14 replies to this topic

[Gremlich Johns]

To make a player build a more authentic mech loadout, I believe that ammo should not be able to be placed in the legs.

Why would I consider this as a reasonable change?

How does ammo get from the legs to the weapons in the torso (let alone to the arms from the legs)?

Suspension of disbelief aside, getting ammo from the torso to the arms is odd enough. Limiting ammo to arms and torso could eliminate the more, ahem, creative loadouts people might devise or complain about.

If you have missiles in the legs, sure, have at it, but there are no weapons points in the legs. The only this that should go into the legs is acctuators, armor, internal structure upgrades and heatsinks.

[Imagine Dragons]

... If I have DHS, which can't be placed in the legs, its going to be messy with putting ammo and DHS into the STs, and I sure as hell don't want to put either in an arm...

(perspective of a dragon)

[Brandeis]

I don't like this idea because there aren't a whole lot of options for things to fit in the legs as it is. Besides, in classic battle tech (Tabletop) I had weapons in my legs. There is no reason an SRM 2 can't fit there and pop out of a side panel on some designs.

[Roland]

Quote

How does ammo get from the legs to the weapons in the torso (let alone to the arms from the legs)?

The same way it gets from any other location to a weapon. Through an ammo feeder mechanism.

There is no reason at all, in any incarnation of mechwarrior or battletech, to prevent storage of ammo in a mech's legs.

[RedHairDave]

it would also further limit the usefulness of DHS for the IS.

[HlynkaCG]

There are several canon builds (Crusader, Pariah, and some variants of the Marauder) that store thier ammo in the legs so I'm not sure where you're getting this "authenticity" idea from.

Heck the stock Hector came with hip (leg) mounted weapons.

Edited by HlynkaCG, 28 November 2012 - 09:18 AM.

[Gavin McStine]

Think of a tank, most tanks have some ammo storage in the tank hull and feed it up into the turret. Think of each leg or arm joint as a turret. I would guess that there isnt anything between the torsos, other then a frame, but no armor. If ammo cant pass threw sections then how can energy pass threw sections?

A jump jet in the legs requires energy from the center torso engine. If you can feed the electrical wire, why not ammo? What about heat sinks? Im guessing theres coolent involved.

Edited by Gavin McStine, 28 November 2012 - 09:24 AM.

[FiveDogNight]

Gremlich Johns, on 28 November 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

To make a player build a more authentic mech loadout, I believe that ammo should not be able to be placed in the legs.

How does ammo get from the legs to the weapons in the torso (let alone to the arms from the legs)?

I agree 100% that its silly, however so is the entire premise of the game (at that tech level why bother with mechs at all? Orbital bombardment would seem to make more sense everytime.)

The fact is the mechwarrior universe was created to be "cool" (particularly 80s cool), not super realistic. If the game was pushed more towards a "simulation" where you have ammo loaders, realistic damage models, real physics etc... The fact is it wouldn't necessarily be anymore fun, but it would be like 1000% more difficult to program/develop and require very expensive computers to run.

So the reason why we can load ammo on the legs just like the tabletop game is because its a game and not simulation. Ultimately it needs to be fun. So don't let things like this ruin your enjoyment, because you can't tug at one thread without unraveling the whole "sweater".

[Gavin McStine]

FiveDogNight, on 28 November 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

I agree 100% that its silly

How is it silly, ever hear of a navy battleship, they dont have the ammo in the turrets its fed threw decks before it gets to the gun.

[Gremlich Johns]

FiveDogNight, you give the reasonable answer, thanx.

@HlynkaCG, fair enough, maybe "authenticity" was imprecise, but Canon weapons and mech workings are not exactly realistic (as FDN points out), realistic being the more precise term in this.

consider the image of the Timberwolf at this MWO forum url (scroll down)

If you look at any diagrams of the intersection of the mecha "bottom" and the mecha legs, there is room for power cables and the gearing, little else, so anybody that has argued "if they can get power to the legs, they can get ammo through there too" is just plain ignorant. Consider the likely diameter of the AC20 or a Gauss slug, or the length and width of an LRM - the former is rather large and the latter is long enough to make bending an impossibility. The example of the battleship main gun ammo resupply is equally ignorant. The turret rests on a race ring, the same way a tank turret does. The ammo in the former is delivered via conveyer in the area you could drive a car through. The tank is a tad smaller and the primary ammo load is in the back of the turret, some is under the main gun station (which is ready access for the loader without any special machinery) and the rest is in the hull, which, you have to move the turret just so to access it.

I did mention "suspension of disbelief" and that's the situation we have with mecha, whether in TT or otherwise. Regardless, there is no technical way to move ammo up from the legs short of carrying magazines on them.

My argument is hereby academic, rendered moot by 1980's game design.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 28 November 2012 - 12:08 PM.

[Jonas]

Check the Lore, Thunder Hawk had its ammo in its legs. I grant you I love to see the feed system in real life but the fact is if you have the critical space and tonnage you should be able to mount your ammo anywhere you want.

On the note I think if you got the room or are willing to make the room for ECM, Probe, TAG, or what other equipment comes down the line you should be able to mount it. I do not consider Tag a weapon.

[WaywardMind]

For the sake of realism I agree that ammo should not go in the legs.

[LynxFury]

Ammo can be quite far from the weapon.
I can't resist showing a Warhog's 30mm Avenger cannon's feed--part of this old Army guy's favorite aircraft.

[Gavin McStine]

My point being that ammo doesnt have to be next to the gun, if you want to use referance, look to the right to the yen-lo-wang. The barrel of the AC20 is much smaller then both the arm and leg joints. The skeleton of a mech is proberly holo, so it could move ammo within it, kinda like a vacuum transfer system.(since the muscle are proberly in the way for the most part)

Also some ammo is two (or more?) parts, the propellant and projectile.
If i rember correctly people can enter the innerds of the atles for repairs.

[Gremlich Johns]

LynxFury, on 28 November 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

Ammo can be quite far from the weapon.
I can't resist showing a Warhog's 30mm Avenger cannon's feed--part of this old Army guy's favorite aircraft.

The 30mm rounds used by the A-10 are 29" long, mate. I imagine that an AC20 round is what, equivilent to a 209mm projo? A 152mm projo is about 840mm long, without the powder charge. While I appreciate the effort to support ammo being in the legs, the design might work on a RAC/Rotary - just consider how long the feed mechanism would have to be, on, say, an Awesome. The chain-gun you cite was purpose built like that and the airframe designed around it. The wing pylons for the bombs/etc were a bennie.

I wonder about this because I was a Tank loader and gunner for a while and badly thought out tech bothers me.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 28 November 2012 - 02:03 PM.