This topic is locked
Really, this duscussion is still on?
I think every blind pilot can see tht the MG needs to be reworked.
7
Machine Gun Buff?
Started by Scarlett Avignon, Dec 12 2012 01:21 PM
383 replies to this topic
#362
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 9,498 posts
Member
- LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.
Posted 15 December 2012 - 12:05 PM
Khobai, on 15 December 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:
1 DPS for the MG would be perfectly fine on all existing mechs. The problem occurs when mechs are introduced that can boat machine guns such as the flea. The flea would be doing absurd dps at that point.
The HBK-4SP can boat 9 small lasers while carrying 26 single heat sinks. That's a 'mech I come up against regularly in matches.
How would a 6x1-DPS MG + 3xSL Fireant Flea be any larger of a problem than that?
The 4SP does its 9 damage over 0.75 seconds, but the Fireant would need the whole second.
Edited by stjobe, 15 December 2012 - 12:08 PM.
#363
-
-
- The Sickle
- 1,298 posts
Member
- LocationConnecticut
Posted 15 December 2012 - 12:47 PM
I never understood how people can use reality to justify making something under preform or not be fun IN A FRACKING GAME. There are plenty of game play reasons to make the weapon not suck. Oh but that's not how games are made anymore it seems. No, games are now meant to emulate reality right down to all of the tedium and waste that permeates every day items and concepts because even if your item sucks it's working like it should in real life and THAT is what's truly important.
If in the next GTA you had to stand in line at the DMV for 3 hours before you could drive a car wouldn't that be the most fun and amazing game ever? I mean it would be so realistic and since so many people use realism as both a seal of approval and a synonym for fun and engaging I don't see how anyone could have any complaints about that sort of move.
Buff machine guns. Don't keep them useless but don't make them OP. Just give them some sort of use.
If in the next GTA you had to stand in line at the DMV for 3 hours before you could drive a car wouldn't that be the most fun and amazing game ever? I mean it would be so realistic and since so many people use realism as both a seal of approval and a synonym for fun and engaging I don't see how anyone could have any complaints about that sort of move.
Buff machine guns. Don't keep them useless but don't make them OP. Just give them some sort of use.
#364
-
-
- 160 posts
Member
Posted 15 December 2012 - 12:48 PM
Ive been reading this thread for like 30 mins.
#365
-
-
- Shredder
- 3,219 posts
Member
- LocationHypothetical Warrior
Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:03 PM
If you want realism - it's a simple physical factor that happens when you bounce tons of small high speed projectiles around in an armored box - it's called spalling.
from wikipedia;
Now, since we are talking a half ton machinegun that shoots bullets which weigh in at 200 per ton (2000 in MWO), we are obviously not talking about some man portable machinegun. Machinegun is the name they chose because it is technically accurate, it is a fully automatic weapon. What we are talking about here is an electrically operated chaingun with anti tank capability, likely through spalling rounds. As armor in battletech is ablative, it chips and cracks and breaks for everything that hits it, and machineguns (read; not small, light weight man portable ones) with HESH rounds sound like they could easily be considered anti mech weapons, even if they are not quite as capable as some other weapons. An additional bonus that makes the crit modifier rule make sense - you're firing ten rounds a second into a now unarmored section of a mech, you're going to mess up nearly everything inside. **** will be destroyed, rapidly. Those rounds bounce around, split, tear chunks off of other things and then those chunks bounce around and minor explosions take place as lesser systems are damaged. This is how it works in real life vehicles when they are penetrated.
Now, if you want the real reason, gameplay balance; It's because machineguns are **** and should be either removed from the game or given a realistic role to play that fits with requiring a ton of ammo (explosive if it gets hit) and a 0.5 ton weapon that generates no heat, and a specialist crit seeking role seems perfect for that.
from wikipedia;
Quote
In anti-tank warfare, spalling through mechanical stress is an intended effect of high explosive squash head (HESH) anti-tank shells and many other munitions which may not be powerful enough to pierce the armor of a target. The relatively soft warhead, containing or made of plastic explosive, flattens against the armor plating on tanks and other armored fighting vehicles (AFVs) and explodes, creating a shock wave that travels through the armor as a compression wave and is reflected at the free surface as a tensile wave breaking (tensile stress/strain fracture) the metal on the inside. The resulting spall is dangerous to crew and equipment, and may result in a partial or complete disablement of a vehicle and/or its crew. Many AFVs are equipped with spall liners inside their armor for protection.
A kinetic energy penetrator, if it can defeat the armor, generally causes spalling within the target as well, which helps to destroy/disable the vehicle and/or its crew.
A kinetic energy penetrator, if it can defeat the armor, generally causes spalling within the target as well, which helps to destroy/disable the vehicle and/or its crew.
Now, since we are talking a half ton machinegun that shoots bullets which weigh in at 200 per ton (2000 in MWO), we are obviously not talking about some man portable machinegun. Machinegun is the name they chose because it is technically accurate, it is a fully automatic weapon. What we are talking about here is an electrically operated chaingun with anti tank capability, likely through spalling rounds. As armor in battletech is ablative, it chips and cracks and breaks for everything that hits it, and machineguns (read; not small, light weight man portable ones) with HESH rounds sound like they could easily be considered anti mech weapons, even if they are not quite as capable as some other weapons. An additional bonus that makes the crit modifier rule make sense - you're firing ten rounds a second into a now unarmored section of a mech, you're going to mess up nearly everything inside. **** will be destroyed, rapidly. Those rounds bounce around, split, tear chunks off of other things and then those chunks bounce around and minor explosions take place as lesser systems are damaged. This is how it works in real life vehicles when they are penetrated.
Now, if you want the real reason, gameplay balance; It's because machineguns are **** and should be either removed from the game or given a realistic role to play that fits with requiring a ton of ammo (explosive if it gets hit) and a 0.5 ton weapon that generates no heat, and a specialist crit seeking role seems perfect for that.
Edited by Monky, 15 December 2012 - 01:07 PM.
#366
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 376 posts
Member
Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:06 PM
Machine guns never were weapons for Mech combat! They were only used to fend off pesky infantry units that flocked on a single mech with missile launchers and flamers. They are pretty close to windshield wipers 
Same goes for the Flamer. It was meant to set the environment on fire (trees, bushes) to make it harder for infantry to get closer and to disrupt target locking and LOS through artificial heat signature and smoke. Both things would work very well in MWO, if they ever manage to get the bloody engine running. I would love to set the world on fire...(just kidding).
PGI should rethink the Machineguns. If they can't come up with a believable and balanced game mechanism, just take it out. No one is gonna miss it, it never was a mech weapon, no mech design depends on MGs. That would be better than to make up a bad solution that downgrades AC/2s or allows for even more terrible light mechs boating loads of small weapons which in summary rip off your back armour in seconds while you can't do nothing about it (thanks to the great ingame special effects like rubber banding).
If there was a vote that PGI would listen to I would say: just take it out until you come up with a really really good idea. To have it in just for completeness is nonsense.
And please ignore what has been written in novels. In novels protagonists can do things no one ever could do with the rulesets of the various games. Same is true for AD&D novels (Drizzt?) or the WW Vampire Novels... novels have to come up with something players of the games never experienced, something cooler and greater than the dull game mechanics of day-to-day clashes won't allow, to be entertaining. You should never call for a game balancing mechanism and refer to some sort of (uber)hero character from a novel. Just think about what that would do to the game (mech headshot with an MG would be the end for this game). Yeah, it's cool in a novel, but not if you get hd-ed 20 times a day by a superfast 6-MG mech circling you...where is the game here (I know, there are many 14 years aged out there that could do the circling thing for days and still have fun doing so...it's the same juvenile behaviour like botting or exploiting - back in my days as an RPG GM I would simply let a massive piece of rock fall on their characters heads, so they could leave our gaming table at a convention...in PC games no one can do this, unfortunately).
I think this game still has way more serious problems than the MG issue.
Same goes for the Flamer. It was meant to set the environment on fire (trees, bushes) to make it harder for infantry to get closer and to disrupt target locking and LOS through artificial heat signature and smoke. Both things would work very well in MWO, if they ever manage to get the bloody engine running. I would love to set the world on fire...(just kidding).PGI should rethink the Machineguns. If they can't come up with a believable and balanced game mechanism, just take it out. No one is gonna miss it, it never was a mech weapon, no mech design depends on MGs. That would be better than to make up a bad solution that downgrades AC/2s or allows for even more terrible light mechs boating loads of small weapons which in summary rip off your back armour in seconds while you can't do nothing about it (thanks to the great ingame special effects like rubber banding).
If there was a vote that PGI would listen to I would say: just take it out until you come up with a really really good idea. To have it in just for completeness is nonsense.
And please ignore what has been written in novels. In novels protagonists can do things no one ever could do with the rulesets of the various games. Same is true for AD&D novels (Drizzt?) or the WW Vampire Novels... novels have to come up with something players of the games never experienced, something cooler and greater than the dull game mechanics of day-to-day clashes won't allow, to be entertaining. You should never call for a game balancing mechanism and refer to some sort of (uber)hero character from a novel. Just think about what that would do to the game (mech headshot with an MG would be the end for this game). Yeah, it's cool in a novel, but not if you get hd-ed 20 times a day by a superfast 6-MG mech circling you...where is the game here (I know, there are many 14 years aged out there that could do the circling thing for days and still have fun doing so...it's the same juvenile behaviour like botting or exploiting - back in my days as an RPG GM I would simply let a massive piece of rock fall on their characters heads, so they could leave our gaming table at a convention...in PC games no one can do this, unfortunately).
I think this game still has way more serious problems than the MG issue.
Edited by Allen Ward, 15 December 2012 - 01:09 PM.
#367
-
-
- 965 posts
Member
Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:14 PM
Allen Ward, on 15 December 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:
Machine guns never were weapons for Mech combat! They were only used to fend off pesky infantry units that flocked on a single mech with missile launchers and flamers. They are pretty close to windshield wipers Same goes for the Flamer. It was meant to set the environment on fire (trees, bushes) to make it harder for infantry to get closer and to disrupt target locking and LOS through artificial heat signature and smoke. Both things would work very well in MWO, if they ever manage to get the bloody engine running. I would love to set the world on fire...(just kidding).
PGI should rethink the Machineguns. If they can't come up with a believable and balanced game mechanism, just take it out. No one is gonna miss it, it never was a mech weapon, no mech design depends on MGs. That would be better than to make up a bad solution that downgrades AC/2s or allows for even more terrible light mechs boating loads of small weapons which in summary rip off your back armour in seconds while you can't do nothing about it (thanks to the great ingame special effects like rubber banding).
If there was a vote that PGI would listen to I would say: just take it out until you come up with a really really good idea. To have it in just for completeness is nonsense.
And please ignore what has been written in novels. In novels protagonists can do things no one ever could do with the rulesets of the various games. Same is true for AD&D novels (Drizzt?) or the WW Vampire Novels... novels have to come up with something players of the games never experienced, something cooler and greater than the dull game mechanics of day-to-day clashes won't allow, to be entertaining. You should never call for a game balancing mechanism and refer to some sort of (uber)hero character from a novel. Just think about what that would do to the game (mech headshot with an MG would be the end for this game). Yeah, it's cool in a novel, but not if you get hd-ed 20 times a day by a superfast 6-MG mech circling you...where is the game here (I know, there are many 14 years aged out there that could do the circling thing for days and still have fun doing so...it's the same juvenile behaviour like botting or exploiting - back in my days as an RPG GM I would simply let a massive piece of rock fall on their characters heads, so they could leave our gaming table at a convention...in PC games no one can do this, unfortunately).
I think this game still has way more serious problems than the MG issue.
Same goes for the Flamer. It was meant to set the environment on fire (trees, bushes) to make it harder for infantry to get closer and to disrupt target locking and LOS through artificial heat signature and smoke. Both things would work very well in MWO, if they ever manage to get the bloody engine running. I would love to set the world on fire...(just kidding).PGI should rethink the Machineguns. If they can't come up with a believable and balanced game mechanism, just take it out. No one is gonna miss it, it never was a mech weapon, no mech design depends on MGs. That would be better than to make up a bad solution that downgrades AC/2s or allows for even more terrible light mechs boating loads of small weapons which in summary rip off your back armour in seconds while you can't do nothing about it (thanks to the great ingame special effects like rubber banding).
If there was a vote that PGI would listen to I would say: just take it out until you come up with a really really good idea. To have it in just for completeness is nonsense.
And please ignore what has been written in novels. In novels protagonists can do things no one ever could do with the rulesets of the various games. Same is true for AD&D novels (Drizzt?) or the WW Vampire Novels... novels have to come up with something players of the games never experienced, something cooler and greater than the dull game mechanics of day-to-day clashes won't allow, to be entertaining. You should never call for a game balancing mechanism and refer to some sort of (uber)hero character from a novel. Just think about what that would do to the game (mech headshot with an MG would be the end for this game). Yeah, it's cool in a novel, but not if you get hd-ed 20 times a day by a superfast 6-MG mech circling you...where is the game here (I know, there are many 14 years aged out there that could do the circling thing for days and still have fun doing so...it's the same juvenile behaviour like botting or exploiting - back in my days as an RPG GM I would simply let a massive piece of rock fall on their characters heads, so they could leave our gaming table at a convention...in PC games no one can do this, unfortunately).
I think this game still has way more serious problems than the MG issue.
Dude, you need to learn the canon you are talking about... even in TT the machinegun was meant as a anti-mech weapon.
http://www.sarna.net...ut_(BattleMech)
This thing was awesome, 90 ton arena mech that was nothing special by itself, but when within arms length, could rip an atlas in half in only a turn or 2. The original model came with 10 lasers and 16 machineguns. Try that on for size in this game. The lasers were mostly for longer range combat, but once he was in cqc, you are dead, no questions asked.
Also, here is a standard clan light mech with 12 machineguns, introduced about 2 years from now.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Piranha
Edited by Deadoon, 15 December 2012 - 01:16 PM.
#369
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 9,498 posts
Member
- LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.
Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:27 PM
Allen Ward, on 15 December 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:
Machine guns never were weapons for Mech combat!
This is a myth that needs to die. Please read up on them and stop persisting this myth.
The MG in BT did as much damage as an AC/2, and 2/3rds of the damage of a small laser.
A lot of the TRO 3025 'mechs had MGs as secondary or tertiary armament, not only to fight infantry (because there were no infantry in the game), but to fight other 'mechs.
That MGs are very effective against infantry is reflected in the fact that they get a (big) bonus to damage versus infantry. They still do 2 damage per round to 'mechs.
Edited by stjobe, 15 December 2012 - 01:28 PM.
#370
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 445 posts
Member
- LocationAB, CAN
Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:29 PM
this is a "machine gun" equiped on Fighter Jets.
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/M61_Vulcan
A10 Thunderbolt "Machine gun"
http://en.wikipedia....i/GAU-8_Avenger
Weight 619.5 lb (281 kg) (1/4 of a ton)
The GAU-8 itself weighs 620 pounds (280 kg), but the complete weapon, with feed system and drum, weighs 4,029 pounds (1,828 kg)with a maximum ammunition load So weapon +1 ton of ammo = 1.5 tons damn thats convenient
And dont tell me this "machine gun" wouldnt do some serious damage. In the end if the weapon cant do damage to another mech why even use it? its high rate of fire make it a really good anti infantry as its not wasting the rest of a mechs loadout which could be better suited for anti mech, but shouldn't invalidate it as a mech warfare weapon either.
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/M61_Vulcan
A10 Thunderbolt "Machine gun"
http://en.wikipedia....i/GAU-8_Avenger
Weight 619.5 lb (281 kg) (1/4 of a ton)
The GAU-8 itself weighs 620 pounds (280 kg), but the complete weapon, with feed system and drum, weighs 4,029 pounds (1,828 kg)with a maximum ammunition load So weapon +1 ton of ammo = 1.5 tons damn thats convenient
And dont tell me this "machine gun" wouldnt do some serious damage. In the end if the weapon cant do damage to another mech why even use it? its high rate of fire make it a really good anti infantry as its not wasting the rest of a mechs loadout which could be better suited for anti mech, but shouldn't invalidate it as a mech warfare weapon either.
#371
-
-
- Survivor
- 329 posts
Member
Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:24 PM
Sorry, I haven't managed to read all 20 pages of this thread but here's an idea I've mentioned before:
Make NARC Beacons last a the entire round (or a significant amount of time like 5 minutes) or until the section the beacon is stuck to is destroyed unless it's shot off by a friendly; make the machine gun the only weapon that can reliably shoot off the beacon without doing a significant amount of damage to the mech.
Make NARC Beacons last a the entire round (or a significant amount of time like 5 minutes) or until the section the beacon is stuck to is destroyed unless it's shot off by a friendly; make the machine gun the only weapon that can reliably shoot off the beacon without doing a significant amount of damage to the mech.
#372
-
-
- 1,017 posts
Member
- LocationOklahoma, EARTH MK II
Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:36 PM
Khobai, on 15 December 2012 - 10:17 AM, said:
temp situation? you honestly believe netcode is ever going to be fixed? I dont see it getting fixed ever... at best we'll get some stop gap measure that will lower the speed cap on lights.
I think you have to operate under the assumption that it is....If the game is going to fail, it is going to fail...but you can't operate/balance the game with an expectation of total failure.
#373
-
-
- FP Veteran - Beta 1
- 2,691 posts
Member
Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:57 PM
Red squirrel, on 12 December 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:
You should definitely do some research on: 1) Damage capacity of machine guns in real life 2) Machine guns in BT lore before posting such nonesense Edit: And as posted before .... it makes no sense to include useless weapons into the game. If you object I want my pillow thrower cannon!
Exactly this.
#374
-
-
- FP Veteran - Beta 1
- 2,691 posts
Member
Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:01 PM
Allen Ward, on 15 December 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:
Machine guns never were weapons for Mech combat! They were only used to fend off pesky infantry units that flocked on a single mech with missile launchers and flamers. They are pretty close to windshield wipers Same goes for the Flamer. It was meant to set the environment on fire (trees, bushes) to make it harder for infantry to get closer and to disrupt target locking and LOS through artificial heat signature and smoke. Both things would work very well in MWO, if they ever manage to get the bloody engine running. I would love to set the world on fire...(just kidding).
PGI should rethink the Machineguns. If they can't come up with a believable and balanced game mechanism, just take it out. No one is gonna miss it, it never was a mech weapon, no mech design depends on MGs. That would be better than to make up a bad solution that downgrades AC/2s or allows for even more terrible light mechs boating loads of small weapons which in summary rip off your back armour in seconds while you can't do nothing about it (thanks to the great ingame special effects like rubber banding).
If there was a vote that PGI would listen to I would say: just take it out until you come up with a really really good idea. To have it in just for completeness is nonsense.
And please ignore what has been written in novels. In novels protagonists can do things no one ever could do with the rulesets of the various games. Same is true for AD&D novels (Drizzt?) or the WW Vampire Novels... novels have to come up with something players of the games never experienced, something cooler and greater than the dull game mechanics of day-to-day clashes won't allow, to be entertaining. You should never call for a game balancing mechanism and refer to some sort of (uber)hero character from a novel. Just think about what that would do to the game (mech headshot with an MG would be the end for this game). Yeah, it's cool in a novel, but not if you get hd-ed 20 times a day by a superfast 6-MG mech circling you...where is the game here (I know, there are many 14 years aged out there that could do the circling thing for days and still have fun doing so...it's the same juvenile behaviour like botting or exploiting - back in my days as an RPG GM I would simply let a massive piece of rock fall on their characters heads, so they could leave our gaming table at a convention...in PC games no one can do this, unfortunately).
I think this game still has way more serious problems than the MG issue.
Same goes for the Flamer. It was meant to set the environment on fire (trees, bushes) to make it harder for infantry to get closer and to disrupt target locking and LOS through artificial heat signature and smoke. Both things would work very well in MWO, if they ever manage to get the bloody engine running. I would love to set the world on fire...(just kidding).PGI should rethink the Machineguns. If they can't come up with a believable and balanced game mechanism, just take it out. No one is gonna miss it, it never was a mech weapon, no mech design depends on MGs. That would be better than to make up a bad solution that downgrades AC/2s or allows for even more terrible light mechs boating loads of small weapons which in summary rip off your back armour in seconds while you can't do nothing about it (thanks to the great ingame special effects like rubber banding).
If there was a vote that PGI would listen to I would say: just take it out until you come up with a really really good idea. To have it in just for completeness is nonsense.
And please ignore what has been written in novels. In novels protagonists can do things no one ever could do with the rulesets of the various games. Same is true for AD&D novels (Drizzt?) or the WW Vampire Novels... novels have to come up with something players of the games never experienced, something cooler and greater than the dull game mechanics of day-to-day clashes won't allow, to be entertaining. You should never call for a game balancing mechanism and refer to some sort of (uber)hero character from a novel. Just think about what that would do to the game (mech headshot with an MG would be the end for this game). Yeah, it's cool in a novel, but not if you get hd-ed 20 times a day by a superfast 6-MG mech circling you...where is the game here (I know, there are many 14 years aged out there that could do the circling thing for days and still have fun doing so...it's the same juvenile behaviour like botting or exploiting - back in my days as an RPG GM I would simply let a massive piece of rock fall on their characters heads, so they could leave our gaming table at a convention...in PC games no one can do this, unfortunately).
I think this game still has way more serious problems than the MG issue.
You do know you can be headshotted with a small laser cluster? Or Autocannons? Or SRMS with Artemis? Entire post is fail, untrue and just..dumb/ignorant/uneducated.
#375
-
-
- 4,373 posts
Member
Posted 15 December 2012 - 06:18 PM
I'm just going to throw this out there for those that are trying to bring RL facts into a fantasy game with piloted robots:
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Boeing_YAL-1
The above is a real life ER Large Laser which, btw, has ammo. Furthermore, a Boeing 747 without any cargo or personnel weighs 437.5 tons (875,000 lbs) which is a tad bit bigger than a Fatlas: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_is_the_Boeing_747's_weight_in_tons Now, IF you take into account that the game is another 1000 years in the future, you can imagine that they might be able to lessen the weight of such things. Then again, the 747 isn't powered by a fusion engine and we currently don't have large space vessels capable of breaking current laws of physics by way of faster than light travel. SO, shall we continue with the "but in real life..."?
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Boeing_YAL-1
The above is a real life ER Large Laser which, btw, has ammo. Furthermore, a Boeing 747 without any cargo or personnel weighs 437.5 tons (875,000 lbs) which is a tad bit bigger than a Fatlas: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_is_the_Boeing_747's_weight_in_tons Now, IF you take into account that the game is another 1000 years in the future, you can imagine that they might be able to lessen the weight of such things. Then again, the 747 isn't powered by a fusion engine and we currently don't have large space vessels capable of breaking current laws of physics by way of faster than light travel. SO, shall we continue with the "but in real life..."?
Edited by Trauglodyte, 15 December 2012 - 06:19 PM.
#376
-
-
- 965 posts
Member
Posted 15 December 2012 - 06:46 PM
Trauglodyte, on 15 December 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:
I'm just going to throw this out there for those that are trying to bring RL facts into a fantasy game with piloted robots:
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Boeing_YAL-1
The above is a real life ER Large Laser which, btw, has ammo. Furthermore, a Boeing 747 without any cargo or personnel weighs 437.5 tons (875,000 lbs) which is a tad bit bigger than a Fatlas: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_is_the_Boeing_747's_weight_in_tons Now, IF you take into account that the game is another 1000 years in the future, you can imagine that they might be able to lessen the weight of such things. Then again, the 747 isn't powered by a fusion engine and we currently don't have large space vessels capable of breaking current laws of physics by way of faster than light travel. SO, shall we continue with the "but in real life..."?
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Boeing_YAL-1
The above is a real life ER Large Laser which, btw, has ammo. Furthermore, a Boeing 747 without any cargo or personnel weighs 437.5 tons (875,000 lbs) which is a tad bit bigger than a Fatlas: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_is_the_Boeing_747's_weight_in_tons Now, IF you take into account that the game is another 1000 years in the future, you can imagine that they might be able to lessen the weight of such things. Then again, the 747 isn't powered by a fusion engine and we currently don't have large space vessels capable of breaking current laws of physics by way of faster than light travel. SO, shall we continue with the "but in real life..."?
http://en.wikipedia...._tactical_laser
5-7 tons, eh? That's about right.
What you posted is closer to this
http://www.sarna.net...b-Capital_Laser
http://www.sarna.net...b-Capital_Laser
Edited by Deadoon, 15 December 2012 - 06:49 PM.
#377
-
-
- 4,373 posts
Member
Posted 15 December 2012 - 07:06 PM
Nice links, Deadoon.
The point that I was making is that our current combat capable laser systems are so massive that it requires a C-130 or a 747 to carry them. Or we can talk about our current rail gun designs http://www.naval-tec...lgun-programme/ and the US Navy's intent to field one on an Arleigh Burke Cruiser (its so big, it would take a craft of that size to house it, the ship's crew and area, and engine). Yet, ballistics have remain unchanged since their inception 100s of years ago. ACs in BT are pretty much our current tank weapons and a machine gun is a machine gun.
So, if we can take our current weapons and make them small enough to be carried on a fusion engine carrying walking mech, can we not take a nearly 1000 year old weapon (by BT time) and make it capable of causing acceptable damage?
The point that I was making is that our current combat capable laser systems are so massive that it requires a C-130 or a 747 to carry them. Or we can talk about our current rail gun designs http://www.naval-tec...lgun-programme/ and the US Navy's intent to field one on an Arleigh Burke Cruiser (its so big, it would take a craft of that size to house it, the ship's crew and area, and engine). Yet, ballistics have remain unchanged since their inception 100s of years ago. ACs in BT are pretty much our current tank weapons and a machine gun is a machine gun.
So, if we can take our current weapons and make them small enough to be carried on a fusion engine carrying walking mech, can we not take a nearly 1000 year old weapon (by BT time) and make it capable of causing acceptable damage?
Edited by Trauglodyte, 15 December 2012 - 07:07 PM.
#378
-
-
- 965 posts
Member
Posted 15 December 2012 - 07:26 PM
Trauglodyte, on 15 December 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:
Nice links, Deadoon.
The point that I was making is that our current combat capable laser systems are so massive that it requires a C-130 or a 747 to carry them. Or we can talk about our current rail gun designs http://www.naval-tec...lgun-programme/ and the US Navy's intent to field one on an Arleigh Burke Cruiser (its so big, it would take a craft of that size to house it, the ship's crew and area, and engine). Yet, ballistics have remain unchanged since their inception 100s of years ago. ACs in BT are pretty much our current tank weapons and a machine gun is a machine gun.
So, if we can take our current weapons and make them small enough to be carried on a fusion engine carrying walking mech, can we not take a nearly 1000 year old weapon (by BT time) and make it capable of causing acceptable damage?
The point that I was making is that our current combat capable laser systems are so massive that it requires a C-130 or a 747 to carry them. Or we can talk about our current rail gun designs http://www.naval-tec...lgun-programme/ and the US Navy's intent to field one on an Arleigh Burke Cruiser (its so big, it would take a craft of that size to house it, the ship's crew and area, and engine). Yet, ballistics have remain unchanged since their inception 100s of years ago. ACs in BT are pretty much our current tank weapons and a machine gun is a machine gun.
So, if we can take our current weapons and make them small enough to be carried on a fusion engine carrying walking mech, can we not take a nearly 1000 year old weapon (by BT time) and make it capable of causing acceptable damage?
Actually, our tank guns are called rifles in battletech, primitive tech guns, classed as light medium and heavy rifles, only medium and heavy guns can damage mechs, and even then they only do around 3-6 damage.
The ac/5 is the closest thing to a modern heavy tank cannon, a heavy rifle does 6 to a mech, while an ac/5 does 5. Also ammo for these rifles is much heavier and they themselves are heavier than autocannons. technically in bt a gau-8 is more likely to be classed as a lmg than a mg or hmg. Ammo in bt has been lightened a lot. But these weapon systems are still very expensive.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Heavy_Rifle
Cheaper, and does a little more damage to mechs than an ac/5 against other stuff however, it is actually better for the weight of the gun, but not the ammo.
Also The main issue with the gauss rifle is that we don't have to power storage capacity, discharge, or production rates in any aspect close enough to miniaturize it enough to be a tank based weapon.
The problem with the comparison you are making and why they need such a large carrier system is due to those three requirements for an energy weapon.
#379
-
-
- 4,373 posts
Member
Posted 15 December 2012 - 07:52 PM
Quit shooting holes in my extremely loose logic regarding a sci-fi video game, dammit. You're making me make myself look bad!
#380
-
-
- 5,737 posts
Member
- LocationCircinus
Posted 15 December 2012 - 08:26 PM
AC/2 and AC/5's are anti-aircraft guns, not heavy tank cannons (they are common on 'canon' designs used/described primarily for anti-aircraft duty). They are however large enough guns/rounds, and fast firing, to do reliable damage vs. ground targets. AC/10's and AC/20's take the autocannon concept for huge damage, like the equivalent of naval cannons/anti-tank guns/tank guns, and turn it against ground vehicles, hence the largest calibers.
Edited by General Taskeen, 15 December 2012 - 08:32 PM.
8 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 8 guests, 0 anonymous users
