1063 replies to this topic

[Sargoreth]

OK sorry this reply is so late after this topic seems to have burned out, but I was doing searches for this solution and did not want to post twice or bring up something that has been flamed to death already,

possible fix for MLx6 or 8 boats, longer refire times due to the amount of amperage being drawn by the capacitors trying to rechage all at once (excuse the probable erroneous electronic terminology, I'm a Biochemist not a physicist)

for ballistics, I would think recoil would affect accuracy for salvos, possibly adding recovery time and limiting tracking speed for overstressed servos after barrage fire due to massive recoil shock (maybe even a chance to knock yourself over? That might be pushing it tho :S )

missiles - I didn't come up with a good solution to this one, their damage should be spread out enough that accuracy and instacoring shouldn't happen, but I do not know how they actually work in the game, so does this need to be fixed to satisy OP? (overpowered or original post, your pick)
just my 1/12.5 * two bits
Sarg

[General Taskeen]

Welcome to MWO everyone, the best worst community since always.

[BerryChunks]

General Taskeen, on 26 January 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

Welcome to MWO everyone, the best worst community since always.

come now, thats not very constructive.

[Zerethon]

Heeden, on 26 January 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

An important thing you are missing, is we need this fantasy-land of machines > physics otherwise battle-mechs wouldn't work at all, tanks-on-legs is an inherently stupid idea that only works with a liberal application of handwavium far in advance of a few basic recoil compensators.

Firstly, calling the BT Mechs "Tanks on legs" is not accurate, essentially a battlemech is a few (Rather, a freaking lot of) tons of steel and synthetic muscles mated to a massively powerful self-contained fusion engine or occasionally a combustion engine and quite advanced computer technology merged with a massive gyroscope and compensation systems allowing for traversal of terrain, including terrain normally detrimental or impossible for a lone human being.

Handwavium indeed.

Sargoreth, on 26 January 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

OK sorry this reply is so late after this topic seems to have burned out, but I was doing searches for this solution and did not want to post twice or bring up something that has been flamed to death already,

possible fix for MLx6 or 8 boats, longer refire times due to the amount of amperage being drawn by the capacitors trying to rechage all at once (excuse the probable erroneous electronic terminology, I'm a Biochemist not a physicist)

for ballistics, I would think recoil would affect accuracy for salvos, possibly adding recovery time and limiting tracking speed for overstressed servos after barrage fire due to massive recoil shock (maybe even a chance to knock yourself over? That might be pushing it tho :S )

missiles - I didn't come up with a good solution to this one, their damage should be spread out enough that accuracy and instacoring shouldn't happen, but I do not know how they actually work in the game, so does this need to be fixed to satisy OP? (overpowered or original post, your pick)
just my 1/12.5 * two bits
Sarg

Theoretically TT Lore-driven barbecue party time!

Lasers in BT Are powered by massively powerful fusion engines and the burst beam of them is driven (Presumptively) by a bank of capacitors that can contain and then discharge large amounts of power in a burst to create a laser beam capable of literally vaporizing armor and anything else unfortunate enough to be in it's way.

I say "Capacitor driven" because the lasers would otherwise be constant fire drawing from the mechs power core directly, but instead they fire "Simple" beams of light for a duration....AND THEN HAVE TO RECHARGE, implying, like a flash on an old camera, that they are driven by a form of capacitive charge storing.

Now then, onto the ballistics.

An AC/2 carries 75 rounds of ammo, plus the equipment and clips to feed ammo to the locations on the mech where the guns are located (How this works from a leg is all handwavium. as was posted previously)

So, that means, that each round of AC/2 ammo weighs somewhere equal to or less than 2000/75 (A "Ton" being 2000 pounds or so) or 26.6 repeating pounds, pretending that the loading equipment in each clip-ton of ammo doesn't exist for a second.

the smallest "Light" battlemechs weigh TWENTY TONS, or 20 * 2000, or FORTY THOUSAND POUNDS. That's like saying that hurling your average sized dog against a main battle tank will shake the damned thing. Which it won't

(By comparison, an AC/20 round, ignoring loading system in the clip, weighs 2000/7 pounds, or 285.714285 repeating pounds per shell, or basically as much as 2 average people.)

BUT! Ye cry, "WHAT ABOUT THE EXPLOSIVE PROPELLANT?!?!?!" I'm getting there.

the upper torso of, say, the average atlas, weighs ~50 tons total, figuring in the relative weight of everything contained, or about 100,000 pounds (350 times more than an AC20 shell) for simplicity's sake.

Now then, Assume that using the gyro and some ballistic calculations, that the firing computer uses the engine to apply a rotationally forward force to the cannon (By starting the torso twisting) just as it fires, to help stabilize the shots trajectory and compensate for potential motion. This means that the shell has to overcome both the gyroscopes effect, the mass of the entire upper torso (Since the cannon is mounted in it) the effectiveness of the cannons in-built recoil dampers (To stop it from ripping itself out of the mechs armor when fired) AND ALSO impart enough additional rotational motion to not only stop this theoretical additional twist control from the firing computer, but also enough to cause the torso to start moving in reverse and rotate backwards.

For instance, go to the shooting range with a 12-gauge shotgun and some solid slugs, and fire a couple. They'll kick Pretty well because of the mass and charge needed.

Now fire one, but lean forwards as you fire, the recoil will stop your motion or simply kick the end of the barrel up, levering from your shoulder.

Now, weigh the slug (they're around an ounce for a 12ga) and then place a weight on your opposite shoulder equivalent to 350 times that (Or a roughly 22 pound weight, for you non-math types) and turn that weight back as you fire (Forcing the gun shoulder forwards)

Wanna know something? That additional motion from the extra 21 pounds being used to move the shotgun forwards by the lever-like properties of the human shoulders that imparts not only motion but extra mass for the recoil to move, will cause the gun to kick entirely vertically but it will actually still move forwards even with the force of the powder charge and it's recoil.

now hang 22 pounds on the end of the barrel on top of the 22 on your opposite shoulder as you do this and the gun will basically have no kick at all. Because the sheer additional weight will defeat the the energy of the firing shell.

Assuming you're able to run and fire the shotgun with the extra 44 pounds, you can basically pretend you're an atlas firing it's torso AC/20, granted, lacking the aim stabilizer of a targetting computer, and the mass controlling of a very massive Gyro.

Man, applying real world physics to pointless videogame arguing is fun. Also using the math on missles means they have even less force per shot, as less mass and a much looser fit in the firing tube since they use fin stability rather than pressure-started spin via rifling. also you get like 180 missles per ton meaning each missle weighs less than half of a bloody AC/2 round, or less than 13.3 pounds and they generate almost no recoil, even en masse. (SRM/SSRM missles are therefore, roughly 20 pounds, since 100/ton. Also, this is still not taking the loader system into account.)

I really should re-think my caffeine intake. Or take up hobbies aside from Mathematics and clay/target shooting when i'm not playing or making videogames. Or working.

General Taskeen, on 26 January 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

Welcome to MWO everyone, the best worst community since always.

Truth. F2P Brings all the trolls to the yard.

(Edit: The technical term for shooting clay pigeons with a shotgun is censored on here for some reason)

Edited by Zerethon, 26 January 2013 - 07:34 PM.

[BerryChunks]

I choose to imagine the bullets are fed from legs like the Alien Queen laying eggs or the tubes in the matrix that humans shoot through. Some sort of constricting muscular system like a snake.

Capacitors would be about right, because A fusion engine wouldn't be able to "drive" that much power output. Additionally, each time you added a laser, the total damage of an individual laser would decrease. Parallel power distribution and all that. I assume the the laser itself houses the capacitor banks.

the technical term for shooting clay pigeons has become a pejorative term used by african americans

Quote

An American English slang term, commonly found in American hip hop culture, referring to ------ or the act of --------

Now, it's just technical details that any kid can see on wiki, but we sure can't talk about it here. look out.

I have, in fact, fired 12 gauge slugs before.

Edited by BerryChunks, 26 January 2013 - 07:50 PM.

[Mike Townsend]

Heeden, on 26 January 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

An important thing you are missing, is we need this fantasy-land of machines > physics otherwise battle-mechs wouldn't work at all, tanks-on-legs is an inherently stupid idea that only works with a liberal application of handwavium far in advance of a few basic recoil compensators.

Indeed, the whole "Is a mech better or worse than a human with a rifle?" argument mostly serves to underscore the point that four current-day Abrams could probably annihilate a lance of heavy mechs before the mechs knew they were under attack. Despite being a universe where they can calculate instantaneous jumps 30 light years away somehow, weapon guidance makes the analog artillery computers they used on battleships in the second world war look sophisticated. If there's a real problem here just do something simple that makes sense like not have torso mounted weapons converge at all and call it a day.

[Zerethon]

Mike Townsend, on 26 January 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

Indeed, the whole "Is a mech better or worse than a human with a rifle?" argument mostly serves to underscore the point that four current-day Abrams could probably annihilate a lance of heavy mechs before the mechs knew they were under attack. Despite being a universe where they can calculate instantaneous jumps 30 light years away somehow, weapon guidance makes the analog artillery computers they used on battleships in the second world war look sophisticated. If there's a real problem here just do something simple that makes sense like not have torso mounted weapons converge at all and call it a day.

Just going up to my post above... the average AC/2 is likely equivalent to a 155mm artillery cannon (At likely 18+ Pounds a shell) and barely scratches a much larger mech.

a "Realistic" 120mm HE or Armor-piercing round would equivalently do F-all to even a light battlemech, and the light battlemech (Or larger) with it's lasers/missles/giant plasma vents could shred the 4 main battle tanks like pinatas made of tissue in a windstorm.

[MechWarrior071507]

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon/2

Quote

Different manufacturers and models of autocannons have different calibers (25mm-203mm)

From how it's explained, the multiple shot ACs with small bore probably provide the same amount of force to shear through 2 points of armor just like a single 203mm shot. like that 999,999 shot gun on youtube for the smaller calibres.

Keeping things simple, we only use the Single shot versions, so its 203mm to do 2 points of damage.

Edited by Khorek, 26 January 2013 - 08:20 PM.

[Zerethon]

Khorek, on 26 January 2013 - 08:16 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon/2



From how it's explained, the multiple shot ACs with small bore probably provide the same amount of force to shear through 2 points of armor just like a single 203mm shot. like that 999,999 shot gun on youtube for the smaller calibres.

Keeping things simple, we only use the Single shot versions, so its 203mm to do 2 points of damage.

by that, an AC20 would be probably 5 times that in length and width, or 37 by 37 inch or so shell. Which makes sense given the shown size of the barrel on mechs that mount an AC20. Gives a good visual impression.

[MechWarrior071507]

http://www.sarna.net...cial:Categories

http://www.sarna.net...i/Demolisher_II <- 2 AC/20s.

http://www.sarna.net...i/Demolisher_II Omni capable combat vehicle.

The drawbacks of tanks over mechs is that a mech is versatile, and in CBT rules can punch, kick, lie down, get up from falling over, etc. They also are more terrain capable and don't die from a single critical blow, unlike tanks. Other than these points, tanks are still "useful".

[Zerethon]

Khorek, on 26 January 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net...cial:Categories

http://www.sarna.net...i/Demolisher_II <- 2 AC/20s.

http://www.sarna.net...i/Demolisher_II Omni capable combat vehicle.

The drawbacks of tanks over mechs is that a mech is versatile, and in CBT rules can punch, kick, lie down, get up from falling over, etc. They also are more terrain capable and don't die from a single critical blow, unlike tanks. Other than these points, tanks are still "useful".

BT Tanks can also mount most mech weapons (Though, typically less than an actual battlemech chassis)

The commenter above said 4 modern-day abrams, which by lore, pack less punch than a mech AC/2, which is amusing.

[Karr285]

HRR Insanity, on 07 January 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

Groups of weapons are ALWAYS more effective than a single weapon of that type. Always.

I never would have guessed this, you sir are a Genius.

[Mike Townsend]

Zerethon, on 26 January 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

BT Tanks can also mount most mech weapons (Though, typically less than an actual battlemech chassis)

The commenter above said 4 modern-day abrams, which by lore, pack less punch than a mech AC/2, which is amusing.

The observation was more about the sophistication of the targeting systems. An Abrams can kill another similar heavy tank at a range of 2500 meters while moving. The armor gets better and the guns get bigger but mechs have nowhere near that level of accuracy. Battletech requires you to suspend disbelief enough to buy that they have no problem running whatever calculations are required to make a jumpship move 30 light years instantaneously, but can't field an artillery computer in a mech that can put a round on a moving target at 2500m with any reasonable level of accuracy. So forget the Abrams itself, imagine an Ilya with three UAC5 and a 1990's targeting computer with the ability to put 80% of its rounds on target at a range of 2500m. Silly, but that's fine, it's the lore, and that's the game. I was just agreeing with the poster that it is best not to think too hard about realism. It's a game. They balance it to be fun, not realistic. As for the convergence issue: Is missing a shot due to dice fun? I don't really think so and would prefer something other to dice, such as eliminating convergence. Is that realistic? No, but I think that would still be plenty fun. Reasonable people may disagree.

Edited by Mike Townsend, 26 January 2013 - 09:17 PM.

[MechWarrior071507]

http://www.ign.com/w...n_and_Targeting

embedded in this piece is the phrase "Non-battlemech unit".

Once the full game hits, however it may be implemented, TDs (tank destroyer) builds (designs specifically to kill enemy mechs) will be at a disadvantage with a bunch of infantry it cant flame or small lase. Who knows, though.

[EvilCow]

mekabuser, on 26 January 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

mwll had laser beam duration... first.. and more importantly had a substantial ballistic drop.. SOmething that i cant believe ISNT in this game. Because those two characteristics in tandem... really, for all intents and purposes takes care of most all the problems.

Thanks for specifying, my reasoning about MWLL (a game I really love) was limited to the double armor, it also has a cone of fire for some weapons (ACs, UACs and especially RACs). I agree that ballistic drop also helps with matter.

I still think MWLL was more fun before armor doubling, it is too forgiving now but this is matter of personal preferences.

Edited by EvilCow, 26 January 2013 - 11:34 PM.

[Vapor Trail]

Zerethon, on 26 January 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

...pounds...

MKS units. AKA Meters - Kilograms - Seconds.

When mass is referenced in tons, it's metric tons, which is 1000 kg or 2,204.62 pounds. So your mass is off by about 10%

And the problem with "motion based" recoil and torque compensation is this: it reduces accuracy. Dramatically. Ever see someone try to "flick" bullets out of a pistol by bringing the muzzle down from an elevated position during firing, and supposedly compensate for recoil? Ever see them actually hit anything? Same principle as what you propose.

[chiXnhawk]

Lame

[MustrumRidcully]

Heeden, on 26 January 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

An important thing you are missing, is we need this fantasy-land of machines > physics otherwise battle-mechs wouldn't work at all, tanks-on-legs is an inherently stupid idea that only works with a liberal application of handwavium far in advance of a few basic recoil compensators.

And that handwavium for some reason also included the suggestion that weapons were not able to converge.

In fact, however, I find that not that "handwaved". To have weapons converge like that, they basically all would need a bit of a turret.



I don't know, but at least this ballistic canon in the right torso doesn't look to me as if was very flexible or turret like. I don't think it can adjust its firing angle.

I mean, I could maybe see that lasers can do something like that, maybe with some clever mirror installation (but even that is doubtful. Mirrors are never perfectly reflective, that means they also absorb some energy - a laser capable of melting a ton of armour will likely not do good for a mirror.)

[Zerethon]

Vapor Trail, on 27 January 2013 - 12:01 AM, said:

MKS units. AKA Meters - Kilograms - Seconds.

When mass is referenced in tons, it's metric tons, which is 1000 kg or 2,204.62 pounds. So your mass is off by about 10%

And the problem with "motion based" recoil and torque compensation is this: it reduces accuracy. Dramatically. Ever see someone try to "flick" bullets out of a pistol by bringing the muzzle down from an elevated position during firing, and supposedly compensate for recoil? Ever see them actually hit anything? Same principle as what you propose.

Ever fired a fully-automatic pistol? or even a good semi-auto one?

Each shot, it kicks up, which you compensate by holding the barrel down using your arms and wrists. This is compensation.

On a large battlemech, where the cannon is mounted to the side, this is the equivalent of running the torso twist mechanic to bring the cannon back to center post-each-shot, with computer controls you can do it as the shot is fired (Like a modern artillery unit) And then fire again.

In fact, if you listen, when you fire an AC, AND THEN WAIT, you hear a shell being reloaded, which even on an AC20 is quite fast, however, you still can't fire for a bit, this could be due to the actions of the compensation system bringing the cannon back forward on it's dampers for another shot.

Faster AC's like UAC/RAC/AC2/AC5 might use battlemech-sized Gas or Spring style compensators (Think like an AA12, which the average man can fire on full auto one handed with quite good accuracy)

Quote

I don't know, but at least this ballistic canon in the right torso doesn't look to me as if was very flexible or turret like. I don't think it can adjust its firing angle.

I mean, I could maybe see that lasers can do something like that, maybe with some clever mirror installation (but even that is doubtful. Mirrors are never perfectly reflective, that means they also absorb some energy - a laser capable of melting a ton of armour will likely not do good for a mirror.)

I don't think it can on the fly either, this is why i made my post above about using fixed slider-adjusted convergence on weapons with no L/R capability (Wang arm and such included)

Also, your average high-powered laser uses mirrors with a percentage of transparency which allows the beam to pass once it reaches a certain threshold.

[SteelJaws]

Going by the lore, and Sarna.net, the Inner Sphere didn't get a targeting computer/system that could do the adjustments to give precise aim like your talking about until 3062.

-paste-
[color=#000000]
The Targeting Computer was introduced by Clan Mongoose in 2860.^[1] Targeting Computers are sophisticated pieces of electronics that, unlike normal targeting systems, physically help MechWarriors target their opponents. Recoil compensators and gyroscopic stabilizers are used to prevent normal weapon drift from factors such as recoil and movement while the computer accounts for atmospheric and other conditions to present an accurate "lead" on the target. This allows for more surgical precision of weapons fire, especially with naturally accurate systems, allowing for the user to hit specific parts on the target vehicle.[/color]
[color=#000000]
The Inner Sphere finally caught up to Clan technology with the Federated Suns' development of their own targeting computer in 3062.[/color]
[color=#000000]
[/color]
[color=#000000]
-paste-[/color]
[color=#000000]
[/color]
[color=#000000]
Reading that, tells me that in 3050 the universe doesn't have the targeting capabilites we have now.[/color]