106 replies to this topic

[Wolfways]

BlackSquirrel, on 01 December 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

WTF are you talking about that made exactly my point... "The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers."

And the last part just states that infantry in battle armor carry the larger versions that help kill more infantry. Or static emplacements... carry the larger versions. And yes in the TT mechs carried them to combat infantry which is exactly what was stated.

I'm not sure how that was missed in something you you quoted directly...

I was pointing out that there are different sized MG's.
Mechs probably use "support machine guns" as it says " Vehicular-scale machine guns mounted on BattleMechs" which have " enough firepower to be a threat to heavily-armored vehicles".


Oh and for others, i was joking about making them like AC2's. Hence the

Edited by Wolfways, 01 December 2012 - 08:12 PM.

[Fetladral]

but in the battletech universe 1 "half ton" machinegun is actually 3 machine guns in one weapon system so its three weapons adding up to 1000 lbs.

[Lonestar1771]

Fetladral, on 01 December 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

but in the battletech universe 1 "half ton" machinegun is actually 3 machine guns in one weapon system so its three weapons adding up to 1000 lbs.

Yeah that's where I think PGI messed up. It sure feels like each half ton there is only one MG where it should be a bank of MGs.

[Team Leader]

Fetladral, on 01 December 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

but in the battletech universe 1 "half ton" machinegun is actually 3 machine guns in one weapon system so its three weapons adding up to 1000 lbs.

I thought thats actually an MG cluster. Different weapon I believe? Or no?

Edited by Team Leader, 01 December 2012 - 08:42 PM.

[Asatruer]

Team Leader, on 01 December 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

I thought thats actually an MG cluster. Different weapon I believe? Or no?

Probably Fetladral is confusing the standard MG (the one being discussed in this thread) with the MG Arrays, though considering how vast and variant the many fluff weapons that all use the same rules are, there could very well be an MG manufacturer that just welds three much smaller guns together to output a higher RoF of smaller caliber rounds that manage to do the same damage, just like with the ACs. For example Achernar BattleMechs produces an MG they calls the Double-Gun, so it probably is two smaller guns.

Edited by Asatruer, 01 December 2012 - 09:03 PM.

[Hidirian]

Let me reiterate what I posted earlier since most people seem to be posting in this thread without actually reading all the posts:

MG's on Mechs are NOT some puny .50 cal MG, they were only considered primarily anti-infantry weapons because they got BONUSES when attacking infantry( see point 1). They did FINE against another Mech due to how armor works in the BT universe( see point 2).

Hidirian, on 01 December 2012 - 02:59 AM, said:

A few facts to put out there since some people don't seem to understand:

1.The Machine guns in BT TT are equivalent to a GE M61 Vulcan gun used by the USAF fighters(go figure GE also makes weapons in the BT universe) or as some have suggested something like the Nexter (MG - scroll to bottom), they did 2 damage per round(firing 10 rounds in a burst in 10 seconds that means they should be doing 0.20 damage per bullet instead of the 0.04 per bullet that they do now), they did 2+1 to light armored vehicles(lightly armored trucks/tanks) and did 2+2 to infantry(hence why they were considered anti infantry weapons). In BT 1 ton of ammunition holds 4,000 rounds, broke down in 200 "shots" for gaming purposes. Each "shot" is a 10 rds burst, this was changed in MWO to straight ammo from "shots" and cut in half from what it should hold, now I could understand doing this for gameplay purposes IF they left the damage at 2dps(0.20 per bullet) but they didn't so It just doesn't make sense.

2. Mech Armor in the BT universe is **Ablative** in nature Armor for BattleMechs/Vehicles, that means that it chips away with every shot/explosion similar to how our current bulletproof vests used by soldiers now do. So a machine gun would be pretty damaging to a Mech especially a half ton 20mm one which is why they exist for mechs.

Edited by Hidirian, 01 December 2012 - 10:03 PM.

[Frost Lord]

ferranis, on 01 December 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

What do we want?

Better Machineguns!

What do we never use?

Better Machineguns!


Sorry i couldnt resist.
But honestly, wo builds a mech around Machineguns? Cheesebuilds yes.

A heatefficient ppc would be a better wish.

one of the cicadas has 4 and with 40T to play with you cant do much else.

I think they just need to be effective against exposed areas and crit more changing the range wont do much since there damage output its almost nothing.

[Frost Lord]

Asatruer, on 01 December 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

I have never understood this MGs should be better at critical hits mentality.
Why should the MG be better at damaging internals than a Small Laser, or an AC/2?

the rate of fire would mean they would have a hight chance of hitting something vital 90% of the bullets might hit frame or some remaining armour but some are going to hit something impotent, a ac2 is going to do damage regardless but its not going to hit vitals as often the laser could hit everything but it would need to be concentrated to build up the heat to melt it.

[Utilyan]

Look there is a damn, damn, damn good reason weapons like mg and flamers got nerfed in the first place...............and that reason is ME!


I love mgs and flamers, to buff any is to court death.

they could buff it for a week........just to show you how horrible an idea it is to make them stronger. I say a week but realley in two days your gonna see like 20 threads on getting rid of mgs.

If your going to make mgs stronger i'd take baby steps like add to the range or ammo. Longer range would be real nice.

[Wolfways]

I'd like longer range, considering that on my K2 with two ERPPC's the only backup weapons are two ML's and two MG's.

[stjobe]

Utilyan, on 03 December 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

Longer range would be real nice.

Wolfways, on 03 December 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

I'd like longer range, considering that on my K2 with two ERPPC's the only backup weapons are two ML's and two MG's.

The MG is supposed to be a short range weapon, much like the small laser. If you want longer ranges, you have to go to the ACs.

[Wolfways]

stjobe, on 03 December 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

The MG is supposed to be a short range weapon, much like the small laser. If you want longer ranges, you have to go to the ACs.

Well i don't really want or expect MG range to be increased...just said i'd like it
Besides, with 20DHS to get the ERPPC's somewhat functional there's no room for AC2's. Believe me, i tried

[Icebound]

They're planning on buffing them eventually.

[Team Leader]

Ive said this before, let MGs shoot down missiles if you fire into a cloud of them. Work as arm mounted AMS.

[Noth]

Hidirian, on 01 December 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

Let me reiterate what I posted earlier since most people seem to be posting in this thread without actually reading all the posts:

MG's on Mechs are NOT some puny .50 cal MG, they were only considered primarily anti-infantry weapons because they got BONUSES when attacking infantry( see point 1). They did FINE against another Mech due to how armor works in the BT universe( see point 2).

I really suggest not using realism in this debate. Autocanons are described as 20mm and higher. No point in a 20mm machine gun in this reality when you have an AC that is 20mm.

[Saint Rigid]

People call everything that shoots bullets fast a "machine gun". I think people are getting caught up in the hype that is the military definition of machine guns. Battle tech was not a military history textbook, and neither is MWO.

According to pop-culture, an AK-47 is a machine gun. You don't have to take it so literally. "Machine Guns" can do whatever PGI wants them to do (which is hopefully MORE damage).

Calm down guys, it's okay. Let them have their cake and eat it too... even if it's full of lead

[kragmoor]

ferranis, on 01 December 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

What do we want?

Better Machineguns!

What do we never use?

Better Machineguns!


Sorry i couldnt resist.
But honestly, wo builds a mech around Machineguns? Cheesebuilds yes.

A heatefficient ppc would be a better wish.

my friend has a machine gun cicada.

[Utilyan]

I remember back in the day you had to click through a fricken map to get to a arena and fight........

Alright? mechwarrior used to have bars in it. people would get drunk go play air warrior, dungeons and dragons and then come back in a zombie mech running around legging people.........back in the day your *** could lose a leg.

People were getting headshots by accident.....death from above by accident......people would shoothemselves in the head by accident.

You had a 14 inch screen......and then the fight happened on a screen inside your screen.....so you had like 5 inch window was the entire combat view.......and if your leg got shot the whole damn thing glowed. I tell you what tho that minimap kicked *** cause you could setup to block. Didn't they have hip shots? Mechs had balls back then you got hit hip whole thing blew up.

Mini map now aint so good......it ought to just say "YOUR LOST" on it. it needs like a tactical switch to show your relation to the nme targeted.




Maybe short range effective against mechs. That doesn't mean mgs have to be short range. I could still plink you.

50 cal round is going to go greater distance then a 20 mm. You could read about 50 cal rounds hitting miles away.

Im saying as an alternative to the raising the mg damage.......try raise the distance first.


If MGS start to do actual damage to armor its going to be too OP. I like the idea of it being effective against troops, tanks, and unarmored mechs or mechs who lost thier armor piece.

[wanderer]

Jon Hasselblad, on 01 December 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

Just a thought.

I've seen machine guns loading 7.62mm rounds, tear a 1 foot thick wall of concrete down in about 7 seconds at 100 yards.

M16s used in the early 1960s have an effective range of 450 yards, better after it was improved.

If a mech uses a machine gun, i'm sure it would load larger calibre bullets and have a longer range.

For the sake of balance, would it be feasible to let it have a range of 270-380 metres, and up its dps slightly, instead of its measly 90m range.

Just my cents.

Right now, they don't even remotely come near the DPS of a small laser. When they should have two-thirds of it. If they actually had the same kind of range stats as most ballistics converted from TT, it'd be full damage to 90m, reduced damage to...270m (3x full damage range). They should be delivering about at least .4 DPS (up to .8 max) or so per MG, as well- not .04 DPS. That would at least make the MG somewhat respectable, especially in bulk- after all, it's heat-free.

Like the flamer, the MG is currently borked even by TT standards.

[Saint Rigid]

Utilyan, on 04 December 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

You had a 14 inch screen......and then the fight happened on a screen inside your screen.....

Made me laugh! I don't agree with you on the distance thing, but blake damnit you made me laugh HARD with that one lol


..............................................

Back to business. Machine guns. One more thing to think about guys. When the larger games come in (i.e. 12v12) they have stated that the maps will be even bigger. Range will be a more limiting factor in these types of games.

Do not underestimate how much the extremely short range on the machine gun limits it's potential for OP. In fact, make it shorter if you want. Take it down to 64 just like the flamer (but with the "extended ranges" unlike the flamer.

It will all make sense in the end, which is technically... the beginning!