388 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

Kartr, on 14 April 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

Ok you don't buy it fine. Show me the math that proves you can fire the burst in more then a tenth of a second at a target moving perpendicular to the line of fire and still have the first and last rounds land within 3m of each other.

Okay.

Though, the target speed and range and muzzle velocity (among other variables) have not been defined.
So, I suppose I'll take the liberty to do so:
Our Platform: anything that can carry and fire at least one generic AC-20
Target: AS7-D Atlas (top speed: 54 kph, or 15 m/s)
Range: 270 meters (max. effective range of AC-20; the TT "long range" value being the max. effective range was confirmed by David Bradley, Game Designer, in Q&A 05).
Muzzle Velocity: 600 m/s (a highly conservative value, as that's on the low side for cannons in the ~150mm to ~203mm range - the average value is on the order of 800-1000 m/s for real-world weapons of those calibers)

We shall assume, for the sake of simplicity and brevity, that the terrain is relatively even (not necessarily level, but even) and that environmental effects (wind, gravity, etc) are negligible.

Let's say that the path of our enemy Atlas describes a perfect circle of radius r = 270 meters (they're very good at keeping distance while circle-strafing), and that our firing platform is stationary (not walking/running/rolling/etc), but is able to rotate in place (turning in place, torso/turret-twist, and so on).
So, we know that the arc-length L across one second is 15 meters.

The angle θ through which our platform would have to turn through to follow the enemy Atlas can be described as:
θ = (arc length)/(radius) = L/r
So, from our values above, θ = (15)/(270) = 0.055 radians = 3.183 degrees

So, to effectively track an enemy Atlas moving at its maximum speed at the maximum effective range of an generic AC-20, our platform would, through a combination of turning in place and torso/turret-twisting, need to be able to traverse at least ~3.2 degrees per second.
At that rate, it would take ~113.097 seconds (a little under 2 minutes) for our platform to turn completely around (that is, traverse through 360 degrees).

So... what if, instead of an AS7-D, our target is a Clan-built Fire Moth/"Dasher" with MASC active (top speed of 216 kph, or 60 m/s)?
L = 60 meters
r = 270 meters
θ = L/r = 60/270 = 0.222 radians = 12.732 degrees
Minimum Required Traverse Rate: ~12.8 degrees/second
Time to turn 360 Degrees: ~28.274 seconds

We would get the same θ values, required traverse rates, and turn rates for the AS7-D as for the Dasher if the former were moving at its maximum speed, but at a distance of 67.5 meters from our platform (that is, one-fourth of the way to a generic AC-20's maximum effective range).

Of course, with these being "merely supersonic" (as opposed to near-luminal, luminal, or super-luminal ) projectiles, muzzle velocities and flight speeds and travel times and the need to lead the target become significant factors.

As previously established, we shall take muzzle velocity (and, for the sake of simplicity and brevity, flight speed to max. effective range) to be on the order of 600 m/s (1,968.5 ft/s).

For a target at max. effective range (270 meters), we're looking at a time-to-target of ~0.45 seconds - that is, about half-a-second between when the shell is fired and when it reaches the max. effective range.
For an AS7-D, this means that we'd need to lead the target by ~6.75 meters (~22.15 feet).
For a Dasher, this means that we'd need to lead the target by ~27 meters (~88.58 feet).

For MV = 800 m/s:
time-to-target (at 270 meters) = ~0.34 seconds
lead to AS7-D = ~5.06 meters (~16.60 feet)
lead for Dasher = ~20.25 meters (~66.44 feet)

For MV = 1000 m/s:
time-to-target (at 270 meters) = ~0.27 seconds
lead for AS7-D = ~4.05 meters (~13.29 feet)
lead for Dasher = ~16.20 meters (~53.14 feet)

And the interesting thing about all of the above?
It's all completely independent of the weapon's rate of fire!

As long as our platform can achieve (or exceed) the required turn/tracking/torso-twist rates and the operator (MechWarrior/pilot/player) can 1.) consistently and accurately determine the needed lead distance at any given range and 2.) consistently and accurately maintain that lead distance and 3.) accurately and quickly adjust for changes in the distance to target and/or the target's speed, whether one is firing a shell every second or every 0.01 seconds or even every 0.001 seconds is, for the most part, a negligible factor with regard to whether one can actually hit any given target with any given salvo, yes?
In fact, all of 1-3 would (and should) be among the oft-vaunted skills to be honed, yes?

Kartr, on 14 April 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

There is a large round bulge right behind the barrel that could contain a cylinder chamber 10 150mm shells, be spun up to fire them all and then spun down to load them.

Standard BT/MW Autocannon:

LB-X Autocannon:

Ultra Autocannon:

M256 120mm cannon (main gun for M1 Abrams MBT):



Mauser MG 213 (20mm aircraft-mounted revolver cannon; "the archetypal revolver cannon"):


Mauser BK-27 (modern 27mm revolver cannon):


Admittedly, I do not see what part/section of the non-rotary ACs indicates that they are necessarily revolver-type weapons.
Not that they can't be revolver-type weapons, but the cited artwork doesn't seem to support the assertion that the non-rotary ACs must be revolver-type weapons...

Kartr, on 14 April 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

The GIAT 30 is a revolver cannon who's ROF is 2,500rds/minute. Also the only reason that revolver cannons have an ROF 1/3 to 1/4th that of a rotary cannon is because of heat. The rotary cannon is essentially a number of full weapons that are spun, fired in sequence and fed from the same ammunition source. This means that each barrel is heating up at a rate of 1/(number of barrels) compared to a revolver cannon.

Ironic the one thing that limits today's revolver cannon is one of the huge balancing factors in BattleTech.

With thicker barrels, better cooling of barrels and barrels made of materials with greater heat tolerances, the ROFs on revolver cannons could be increased significantly. The GSh-6-23 is a rotary cannon with 6 barrels that has an ROF of 10,000rounds/minute. So it seems that if a revolver cannons barrel could be made to withstand 6 times the heat of firing at 2,500rds/minute it could achieve the necessary 10,000rds/minute.

Where do you get that the largest feasible round in a revolver cannon is 30mm? The process would work the same no matter how large you scaled it. There has just been no need to scale it past 30mm because current armor schemes can be defeated with a single tank caliber round. There is no reason to develop a revolver cannon that can fire large caliber rounds.

-----

Even at 2,500rds/minute you're firing almost 42rds a second or 4rds in a tenth of a second. Doubling the heat tolerance of the barrel would in theory allow you to fire 5,000rds/minute or 84rds/second or 8rds in a tenth of a second. Increase the cooling and it could be possible to increase the ROF to 10,000rds/minute which is 8rds in 5 hundreths of a second.

It depends on the mechanism used to load the clip. Remember we're talking about large caliber rounds and if they're in a clip they're held to gether ridgedly. This means you can't just roll them around tracks inside the 'Mech to get from the ammo bin/magazine. A 5s loading time for a clip does not seem un-reasonable to me. Even with rifles a clip is significantly harder to load then a box magazine and if I recall correctly 3 seconds is the time alloted for a tactical reload during training (M-16A4). When you think about that and the fact that we're talking 120mm shells utilizing a clip and pulling the ammunition through the 'Mech I don't think 5s is long at all.

I didn't say that the largest feasible revolver-type cannon was at 30mm; I pointed out that the largest practical revolver-type cannon seems to be in the 30mm-35mm range.
While the two may occasionally go hand-in-hand, feasibility does not equate to practicality.

In fact, the highest-caliber revolver-type cannons that I know of is the prototype Oerlikon 421 RK (nicknamed "the Red King") and its sister gun ("the Red Queen").
"The 421 RK (42mm, 1st model Revolver Kanone) shown above was fascinating. The unusual calibre of 42mm was selected, firing a 1.09 kg shell at 1,070 m/s to develop a muzzle energy of 624,000 joules, an increase of 80% over the 40 x 311R Bofors L/56. The gun design chosen was a revolver, but with a seven-chamber cylinder and two barrels. It is not clear whether the barrels fired simultaneously or alternately. Ammunition feed was by means of a 75-round pan magazine to the left side of the gun (with the rounds pointing inwards) which was reloaded by means of three-round clips, and a rate of fire of 450 rpm was claimed (three times that of the Bofors L/56). The entire weapon on its wheeled mounting weighed over 6 tons (6,500 kg). This project was given the code name "Red King" by the UK, presumably inspired by the RK designation (at that time British military projects were given colour codes at random to ensure that they didn't indicate the purpose of the system, e.g. the Blue Steel airborne nuclear missile)."
Both projects were cancelled in favor of other, lower-caliber alternatives before reaching the production stage.
(See source here.)

Also, heat dissipation likely wouldn't be the only engineering concern for a revolver-type autocannon.
Drawing from analogies to handguns (which may or may not be the most valid points of comparison), I could see things like alignment of, and seal between, the cylinder vs the barrel (which has to be perfect, or nearly-so), the alignment and coordination of a substantial number of moving parts (apparently on the order of ~50-80 for a hand-held revolver-type pistol, vs ~40 for a comparable handheld semi-auto pistol), power requirements (AC-10 and AC-20 shells are fairly massive, and a revolver-type version of those weapons would require a substantial drive system to overcome angular momentum for spin-up and spin-down... with a sensitive and accurate control system to keep everything aligned and in-sync in the process), and probably a whole host of other things that aren't coming to mind at the moment.

And then there's the canon issue:
Standard ACs fire at some rate of fire we'll call "X".
Ultra ACs have two ROF settings: standard ROF ("X") and ultra-mode ("2*X")
Rotary ACs have four ROF settings: standard ROF ("X"), double-ROF ("2*X"), quad-ROF ("4*X"), and max-ROF ("6*X")

If the standard ROF is on the order of 6,000 rounds per minute (able to fire 10 rounds in 0.1 seconds, as you claim is necessary), then UACs in ultra-mode would necessarily be firing at ~12,000 rpm (significantly higher than what modern Gatling-type rotary cannons can manage), and RACs in their max-ROF setting would necessarily be firing at ~36,000 rpm.
The latter two seem... problematic, considering that 1.) the UAC is a non-rotary cannon, with a proposed performance exceeding what should be possible with even the fastest-firing modern rotary cannon and 2.) the IS is just getting around to basically re-inventing the GAU-8 (by way of the RAC-2) by the early 3060s.

And given that we know how many individual shells some units carry, it again becomes an issue.
The Enforcer, for example, carries the ammunition for its AC-10 in ten 10-round clips (representing one ton of ammunition), for a total of 100 shells. Under a "10 shell burst in 0.1 seconds" scheme, this would mean that the Enforcer carries enough ammunition for about one second of fire!
Likewise, the Hetzer carries the ammunition for its AC-20 in twenty 10-round clips (representing four tons of ammunition), for a total of 200 shells. Under a "10 shell burst in 0.1 seconds" scheme, this would mean that the Hetzer carries enough ammunition for about two seconds of fire!

I propose, instead, that we go from the top-down, rather than from the bottom-up.
That is, 6*X = 10,000 rpm (or ~166-167 rounds per second) would represent an upper limit.
Then, X = 10,000/6 = ~1667 rpm (or ~27-28 rounds per second).
In that case:
Standard AC ROF: 27 rps
Ultra AC ROFs: 27 rps ("normal mode"), 54 rps ("ultra mode")
Rotary AC ROFs: 27 rps ("normal mode"), 54 rps ("double-ROF mode"), 108 rps ("quad-ROF mode"), and 162 rps ("max-ROF mode")

Though, IMO, the following scheme seems better:
Standard AC ROF: 10 rps (equivalent to 600 rounds per minute)
Ultra AC ROFs: 10 rps ("normal mode"), 20 rps ("ultra mode")
Rotary AC ROFs: 10 rps ("normal mode"), 10 rps ("double-ROF mode"), 40 rps ("quad-ROF mode"), and 60 rps ("max-ROF mode")
This gives the UACs a maximum ROF of ~1,200 rounds per minute (which would be pretty good for a non-rotary cannon, revolver-type or no) and RACs a maximum ROF of ~3,600 rounds per minute (which isn't bad, considering that the GAU-8 maxes out at ~4,200 rounds per minute).
And, again, these would be upper limits, with smaller ACs firing at or near(er) to these rates and larger-caliber ACs firing at lower ROFs.

I suspect (and this is my personal supposition) that what happens (or should happen) with UACs and RACs is that they still fire normal bursts, but that they would fire them with greater frequency (that is, shortening the recycle time) rather than increasing the number of shells fired in any individual burst.
With each unit of ammunition representing one clip and the idea that "1 clip = 1 burst", it would explain why UACs expend two clips/bursts per 10-second period (one turn in the TT) while in their higher-ROF setting, as well as why RACs consume two, four, or six clips/bursts per 10-second period (again, one turn in the TT) while in their higher-ROF settings.

IMO, the "base 10 rps" system (outlined above) helps in two primary ways:
1.) It helps to moderate the damage-delivery of the larger ACs (assuming they fire in bursts) - they can still deliver all of their damage to one area, but it will take some work to do so; they would still be fearsome and dangerous (if one has the level of skill needed to deliver the damage to one location, as described above) without being "guaranteed insta-glib" weapons (for those without or lacking in the aforementioned skills).
2.) Combined with faster (say, Solaris-style) recycle times and better damage-to-heat ratios, lighter ACs would be able to keep up, in terms of average damage-per-second, with some (really, most) of the "traditional heavy-hitters" while still filling a different niche (e.g. an UAC-5 in "ultra mode" may out-range and out-DPS a PPC, do the same to the larger lasers, out-DPS and nearly match the range of the ER-PPC, but the UAC-5 is still very different weapon with very different behavior from any of those); a greater number of potentially-viable configurations (with actual viability subject to the ability of the players) is always a good thing, yes?

Your thoughts?

[wwiiogre]

Strum,

great info and I almost didn't nod off like in physics class when the professor would drone and not actually do any board work but just talk for minutes on end. I actually appreciate all the work that took. I like sims, but I don't want them to be that much of a sim. There needs to be a balance between table top rules and sim where game balance comes into play. Hitting a mech going 200 kph at an oblique angle should be one of the hardest things to do in the game. Which is why it always states hitting aero units is so hard and only very specific AA mechs had even a chance to hit them.

But I still say that no matter how table top did it, it allowed for an AC that fired either single shots or multiple shots of burst to hit the exact same area of the mech. Why? Game balance of course. Therefore they figured that the pilot skill based on a roll when compared to range and movement of the target mech as well as movement of the firing mech and intervening terrain either cover or concealment or atmospherics still allowed during a ten second turn a mech to fire an AC and if his roll was successful hit every round fired from that AC into the exact same location on the target battlemech. And once again I say, I don't know how, but they did it. Which if I assume, would mean the targeting computers allowed the pilot to lead the target such that the rounds landed where needed. But really I just think it was for game balance. the fluff doesn't matter. So we are left with PGI needs to get the balance right so every weapon has a role and some are not worthless because of their decisions on how they apply them to the video game. I have every hope PGI gets this right.

chris

chris

[FireStorm2]

Strum Wealh, on 14 April 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

For sourcing the info on the Enforcer and its gun: it's in TRO 3025 (viewable here), on page 58. It's the last paragraph under "Capabilities".

It seems to me that the text indicated could be read to mean that the Enforcer carries a single ten round 'clip' housing ten single rounds for a total of ten shots. It says that Enforcers (plural) use ten round clips, and even if it were singular, it could be used in the same sense as it would for any other weapon (A .40 glock handgun could be said to use 15 round magazines despite the fact that at any given time, only one may be loaded in the weapon.)

In the context of the quote, it appears to me as though the clip system was implemented in the case of the Enforcer to allow rapid reloading of the entire ammunition supply of the mech as one block when the mech returns for rearming, rather than to allow reloading of 10 rounds at a time to the autocannon from an on-board ammo supply.

Edited by Fire§torm, 15 April 2012 - 12:44 PM.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Paladin1, on 15 April 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

I realized that Battletechnology was no longer considered fully canon, but I wasn't aware that the DRG-2N never made it into a Record Sheet book. That's good to know.

Why do you think it's listed under "non-canon variants" on sarna?
And if it had appeared in an RS, it would've had a reference to one for its BV2.

Quote

A laser is a laser is a laser, doesn't matter who created them.

Read the fluff, different brand lasers have different strengths and weaknesses.
Ditto for autocannons.
Point being for TT, they're all similar enough to be considered the same weapon.

Quote

Muzzle Velocity: 600 m/s (a highly conservative value, as that's on the low side for cannons in the ~150mm to ~203mm range - the average value is on the order of 800-1000 m/s for real-world weapons of those calibers)

Looking at AeroSpace ranges/speeds, they're closer to Mach 4-5.

[Paladin1]

Alizabeth Aijou, on 15 April 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

Why do you think it's listed under "non-canon variants" on sarna?
And if it had appeared in an RS, it would've had a reference to one for its BV2.

You got me on the Sarna thing, I don't bother reading it unless there's a specific reason to look something up, such as something that I haven't heard about before and don't have my DTF version available to check. As for having a reference to a RS for it's BV2 value, that's only if you're going by the latest round of RS books. Although the older ones are harder to get, the designs are still canon as long as they aren't superseded by a newer RS book and several of the older ones either have BV1, BV's predecessor (Combat Value) or even no data at all.

[Tarl Cabot]

Victor Morson, on 15 April 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

I presume you're talking about the Blackjack. There's few things about that:

There were games locked to medium weight classes
There were no effective long-range medium 'mechs mounting LRMs
In 3025 things like ER Weapons didn't exist
AC/2s in MPBT3025 were buffed to be marginally useful

So yes, I suppose 3025 qualifies as one of the games where they had a - abit small - niche. Still, if you had access to a 'mech lab in 3025 (as we do here) nobody in their right mind would have driven a stock Blackjack.

However, all that said, the team with more Medium Lasers and heavy ACs tended to weather the storm and then just obliterate any lance with more than one Blackjack in it.

(chuckles) Again, your assumption is based on getting into brawling range without sustaining major damage to weapon systems. And if you actually read the post, my favor is the dragon, but I can touch up on the BJ.

Again, it depended on tactics used, but being IS, there is none of this duel 1-on-1 in the middle of a warzone (most of the time ).

If we go with a medium lance, the mechs utilized were blackjack Bj1s, hunchback 4J/4N (2xLRM 10s / 1xLRM5 +AC5), trebuchets (2xLRM 15 or 1 LRM 15 + jump jets), wolverines with some assassins and whitworths (2x LRM10) thrown in. These matches the side torsos were the primary targets and not the legs (except for assassins) to reduce the incoming long range damage asap.

Heavies were catapults, marauders, dragons, with archers/warhammers occassionally thrown in. Combination of either legs, arms or headshots.

Assaults were an Atlas, cyclops, awesomes, stalkers and banshee (3M, talk about heat). Center torso and/or headshots (cockpits were reenforced and had a random generator on whether it hit the cockpit or the torso).

Mix lance (assault, heavy, med, light) would vary, dependent on preference, skill and tactics. All the above.

Lights were primarily jenners/javlins with spiders and panthers thrown in occassionally.

Again, the merc in you speak like the mechlab is going to be a free-for-all. Most of you are used to that, min/max items. But it will not be clan tech but SL tech. We do not know yet how the economy and supply will work, how tightly new tech will be managed (rarity), nor how easy/difficult it will be to modify a mech, c-bill wise. Nor do we know if people will have funds to start off with to even purchase personal mechs, much less take them through a mechlab.

In all reality (hmm, sci-fi mech game ), in all the MW leagues/etc, were there any time when a unit lacked c-bills to repair/upgrade their mechs, that game finances actually kept people from playing? Think about how all those leagues were structured, how units started off and played.

(shrugs) In the end, there is a place and time for things, and depending whether PCI makes things easy or not, some people may be shocked at first, then they will either learn to adjust or fail.

Arigato for playing

PS. There had been several matches where a surviving dragon (in heavy or mixed drops) was running around backwards to finish off legged/stripped mechs with the only surviving piece of weaponary, the rearward facing medium laser.

Edited by Tarl.Cabot, 15 April 2012 - 05:36 PM.

[Zervziel]

I like the Ac 2s and 5s in MWLL. There they are invaluable as long-range anti-battlearmor and anti-air. Heck some of the tanks which sport several UAC 2 and 5 are death incarnate for anything their weight size and down. Even battlemech fall to it. Mainly because in that game, the UACs are less guns and more like a freaking ER Chainsaw.

[Sporklift]

Everyone likes a good heavy hit, preferrably right on the cockpit, it ends the game quickly, we can get payed faster, up our level (this is what most games with leveling and money systems boil down to) and brag. This is why most people will be turned off by a "popgun" AC/2 or 5. A PPC simply can potentially end the fight faster. In TT the low AC's were balanced out by relative low cost in the BV system which allowed players to balance opposing forces, range, as well as the low heat they produced. In TT all weapons had basically the same rate of fire 1 "shot" every turn. Hits determined by the cold random logic of a 2d6.

Here's the way I see it. The AC/2 does 2 damage, obviously. Each hit is 2 armor points the enemy cannot get back for the duration of the engagement. The AC/2 and 5 will undoubtedly fire much faster than a PPC/Gauss Rifle with less recoil (barrel climb) than an AC/10 or 20, making them good for lighter machines that are constantly on the move. Having some experience with multiplayer games in general I know that in a team environment you are rarely fighting just one opponent. Call it cowardly if you want; I call it tactics.
Hypothetically say an Atlas mixes it up with a heavy and an AC/2 equipped light 'mech. The Atlas will probably engage the heavy first because it hits harder, is slower and easier to hit, and turning to engage a fast light mech will leave its back open to a heavily armed opponent.
The light will probably fire every energy weapon and missle it carries. While bleeding heat it will unload literally a ton of ammunition from its "little" A/C 2 into the rather large back of the Atlas switching to energy weapons when its heat levels drop. Even if only half those rounds hit its going to add up quickly, even on an assault 'mech. The Atlas pilot will notice that his back is getting chewed up maybe lose his nerve, try to turn and get that gnat off of him without knocking out the heavy first.
A high rate of fire/low recoil will probably make the A/C 2 and 5 at least be effective even desireable because it allows the mechwarrior to keep constant pressure on an opponent while other weapon systems cycle. Continuous damage adds up quickly. Even though its not a 1 shot kill and you get stomped out of the fight its still permenant damage for lancemates to exploit. I wouldn't be surprised if people started boating up on machine guns just to take advantage of this for close city fights.

[Pht]

Victor Morson, on 14 April 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

Whatever they were built for, they failed at it.

Pure nonsense.

They were built to do direct fire damage at extreme range; and they do just that.

Quote

Not if you can't deliever any damage and a weapon 3 hexes shorter can.

Any? (emphasis mine) ... amazing, this.

Victor Morson, on 14 April 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

Here's the problem: The damage is inconsequential. You simply will not stop a team advancing with good weapons with your terrible weapon with a tiny range advantage.

It wasn't built to to fill the high reward/high risk at extreme range role. I suppose next you'll say that the small laser is crap because it can't kill things at 800+ meters. crazy you say? You'd never say that? ... it uses the exact same fallacy you're using to press against the ac2 - stuffing a weapon into a role it wasn't built to do!

wwiiogre, on 14 April 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

Some will say well MWO is a sim there is no place for random number generators affecting my skills.

It would help to point out that what's being simulated has nothing to do with the pilots skill - what's being simulated is how the mech performs under varying conditions.

There is zero substitution of RNG or anything else for that matter for any of the skills of the mechwarrior ... and if this game isn't about "being" the mechwarrior... checkers anyone? MW is about giving us the controls of the 'mech.

[Mr MEAN]

You Walk Fully Armed
Confident in Your Selection
The Constant Hammering Begins
Unerving Unnerving You Untill Until Your Destruction
'Cause Thats MEAN

Edited by Mason Grimm, 16 April 2012 - 08:59 AM.
Grimm Wuz Here

[Kartr]

wwiiogre, on 14 April 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Yes Science is a matter of opinion and can and is manipulated. Global Warming/Climate Change, oops sorry thats not science its more religion and politics and scam. But my point is, science is not cut and dried it like everything else has politics behind it and money and opinions. Sometimes grabbed by non scientists to be used for many reasons most of them not good for anyone but the politician or party in power.

I'm sure gravity would be surprised to find out that it is a matter of opinion. Yes science can and often is misrepresented by politics and religion, however science itself is not opinion.

The fourth definition of science according to Mirriam-Webster's online dictionary is in my opinion exactly what we are trying to do here:

4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>

This is distinct from opinion, "1a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter." Which is what we had before, a judgement formed in the mind a particular matter. Opinion does not have to be based on facts, while science is about taking the facts and figuring out how they work under scientific laws.

wwiiogre, on 14 April 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Now, you are trying to tell me that computer targeting systems in Battletech set a thousand years in the future that is based on Earth and Humans cannot do what the M1 abrams tank does? Really? Sorry, targeting computers give you what ability in the table top game?

No I'm saying that the normal targeting computers do what the Abrams targeting computers do, they give the pilot a firing solution telling him where he needs to aim. However the Abrams doesn't fire bursts like BattleTech AC/s do and the normal BattleTech targeting computers do not compensate for movement or recoil according to Sarna. This means that while the normal targeting computer gives the pilot an initial aim point it doesn't automattically adjust the weapons mid burst to keep them on target.

wwiiogre, on 14 April 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Tech Manual page 238

Introduced: 2860 Clan Mongoose, 3062 Federated Suns

the fluff you skipped over states near the end of it " ..... providing a more accurate "lead" for almost every shot."

Since every "shot" with an AC is a burst the targeting computers provide an accurate lead for the burst a whole, not the individual shells within the "shot." Advanced ones provide a more accurate lead and compensate for drift caused by recoil and movement. Which means the basic ones do not compensate for recoil and movement meaning they cannot keep the weapon accurate during a burst. Which means the burst has to be fired in a short enough duration that recoil and movement don't have time to become major factors.

wwiiogre, on 14 April 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Which means that the current computers also do this but leave most of the work to the pilot to keep the pip on the target just like in the Abrams tank. The difference is the Clan version assists the pilot by making it easier for the pip to stay on the target as it does stabilize more than the mech already does to inherantly keep the target locked. Because that is what we really are talking about. The targeting computer gives the clan mech the ability to lock a target for other than missiles. Which the system for missiles the innersphere already has but has not adapted for other weapons. Note this system does not work with High rate of firing weapon systems such as AC's using Ultra or Rotary, LB-X or rapid cycling pulse weapons. And allows the ability to target specific areas of a mech. Since you couldn't do this in table top, this was a special ability that does not work out in a MW pc game since the pilot targets each shot based on where the reticle is.

Targeting computers do not provide a "lock" they merely provide a lead so the pilot knows where to aim at, advanced targeting computers also adjust the weapons aim point to compensate for recoil and movement, during firing, in order to keep that point as consistent as possible.

If the targeting computers provided a "lock" then the pilot would merely have to aim at the target for long enough that the computer was able to realize that was the target and create a firing solution. At that point the targteting computer would take over and automattically adjust the aim of the weapon on its own and the pilot would never have to lead the target, just keep the reticule on it. Instead targeting computers provide an aim point that the pilot has to manually aim at and advanced ones adjust the weapons to compensate for recoil and movement.

wwiiogre, on 14 April 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

So your argument now comes down to how you think it shoud be not necessarily canon. Since table top and simulation are not the same. Therefore it is your opinion. Which I went to great lengths to show mine was merely my opinion. Your opinion and my opinion when put on a scale and weighed next to each other weigh the same and smell just as bad cause they are both worthless piles of arse doo. Since neither of our opinions are gonna matter cause the Dev's will do what ever they do.

I am not arguing opinion, I am reconciling that which we know with scientific laws so that we can know how AC/s work. Also I have never said anything about what should or shouldn't be canon, at most I've said the artistic license used by authors to describe events is less reliable to understand how AC/s work, then using game mechanics, fluff about the weapons work and basic principles of math and science.

I fully admit that nothing we do here will have any bearing on what the Devs decide to do to balance the game. All I can do is hope that they understand that the primary advantage of AC/s is that they do all their damage to one location.

wwiiogre, on 14 April 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

The Inner Sphere mechs with AC's had magic targeting computers in table top because even when the fluff described rapid firing canons every shot miraculously hit the same exact area. the only difference in tabletop between Clan and IS targeting computers is found in Total Warfare page 143.

I will paraphrase but follow all rules and add a -1 to the to hit number. Which means lowering the total needed which is good since you have to roll high to hit. The clanner can also use the aimed rule and target a specific shot but raises his normal to hit number by +3 or a difference of 4 from normal.

This targeting computer may not be used with Hyper Assault Gauss Rifles, LB-X cannons firing cluster rounds or pulse or rapid fire weapons. The fluff says the weapons cannot be used for this, but why? Gauss causes no recoil and firing an LB-X cluster round is no different than firing a standard AC round. And pulse lasers have no recoil. So why can't the targeting computer be used with them.

The rules for how advanced targeting computers work applies to both Clan versions and IS versions. The only difference between Clan and IS advanced targeting computers is that Clan ones are lighter and smaller than IS. However both Clan and IS advanced targeting computers weigh much more and take up much more volume than normal ones.

The only reason that targeting computers are going to weigh more and take up more volume depending on the wieght of the weapons its controling, is to allow for the targeting computer to adjust the aim to compensate for recoil and movement. However even these targeting computers cannot be used with multi-shot AC/s, I assume that means UACs and RACs firing in their special modes? Which means the Targeting Computer cannot adjust to keep multiple rounds fired in to long of a duration, which supports very short bursts for AC/s.

LB-X cluster round is very different from a slug. The targeting computer would have to calculate the flight paths for every single "pellet" after it cluster round left the barrel.

wwiiogre, on 14 April 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

GAME BALANCE, not science, not fluff, plain old game balance.

So how do you translate this to a video game simulation. You really can't. Because if you give AC's flight times, then you have to change them to make a difference in accuracy for the targeting computer. Which means you are cheating the physics. Since in the first instance with IS mechs, with autocanons they are firing and doing direct immediate damage to wherever they hit for the full amount. (this is a wild arse guess based on the game video they have shown, note I do not know this for a fact). But if I aim and hit where my reticle was and it does full damage to the spot on the mech. Then the debate about rapid firing AC's is already over. The AC20 that has been shown on the Hunchback and Atlas at this point is a single shot and you can barely see its flight. You can definitely hear it shoot and hit. There is a severe shock to the targeted mech.

It may have been done for game balance, but there are plausible reasons why it wouldn't work from a realistic/scientific stand point.

The recoil and movement of a series of firings spaced out over several seconds combined with the movement of the target is going to be much more difficult to calculate then a burst of a very short duration which keeps the variables so close together that they can be treated as a constant.

Calculating the flightpaths and strike points of cluster munitions is pointless because they will strike all over anyway. Simply plotting it for a single point the way normal targeting computers do is sufficient.

Pulse lasers would like Rotary AC/s need a series of shifting aimpoints during the firing to compensate for the movement of the enemy and of yourself. Each pulse would have to be calculated in sequence while a regular laser would get an initial aim point and then the pilot would use the constant beam to manually adjust to keep the beam on target.

wwiiogre, on 14 April 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Now are the PGI devs going to model each different Hunchback's AC 20 based on where it came from in the IS and which weapon it is using and then animate each differently and adjust each targeting and tracking ability based on how many shots the AC20 had to fire to do that damage or are they going to take the easy way out and make them all the same and animate them all the same and make them a single shot? My bets are on single shot, same animation, etc. Because they are working towards a Minimal Viable Product for beta release. Hopefully one day they will show the different versions of AC's and animate them differently and have them have different ingame effect. Then you will have a case for the magically apearing rounds having to be tracked by the pilot for the IS mech to do max damage on a single location especially at range.

You're probably right that all AC/s will be modeled in the same way to save time and cost in development. However we know from the game play trailer that the Atlas's AC/20 fires a burst and the burst is very short in duration and appears to do all damage in one location. Which makes me happy because it looks like they understand the restrictions that are placed on AC/s and the fact that its their damage in one location that makes AC/s viable.

wwiiogre, on 14 April 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

so I am of the opinion that all of our debates really are pointless, but I do so enjoy them. Because PGI is going to take the direction of close to table top while trying to stay true to the canon/lore/fiction but still making every weapon playable and balanced. Which means its easier for them to not animate multiple shots per .1 of a second such that all of the hits can hit a minute spot on a mech so that it follows a particular fluff. More than likely they will only do that with MG's, Ultras and Rotary weapons. Because it really is easier for them to animate a single shell, it makes modeling the damage more easier and separates how the damage is done by AC's as opposed to Lasers. Because if you make the Lasers and AC's do the same type of damage over time. Then why would you ever take an AC? I really don't see PGI going down that road. If they did, they might as call this game Mech Assault 3 and be done with it and make another crappy console game for 12 year olds. So far everything they have done and spoken about points to them not doing that and making compromises based on balance and lore plus I imagine based on cost and time involved to bring it to us in a reasonable time.

I agree with most of this, however I don't think these discussions are pointless. I know I've learned a lot about real world autocannons in the process and I think I've come to a more accurate understanding of how AC/s have to work in BattleTech in order for them to do what they do. Also you might take a look at the game play trailer and watch the Atlas fire its AC/20 and note that it does fire a burst that is much less than a second long, no idea if its 0.1s or shorter haven't tried using a stopwatch on it yet.

wwiiogre, on 14 April 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

So debate away, share your opinions, I appreciate them they are well thought out. Mine are as well and it appears I am adding a few factors you are not taking into consideration. Actual game play from tabletop, how or why it will translate to a video game, game balance and resources needed by PGI to include it the way you are describing.

chris

Eh I think you're over thinking what I'm asking would require in terms of resources in a video game. Honestly what I'm asking for would simply require a single invisible projectile that does the damage and is skinned to look like a short burst of AC rounds. Maybe a little more resource intensive than animating a single round, but shouldn't be much and it would keep AC/s from doing their damage all over the place unlike AC/s that fire their shots over a couple seconds.

And I have been taking into account actual gameplay from the TT. Infact my whole argument is predicated on the fact that in TT the basic AC does all its damage to a single location and reinforced by the fact that UACs do their damage to two locations.

[Sgt Kartr]

Space to keep my many quotes from messing up the forums.

[Kartr]

Famous, on 15 April 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

Kartr- After reading all of your posts what I'm left taking away if that your entire argument is look at my math for the sake of math. While it's nice that you've put in so much time with your calculations most of your arguments (other than the semantics about firing type) completely ignore several things that we know will be differing between MWO and the TT.

In the TT you roll to hit, roll location and then deal damage with each turn representing 10 seconds. Various modifiers are added based on distance, movement, and relative movement. All of this is to simulate the actions of a 'Mechwarrior without having to account for every bullet fired. All damage is done to a single location for the same reason, simplicity. Most tabletop strategy games work the same way; you move, you shoot, you brawl, then your opponent does the same. When we move off of the tabletop and into a simulation of the individual 'Mechwarrior the system can become more complicated because the targeting onus is placed on the player not of a dice roll.

My arguments have never really been about translating TT into Videogames, rather it has been about understanding how the TT effects would have to be achieved in real life. My only argument about game balancing is that AC/s need to do all their damage to one location otherwise they're not worth the tonnage.

Famous, on 15 April 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

The information that you are ignoring is the game play footage we've seen. We can extrapolate a lot from a 5 second clip of the operation of lasers in MWO as compared to the TT. In the footage we see lasers firing for ~1 second and charging(recycling) for ~2.5-3 seconds and the Dev's have confirmed that the lasers do damage based on time on target. So in 5 seconds we have learned that we can throw out any notions of weapons that are not instantaneous/single shot dealing damage to a single location. A minor note is that the timing is completely off in using the 10 second turn model for any speculation. If you stick to the 10 second time frame then you must also assume that lasers deal half their TT based damage per firing, since they can be fired multiple times per 10 second interval.

Actually nothing we've seen or been told tells us that all weapons that are not instantaneous/single shot do their damage all over the place. In fact we see AC/s in the trailer doing their damage in one location and firing a burst of shells. All we really know is that lasers are damage over time weapons more in the style of MW3 pulse lasers and not the instastrike weapons they've been in the games so far. We know next to nothing about how the devs are dealing with AC/s, though from the game play trailer they appear to do all their damage in one location and be burst firing weapons.

Famous, on 15 April 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

So where does this leave our beleaguered ACs? How can they be a viable choice on any 'Mech? Varity, cost, and the intangibles of a solid projectile. For lasers to have maximum efficiency they need time to achieve convergence, if every solid projectile impact extended the length of time required to gain convergence then the ACs will always have a place as a harasser weapon. If I can add an AC2 to my Light 'Mech and ensure that you can only concentrate 2 of your 4 lasers on a target then I've reduced the effectiveness of your 'Mech by half. Did *I* destroy you? No, but my lancemate in the Heavy/Assault 'Mech that you were brawling with did, a win for my team.

Thing is we'll not need convergence to do damage to the other players. You may be keeping my beams from all striking in the same location, but I can still fire them and whittle away armor all across you your chest. And while that harrassing ability may work well for AC/2s and /5s due to the AC/2s slight range advantage it is much less important to an AC/20 who's main role is to be a knockout punch kind of weapon. With the AC/20 the knockback is simply an added bonus to being able to destroy 20pts of armor in a single location.

As for the variety of AC/s they can be as different as the devs want to make them, as long as they do all their damage in a single location, fire bursts and have those bursts be of extremely short duration.

Famous, on 15 April 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

PGI can also encourage team based tactics by giving us the option of rapid fire partial damage ACs or full damage single shot variants. As posters have mentioned before a single shot sniper style AC2 is good for hitting cockpits as enemy 'Mechs approach. With the inclusion of rapid fire lower damage ACs the player is given the option of sniping for cockpits or keeping a steady stream of fire that may not do significant damage, but inhibits the ability of the opponent to fight at maximum efficiency.

The long and short of it is this- ACs 2/5's can be made into a viable alternative to energy weapons by giving them the flexibility that energy weapons lack. A laser is a laser is a laser, doesn't matter who created them. An AC2 that fires a single projectile is not the same as an AC2 that fires many projectiles doing fractional damage. As a player you have to choose whether you want all of your damage in one hit or miss package or sacrifice the all damage up front option for the ability to restrict the capability of your opponent.

Except that AC/s are grouped by damage dealt and that damage dealt is all dealt in the same location. If your AC/2 deals fractional damage all across the place, its functionally identical to the RAC/2.

That's where the difference in functions between AC/s comes in. AC/s are you standard all damage in one location type, UAC/s are your weapons that fire two "shots" in quick succession and do damage to two locations, RAC/s are your damage panned across the target as recoil and relative movement changes the impact point of your stream of shells.

Duplicating these effects in the AC type weapons makes the development of UAC/s and RAC/s pointless as their functions are already handled by AC variants. This is one of the reasons why it is extremely important that AC/s function in a similar fashion, they are after all a family of weapons. Burst count, number of barrels and burst duration can all vary as long as the weapon does the same amount of damage as all other AC/s in the same class, does all that damage to one location and has a burst duration of under .01s. If those are changed then the AC is no longer in the AC family and has to be placed in a different category.

[Sgt Kartr]

Another one because I had that many quotes.

[Kartr]

Strum Wealh, on 15 April 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

Okay.

Though, the target speed and range and muzzle velocity (among other variables) have not been defined.
<sniped awesome maths>
And the interesting thing about all of the above?
It's all completely independent of the weapon's rate of fire!

First off that was some awesome math Sturm Wealh and I vote that when NAIS finally makes the IS Advanced Targeting Computer, that the first production model be the Sturm Wealh Targeting Computer.

However I have to disagree with your last statement and I'd like to explain why I've never bothered to do the calculations for leading the target. The two are closely related so here goes.

Since we're discussing bursts verses slower rates of fire we can compare weapons with identical calibers, muzzle velocities and ranges. This allows us to keep those numbers constant and largely ignore them for what we are discussing, keeping all rounds striking the same area. The rate of fire is highly important to the discussion because if it is high enough and the number of rounds fired is low enough then the movement of the target and the weapon from recoil is minimal and the same aim point can be used for all the shells.

Ok to build on the math you did Sturm, our scenario is we lead our AC/20 by the requisite ~16.2m fired a three round burst and we hit and we did not adjust the lead. If time between our first shell and our last shell is .1s the last shell will land ~6m behind where the first shell did, if the duration was .05s the third shell landed ~3m behind where the first shell did. If the duration was .025s then the third shell landed 1.5m behind where the first shell did. If the burst duration can be reduced enough, ie the rate of fire increased to high enough then we can use a single aimpoint and get all rounds to strike close enough together as to all be in the same location.

That is the goal of burst firing weapons, fire a number of rounds in such a short succession that the gunner only has to aim once and can still get several rounds in close proximity. The primary function is to help defeat armor or provide more leathality by increasing the amount of damage done in a small area over a short amount of time.

Firing slower and aiming before each shot increases the likelyhood that the next round will miss or not strike close enough to the first round to achieve the desired effects. Also the increased time between the rounds landing means the shockwaves from the weapon strikes has a chance to dissipate before the next round lands. This decreases the amount of stress and damage done to the material since multiple shockwaves are not colliding within the material. So bursts remain the best way to ensure tighter grouping and better effects on target.

Strum Wealh, on 15 April 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

As long as our platform can achieve (or exceed) the required turn/tracking/torso-twist rates and the operator (MechWarrior/pilot/player) can 1.) consistently and accurately determine the needed lead distance at any given range and 2.) consistently and accurately maintain that lead distance and 3.) accurately and quickly adjust for changes in the distance to target and/or the target's speed, whether one is firing a shell every second or every 0.01 seconds or even every 0.001 seconds is, for the most part, a negligible factor with regard to whether one can actually hit any given target with any given salvo, yes?
In fact, all of 1-3 would (and should) be among the oft-vaunted skills to be honed, yes?

Yes 1-3 are vital parts of any MechWarriors abilities. However if you're firing a shell every 0.01s the adjustment that needs to be made will be less between shells then if they're firing one every 0.1s. Plus if you're firing them that fast then most likely you will fire several before your brain can tell your hand to adjust the point of aim.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you have a number of rounds fired over a very very short period of time, they will strike much closer together, requiring less work from the 'MechWarrior. Increasing the amount of damage done and generally making it easier to get all 20pts of damage on the same area of the enemy 'Mech.

Strum Wealh, on 15 April 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

Admittedly, I do not see what part/section of the non-rotary ACs indicates that they are necessarily revolver-type weapons.
Not that they can't be revolver-type weapons, but the cited artwork doesn't seem to support the assertion that the non-rotary ACs must be revolver-type weapons...

Actually I've never looked at the artwork as part of my reasoning for them being revolver type autocannons. It is interesting to note though that while they could go either single shot or revolver or maybe even beltfed, they can't be rotary.

Strum Wealh, on 15 April 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

I didn't say that the largest feasible revolver-type cannon was at 30mm; I pointed out that the largest practical revolver-type cannon seems to be in the 30mm-35mm range.
While the two may occasionally go hand-in-hand, feasibility does not equate to practicality.

In fact, the highest-caliber revolver-type cannons that I know of is the prototype Oerlikon 421 RK (nicknamed "the Red King") and its sister gun ("the Red Queen").
"The 421 RK (42mm, 1st model Revolver Kanone) shown above was fascinating. The unusual calibre of 42mm was selected, firing a 1.09 kg shell at 1,070 m/s to develop a muzzle energy of 624,000 joules, an increase of 80% over the 40 x 311R Bofors L/56. The gun design chosen was a revolver, but with a seven-chamber cylinder and two barrels. It is not clear whether the barrels fired simultaneously or alternately. Ammunition feed was by means of a 75-round pan magazine to the left side of the gun (with the rounds pointing inwards) which was reloaded by means of three-round clips, and a rate of fire of 450 rpm was claimed (three times that of the Bofors L/56). The entire weapon on its wheeled mounting weighed over 6 tons (6,500 kg). This project was given the code name "Red King" by the UK, presumably inspired by the RK designation (at that time British military projects were given colour codes at random to ensure that they didn't indicate the purpose of the system, e.g. the Blue Steel airborne nuclear missile)."
Both projects were cancelled in favor of other, lower-caliber alternatives before reaching the production stage.
(See source here.)

Fair enough I guess I just assumed you were saying its not feasible to make revolver cannons larger.

Strum Wealh, on 15 April 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

Also, heat dissipation likely wouldn't be the only engineering concern for a revolver-type autocannon.
Drawing from analogies to handguns (which may or may not be the most valid points of comparison), I could see things like alignment of, and seal between, the cylinder vs the barrel (which has to be perfect, or nearly-so), the alignment and coordination of a substantial number of moving parts (apparently on the order of ~50-80 for a hand-held revolver-type pistol, vs ~40 for a comparable handheld semi-auto pistol), power requirements (AC-10 and AC-20 shells are fairly massive, and a revolver-type version of those weapons would require a substantial drive system to overcome angular momentum for spin-up and spin-down... with a sensitive and accurate control system to keep everything aligned and in-sync in the process), and probably a whole host of other things that aren't coming to mind at the moment.

Let me explain how I see AC/s working using the revolver autocannon method. Using the 10 shell Crusher:
Step 1. The empty cylinder containing ten chambers is loaded one chamber at a time using a "simple" autoloading mechanism. Once a chamber is loaded the motor moves the cylinder so that the next chamber is positioned for loading.
Step 2. Once all the chambers in the cylinder are loaded the motor spins up the chamber to the firing speed and the pilot/gunner is signaled that the weapon is ready to fire.
Step 3. Once the cylinder is spinning and system signals its ready to fire the gunner pulls the trigger and all chambers are fired one after the other.
Step 4. Once all the rounds have been fired the system slows the cylinder down to loading speed and the process is repeated.

This gives several real world advantages. First you don't have to worry about trying to continuously feed large caliber shells and can use a safer more precise autoloading mechanism. Second while the rounds are being fired at what would be 6,000rds/minute if it were continuous they're in reality being fired at a rate of 60rds/minute, 10rds every 10s. This means that the barrel doesn't heat up as much and has time to cool down between firings.

From the game mechanics perspective this allows very short duration bursts that allow a single aiming and trigger pull to land all of the rounds in a single location. It also explains the "long" 10s reload as the cylinder is being slowed down to load, uses a slower autoloading mechanism that loads a single round at a time and then sped back up to firing speed.

Strum Wealh, on 15 April 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

And then there's the canon issue:
Standard ACs fire at some rate of fire we'll call "X".
Ultra ACs have two ROF settings: standard ROF ("X") and ultra-mode ("2*X")
Rotary ACs have four ROF settings: standard ROF ("X"), double-ROF ("2*X"), quad-ROF ("4*X"), and max-ROF ("6*X")

If the standard ROF is on the order of 6,000 rounds per minute (able to fire 10 rounds in 0.1 seconds, as you claim is necessary), then UACs in ultra-mode would necessarily be firing at ~12,000 rpm (significantly higher than what modern Gatling-type rotary cannons can manage), and RACs in their max-ROF setting would necessarily be firing at ~36,000 rpm.
The latter two seem... problematic, considering that 1.) the UAC is a non-rotary cannon, with a proposed performance exceeding what should be possible with even the fastest-firing modern rotary cannon and 2.) the IS is just getting around to basically re-inventing the GAU-8 (by way of the RAC-2) by the early 3060s.

Utilizing the sequence I outlined above all of this can be explained by the loading sequence. Normal AC/s load and fire in the way I described, UAC/s load and fire in the way I describe except their loading mechansim has been designed to do it twice as fast. Perhaps the breaking system to decelerate the cylinder is more robust, perhaps the motor used to spin it up is more powerful, perhaps the autoloading mechanism is capable of loading shells faster, or a combination. RAC/s utilize the standard load as you fire mechanism used by current rotary cannons.

Since the main reason revolver cannons cannot achive the rates of fire of rotary cannons is because its single barrel heats up much faster than the multiple barrels of the rotary, by having them fire bursts at 90,000-10,000 rounds/minute but have the bursts be only 0.065s long which would be about 10rds and then cool off while the cylinder is reloaded during the next 10s. Since the actual rounds/minute would only be 60 the heat build up in the barrel should be low enough that its possible.

Since the actual ROF is only 60 rounds/minute for the AC/s and 120 rounds/minute for the UAC/s, RAC/s would only need a ROF of 360 rounds/minute to be at their max ROF. This is significantly lower than what modern rotary cannons can do, but can be explained built in restrictions to prevent pilots from burning through their ammo to quickly.

Another nice thing about revolver cannons is that since they only spin the cylinder and not multiple barrels as well, it is easier to make them in larger calibers, since the motor is spinning much less weighty assembly. This would explain why we have AC and UAC /10s and /20s, but RAC/s only exist in /2s and /5s. They can't spin the mass of the multiple barrels a RAC needs when getting up into the largest weapons, but because the revolver cannon only spins the cylinder they can.

Strum Wealh, on 15 April 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

And given that we know how many individual shells some units carry, it again becomes an issue.
The Enforcer, for example, carries the ammunition for its AC-10 in ten 10-round clips (representing one ton of ammunition), for a total of 100 shells. Under a "10 shell burst in 0.1 seconds" scheme, this would mean that the Enforcer carries enough ammunition for about one second of fire!
Likewise, the Hetzer carries the ammunition for its AC-20 in twenty 10-round clips (representing four tons of ammunition), for a total of 200 shells. Under a "10 shell burst in 0.1 seconds" scheme, this would mean that the Hetzer carries enough ammunition for about two seconds of fire!

With the understanding that the bursts are fired at a rate equivalent to 10,000 rounds/minute, but the over all rate of fire once the whole cycle is factored in is actually 60 rounds/minute then it matches up perfectly. 100 shells would be fired in just under 2 minutes (1 minute 40s), 200 shells would be fired in just under 4 minutes (3 minutes 20s).

Strum Wealh, on 15 April 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

I propose, instead, that we go from the top-down, rather than from the bottom-up.
That is, 6*X = 10,000 rpm (or ~166-167 rounds per second) would represent an upper limit.
Then, X = 10,000/6 = ~1667 rpm (or ~27-28 rounds per second).
In that case:
Standard AC ROF: 27 rps
Ultra AC ROFs: 27 rps ("normal mode"), 54 rps ("ultra mode")
Rotary AC ROFs: 27 rps ("normal mode"), 54 rps ("double-ROF mode"), 108 rps ("quad-ROF mode"), and 162 rps ("max-ROF mode")

Like I pointed out above even if the AC/s and UAC/s fired each burst at a rate equivalent to 10,000 rounds/minute due to loading times between bursts their actual ROF would be 60 and 120 rounds/minute respectively. RAC/s would generally fire smaller caliber shells then even the smallest caliber of the equivalent AC and UAC types and achieve equivalent damage by having a much higher continuous ROF.

Strum Wealh, on 15 April 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

IMO, the "base 10 rps" system (outlined above) helps in two primary ways:
1.) It helps to moderate the damage-delivery of the larger ACs (assuming they fire in bursts) - they can still deliver all of their damage to one area, but it will take some work to do so; they would still be fearsome and dangerous (if one has the level of skill needed to deliver the damage to one location, as described above) without being "guaranteed insta-glib" weapons (for those without or lacking in the aforementioned skills).
2.) Combined with faster (say, Solaris-style) recycle times and better damage-to-heat ratios, lighter ACs would be able to keep up, in terms of average damage-per-second, with some (really, most) of the "traditional heavy-hitters" while still filling a different niche (e.g. an UAC-5 in "ultra mode" may out-range and out-DPS a PPC, do the same to the larger lasers, out-DPS and nearly match the range of the ER-PPC, but the UAC-5 is still very different weapon with very different behavior from any of those); a greater number of potentially-viable configurations (with actual viability subject to the ability of the players) is always a good thing, yes?

Your thoughts?

My problem with this is that the skill of the pilot should be in actually getting hits. After all we have flight times, windadage, drop and the need to lead the target to get a hit. That is where I think the skill should come in, the payoff of being a good shot is all the damage getting on target. Its still going to be much harder to hit a target then using lasers would be which still make it hard for those without good gunnery skills to get the full damage potential out of AC/s.

Personally I'm all for smaller AC/s having a higher ROF to help make them worth the weight over PPCs and ER or regular Large Lasers. My only concern is that AC/s do their damage to a single location (that's their main advantage over other weapons, especially in MWO) fire bursts (to stay consistent with the fluff description of AC/s) and for those bursts to be extremely short in duration (the only way all the rounds in a burst will land on target).

[wwiiogre]

A gatling gun firing a burst used as an anti missile system say like phalanx using modern technology sure does adjust its aim during the burst to fire each bullet on a new and better trajectory towards the target missile. That is modern technology doing what sarna says mechs cannot do.

Besides for fluff they describe some of the AC's as firing bursts. But it is fluff and therefore not a position to base science off of unless you want to just run numbers for fun. Cause in science where you set your base parameters effect what you will and will not conclude. So as the saying goes, garbage in is garbage out.

Once again you say every shot with an AC is a burst. Really?? No it has fluff where it says some are bursts and some are not. Once again using fluff to try to describe a game balance choice. Hard to get science in there when you do that. You are making statements saying it is only one way. I am making statements trying to point out that you are doing this and you are still making difinitive statements saying all AC's fire bursts and they are x cause I say they are. I on the other hand are saying you are using fluff descriptions and applying your opinion or assumption that everything is that way. Once again not scientific but merely your opinion.

Yes the targeting required and the computing required would be very dificlut but hey its a thousand years in the future and a new generation twice as powerful for computing is discovered every 18 months or so, taken over a thousand years, minus three hundred for the succession wars and bingo a computer small enough and powerful enough to do what we need. A perfect scifi writer or game balancing rules writer needs to fit the fluff into his game mechanics. Remember all these choices are directly related to game balance before fluff and fiction. The fluff came after the game balance and rules. And fluff writers are not necessarily the rules writers nor should they be. I am a professional freelance proofreader/editor and have worked in the miniatures game industry editing rules and fluff for games. Hoping to strike the balance between what the rules writer meant the rule to mean and to have the fluff to describe that as well without having unintended consequences such that the game balance becomes broken.



You are correct I used the word lock, because in the fluff and fiction the pilots describe what they are doing as firing after a lock is achieved either the reticle turning gold, a tone sounding etc. note writers are not military men or programmers and do not know the difference between the terminology. I use the lock but more likely it is a targeting solution provided by the computer to give the pilot an idea of where or when to squeeze the trigger. If you are firing a burst, the computer would adjust for this and try to make it so your lead will have the three targets nearly fired at the same time such that they hit a target area very closely together. Which is why burst is used to save ammo over full automatic fire since three aimed shots are better than cone of fire pray and spray. Note that achieving a target lock with a fire and forget weapon like heat seaking or radar guided missile does not ensure a hit. It never has nor should it and the same can be said for a sim of MWO.

Once again well thought out Kartr and well stated. Above is what my response. Science is opinion. If not then nothing would ever get proved wrong or changed. Pluto is it a planet or not. Scientifically it was a planet now it isn't? Why? Because someone wanted to put their own opinion on the topic, maneuvered politically to change it and changed the classification of one of our 9 planets. Yep I will call Pluto a planet for the rest of my life. Why because it was changed in a political maneuver by a group of people trying to get their epenii egos over on others. Want to see real science in action based on opinions, look at all the nobel prize winners for the last 20 years and see if they have anything in common. In other words read the stories why they were nominated and why they won. Every one of them have done science work and back man made global warming. Yep every single Nobel Prize Winner is a global warming supporter. Yet there is no science to prove global warming, it is opinion and politically motivated. Yet the political side that is pushing it also has enough power and money to make sure every scientist that wins the nobel prize is worshiping and bending the knee to global warming or they don't win. Hmmm makes you think whether or not science is opinion or fact. Pure science and the scientific method has no room for opinion or politics. But that is not what is being practiced in the modern world we live in today.

sorry for pointing out politics in this thread but it is to prove a point.

chris

[Kartr]

wwiiogre, on 16 April 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

A gatling gun firing a burst used as an anti missile system say like phalanx using modern technology sure does adjust its aim during the burst to fire each bullet on a new and better trajectory towards the target missile. That is modern technology doing what sarna says mechs cannot do.

That is also a 25mm cannon attached on a dedicated turntable with banks of computers to back it up. Also you used the M1 Abrams targeting system not the phalanx. There are a lot of things we have/can do today that BattleTech apparently lacks.

wwiiogre, on 16 April 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

Besides for fluff they describe some of the AC's as firing bursts. But it is fluff and therefore not a position to base science off of unless you want to just run numbers for fun. Cause in science where you set your base parameters effect what you will and will not conclude. So as the saying goes, garbage in is garbage out.

Look at it this way, we can't personally observe how they do things in 3049, what we do have are the rules and the fluff. If we consider the rules to be factual descriptions of what happens, unless they contradict what physics tells us is possible(which we do to some extent to allow for FTL drives and communications to name the big ones), and the fluff to be accounts recorded by people, then we can use what we have been told about the universe and our knowledge of the underlying laws of the universe to derive conclusions on how it works.

If what we have been told is garbage and untrue then yes our conclusions based on those things is garbage and untrue. However because we cannot go observe for ourselves we have to assume that what we are told is true.

The fluff says all AC/s fire in bursts, a later line says some may fire single shots, but none are known to.

wwiiogre, on 16 April 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

Once again you say every shot with an AC is a burst. Really?? No it has fluff where it says some are bursts and some are not. Once again using fluff to try to describe a game balance choice. Hard to get science in there when you do that. You are making statements saying it is only one way. I am making statements trying to point out that you are doing this and you are still making difinitive statements saying all AC's fire bursts and they are x cause I say they are. I on the other hand are saying you are using fluff descriptions and applying your opinion or assumption that everything is that way. Once again not scientific but merely your opinion.

I am not saying that all AC/s fire in bursts Sarna says all AC/s fire in bursts. If I had the Revised Master Rules here and flipped to the section where they describe equipment it would say all AC/s fire bursts. The fluff doesn't say that all AC/s use bursts because of game balance, it could easily say that AC/s only fire single shots and that would actually make more sense in terms of game balance.

It is my opinion that AC/s use revolver cannon style systems to achieve their effects. It is a undeniable fact that the game mechanics say AC/ hit a single location, it is an undeniable fact that Sarna says all AC/s fire bursts. Yes Sarna does that there are some that may fire single shots, it goes on to say that there are no known AC/s that do that.

My only assumption is that the game mechanics and the fluff are accurate descriptions of how things work in 3049.

wwiiogre, on 16 April 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

Yes the targeting required and the computing required would be very dificlut but hey its a thousand years in the future and a new generation twice as powerful for computing is discovered every 18 months or so, taken over a thousand years, minus three hundred for the succession wars and bingo a computer small enough and powerful enough to do what we need. A perfect scifi writer or game balancing rules writer needs to fit the fluff into his game mechanics. Remember all these choices are directly related to game balance before fluff and fiction. The fluff came after the game balance and rules. And fluff writers are not necessarily the rules writers nor should they be. I am a professional freelance proofreader/editor and have worked in the miniatures game industry editing rules and fluff for games. Hoping to strike the balance between what the rules writer meant the rule to mean and to have the fluff to describe that as well without having unintended consequences such that the game balance becomes broken.

That every 18 months or so has slowed down in recent years I believe. That aside the normal targeting computers are said to lack the ability to adjust the aim point to account for recoil and movement, presumably during firing since it can adjust for movement when it is not firing. The targeting computers that can make those adjustment weighs two tons for an AC/20 and take up as much room as an LRM-10.

Fluff can be written so as to fit with the game mechanics and still be a realistic representation. My whole argument is an example of this. I am saying the fluff fits the game mechanics when it says they fire bursts. I even say that the fluff of them not having computers that can adjust fire mid-burst and yet they still strike all rounds on target is realistic. I have been pointing out how that can be achieved.

wwiiogre, on 16 April 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

You are correct I used the word lock, because in the fluff and fiction the pilots describe what they are doing as firing after a lock is achieved either the reticle turning gold, a tone sounding etc. note writers are not military men or programmers and do not know the difference between the terminology. I use the lock but more likely it is a targeting solution provided by the computer to give the pilot an idea of where or when to squeeze the trigger. If you are firing a burst, the computer would adjust for this and try to make it so your lead will have the three targets nearly fired at the same time such that they hit a target area very closely together. Which is why burst is used to save ammo over full automatic fire since three aimed shots are better than cone of fire pray and spray. Note that achieving a target lock with a fire and forget weapon like heat seaking or radar guided missile does not ensure a hit. It never has nor should it and the same can be said for a sim of MWO.

In that sense I agree with you. Though I would say that the reason bursts are used are to limit the amount of work the targeting computer has to do to get all three rounds to strike the same location and to maximize the amount of damage done.

wwiiogre, on 16 April 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

Once again well thought out Kartr and well stated. Above is what my response. Science is opinion. If not then nothing would ever get proved wrong or changed. Pluto is it a planet or not. Scientifically it was a planet now it isn't? Why? Because someone wanted to put their own opinion on the topic, maneuvered politically to change it and changed the classification of one of our 9 planets. Yep I will call Pluto a planet for the rest of my life. Why because it was changed in a political maneuver by a group of people trying to get their epenii egos over on others. Want to see real science in action based on opinions, look at all the nobel prize winners for the last 20 years and see if they have anything in common. In other words read the stories why they were nominated and why they won. Every one of them have done science work and back man made global warming. Yep every single Nobel Prize Winner is a global warming supporter. Yet there is no science to prove global warming, it is opinion and politically motivated. Yet the political side that is pushing it also has enough power and money to make sure every scientist that wins the nobel prize is worshiping and bending the knee to global warming or they don't win. Hmmm makes you think whether or not science is opinion or fact. Pure science and the scientific method has no room for opinion or politics. But that is not what is being practiced in the modern world we live in today.

sorry for pointing out politics in this thread but it is to prove a point.

chris

I also have to agree with you on global warming and how "science" is used to "prove" it. However I would like to think that I have taken what facts we know and applied scientific methods to fit them into the laws we know are true.

I'll freely admit that my opinion is that they use revolver cannons to achieve what is stated to be happening. That's my opinion because I think it fits the facts the best. However I would hope we can all agree that the game mechanics state all damage is done in one location and that the fluff which describes how autocannons work states that they fire in bursts. I also hope that my reasoning for why bursts should have a duration of less than a tenth of a second is logical and reasonable given that targeting computers in BattleTech apparently can't adjust the burst mid-firing.

If I have come across as combative I'm sorry, I tend to get that way when discussing things and people don't agree with what is obvious to me. There's been a lot of good discussion here and a lot of learning.

Edit: I had AC/s (hit) and it got edited out

Edited by Kartr, 16 April 2012 - 07:25 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Pht, on 16 April 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

It wasn't built to to fill the high reward/high risk at extreme range role. I suppose next you'll say that the small laser is crap because it can't kill things at 800+ meters. crazy you say? You'd never say that? ... it uses the exact same fallacy you're using to press against the ac2 - stuffing a weapon into a role it wasn't built to do!

1: High risk (huge amounts of tonnage, chance of ammo explosion) and no reward (Completely negligible damage) makes for a bad gun.

2: Small Lasers are acceptable as being a low damage weapon because they are low risk. No chance of ammo explosions; only a half ton in weight. As I've said over and over the AC/2 would be a fine low-damage, non-risk/reward gun if it didn't take as much out of the 'mech as damaging weapons do.

Here's what I'm saying and where I think you're not understanding any argument I've made: The AC2 weapon cannot live up to the tonnage it costs. Period. That's the underlying problem with the AC2. If we're not going to lower the tonnage (which would wreck a lot of variants) the weapon in MWO needs to be buffed, or will sit in the basement as a gun that some people have a theory about or some poor pubby breaks out, at which point any worthwhile team's teamspeak will light up: "Is he actually using an AC/2? Bahaha, oh man, these poor guys." and "Oh no, my paint got chipped." You will probably hear the 'Target destroyed' sound in the background during this, because while the brave AC2 wielder is out there spraying fire he'll eat 120 LRMs.

Edited by Victor Morson, 16 April 2012 - 07:58 PM.

[Frantic Pryde]

Man...you guys can really write a lot.

Light ACs are fine to light an medium mechs. Gives them some decent range and enough punch to hurt other light and medium mechs.

[Victor Morson]

Frantic Pryde, on 16 April 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

Man...you guys can really write a lot.

Light ACs are fine to light an medium mechs. Gives them some decent range and enough punch to hurt other light and medium mechs.

Except they aren't. They're too heavy for light 'mechs and it doesn't give them any punch.

That's the problem with them in the majority of BattleTech games, from TT to MechWarrior.