Short comings of lateral design philosophy

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)
TigerShark
02/25/15 06:04 PM
12.130.166.32

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You're comparing it to the AC/5 because it's the only weapon for which you could even marginally make an argument. And at that, it's geared more to your play style than "is it a good/bad weapon?"

As for the SHD-2D, if you think more BV for a paper-thin unit is a good thing, then by all means. You have at it. A Large Laser would be a better swap, cheaper and require no logistical support. And four tons saved = more armor. THAT is an improvement.

And please stop citing the AC/5 as a 3075 weapon. At least switch to an LB-5X or something contemporary. Bit like saying the Flamer is a superior weapon to the Machine Gun, then ignoring the Small Pulse out of convenience. As I said, pick an era and stick with it. You're making a SW Shadow Hawk comparison, then talking about Battle Armor vs. AC/5. You're all over the place. lol

Pick ONE era and compare the Heavy Rifle against all contemporaries.


Edited by TigerShark (02/25/15 06:05 PM)
Akalabeth
02/25/15 06:53 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
When I compare the AC/5 to the Heavy Rifle regarding Battle armor it's for Retry's benefit as that's a discussion both he and I were having.

In any event, I ran the numbers for the Heavy Rifle and AC/5 against a 4-man squad of battle armour. I assumed that the to hit number was an 8+ and that the battlearmor could sustain either one Heavy Rifle or two AC/5 hits. I then ran the numbers again with the AC/5 carrying precision ammo. In both cases, the Heavy Rifle was superior.

Assuming a 41.6% of hitting and taking into account no rounding for how many hits:

Heavy Rifle
Takes 10 turns to kill a 4 man squad of armour

AC/5
Takes 20 turns to kill a 4 man squad

w/Precision Ammo (assuming 6+ to hit)
Takes 12 turns to kill a 4 man squad

Both the AC/5 w/precision and Heavy Rifle require 2 tons of ammunition to do the job.


Actual reduction in damage output of the BA Squad targeted:
Over the course of 20 turns, compared to the average and maximum damage that an undamaged squad can do, the AC/5 will at best reduce the damage of the squad to 69.6% of its average, or 62.5% of its maximum. At worst it will only reduce the max and average damage to 84.8% of its average or 81.2%

With precision ammunition, over those same 20 turns the AC/5 will at best reduce the average to 37.5% and the maximum damage to 41.7%. At worst it will only reduce it to 47.5% and 50%

The Heavy Rifle meanwhile, will reduce the average damage of the squad to 32.5% or its maximum potential damage to 35.7%.

What this translates into,
Is that when an AC/5 has finally killed the battle armour squad, that same squad will have potentially inflicted from 50-70 more damage than the squad targeted by the Heavy Rifle. The squad targeted by precision ammo will have inflicted potentially 9-21 more points of damage.


Other AC Types:
The other AC/s are different as they have different ranges.

Assuming the same range band at the time of firing, the LAC's performance would be identical to the AC/5

The LB-5X would be identical to the AC/5 as well unless the battle armour had only 6-7 points of health and it could effectively use its cluster munitions. Even then there's no guarantee the cluster munitions would spread. It could simply reduce a 5 point hit to a 3 point on a single man. At best against say 6-7 point troops with average cluster munitions and optimal spread, it will kill the squad in about 13-14 turns. Against 8-9 point troops you'd probably be better off firing solid slug. With sub-optimal or abysmal spread, it may take longer than 20 turns depending upon when the cluster rounds are fired.

The UAC/5 firing double rate could destroy the squad in 10 turns, the same as the Heavy Rifle, but by turn 9 it would have a cumulative 25% chance of breaking.

The RAC/5 assuming Rate of Fire 5 (jam on 3 or less) would destroy the Battlearmor squad by the 7th turn but would have a 50% chance of jamming by the 6th turn.

So to Summarize
Again, discounting range the Heavy Rifle in this instance is pretty much better than ANY other class-5 autocannon against Battlearmor whether they're using precision rounds or not. The RAC could be better if it gets lucky but will use more than one ton of ammo and has a much higher BV at 247 rather than 91


And one last thing, on the subject of precision ammunition:

If you ask the question "why are you assuming an 8+ to hit? That's not realistic. Etcetera."
At 8+ to hit, the Precision ammunition will gain its greatest benefit. It will never increase the odds more than going from 8+ to 6+. So really that is the ideal to hit number for these purposes. You can increase the numbers if you like but the relative results will not change, only the amount of ammunition required by all weapons involved.


Regarding Best vs Worse Performance for AC/5
Also, for the AC/5. Best performance with regards to reducing a BA squad's damage output is calculated as though the AC/5 hit and subsequently killed each trooper in turn with no spreading of damage. The worst performance is calculated as though the AC/5 hit each of the four troopers once before hitting them a second time.


Edited by Akalabeth (02/25/15 07:35 PM)
TigerShark
02/25/15 07:51 PM
12.130.166.32

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
FYI - I've been dicking with you. lol I love me some Heavy Rifle. ;-)

We played a full campaign on the Shack during the Age of War and the Estevez did more than marginally well against the tanks we generated using Support Rules. They even carried over into early Star League, so I don't really have an issue with the HR. lol Especially since we used weather in 100% of our games and hot planets make that weapon shine.

Just figured I'd bring up a think tank.
ghostrider
02/25/15 08:00 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ok. Did you read the start of this thread?
I decided to downgrade a Shadowhawk, giving it a Heavy Rifle instead of an AC/5. To my surprise it wasn't much of a downgrade at all.
That was the sentence that started the whole debate.
That is why the ac 5 is being compared.
Changing the weapons being compared to changes the entire statement.
The battle armor came up to try to show the rifle wasn't effective enough against battle armor. From what it looks like, the ac 5 for that particular battle armor is weaker. This is not counting for lesser shots per ton. It is just destructive power for a single shot.

Also, do they explain WHY the rifle doesn't to the full amount of damage to the armor?
Soft rounds?
Lack of power, such as muzzle speed?
I would think the smaller pellets of the lbx cannon should have issues as well, but that is assuming the rifle problem is softer rounds.
If a lack of muzzle speed is the issue, I don't understand why they didn't fix that issue. Guess they wanted to limit the choices for a while until they could design other weapons.
Akalabeth
02/25/15 08:01 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
TigerShark writes:

FYI - I've been dicking with you. lol I love me some Heavy Rifle. ;-)

....

Just figured I'd bring up a think tank.



Yeah doesn't matter. My experience with the Heavy Rifle has been less than stellar since I always give their vehicles green crews but recognize its potential on paper. Did make a Partisan-look alike with four heavy rifles but going up against the Clans doesn't last long. And I haven't made a point of targeting BA since at that time in the campaign (AU campaign) the crews wouldn't know they'd be more effective or the BA's potential to inflict pain.

Incidentally people also say the AC/5 is superior because it can operate in space; but the AC/5 is mounted on exactly two aerofighters (both variants) in the entire game from what I can tell so the game's fiction doesn't really support that either. If that's one of the reasons it rose to prominence why doesn't anything mount it? The only thing in space that really uses the AC/5 are dropships.


Edited by Akalabeth (02/25/15 08:03 PM)
ghostrider
02/25/15 08:06 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The ac 5 is more popular because the developers made it first?
No matter the game time line, the real time line had the ac 5 as the first cannon people used when the box set came out. Not sure about when it we battle droids.
Akalabeth
02/25/15 08:21 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Popularity is something else. But fiction should make sense.

If for example, the AC/5 came out and was immediately mounted on an aerospace fighter it would make historical sense that the AC/5 or ACs in general began to be favoured in advance of heavier armor being introduced. But the earliest space-borne craft I can find with an AC/5 is the Vulture Dropship in 2312, a full 62 years after the AC/5 was introduced.

The earliest aerofighter to mount an AC/5 is either the Riever 100b in 2835 (585 years after the AC/5s introduction) or the Stingray at some point after 2762 (512 years after the AC/5s introduction)

The earliest aerofighter I can think of offhand to mount any type of AC is the firebird in 2400 though earlier examples may exist.
TigerShark
02/25/15 08:57 PM
12.130.166.32

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Considering how ridiculously easy it is to crit with Aero, ANY auto cannon or explosive component is a no-no. AC/5 or HGR, I wouldn't mount either. That's asking for a blackout.

Erik (Legends) had a good idea in that lasers should have a maximum charge, like they do with BattleArmor. It would ensure that there is SOME limitation to energy weapons. Otherwise, they're ridiculously overpowered as far as E/B/M comparisons go. There's really no reason to mount ballistic unless you're (a) a vehicle with an ICE, (b) on a hot planet or (c) in a dust storm or (d) LB-X (the crit-seeking/blackout potential is unmatched anywhere but Infantry).

Beyond that, Ballistics in general are garbage. The Heavy Rifle can be of use, but it's still rather "blah" when compared to a simple Large Laser or PPC.
ghostrider
02/26/15 02:20 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Isn't it possible for a fighter to run into it's own ballistics fire? They can increase their speed each turn, while not having to maintain thrust to keep moving in a straight line. And with this, wouldn't cannon fire from deep space have the chance of killing someone on a planet or moon, or even hitting something beyond the target?
Example would be a fighter battle for a ship yard. The target is between the firing ship and the yard. Straight line, and they miss the target ship. The ammo does not just disappear.
This would be more possible with an ac 20 then an ac 2.
Also, they could fire from a distance and let the shots, especially something like a gauss shot, use the momentum to hit a very distant target.

And making sense? Read crays posting on what the game should be like if we used logic... Ie a grounded drop ship dies in minutes of being immobile. Drones, icbms, even fighters and such would know where it landed at and shelling it immediately. Any unit lucky enough to get off the ship before it blows up would be hunted, and have a poor chance to escape, as sensors around the world would be able to find them kinda easily. Plus the 9 out of 10 shots that hits a tank 2 miles away while moving out.
Akalabeth
02/26/15 03:06 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I wish they'd go back to Aerotech 1 rules for fighters. I don't know why they feel it necessary to have different style of hit locations and criticals and above all weapon ranges. Like why isn't the cockpit a hit location anymore? I don't think the pilot has suffered more than a single hit in one of our games.

It causes particular confusion when you get something like LAMs in the mix which function as fighters but apparently don't suffer threshold criticals. If they can make a LAM in aero mode not be subject to threshold criticals why are dedicated aerospace fighters subject to them?

Though our group uses house rules for aerotech fighters where we have them on-board. What's the point of buying miniatures if you can't actually put them on the table? They fly around at 4x thrust and have turning restrictions based on fighter class and so forth. That being said they're of limited value. We got rid of the aerospace atmospheric penalty and instead gave conventionals a bonus to their piloting, but even with that pristine fighters can just drop out of the sky at the touch of a hat.
CrayModerator
02/26/15 03:44 PM
67.8.171.23

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Isn't it possible for a fighter to run into it's own ballistics fire? They can increase their speed each turn, while not having to maintain thrust to keep moving in a straight line.



Er...in the real world, yes, that could be an issue. They could catch up with their shells. However, it is not addressed in the game. As in ground combat, shells (and energy bolts) disappear instantly at the end of their range.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
ghostrider
02/26/15 03:44 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I can understand them wanting to streamline using dropships and especially warships. It would slow down play greatly to mark off 2 points from the warships armor for every machinegun hit, or srm hits. I would think they should have a rule set for those that like to know why their fighter died from a hit other them the armor failed especially in space. Losing a section does NOT mean automatic destruction of a fighter in space. Granted the main thing that would be left is ejecting, but atleast it is a saving grace move.

I find the lack of control hits on a lam in fighter mode to be poor planning at best. Then again, once in fighter mode, it should move from normal ground combat to fighter combat, hence use all the fighter rules. This should include crashing at low level flight when hit by random movement hits. They should have something like this for air-mech mode as well.
As the description for the originals says, the controls are exposed during changing. The games lack of realtime pulls that 'quirk' out of the game. During the phase it is changing, it should be more likely to suffer a critical hit or random movement hit.
Also, how much fuel does it hold?
Normal fighters run out faster in atmosphere. Shouldn't that hold true with the lam?

With the original discussion, is it possible there was something in the heavy rifle that is difficult to produce, like a component that requires a specific alloy that is hard to get?
TigerShark
02/26/15 06:21 PM
12.130.166.32

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Why? It's basically a large-caliber, rifled tank barrel. We make those now and with common (relatively) alloys.
Akalabeth
02/26/15 09:12 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
TigerShark writes:

Erik (Legends) had a good idea in that lasers should have a maximum charge, like they do with BattleArmor. It would ensure that there is SOME limitation to energy weapons. Otherwise, they're ridiculously overpowered as far as E/B/M comparisons go. There's really no reason to mount ballistic unless you're (a) a vehicle with an ICE, (b) on a hot planet or (c) in a dust storm or (d) LB-X (the crit-seeking/blackout potential is unmatched anywhere but Infantry).



Well, that probably won't happen in Battletech. Need a new game. They could have done something in 3250 plan but, if Re-engineered lasers are apart of that they missed the opportunity.

A game like the old computer game X-wing for example you need to balance your power between shields, lasers and movement. If power from a mech's engine needed to be prioritized between weapons and movement that would make ballistics stronger - but it would also introduce a resource management mechanic on top of the heat mechanic that is already there. So, better to build a new game entirely around such an idea.

Quote:
TigerShark writes:
Beyond that, Ballistics in general are garbage. The Heavy Rifle can be of use, but it's still rather "blah" when compared to a simple Large Laser or PPC.



Blah performance but more interesting weapons. I like marking ammunition, having a finite resource that needs to be managed.
ghostrider
02/27/15 12:58 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I believe the subject of movement not being figured in with engine output was touched, but never really discussed.

And there are a few computer games that has the engine/weapons settings. Wing commander had them as well as renegade legions. I want to say a few others had something like it, but they were not known (well). Honestly, ppcs should have limits as well as just how long a fusion engine reactor can run on how much fuel as well.

Yes, a lot of people would say it is very little fuel for a long ways, but I don't think it is that small, plus not every world would produce it. This would make for more tactical use of things like ICE and raids on storage facilities.
It would also complicate the game, like fuel for ice.

And a lot of the designs on the boards tend to use energy weapons because as long as you have power, you can fire from a mech. Vehicles are the only ones with limits, as they need enough heat sinks to fire them.

Now you could got the route of other games and just say there is enough ammo for ballistic weapons for the game session. You still need to have an ammo bin for each type, but this would solve some of the issues of the ballistics. If you want different ammo types, ie inferno and high explosives, you would need a second ammo bin.
CrayModerator
02/27/15 07:25 AM
67.8.171.23

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Akalabeth writes:

I wish they'd go back to Aerotech 1 rules for fighters. I don't know why they feel it necessary to have different style of hit locations and criticals and above all weapon ranges. Like why isn't the cockpit a hit location anymore? I don't think the pilot has suffered more than a single hit in one of our games.



BattleSpace and AT2 were built on extensive player feedback (complaints) about AT1. The movement system was unrealistic, the scale was ludicrous (each thrust point required about 10,000Gs), the fuel points too sparse, and conventional ground-style weapon ranges/grouping was extremely time consuming for anything larger than a fighter. With the huge simplification of hit locations for large craft, it was sensible to simplify fighters, too. Your experience might've been different, but AT1 generally failed to impress and was not future-proofed for larger vessels.

That said, weapon ranges can be addressed by using the optional "Individual Weapon Ranges" rules found on p. 114 of Strategic Operations.

Quote:
but even with that pristine fighters can just drop out of the sky at the touch of a hat.



Yeah. That was done to keep 'Mechs as kings of the battlefield with something based on rules rather than fluff. There were probably better ways to handle that.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
ghostrider
02/27/15 01:09 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
To make mechs more of kings of the battlerfield, they probably should have gone the direction of increasing the weapon weights, saying things like the weapons adjustment servos were needed as well as possibly having issues with power feeds and extra cooling jackets for energy weapons.
Maybe even limit the fusion engine to non vehicles, since a single crack in the shielding would bleed radiation to outside and shut down the tank, possibly exploding it from the shot.

Maybe have people pay extra for the number of tracks/wheels used to drive a vehicle, as well as make it a little more harsh when they get damaged, ie you have 2 tracks. Destroying one should make the tank immobile, though I would suggest making this less likely. Hovercraft could suffer a turn or loss of control when the skirt takes a shot, maybe a permanent piloting penalty until fixed.
Infantry weapons could have an issue that it does damage like half the time for rifles, since they would need to hit the same area to do much more then flake paint. Lasers and srms could do normal damage since they are technically mech grade weapons. They are supposed to be rare, which isn't the case for most players. Increasing the cost for them might be the best way to go. Might even go so far a set up and break down time of weapons before move. Damage to unit has x chance to render weapons unusable.
Akalabeth
02/27/15 02:03 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Maybe have people pay extra for the number of tracks/wheels used to drive a vehicle, as well as make it a little more harsh when they get damaged, ie you have 2 tracks. Destroying one should make the tank immobile, though I would suggest making this less likely. Hovercraft could suffer a turn or loss of control when the skirt takes a shot, maybe a permanent piloting penalty until fixed.



The game currently has motive hits that abstracts this already does it not?
ghostrider
02/27/15 04:53 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Kind of. Some tanks show they have 2 tracks, like the scorpion, yet the you can cause a -1 movement point when hit. Something like the demolisher shows 4 tracks. Taking out one would not stop the tank like it would a scorpion.
Yes this makes it even more difficult to use a vehicle in combat, but as I said, drop the amount of possible times you could crit a vehicle.

This would be more of house rules then a game changer, as it really changed alot of how the game runs. It also adds to more issues in design and playing.

And I just seen the hovercraft damage needs some clarification. The suffering a turn is not combat round turn, but random movement. Maybe force a drive skill roll to keep from crashing. This would mean drive piloting would have something important to do instead of just look good. Might be a good idea to use it when drive systems are hit on vehicles moving at flank speeds. Damage could be nothing more then crew shaken, to real damage from impact or rolling.
Yes, that could mean upside down, but that would be up to a discussion on what might work or not.
Akalabeth
03/02/15 03:11 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The armored motive system would accomplish what you want. Reduces chances for motive crits.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Armored_Motive_System

Differentiating between different numbers of tracks and other such qualities would require an entirely different set of construction and play rules.
TigerShark
03/03/15 12:13 PM
12.130.166.32

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Primitive & Support Vehicles -> Standard Rules -> TacOps Vehicle Effectiveness -> Armored Motive System

Pretty much covers the range of development for vehicles in BattleTech. ~2500, 2500 -> 2600, Jihad for the Armored Motive System.
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)
Extra information
1 registered and 64 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is enabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 24213


Contact Admins Sarna.net