74 replies to this topic

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Alex Iglesias, on 10 May 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

well the clint i was refering to is the iic version...soooo might have to wait a few years lol

What about the Ceaser or Cataphract *nudge nudge wink wink*

Edited by DV^McKenna, 10 May 2012 - 10:01 AM.

[Xanquil]

Alex Iglesias, on 10 May 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

to shed some light on my thinking

standard autocannons, ultras, and rotaries are not so much specific designs as they are families of various weapons classified by relative tonnage/size, accuracy, and damage output.

-standards are all over the place in terms of fire rate in the fiction. some fast, some slow. (in some cases it can be argued that certain ac-20s in the fiction might have fire rates comparable to racs or ultras, but that their weight, damage, and firing characteristics put them in the standard 20 category)
-ultras are generally considered pretty damn fast, using higher than average rofs to achieve higher damage output for their class.
-rotaries are simply considered obscenely fast.

the way they lump all their damage into concise clear and easy locations in the TT instead of tracking every round fired off in those 10 seconds based on fluff models, recoil, windage, range, drop, lateral movement, etc. is simply for gameplay purposes, not actual indication of how a given weapon would behave in *real life* because really, it doesn't suit tt gameplay to have to track 300+ bullet impacts or whatever. Same reason machineguns magically can put 2 damage in a single location somehow and not damage anything else when common sense would indicate that they would pepper a target all over.

in real time we can play with those specifics to get something more interesting and dynamic.

I understand all this, But it still didn't answer my question: How are you going to make a RAC not look like a UAC if you have already used the "rotary" design for an ultra?
It is a simple question, that has been avoided in every post.

I understand it will be a while untill the RAC is even in the game, but thinking ahead is something I can't help to do. (old Marine habit)
I'm just trying to help keep the weapon confusion down, now and in the future.
As it stands people are already haveing truble telling what it is. Some even thought it was the lazers.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Xanquil, on 10 May 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

I understand all this, But it still didn't answer my question: How are you going to make a RAC not look like a UAC if you have already used the "rotary" design for an ultra?
It is a simple question, that has been avoided in every post.

I understand it will be a while untill the RAC is even in the game, but thinking ahead is something I can't help to do. (old Marine habit)
I'm just trying to help keep the weapon confusion down, now and in the future.
As it stands people are already haveing truble telling what it is. Some even thought it was the lazers.

And has been stated,according to sarna RAC's do not rotate, they share the same bore as a regular AC.

[Karl Streiger]

So many worries about a picture...its amusing.

Is it the word you are troubled with? Rotary....called it Mulit like the translation in German...Multi Autocannon...not a single word about rotating barrels - only that it fires multiple rounds in the same time of a normal cannon.
The same is with Ultra Autocannon, ultra could mean anything from higher velocity...that was my first intension when i read smoothbore back in time when aquiring City Tech. But it fires only twice the time...so why not call it double cannon?

You didn't even know if the cannon placement on the cicada will rotate...maybe all 3 guns have own load mechanism - its a picture...and a really really cool one...never liked the cicada till May 9th 2012

[Alex Iglesias]

Xanquil, on 10 May 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

I understand all this, But it still didn't answer my question: How are you going to make a RAC not look like a UAC if you have already used the "rotary" design for an ultra?
It is a simple question, that has been avoided in every post.

I understand it will be a while untill the RAC is even in the game, but thinking ahead is something I can't help to do. (old Marine habit)
I'm just trying to help keep the weapon confusion down, now and in the future.
As it stands people are already haveing truble telling what it is. Some even thought it was the lazers.

lot of different ways to design out multiple barrel shaped assemblies. Different number of barrels, different lengths, different muzzle flashes, different flash hider shapes, different sizes. It's not that hard really. Aside from that though, it would probably come down to weapon fx themselves.

besides, racs won't be on the table for a long time, so don't even worry bout it.

[Monky]

Pretty sure we won't be seeing RACs until they're pushing us into the Jihad era. Plenty of time to come up with a distinct design

[Alex Iglesias]

also, because gatling good

[PANZERBUNNY]

Even if it was a RAC they're able to fudge it.

Tech was available 10-20 years before it became "common place" and norm so to speak in one form or another.

Gear needs field testing.

[Gun Bear]

Yeah Alex you got about 6 years to come up with a concept for a rotary AC, seeing what was done recently I trust it'll look great like everything else.

[Thorolf Kylesson]

Xanquil, on 09 May 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

The Cicada seems to have jumped ahead a few years. In the picture it looks like it has a RAC on it.
I asume it is a minor mistake as an Ultra should not look like a "rotary" auto cannon.
Please don't make Ultras look like RACs, It's just not right.

Other than that I love the way it looks.

Chalk it up to "artistic license".

[Lauranis]

Just to add some historical context to the discussion about how various classifications of weapons can appear similar yet have different functions:

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Volley_gun

note how similar some of these weapons look in comparison to:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Gatling_gun

particularly note how the Mitrailleuse Gatling modèle APX 1895 DOES NOT appear at first glance to have multiple barrels.




additionally as has been stated by many here (including the devs, and in the battletech rules themselves) here is something from Sarna to draw further comparison with



"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/20's due to their damage output."

from here:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon/5.

Coupling this all together I would say that we can expect to see Autocannon's in many different varieties represented in lots of different ways. It would be nice if we could choose what manufacturer our AC comes from, even if only for aesthetic purposes.

Edited by Lauranis, 10 May 2012 - 11:27 AM.

[Sychodemus]

Once again: there has never been any uniformity in the way weapons/equipment looks in the artwork - aside from an artist's consistent approach.

It doesn't matter what it looks like, only what a weapon does in the context of the game.

Also, the fact that it is a 3050/Star League-era weapon seems to be lost on a lot of people.

[AC]

DV^McKenna, on 10 May 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

And has been stated,according to sarna RAC's do not rotate, they share the same bore as a regular AC.

DV,

Bore simply refers to the calibure of the rounds it can fire. This means they fire the same calibure rounds. No matter if you have an AC5, a UAC5, or a RAC5... in battle tech you load 20 rounds of AC5 ammo per ton. It's always identical ammo.


I am not trying to be a jerk when I say I don't like the multi-barren UAC. The engineer in me sees a lot of waste in that design and it doesn't make sense. The heaviest part of any ballistic gun is the barrel. The only reason why you add more barrels is because firing the number of rounds per set amount of time you want to fire would result in melting or warping the barrel. That is why gattling guns, which are designed for high rates of continuous fire, have multiple barrels. And only as many barrels as is required for a reliable design.

I was also suprised by this from a game mechanics standpoint. It would seem difficult to have fire alternating between these barrels, so it would seen intuitive to use a single barrel for weapons when possible.

Edited by AC, 10 May 2012 - 01:16 PM.

[Xanquil]

Alex Iglesias, on 10 May 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

also, because gatling good

Alex Iglesias, on 10 May 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

lot of different ways to design out multiple barrel shaped assemblies. Different number of barrels, different lengths, different muzzle flashes, different flash hider shapes, different sizes. It's not that hard really. Aside from that though, it would probably come down to weapon fx themselves.

besides, racs won't be on the table for a long time, so don't even worry bout it.

You found some of my favorite weapons.

And gave me the answer I was expecting. One of "it's ok we'll figure something out". :

I love the art keep up the good work, I may disagree with this one part but the rest has been amazeing.
I guess you can close this topic now.

[ZnSeventeen]

Okay, just as a point of correction, autocannons of the same class do not have the same calibers. An AC/20 on an Atlas does not necessarily fire the same size slugs as an AC/20 on a Hunchback. It just mean's they deal about the same damage, at about the same ranges. Consider submachine guns. They do not all have the same caliber, but they generally operate the same way, fire at close range, high rate of fire, fairly low caliber, anti personnel, etc. AC classes are like that. For confirmation sake http://www.sarna.net/wiki/AC/20. Assuming this page is correct, AC/20's range from 25-203 mm calibers, a substantial range for weapons that still have similar characteristics.
Okay, had to say that.

Now on the topic of UAC vs RAC, I have an idea how to distinguish them. Other than increasing the number of barrels, perhaps a sort of cover that goes around the end of the barrels. This would protect the barrels from bending while the weapon is operating at high rpm's. Multi barreled UAC's, with their lower rpm's could get away with no protection around the barrels, as we see in the Cicada picture. Just an idea.

Edited by ZnSeventeen, 16 May 2012 - 03:42 PM.