17 replies to this topic

[Vechs]

I was wondering something...

The weapon ranges have always seemed odd to me, but then I realized, what if the ranges are "Effective max range versus Battlemech armor" and not "Max range to do any damage".

In other words, would a Small Laser kill an unarmored person at, say, 2000 meters?

If a Machine Gun is effective against Battlemech armor at 90m, is it still going to be killing people and civilian vehicles at 1500m?

Thinking about it like that suddenly makes the numbers involved not totally silly.

Well, except for the AC20 being such short range. I'm still not sure how that works.

As it relates specifically to Mechwarrior Online, if what I'm guessing is actually how things work, do you think they would implement that if they put vehicles and/or infantry in the game? (Like, your small laser range indicator is yellow at 800m when you target a truck or something.)

Edited by Vechs, 01 December 2012 - 07:58 AM.

[Starmage21]

canon answer is not that the weapons effective only out to their ranges, but that targetting and tracking systems are that bad. You basically have WW2 era "computers" trying to calculate how to aim a weapon smaller than a battleship cannon, and do it quickly.

[DrBunji]

Well its 100% for balancing issues, otherwise the AC shells would likely to the same damage however far off they hit, since they are explosive and not kinetic devices, i think

[Kurayami]

Official explanation was "so you could play using standard table instead of football field" as for canon - targeting computers and tech as a whole is THAT bad. Basically middle ages with big walking relics of past. Targeting computer that weights half a ton (or 1 ton - my memory fails me) etc

[RainbowToh]

Dude it is a game. Most of the values are derived from the tabletop, where you have hexes for range calculation. As such for gameplay convenience, the range of the weapons cant be too far otherwise you will need bigger tabletop maps haha.

Once my friend and I try to design a game based on hexes as the standard measure. We spend alot of time deciding the range per hex and the range of our weapons so that it would simplify gameplay n not make it unnecessarily complex.

So in a way MWO weapons have the same goal so that gameplay can be satisfying.

If you want real world ranges, you would be hitting targets kilometres away and you still can call it a short range weapon

Edited by RainbowToh, 01 December 2012 - 08:29 AM.

[Vapor Trail]

One problem with the concept: MGs.

A mounted machine gun is capable of killing infantry for hundreds, if not thousands, of meters. MG range against infantry (unarmored, grunts with guns infantry) in TT: 90m.

[Buck Cake]

All that, and weapons are much less accurate when shooting from one moving platform to another, while both are manoevering through fog and ruins.

[John Norad]

They (Fasa) reduced the scale to make it playable as a TT. Nothing fancy really.

If you multiply all ranges by a factor of 10, you get much more believable values.

MG: 90m -> 900m
LRM: 630m -> 6.3km
PPC: 540m -> 5.4km
MLas: 270m -> 2.7km

etc.
Now I'll just wait for the first guy saying those are too long. Well, we might just settle for something between x5-x10?

[cmopatrick]

yeah, as someone reminded me this morning, BT has canon that totally ignores physics.

on the topic of AC ranges, i think perhaps you are over thinking the issue, though. instead of trying to figure out why ranges are comparable with 17th century workhorses, just accept that these are not rifled bore weapons... they are the 30th century equivalent of muskets or shotguns firing huge, heavy, and relatively air resistant explosive slugs (yes there are sabot rounds that attain high energy, but mostly it is supposed to be gel in a casing).

like a lot of things in BT and MW, this does bring up a number of other issues if applied to real world, but i guess that those of us who appeal to canon for our pet projects have to understand that BT was made to play and have fun rather (made by folks who cared about that) rather than physicists, structural engineers, and other scientists (who can have fun, but the game would never have been made because it requires so many things that can not happen in rl).

[Sinluien]

so ive been looking and came up with nothing other than a giant story. is there somewhere i can go to read about the history and why the targetting/tracking systems suck? this actually really interests me and i have a feeling it would be a fun read to know how/why.

[Gristle]

Sinluien, on 01 December 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:

so ive been looking and came up with nothing other than a giant story. is there somewhere i can go to read about the history and why the targetting/tracking systems suck? this actually really interests me and i have a feeling it would be a fun read to know how/why.

Try this post: http://mwomercs.com/...tions-and-tech/ Very good synopsis of everything BT and a bibliography for more reading to boot.

[WarfieldSRT]

I've heard a few different explanations, recently with the addition of ECM. One of them is that all mechs already have their own ECM suites, such that the only viable way to engage an oponent is through line of sight, because the standard ECM renders anything beyond that impossible. Now, as anyone who has used some of the balistics knows, it is very possible to hit someone even if they are out of range or under partial cover that doesnt allow you to get a lock.

My personal belief is that this game was created before anyone had ever heard of an M1 Abrams tank, and all of the amazing things it could do. You think Streaks are bad? Imagine that Cata with all its AC5s basically never missing a shot in the middle of a full sprint. And thats the other point... if the targeting computer were really as good as it could be, the game really wouldn't be all that fun, now would it?

[Strum Wealh]

John Norad, on 01 December 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

They (Fasa) reduced the scale to make it playable as a TT. Nothing fancy really.

If you multiply all ranges by a factor of 10, you get much more believable values.

MG: 90m -> 900m
LRM: 630m -> 6.3km
PPC: 540m -> 5.4km
MLas: 270m -> 2.7km

etc.
Now I'll just wait for the first guy saying those are too long. Well, we might just settle for something between x5-x10?

From a couple of old threads:

Strum Wealh, on 15 June 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

As stated previously in this thread, as well as in others:

The Devs have stated (in Q&A 05) that "TT long range = max. effective range".

Standard LRM (both IS and Clan) max. effective range (including alternate munitions): 630 meters
Enhanced LRM (IS only, introduced in 3058) max. effective range (including alternate munitions): 630 meters
Extended LRM (IS only, introduced in 3054) max. effective range (no alternate munitions available): 1140 meters

Standard LRMs have a canon minimum range of 180 meters.
Enhanced LRMs have a canon minimum range of 90 meters.
Extended LRMs have a canon minimum range of 300 meters.

The TT rules state that the given ranges are an abstraction to improve play ability in a TT environment.
The Devs have stated a desire to have MWO's parameters match those of the TT game as closely as possible, except where there would be negative effects on playability.

-----

There was a point where I, myself, suggested the use of BattleForce ranges, where 1 hex = 180 meters, rather than standard BattleTech's 1 hex = 30 meters; the result would be a 6x increase in ranges.

In the case of LRMs:
Standard LRM (both IS and Clan) max. effective range (including alternate munitions): 3780 meters
Enhanced LRM (IS only, introduced in 3058) max. effective range (including alternate munitions): 3780 meters
Extended LRM (IS only, introduced in 3054) max. effective range (no alternate munitions available): 6840 meters

Considering that LRMs are canonically about the same size as shoulder-launched missiles (120 LRMs per ton + 1000 kg per ton = 120 LRMs per 1000 kg = 8.33 kg per LRM) and said shoulder-launched missiles (such as the Redeye (8.3 kg per missile) and the Stinger (10.1 kg per missile)) have ranges on the order of 3-5 km, using BattleForce ranges would, IMO, result in more "realistic" - albeit less BattleTech "authentic" - performance.

Personally, I would be happy with - and perhaps even slightly prefer - the closer, in-your-face combat of the classic BattleTech ranges over the longer, somewhat more realistic BattleForce ranges.

Your thoughts?

Strum Wealh, on 30 January 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

There is a variant of the game called BattleForce that uses "1 hex = 180 meters" rather than the "1 hex = 30 meters" of normal BattleTech.

I.S. Medium Laser(/AC-20/SRM) max. range: 9 hexes
BattleTech range: 270 meters
BattleForce range: 1620 meters

I.S. ER-PPC max. range: 23 hexes
BattleTech range: 690 meters
BattleForce range: 4140 meters

I.S. Gauss Rifle max. range: 22 hexes
BattleTech range: 660 meters
BattleForce range: 3960 meters

I.S. LRM max. range: 21 hexes
BattleTech range: 630 meters
BattleForce range: 3780 meters

Clan LB 2-X AC max. range: 30 hexes -> (longest canon non-artillery range)
BattleTech range: 900 meters
BattleForce range: 5400 meters

I.S./Clan Long Tom max. range: 340 hexes (20 maps * 17 rows of hexes per BT map) -> (longest canon artillery range)
BattleTech range: 10200 meters
BattleForce range: 61200 meters

Also, keep in mind that a number of weapons (such as PPCs, I.S. LRMs, and the lighter ACs) have minimum ranges on the order of 3-6 hexes...

While a case could be made for longer weapon ranges (up to the BF ranges), I would think that sticking to standard BT ranges would probably be better, as it seems like most maps - especially urban environments - probably won't be 10-12 km long/wide (does anyone know of a Dev citation of approximate map size?) open fields, and most engagements are probably going to take place inside of 1000 meters anyway.

Your thoughts?

So, we do technically have a working example of 6x ranges...

[Sinluien]

thx gristle, that was amazing.

[LordBraxton]

If for some reason Battletech was 'real' the range of the combat would be so far that viewing the enemy mechs would only be possible through powerfully enhanced optics. The closest ranged weapons would fire minimum a kilometer.

This does not make for flashy online action however, and would require gigantic maps and make rounds last for 30min-2hours or more.

Edited by LordBraxton, 01 December 2012 - 02:12 PM.

[Mike Theumer]

LordBraxton, on 01 December 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

If for some reason Battletech was 'real' the range of the combat would be so far that viewing the enemy mechs would only be possible through powerfully enhanced optics. The closest ranged weapons would fire minimum a kilometer.

This does not make for flashy online action however, and would require gigantic maps and make rounds last for 30min-2hours or more.

You say all that like it would be a bad thing.

[Sifright]

Vechs, on 01 December 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

I was wondering something...

The weapon ranges have always seemed odd to me, but then I realized, what if the ranges are "Effective max range versus Battlemech armor" and not "Max range to do any damage".

In other words, would a Small Laser kill an unarmored person at, say, 2000 meters?

If a Machine Gun is effective against Battlemech armor at 90m, is it still going to be killing people and civilian vehicles at 1500m?

Thinking about it like that suddenly makes the numbers involved not totally silly.

Well, except for the AC20 being such short range. I'm still not sure how that works.

As it relates specifically to Mechwarrior Online, if what I'm guessing is actually how things work, do you think they would implement that if they put vehicles and/or infantry in the game? (Like, your small laser range indicator is yellow at 800m when you target a truck or something.)

Nah battle tech ranges and computer fluff being incredibly stupid is entirely down to the original writers being incredibly dumb *for weapons* and projecting for computer tech with out knowing that computer growth would be practically exponential.

the idea that IC's are lostech is beyond stupid. nothing they have would be feasible using 1970's computers.

[Codejack]

I think that part of the unwritten story is that, at some point in the history of mankind, there was a serious heavy metal contamination problem but it became taboo to talk about it, and so everyone in the future has severe cognitive problems which is why they design such ridiculous vehicles