30 replies to this topic

[fatcat01]

First off I'll list the major complaints that I have seen around the forums about ACs:

-the ranges make no sense; the bigger gun almost always has longer range, why does a AC20 have less range than a AC5?

-How do you balance a super-powerful gun like the AC20 without making it ridiculous? (think super slow projectile from first gameplay reveal)

-why do autocannons seem to be no better (or even worse) than today's cannons?


After much thought and some perusing of sarna.net I have come up with a solution that mostly stays true to TT, really just a change in wording.

The gist of it is this: what if the caliber bracket for ACs (30-200mm) pertained to each AC class. This would, for example, mean that there is a 200mm version of each AC. The defining feature of each class would be its Damage Per Second (DPS); the AC5 would have 2.5x the dps of the AC2, the AC20 would have 4x the dps of the AC5. This would mean that the Rate of Fire (ROF) would run in reverse; the AC2 would have a much lower ROF than the AC20 if they were both 200mm versions. Using this system would mean that there is no one shot AC20, the slowest ROF it could have would be about 90 rounds per minute (current definition of autocannon).


This system would make the ranges believable: a AC20 is going to have trouble at range because of its higher ROF

Helps to balance the AC20 by spreading damage (it should still be accurate enough that a skilled pilot can hit a single location at the proper range), dps is still the same so you can shred mechs at close range. This also makes the Gauss Rifle & PPC truly stand out as the only one-shot heavy hitters.

Since even the lightest AC has a 200mm version it becomes clear why autocannons are better than today's guns.

As a side note this would also explain why Rifles follow the standard range curve (bigger shoots further), since they are all one shot guns.

this would also give ACs the same efficiency concerns as lasers. using this system you could use your AC20 for long range combat but it'll be inefficient: you'll end up wasting ammo and your damage will be spread out. Similar to how you can use a Large Laser for CQB but you're better of with Med or Sml Lasers

[eZZip]

Sarna does not say that there are 200mm AC/2s.

[fatcat01]

eZZip, on 19 May 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

Sarna does not say that there are 200mm AC/2s.

You are correct, but it does not say that there are no 200mm AC/2s. Besides I said this does not follow TT perfectly

[Toothman]

Yeah its always been a goofy system that has never made sense to me. AR 15 has more range than an M1A2 main gun. Just pure goofy. But its battle tech so just go with it.

[eZZip]

Considering that it says,

Sarna said:

An example of the rating system: the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon is a 150mm weapon firing ten shells per "round" while the Chemjet Gun is a 185mm weapon firing much slower (possibly 1 shell), and causing higher damage per shell. Despite their differences, both are classified as Autocannon/20s due to their damage output.

I can safely assume that there are no 200 mm AC/2s if a 185 mm cannon firing single shots is classified as an AC/20.

One of your original premises, that the ranges don't make sense because larger guns have longer ranges, isn't necessarily true. It's possible that AC/20s have short effective ranges because their barrels are too short for accuracy at long range, for example. Another statement that you had (that I didn't bother talking about before), that the ACs are too weak compared to today's standards, doesn't really matter because there are already a lot of things that deviate from real life, so who cares if it deviates for gameplay's sake again?

[fatcat01]

eZZip, on 19 May 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

One of your original premises, that the ranges don't make sense because larger guns have longer ranges, isn't necessarily true. It's possible that AC/20s have short effective ranges because their barrels are too short for accuracy at long range, for example. Another statement that you had (that I didn't bother talking about before), that the ACs are too weak compared to today's standards, doesn't really matter because there are already a lot of things that deviate from real life, so who cares if it deviates for gameplay's sake again?

[Vulpesveritas]

well... it -might- make sense with fin stabilized sabot rounds if it was a huge bore but the sabot round was much smaller (in the 30-50mm range) to maximize velocity and hence range.

But then again ranges are screwy so yeah.

[Strum Wealh]

fatcat01, on 19 May 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

You are correct, but it does not say that there are no 200mm AC/2s. Besides I said this does not follow TT perfectly

Well, the TechManual states (on page 207):

Quote

With calibers ranging from 30 to 90 millimeters at the lighter end, to as much as 203 millimeters or more at the heaviest, most autocannons deliver their damage by firing high-speed streams or bursts of high-explosive, armor-defeating shells through one or more barrels.

The Classic BattleTech Master Rules states (on page 132):

Quote

An autocannon is a rapid-firing, auto-loading weapon that fires high-speed streams of high-explosive, armor-piercing shells. Light autocannon range in caliber from 30 to 90mm, and heavy autocannon may be 80 to 120mm or larger.

The glossary in the Legend of the Jade Phoenix omnibus states:

Quote

Autocannon
This is a rapid-firing, auto-loading weapon. Light autocannon range from 30 to 90mm caliber, and heavy autocannon may be 80 to 120mm or more. The weapon fires high-speed streams of high-explosive, armor-piercing shells.

Though, Classic BattleTech RPG does apparently state that the Marauder's "GM Whirlwind" AC-5 is a 120mm cannon that fires in 3-round bursts...

Still, the TT rulebooks and the novels establish, with a fair degree of consistency, that the largest of the "light ACs" (generally considered to include both the AC-2 and the AC-5, while excluding the AC-10 and AC-20) tend to top out at the ~90mm range.
That would seem to provide a substantial argument against the possibility of a 200+ mm AC-2.

Your thoughts?

[Vulpesveritas]

Strum Wealh, on 19 May 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

Well, the TechManual states (on page 207):


The Classic BattleTech Master Rules states (on page 132):



The glossary in the Legend of the Jade Phoenix omnibus states:



Though, Classic BattleTech RPG does apparently state that the Marauder's "GM Whirlwind" AC-5 is a 120mm cannon that fires in 3-round bursts...

Still, the TT rulebooks and the novels establish, with a fair degree of consistency, that the largest of the "light ACs" (generally considered to include both the AC-2 and the AC-5, while excluding the AC-10 and AC-20) tend to top out at the ~90mm range.
That would seem to provide a substantial argument against the possibility of a 200+ mm AC-2.

Your thoughts?

The bore of the cannon might be more but it would be a sabot round perhaps? Which might also account for a minimum range?

[Applejack]

You don't know what exact kind of ammunition these things are firing, their rate of fire, the length of the barrel, the propellant/explosive ratio, how much recoil they produce and how well the recoil is handled, etc.

we also don't know if there's any other fancy technology on or in the barrel...


Autocannons would vary widely by manufacturer, with their class being representative of only damage and range.

Edited by Applejack, 19 May 2012 - 07:05 PM.

[Steel Raven]

Every time you try to apply logic and real life physics to BT stats, you kill a cat girl

It's a game dude, the range is set for game balance. You would never use a large lasser or LRM if the AC20 had the range of a Ruass Rifle and the AC2 would just be a machine gun.

Also to note, the 1st edition Battledroids only had one Auto Cannon: the AC5.

Edited by Steel Raven, 19 May 2012 - 07:06 PM.

[verybad]

You're never going to make Battletech make sence, it was designed in the 80s.

[SweetJackal]

Things need to be taken into account. It's not the larger caliber of guns that give them range, it's the ratio of the weight of the shell itself compared to the explosive force of the charge. The act of moving to a larger shell actually has the effect of decreasing the range unless the size and power of the charge are changed along with it.

Increasing the shell size and increasing the charge used to propell the shell both increase the recoil on the gun. But normally when you jump up to a larger caliber you change the platform or the way the weapon is used to negate that change in recoil, giving a higher allowance for the total force and stress of firing the round.

For example, when you move from the 5.56mm to the .3030 caliber in terms of infantry rilfes, the usage is changed. The .3030 round is used in single shot only for shoulder rifles, having more kinetic force and range than a 5.56mm which is used in fully automatic assault rifles. The .3030 cannot be fired full auto from the shoulder like the 5.56mm can because of the increase in recoil makes the weapon uncontrollable as well as it harmful to it's user. If you were to build a higher weight and larger caliber bullet to be used in the same way as a 5.56mm assault rifle then the weapon would have a signicantly shorter range, this is reflected in the range differences between the M4 carbine and the Beowolf M4 variant which uses .50 cal rounds by replacing the feeder, barrel and firing mech of the M4.

Whenever you move up to a larger scale for a round the platform and usage has to change to get that range increase. The 120mm Cannon is a direct fire battle tank primary weapon. The 200mm Howitzer is fired indirectly, is often self propelled and has significant systems to use the higher angle to absorb the recoil, it cannot be fired like a 120mm Cannon. Then you get into ship based weapons which use the massive base of the ship itself and how it is held by the water to absorb the massive recoil of the weapons fired.

What this means is that if you were to put in enough of a propellant charge into an AC20 shell to give it the range of an AC5 shell then the increase in recoil could damage the weapon, the mounting, the mech itself, or cause enough problems with the Mech's Gyro. The two weapons are used in the same fashion. Then as a bonus you've got to account for shell size and how big the tracks for ammo feeding mechanisms need to be. An Auto-Cannon is far more than just a big barrel and an ammo reserve.

Gauss Rifles cheat this system by completely removing the propellant system from the shell itself, using contained magnetics to launch solid chunks of metal.

[dangerfish]

SuckyJack, on 19 May 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

Things need to be taken into account. It's not the larger caliber of guns that give them range, it's the ratio of the weight of the shell itself compared to the explosive force of the charge. The act of moving to a larger shell actually has the effect of decreasing the range unless the size and power of the charge are changed along with it.

Increasing the shell size and increasing the charge used to propell the shell both increase the recoil on the gun. But normally when you jump up to a larger caliber you change the platform or the way the weapon is used to negate that change in recoil, giving a higher allowance for the total force and stress of firing the round.

For example, when you move from the 5.56mm to the .3030 caliber in terms of infantry rilfes, the usage is changed. The .3030 round is used in single shot only for shoulder rifles, having more kinetic force and range than a 5.56mm which is used in fully automatic assault rifles. The .3030 cannot be fired full auto from the shoulder like the 5.56mm can because of the increase in recoil makes the weapon uncontrollable as well as it harmful to it's user. If you were to build a higher weight and larger caliber bullet to be used in the same way as a 5.56mm assault rifle then the weapon would have a signicantly shorter range, this is reflected in the range differences between the M4 carbine and the Beowolf M4 variant which uses .50 cal rounds by replacing the feeder, barrel and firing mech of the M4.

Whenever you move up to a larger scale for a round the platform and usage has to change to get that range increase. The 120mm Cannon is a direct fire battle tank primary weapon. The 200mm Howitzer is fired indirectly, is often self propelled and has significant systems to use the higher angle to absorb the recoil, it cannot be fired like a 120mm Cannon. Then you get into ship based weapons which use the massive base of the ship itself and how it is held by the water to absorb the massive recoil of the weapons fired.

What this means is that if you were to put in enough of a propellant charge into an AC20 shell to give it the range of an AC5 shell then the increase in recoil could damage the weapon, the mounting, the mech itself, or cause enough problems with the Mech's Gyro. The two weapons are used in the same fashion. Then as a bonus you've got to account for shell size and how big the tracks for ammo feeding mechanisms need to be. An Auto-Cannon is far more than just a big barrel and an ammo reserve.

Gauss Rifles cheat this system by completely removing the propellant system from the shell itself, using contained magnetics to launch solid chunks of metal.

This is an oversimplification, the biggest limiting factor for the range of any projectile is friction (aka wind resistance), thus with the right ballistic coefficient a projectile can retain more energy at longer ranges with less muzzle energy (recoil), but this is Battletech, it is no place for science....

If we wanted a realistic game, all engagements would be measured in miles, which for obvious reasons wouldn't work. Just suspend your disbelief and enjoy it.

[Psydotek]

The way I see it is that the AC/20 is like a shotgun slug while the AC/2 is like a .22 rifle round.

[Steel Raven]

Psydotek, on 19 May 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

The way I see it is that the AC/20 is like a shotgun slug while the AC/2 is like a .22 rifle round.

+1
Also keep in mind that the AC2 shell has the same punch as a SRM warhead or two LRM warheads.

[Oswin Aurelius]

Psydotek, on 19 May 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

The way I see it is that the AC/20 is like a shotgun slug while the AC/2 is like a .22 rifle round.

Now you're talking about LB-X ACs. XD

Steel Raven, on 19 May 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

+1
Also keep in mind that the AC2 shell has the same punch as a SRM warhead or two LRM warheads.

Huh, never thought of it that way. I suddenly don't mind the low damage too much.

[Yeach]

fatcat01, on 19 May 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

First off I'll list the major complaints that I have seen around the forums about ACs:

-the ranges make no sense; the bigger gun almost always has longer range, why does a AC20 have less range than a AC5?
-How do you balance a super-powerful gun like the AC20 without making it ridiculous? (think super slow projectile from first gameplay reveal)
-why do autocannons seem to be no better (or even worse) than today's cannons?

After much thought and some perusing of sarna.net I have come up with a solution that mostly stays true to TT, really just a change in wording.

The gist of it is this: what if the caliber bracket for ACs (30-200mm) pertained to each AC class. This would, for example, mean that there is a 200mm version of each AC. The defining feature of each class would be its Damage Per Second (DPS); the AC5 would have 2.5x the dps of the AC2, the AC20 would have 4x the dps of the AC5. This would mean that the Rate of Fire (ROF) would run in reverse; the AC2 would have a much lower ROF than the AC20 if they were both 200mm versions. Using this system would mean that there is no one shot AC20, the slowest ROF it could have would be about 90 rounds per minute (current definition of autocannon).

This system would make the ranges believable: a AC20 is going to have trouble at range because of its higher ROF

Helps to balance the AC20 by spreading damage (it should still be accurate enough that a skilled pilot can hit a single location at the proper range), dps is still the same so you can shred mechs at close range. This also makes the Gauss Rifle & PPC truly stand out as the only one-shot heavy hitters.

I have posted something similar (I just don't remembered where I posted in)
Where AC20 fires 4 times as many salvos as an AC5 in the same amount of time.

Basically
AC5 fires once / 10 seconds
AC10 fires twice / 10 seconds
AC20 fires four x / 10 seconds.
Essentially AC20 is an AC5 firing 4 x as fast.

The ammunition consumption rate would allow for sharing of AC ammunitions
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

The only reason why people HATE this seems to be because they want the AC20 to do CONCENTRATED damage.

[Oswin Aurelius]

That and the fact that this idea completely defeats the purpose of the smaller ACs, which is to pester an enemy from range with a high rate of fire. You forget that by doing things this way, you're LIMITING the effectiveness of smaller Autocannons.

[Yeach]

Oswin Aurelius, on 20 May 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

That and the fact that this idea completely defeats the purpose of the smaller ACs, which is to pester an enemy from range with a high rate of fire. You forget that by doing things this way, you're LIMITING the effectiveness of smaller Autocannons.

Where does it say that smaller ACs have higher fire rate?
If it does you are still ONLY doing 2 or 5 damage at longer range.

Oh yeah smaller autocannons are another topic.
(I would like smaller ACs to have longer ranges than they are currently)