388 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

Damocles, on 14 April 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

So...rather do NO DAMAGE (with AC) at a range farther than PPCs then do damage with a PPC at the range where you will be able to be shot by other PPCs.

Sounds like a drawback to me.

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. Ever. Also it is so heavy, it'll take so much out of your 'mech you won' be able to use speed to keep that range.

Someone advancing with ER PPCs or lots of LRMs isn't going to be deterred by the blinking of an AC/2. It has never worked out well in practice (never mind theory) in any incarnation of the game at all. Even in MWLL if you try blinking away with some light ACs on a Partisan or the like against a 'mech, you are at most throwing a little chip damage into the mix - you're definitely not going to stop it before it murders you. Again, that games makes this acceptable by giving them a purpose (anti-air, anti-battle armor) where they are utterly vital.

Simply put an AC/2 fire support 'mech will be closed on by brawlers at best (which will then tear it apart very, very fast) or obliterated by other long range units at worst, since there's no way for it to keep it's range advantage long enough to even put moderate damage on the enemy.

AC/2s would work a lot better in TT - not to mention other incarnations of the game - if they were light weight. They'd be incredibly effective weapons if you could take 3-4 of them in the space where 'mechs currently mount a single AC/2.

EDIT: If you've ever burned through an entire ton of UAC/2 ammo without any and all UACs you have jamming, go play the lottery.

Edited by Victor Morson, 14 April 2012 - 01:12 PM.

[wwiiogre]

The difference between the Table Top AC 2 and the versions put onto a computer are huge. I am not talking about actual range or damage I am talking about hit locations and random crit chances of rolling a 2 on 2d6 or rolling a 12 on 2d6 or exactly a 1 in 18 chance of when you have hit that the hit will either be a head hit that wounds the pilot or a Center Torso Crit that could cause a Gyro Hit or Engine Hit ruining the day of the pilot that just got golden bb'd.

Some will say well MWO is a sim there is no place for random number generators affecting my skills. I would agree, but the golden BB and the pilot automatically wounded for head shots were in essence a way of balancing the game and allowing some David vs. Goliath action even when a Mech was outweighed by 80 tons.

Not a single version of a console or PC game involving Giant Robots or Mechs has ever had this done right where it felt part of the game. I don't mean stackpoling either. I mean crits caused by a lucky shot. Do I feel PGI should put a magic window on every mech that if you get damage to that spot it auto bypasses armor. No I don't want that. Should they use a random number generator to show that a lucky shot occured. Possibly depending on how they did it I might like it and it might go a long way to make role warfare work as the game would once again be more balanced as the table top game is. At least at this timeframe in the game before clan and everyone having double heat sinks and omni mechs even though they are inner sphere and really don't work that way.

So how do you make an AC 2 viable in a game when the things it really is designed to do are not even in the game. Say like Anti Air, Anti Infantry, Anti Vehicle, Turrets, etc. Nothing like standing just out of range of a LRM turret or PPC Turret and slowly destroying it with your AC2 while the defenders just sit there and get angry. And without the random criticals that could happen after you have scored a hit. You don't even get your magic golden BB that ruined someone's day.

I personally felt the snake eyes and boxcars critical hits were game balancing in that they were random just like in real life sometimes one side gets lucky. Nothing is fair and everyone is not equal. Its a shame that this generation has been brought up being told they are equal and they should get a fair share. Well sorry, real world doesn't work that way. You don't always get what you want. Which is why I leave this in the capable hands of PGI since I really don't know how they are going to balance this without the combined arms component that makes it work.

Unless of course they don't put any mechs in the game that have AC2's until they have some of the other things already in the game and it makes the weapon workable. Hmmm any mechs with AC2's announced yet?

chris

[Tarl Cabot]

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. Ever. Also it is so heavy, it'll take so much out of your 'mech you won' be able to use speed to keep that range.

iie, then you never played MPBT Solaris (AOL/Gamestorm) or 3025. It had been done, repeatedly. Ask anyone who played. And this was in an environment where there was no min/max, you played with the mechs available. In the end it came down to the pilots and the decisions made, and some on lucky crits. And on the decisions made related by both sides on what tactics to use, from lance formation to which mech/section of mech to target, to evasive moves made by both parties, reaction time, and a little luck on crits.

You are basing your experience purely off of Clanner games, not IS games. And hopefully this game will be affected much more by supply availability like MPBT EGA 3025 was than any of the easy pickens the games that have followed. Even clans in lore were tied to their supply lines.

[Kartr]

Ok finally have time to finish writing this.

WithSilentWings, on 13 April 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

In context, all damage hitting a single location is bad. The context in this case is that you're taking a beating from an enemy mech using an AC5 that happens to rock your reticule and fill your screen with explosions preventing you from effectively returning fire--not to mention the low heat means this weapon can continue to fire until the ammo runs dry.

This assumes that the AC/5 has an instant recycle time and is only limited by heat when it comes to rate of fire. More accurately you can wait for him to fire, and then take your shot while his AC/5 is reloading so as to hit the location you're aiming at. This means all damage in one location is still good.

MagnusEffect, on 13 April 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

@Katr

I'm interested to know where you are getting this information that makes you so certain that "all AC/s have to fire their bursts in less then a tenth of a second". I've read plenty of official sources that describe ACs both as a tank/artillery cannon or rapid fire/burst weapon.

What the sources say is largely irrelevant to the effects we see in game are. In order for all the rounds in a burst to strike a single location on that scout 'Mech running 120km/h perpendicular to the flight path, they must fire in less then a tenth of a second. Even at a tenth of a second your last shot will land roughly 3.5m behind where the first shot landed. Even with the size of 'Mechs that means your damage is going to be spread out across several locations and some rounds are probably going to miss meaning you won't even have full damage landing on target.

MagnusEffect, on 13 April 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

I can't really tell if you are seriously trying to explain something I just referenced and explained or just being patronizing. ACs are autocannons, some of which use the same basic mechanics as the modern day "autocannon" (shell loaded in a single chamber, fired, expelled, repeat). Some fire a higher volume in a more rapid succession. Someone mentioned the Yen Lo Wang earlier.

My point was that autoloaders =/= autocannons. If you read the wiki article on autoloaders you not that it says they move the shell and charge from a magazine and load it into the breach. Modern autocannons come in four basic varieties that I saw on wikipedia. First is the bushmaster style which is just a scaled up machine gun that is belt fed. Second is the the British RARDEN which uses 3 shot cllips and presumably two at a time because its fully automatic fire is limited to 6 rounds. Third is the revolver style which loads a series of rounds into multiple chambers in a single cylinder. Last is the gatling gun.

The RARDEN is an auto cannon that is manually loaded, the canon on the LeClerc is a single shot non-autocannon that is an autoloader. They are not synonomous terms the refer to two distinct phases in the action of a weapon, loading and firing.

So yes I agree that AC/s are autocannons and I agree that they are also autoloaders. However I disagree with your characterization of autocannons. Unlike you claim they do not all load a single round in the chamber, fire, extract and load again. The revolver cannon has a series of chambers that are all loaded before firing, the cylinder is then spun and all rounds fired, then the cylinder is slowed down to reload all the chambers before it can fire again. The RARDEN has two clips that automatically feed into the chamber and when firing is complete two more clips are loaded from the magazine. The rotary cannon(gatling gun) functions essentially the way you describe, it just has multiple chambers that are loaded sequentially and continuously as other chambers are fired. The chain gun also fires in a similar manner it just uses a machine gun style belt that is continuously fed through the breech.

MagnusEffect, on 13 April 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

I know all about Ultras and Rotaries. The Rotaries I don't feel should be really part of the conversation as they were clearly a retroactive type thing to differentiate them from standard ACs. Ultras simply fire "twice" (not necessarily "two") the volume of shells. They DO fire two "shells" for purposes of TT rules, but that number is arbitrary. Yes, Rotaries are big nasty Vulcan-like fire spitters. They came much later than the original ACs.

It should be telling that the need was felt to introduce a continuously firing weapon to differentiate between normal AC/s and continuously firing AC/s.

Just like AC/s are physically required to fire bursts, that are less than a tenth of a second long, in order to achieve their effects on target. UAC/s are required to fire two bursts, each under a tenth of a second long, in order to achieve their effects on target. It is physically impossible for an AC to get all its rounds to strike a single location on a fast moving target if the bursts are longer than a tenth of a second. Even a tenth of a second is pushing the outer envelope of getting all rounds to strike on the same location if targets are moving in excess of 60km/h perpendicular to the flight path.

MagnusEffect, on 13 April 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

I'm not saying standard ACs = Rotaries. I'm saying in terms of rate of fire, standard ACs were of relative (but still variable) speeds to each other with Ultras having double the rate of fire and Rotaries being even faster (up to five times faster I believe).

I can agree with this statement if the variation of speed is in the length of burst and in no point exceeds the absolute maximum burst length of .01s. I can also agree that Ultra's have double the rate of fire, because they fire two bursts to the AC/s single burst.

MagnusEffect, on 13 April 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

Nowhere have I read that the original ACs ONLY fire in rapid bursts. Nowhere have I read that an AC can't fire a shell once per second continuously (which is actually quite feasible for a modern large caliber autocannon).

From Sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon: "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." (emphasis mine)
A little further down the page: "...no Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each "round" or burst of fire."

If AC/s do fire multiple shells per "shot" and all damage is done to one location, then mathematically the duration of the burst must be under a tenth of a second. Otherwise there is no possible way for all those rounds to strkie the same location barring some sort of homing bullet technology. Considering that we know that AC/s are burst firing weapons and we know all their damage strikes one location, then thanks to mathematics we know that the burst duration must be under a tenth of a second.

MagnusEffect, on 13 April 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

And since we're being **** about it, lets be clear about terminology.

EDIT: you can't say A.N.A.L? wow.. its like I'm back in catholic school.

"Clip" is not really accurate. ACs use "magazines"; as in storage bins filled with ammunition. I've also seen some that are clearly a belt-fed chain gun (again, these belts are usually stored in a M249-like ammo bin). That's why CASE works. Clips look like this:

No one is denying that a magazine is simply a storage site for ammunition. Case would work whether you're storing rounds in clips, belts or singly. The mechanism CASE uses to eject the ammunition would be different depending on the way it was stored, but it would still work for all of them.

Please tell us which BattleTech AC/s that are belt fed and how you saw them. If you're talking about real world AC/s then yes the Bushmaster is a belt fed autocannon, that weapon has a rate of fire of roughly 180rds per minute. Without know more about the operation it is impossible to tell if it can achieve the burst durations that are required by BT AC/s

MagnusEffect, on 13 April 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

I source my previous mentioned info from various Technical Readouts that I own. Probably the best example is the Patton/Rommel (I think... I forget which one specifically). Here's the sarna.net link: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Patton but it doesn't contain most of the original info from the Tech Readout. In the tech readout, it clearly compares a 60-65 ton tank with a AC/10 to a modern day main battle tank of the 21 century (cough, cough Abrams tank... check the stats... they are the same). When it is also considered that a turn in the TT is roughly 10 seconds, that right there pretty much shoots your argument of "ALL AC/s have to fire in bursts" full of holes... burst of holes even Are we to believe that an autocannon can only fire a burst of rounds in a fraction of a second once every 10 seconds? That seems like a bit of a stretch.

Firstly the tech difference between the Abrams and the Rommel/Patton should be clear enough to make it obvious that the Patton/Rommel are supposed to be future analogs to Abrams, not the equivalent in capabilities.

Secondly yes we must accept that the AC/s loading/firing/ejecting cycle lasts 10s. Nor is it that absurd an absurd length of time for such a cycle given the conditions. Firstly ammo has to be drawn from at least 1 or more ammo bin/magazine that may be located on the far side of the 'Mech. Second that ammo has to be fed into the appropriate clip/cylinder. If you subscribe to the revolver cannon theory, which most accurately reflects what we know about the AC, then the chamber would have to be spun up to firing speed and held there until the pilot/gunner pulls the trigger and fires the burst. At which point the rounds are fired and then the cylinder is spun down until its moving slow enough to load the next shot.

Considering that this process has to be done using 10 150mm shells or the equivalent when talking about AC/20s I don't think 10s is too long. Especially not if your 1rd per second autoloaders comment is true. Consider that if a modern tank autoloader can load 120mm rounds at a rate to allow the firing of 1rd per second, then it should just be able to handle the process of loading 10 150mm rounds with just enough time to allow the cylinder to be spun up to firing speeds and then decelerated to be loaded again.

MagnusEffect, on 13 April 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

I'm not really arguing everything should be the same as TT. Just pointing out that the 2,5,10,20 number is more a generic "damage rating" and not an indication of the AC's individual performance. The IS manufactured many brands of ACs, all with their own unique qualities.

I've never argued any of that either, my whole point has always been twofold:
a. One of the one things that is standard across AC/s is that the duration of their bursts is at most a tenth of a second.
b. This burst duration and the fact that it allows all rounds to land in the same location is the one thing that makes AC/s and larger AC/s in particular, worth using.

MagnusEffect, on 14 April 2012 - 01:35 AM, said:

Oh.. and final comment about AC firing rates debate (just randomly found this while browsing):
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/AC-10

"The Autocannon is a direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) rounds at targets either singly or in bursts.
Different manufacturers and models of autocannons have different calibers (25mm-203mm) and rates of fire. Due to this, autocannons are grouped into generic "classes" of autocannons with common damage ratings, with Autocannon/10s causing more damage than lower-caliber autocannons while retaining a moderate range.
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."

I think I won this round

Don't break out the champagne just yet.

From Sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon: "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." (emphasis mine)

Autocannon page makes no mention of "singly" when describing the operation of AC/s. Further down it states there are no AC/s that are known to fire a single round per shot.

You can fire your 10 shots from the Crusher in 0.04s and your 185mm Chemjet fires its burst in 0.08s and the Chemjet will be firing much slower. Because that statement speaks to the speed of firing not the rate of fire.

Finally math trumps whatever some English Major thinks sounds cool and math says that you have to fire your shots in a burst with a duration of less than a tenth of a second in order to achieve the effects of an AC in TT.

Nothing I have ever claimed makes it impossible for manufacturers to make AC/s with varying calibers, velocities or firing speeds. All I have ever claimed is that for an AC to do its damage in one location the burst duration has to be less then a tenth of a second. If it doesn't do that it is either a RAC or a Heavy/Medium/Light Rifle.

[Sgt Kartr]

Buffer so I can post the second half of my post.

[Kartr]

Strum Wealh, on 14 April 2012 - 02:57 AM, said:

Also, I'm not really buying the "all ACs that fire bursts of shells must fire all of said shells in within ~0.10 seconds or less".

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.

Strum Wealh, on 14 April 2012 - 02:57 AM, said:

If for no other reason, how would one position and fire ten 150mm shells (the Hetzer combat vehicle's AC-20) that quickly?

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.

Strum Wealh, on 14 April 2012 - 02:57 AM, said:

One per second, maybe. One per half-second would be really pushing it.
One 150mm shell per 0.01 seconds, out of a non-Gatling weapon? Really?

Even the fastest-firing (~2,000 rounds per minute) revolver-type autocannons (which don't operate on those calibers; the largest practical ones are on the order of 30-35mm - a range of calibers better suited to the AC-2 than the AC-20) can only manage ~33.3 shells per second at most, not the 100 shells per second needed to fire 10 shells (of any caliber) in 0.1 seconds or less (minimum or 6,000 rounds per minute).

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.

Strum Wealh, on 14 April 2012 - 02:57 AM, said:

A revolver-style AC could, however, easily fire 10 shells over the course of ~5 to ~3 seconds (an average of ~2-3 shells per second), which does make a Solaris/dueling-style 7.5-second recycle for an AC-20 (5 seconds firing, 2.5 seconds reloading) and 5.0-second recycle for an AC-10 or AC-5 (3 seconds firing, 2 seconds reloading) seem rather reasonable, yes?
It also works well for smaller bursts - the Marauder's AC-5 firing 1 shell per second for 3 seconds and taking 2 seconds to switch the magazine/clip seems rather more reasonable to have a 3-round burst within a 5-second window...

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.

Alizabeth Aijou, on 14 April 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

Or you could use 'Mech Mortars...
Same range as LRMs, if slightly less damage, but at the benefit of being immune to AMS as well.

Anyhow, I hope they're as useful as they are in TT - not that much at all.

'Mech mortars, dumbest concept ever. Whomever came up with those had absolutely no concept of how mortars work.

[Strum Wealh]

MagnusEffect, on 14 April 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

Can you source this info? I am interested. I get the feeling that FASA may have screwed themselves a little on explaining exactly how an AC works. Ten round "clips" seem highly impractical compared to magazines. They are NOT synonymous btw. Its one thing to load a clip with your hands. Ammunition that weighs a ton? Magazines seem like a better option; self contained, protected from the elements, etc. (think M249, not handgun)

Magazine loaded ammunition:



Clip loaded ammunition:


Guess which is better when your ammo weighs a ton or more



This I have heard of... I believe the Catapult is capable of doing the same (I think.. don't quote me on it) as well as a few others.


Okay wait... that's what I'm talking about... just because the Enforcer has "ten shots", doesn't mean that all ACs are the same. What I mean is that I have read in multiple official sources that just because on paper 1 ton = 5 "shots" of AC/20 ammo, that does not mean it is necessarily 5 giant-*** bullets sitting in the mech (although by the look of the gun on the Hunchback, it does make me wonder if the HB really does fire Ford Focus sized shells at you ). The point is, one AC/20 model is not necessarily the same as another different AC/20 model.

-----


This is pure speculation but I'm willing to guess that the rounds a Hetzer fires are functionally the same as its historical ancestor: tank rounds; slowish fire rate, but massive, massive damage. Which is not necessarily the same as the Yen Lo Wang version which has been mentioned was a rapid fire, single barrel STANDARD AC/20 (at one point anyway).


You mean "rotary". Again.. there seems to be a lot of confusion on what the 20 in AC/20 means. It DOESN'T necessarily mean bigger caliber than an AC/5 or AC/10. IT'S JUST A GENERIC RATING FOR DAMAGE POTENTIAL.

The "Ultra" designation just means it has an optional fire mode to fire double rate of standard.
Rotaries are just multibarreled ACs that can fire at an even faster rate and are generally considered to use a smaller caliber.
Example: the main gun on a Bradley could loosely be compared to an AC/5 and an A10's Vulcan could be loosely compared to a Rotary AC/5 or standard AC/20... depending on reliability of the weapon jamming... Rotary ACs jam much more often. A rapid fire AC/20 would be smallish-caliber with less chance of jamming due to superior design but capable of essentially the same damage. Some standard ACs have clearly been described as "multibarreled". This was most often the case before Rotary ACs were introduced. You can thank FASA and company for that confusion.

Don't believe me, read from a reliable source:
"Autocannons range in caliber from 30mm up to 203mm and are loosely grouped according to their damage vs armor."
"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."
-Sarna.net

More links on the subject:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon
http://www.sarna.net...i/Autocannon/10

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".

And, when I said "revolver-type autocannon", I meant revolver-type cannon - single-barrel autocannons that use a revolver-like breech system.
Examples include the British-built ADEN cannon (mounted on, among other things, the Harrier family of V/STOL aircraft), the German-built Mauser BK-27 (pictured below; mounted on, among other things, the Eurofighter Typhoon), and the Oerlikon Millennium 35 mm Naval Revolver Gun System (a Swiss-built 35mm CWIS).


And I am also fully aware of the fact that the numerical designation for any BT/MW AC is an indicator of the damage class rather than a direct indication of caliber (after all, the GM Whirlwind AC-5 mounted on the MAD-3R Marauder is described as a 120 mm cannon that fires in 3-shell bursts), however it is reasonable to expect that there would be some level of correlation, yes?

Also, not all multi-barrel guns are Gatling-type rotary cannons; examples include the Nordenfelt Gun (patented in 1873), the double-barreled cannons of the American Civil War, Gast guns ("The weapon uses two barrels combined into a single mechanism in such a way that the recoil from firing one barrel loads and charges the second."; examples include the Soviet-built Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23, pictured below), and the MetalStorm system (36 non-rotating barrels) and other volley guns.

[Doctor Caleb]

Kip Wilson, on 13 April 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

(please forgive any duplicated info, I only skimmed the 6 pages of posts)

After the 10 free heatsinks are used by an energy based weapon, the AC2/5 becomes more economical than an additional high heat energy weapon in terms of weight.

2xPPC + 20xHS = 24 tons
vs
1xPPC + 1xAC5 + 1t Ammo + 11xHS = 18 tons
or
1xPPC + 2xAC5 + 2t Ammo + 12xHS = 29 tons

So its really the 10 free heatsinks that make energy weapons better. After they are used however, ballistic weapons begin to make more logical choice.

Agreed. If you're only putting one main gun on a mech, the PPC is a good choice. But when you start adding more than one main gun, the weight of the heat sinks can add up quickly. Plus with an AC2/5 you can keep firing even when you've lost some heatsinks, or even an engine hit.

Plus there's the economics of building mechs on a large scale. Replacing an AC/5 and a ton of ammo with a PPC and two heat sinks costs 74,500 c-bills more (parts only). That's not a lot when customizing a single mech. But when a House orders 100 of that mech, the cost adds up. That's probably why so many 3025 mechs had autocannons, lower cost mechs with lower cost parts.

Edited by Doctor Caleb, 14 April 2012 - 05:06 PM.

[Paladin1]

Victor Morson, on 13 April 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

Paladin1, counting anything the fluff does as evidence of something being good is silly.

• DRG-2N - The 2N Dragon is also known as the Puffing Dragon. It is the version that Takashi Kurita piloted in 3052 during the defence of Luthien. Essentially an upgraded version of the 1N, it upgrades the AC/5 to an Ultra AC/5 and adds CASE to the right and left torso sections. The forward facing Medium Laser was dropped to free up the tonnage to do so. The heat sinks were upgraded to double heat sinks while the armor was reduced to nine tons.[9] Note: Elsewhere, it is indicated that the mech used by Takashi Kurita during the Battle of Luthien was a Grand Dragon.

All I can say is "LOL" to this one. They dropped the forward (!) medium laser to add heatsinks to a 'mech that doesn't run hot, then reduced the armor. I mean.. yeah. NOT a good indicator.


This is the same fluff that tries to suggest weapons all are awesome, when they're nerfs - i.e. see the Warhawk and it's LRM/10, making it a highly unstable 'mech that can't alpha (if the LRM was swapped for DHS, it'd be able to alpha).

Actually, if you were paying attention you would have noticed that we were talking about two different variants of the Dragon. You were talking about the DRG-2N while I was talking about the DRG-5N, which doesn't have the same design as the earlier version.

[wwiiogre]

Ok,

The assumption that because the mech is running at 120 kph means that each round fired will strike 3.5 meters behind the others unless they are somehow magically fired much quicker. It is an assumption. Because of targeting and tracking, the barrel could continue to lead the running mech making sure each round of the burst hit the same general area. Since this is the future, why shouldn't the tracking system for an AC 2/5/10/20 have that ability?

But it doesn't say it has that ability. Yes it does, because in table top all of the rounds hit in the same area. What it doesn't say is that they all hit within .1 of a second or any other time frame other than 10 seconds per round. So your argument is merely an assumption based on someone elses game mechanics and some science fiction. So trying to put real world physics based on 20th or 21st century weapons and targeting is really, really silly.

I don't know how it works, it just says it does. Its Science FICTION, meaning its made up. I accept it cause I play the game and use it as a basic concept and rule to play the game. Because in the game it makes the mechanics balanced. How you want to describe it to me using modern real world terminology is great. But in the end, its Fiction and totally made up. It is what it is and I accept that and like the way the game is balanced because of that. Arguing over the semantics of it seems futile unless you admit its all fiction in the first place and assume any one's opinion is merely an opinion. Just like this one is mine.

chris

chris

[Corbon Zackery]

AC 2 and AC 5 are not worthless there used to get that crit on a vital system at long range.

The LBX AC-2 Max out at 27 game hexes

Mix them with a LRM or A ER L laser and you might. Wind up getting a blow through.

They work the same way as a SRM 2, 4, 6 doing that 2 points or 5 points to a internal structure so you get a 3 crits roll.

3050 55 ton Mech
5 Walk
8 Run
4 Jump
XL Engine
Endo Steel
10 Double Heat sinks
2 Case
2 M pulse
2 Ultra AC/2
2 tons AC/2 Ammo
SRM 6
1 ton SRM 6 Ammo
ER Large Laser
6 Tons of Standard Armor

BV 1164

This is a support unit it not suppose to run up and duke it out you don't have a lot of armor. AC/2 have about 45 shots each with 2 shots a round. M Pulse and SRM 6 for that scout that thinks its fast and wants to run up on you while your having fun in the back. Its not flawless and can be prone to Ammo blows but thats the risk with Ammo and I.S XL.

[EDMW CSN]

Sug, on 14 April 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

Make AC-2/5's rapid fire and let the recoil from sustained fire spread out the reticle to an ever-widening cone of inaccuracy. That way mechs with lighter ac's can plink at you from long range and still unload on you at close range.

This would also prevent larger mechs mounting multiple light ac's from hosing you down with pinpoint accuracy from 900 meters.

There should NO recoil for use of light ACs. 4 AC2s weigh in at 24 tons.
That is pretty massive requirement for any unit without XL engines.

And their damage, even with greater ROF, will not be constantly hitting the same spot as long their target is fairly mobile. Add convergence issues plus travel time on top of that and you can see how hard is it to accurately nail shots.

However If you choose not to move and let the other guy lay a steady bead on you to hose you down, then that's your problem.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 14 April 2012 - 08:34 PM.

[Kartr]

wwiiogre, on 14 April 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

Ok,

The assumption that because the mech is running at 120 kph means that each round fired will strike 3.5 meters behind the others unless they are somehow magically fired much quicker. It is an assumption. Because of targeting and tracking, the barrel could continue to lead the running mech making sure each round of the burst hit the same general area. Since this is the future, why shouldn't the tracking system for an AC 2/5/10/20 have that ability?

Not magical, a simple extrapolation on the modern system that would most likely be scaled up to meet those requirements. Heat is the only reason revolver cannons don't have higher rates of fire, that can be solved by using materials that that are more resistant to heat, adding cooling mechanisms, and thickening the barrel. The only reason revolver cannons larger than 30mm haven't been developed is because there is no current need for them, in the future with armor that requires multiple shots, from tank caliber rounds, in order to be defeated such a need exists.

Except I would point out that Targeting Computers don't become available till after the Clan invasion. The IS doesn't get their own versions of the technology until 3062.

According to Sarna.net "Targeting Computers are sophisticated pieces of electronics that, unlike normal targeting systems, physically help MechWarriors target their opponents." Implying that the current generation of 'Mech targeting computers are incapable of doing what you describe. This is reinforced by "Recoil compensators and gyroscopic stabilizers are used to prevent normal weapon drift from factors such as recoil and movement while the computer accounts for atmospheric and other conditions to present an accurate "lead" on the target." Which doesn't imply, but rather states that normal 'Mech targeting computers do not compensate for recoil or movement. Nor do they automatically lead the target, instead it takes a completely separate targeting computer to provide the pilot with a manual lead.

wwiiogre, on 14 April 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

But it doesn't say it has that ability. Yes it does, because in table top all of the rounds hit in the same area. What it doesn't say is that they all hit within .1 of a second or any other time frame other than 10 seconds per round. So your argument is merely an assumption based on someone elses game mechanics and some science fiction. So trying to put real world physics based on 20th or 21st century weapons and targeting is really, really silly.

Actually not only does it not say it has the ability, it says it actually lacks the ability.

Yes I based my arguments on game mechanics, and I based them on the line of fluff that states "Autocannons fire bursts," I also based them on simple mathematics and physics.

In a game and universe based on a game, the game mechanics are the physical laws of that universe. If game mechanics closely align with known capabilities from the real world it reinforces their validity and the accuracy with which comparisons can be drawn. In BattleTech the abilities of the AC/s closely mirror those of revolver cannons that have been scaled up and have had their heat tolerances increased.

The fluff in a game world is the second and slightly less trustworthy than game mechanics. If game mechanics and fluff disagree then game mechanics triumph and the fluff is disregarded as wrong. After all the fluff is in character and "written" by people who don't understand the way things actually function. Just like in real life they are written by people who may not understand how things must function in order to fit in with the physical laws of the game mechanics.

Also physics doesn't change with the technology being used. The laws of physics are immutable and apply in all times and all places in the universe. In science fiction some technologies are stated to exist that defy the laws of physics and are accepted to work as part of the suspension of disbelief. However not every technology is based on impossible science and for the most part AC/s fall into this catagory (though the 'Mechs that carry them cannot be said to do so).

wwiiogre, on 14 April 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

I don't know how it works, it just says it does. Its Science FICTION, meaning its made up. I accept it cause I play the game and use it as a basic concept and rule to play the game. Because in the game it makes the mechanics balanced. How you want to describe it to me using modern real world terminology is great. But in the end, its Fiction and totally made up. It is what it is and I accept that and like the way the game is balanced because of that. Arguing over the semantics of it seems futile unless you admit its all fiction in the first place and assume any one's opinion is merely an opinion. Just like this one is mine.

chris

chris

It is fiction, but as with good Science fiction some of it can be explained by science and in fact should be explainable by science. Science is not a matter of opinion and when a game or universe purports to abide by the laws of science then science can be used to evaluate what is seen and described. In the case of AC/s what is seen is that all the damage strikes a single location. What is described are weapons that fire bursts. Taken together and evaluated we can determine that the bursts must have a duration of less than one tenth of a second.

If you don't care how it is explained why are you even in this thread? Why not let those of us who enjoy figuring out the "how's?" and the "why's?" have our fun?

Edited by Kartr, 14 April 2012 - 10:03 PM.

[Sug]

[EDMW]CSN, on 14 April 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

There should NO recoil for use of light ACs.

Because I love getting cored at 900 meters by that ***** Srin Odessa on elite : /

[wwiiogre]

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.

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?

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." 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And if we have to do that with AC2's for example and try to keep the crosshairs on the target and guess what lead we have to give it and 900 meters. Then that weapon has really become completely useless. Now if the Dev's realize this and then decide to make the AC2's so fast that even a fast running mech kiting will still be able to be zoomed in on an appropriately shot with AC2's then the weapon has a chance. Otherwise they are useless as nipples on boars.

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.

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

[Alizabeth Aijou]

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

'Mech mortars, dumbest concept ever. Whomever came up with those had absolutely no concept of how mortars work.

Eh, considering we already got FASAnomics and FASAphysics, I don't really care.

Quote

You were talking about the DRG-2N while I was talking about the DRG-5N, which doesn't have the same design as the earlier version.

Additionally, the "Puffing Dragon" is apocryphal, not canon.
It used to be canon back in the 90s, though, but CGL changed that due to the rarity of the magazine in which that variant is introduced (some 'Mechs introduced in those magazines did get canonised much later, though).

Quote

Since this is the future, why shouldn't the tracking system for an AC 2/5/10/20 have that ability?

The future of the 1980s, mind you.
They've had the same reaction on 1 Gigabyte as the Doc from Back to the Future had over 1.21 Jiggawatts.

[Paladin1]

Alizabeth Aijou, on 15 April 2012 - 02:04 AM, said:

Additionally, the "Puffing Dragon" is apocryphal, not canon.
It used to be canon back in the 90s, though, but CGL changed that due to the rarity of the magazine in which that variant is introduced (some 'Mechs introduced in those magazines did get canonised much later, though).

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.

[Sug]

The main thing i'm taking away from this thread is that May needs to be Autocannon Information Month.

[Victor Morson]

Tarl.Cabot, on 14 April 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

iie, then you never played MPBT Solaris (AOL/Gamestorm) or 3025. It had been done, repeatedly. Ask anyone who played. And this was in an environment where there was no min/max, you played with the mechs available. In the end it came down to the pilots and the decisions made, and some on lucky crits. And on the decisions made related by both sides on what tactics to use, from lance formation to which mech/section of mech to target, to evasive moves made by both parties, reaction time, and a little luck on crits.

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.

Edited by Victor Morson, 15 April 2012 - 08:54 AM.

[Famous]

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.

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.

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.

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.