6.5 tons of armor and move at 4/6.
A 60 ton 'Mech utilizing standard chassis, engine and armor and double HS can carry 8 Medium Lasers (40pts of damage), 12.5 tons of armor an AMS with 2 tons of ammo and move at 5/8. With enough HS to never build any heat.

If AC/s don't do all their damage to one location and aren't very distinct from Laser weapons, then there is no reason to use them. Only the lightest AC/s have any reason to use them if they're not distinct from laser weapons and thats their range, even then considering they only do 2pts of damage its not really worth it. Wait till they get closer and hit them with a PPC.

Edited by Kartr, 11 April 2012 - 06:14 PM.