The FSDS (Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot) Cannon

Pages: 1
Akirapryde2006
11/17/15 03:19 PM
71.100.132.249

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The FSDS (Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot) Cannon

The FSDS Cannon was first created and field tested by Hurricane Stables in the mid 3020's. This weapon was one of many creations by techno-wizard Karen Tetsuhara during her early days on Solaris VII. A marriage of fire power, range and velocity, the AP FSDS did not have the same level of range drop off that was common with all Autocannons of the time. The first weapon of this design was fitted on Sara Little-Hawk's Hatchetman in replacement of the Hatchetman's. When first used in the arenas at range, it was a massive surprise to both opponents and fans alike.

Over the centuries, normal autocannons have used large slugs that transfer their kinetic energy against their targets. This energy transfer causes massive amounts of damage, however due to the size and weight of the slug its effective ranges are greatly reduced. Long before the Succession Wars, many autocannons used Armor-Piercing round that was able to cause more damage than their standard slugs. These rounds loss accuracy as range and weight of the round increases. Tetsuhara decided to solve this problem by increasing velocity by a major factor.

Noting that she needed to increase velocity without increasing weight, Tetsuhara set out to create a sub-projectile with a fraction of the surface area of a normal projectile but with ten times the density. What she did to create this sub-projectile, she developed version of Tungsten Carbide that had depleted properties like depleted uranium but with three times the density. During lap tests, Tetsuhara discovered that her sub-projectile had a lower melting point without losing density. The end result of the sub-projectile took on the shape of an arrow made of her depleted Tungsten Carbide.

With her sub-projectile in hand, Tetsuhara turned her development to velocity. She created a mixture of solid rocket fuel from military grade rocket motors used in the standard LRM's and magnesium. This mixture was highly volatile but produced an incredible degree of energy. Tetsuhara hollowed out the tail section of the arrow and filled this section with this mixture of fuel. Once ignited, this fuel burned at a steady rate and allowed the arrow to accelerate to over ten thousand feet per second. During trails, Tetsuhara's new sub-projectile nearly destroyed her workshop in the heart of the Hurricane Stables.

The AP FSDS fired so fast that normal autocannons often warped and melted under the stress created by the round passing through them. Each of the five test weapons Tetsuhara had for her round were destroyed during testing. She had to create a new harden weapon that could resist the heat of her new round. After a few months of intensive work, Tetsuhara gave birth to the AP FSDS Cannon.

The original AP FSDS cannon was designed to replace the Autocannon 10 on Little Hawk's Hatchetman. The AP FSDS generated more heat when fired and was denser than the original version. But for the same size of the original version the AP FSDS cannon was capable of firing its round twenty percent further at long range and to hit nearly fifty percent harder than the original version. It was enough to give Little Hawk a match winning edge over her opponent.

The next version of the AP FSDS Cannon came when Hurricane Legion was locked in New Earth's bitter civil war. At the request of infantry units for a weapon system that could help level the field against COB mechs and armor units, Tetsuhara went back to the drawing board. She looked carefully at the normal field guns of the day. Normally a field gun used by the infantry was nothing more than a trailer mounted version of the standard autocannons. Tetsuhara decided to increase the size of her AP FSDS cannon to a field gun version. During testing, Tetsuhara and her team discovered that her design didn't loss range as she increased size of her sub-projectile.

To reach the size that the design team wanted, they had to create a two part round. Much like naval cannons. The sub-projectile would be loaded first than the propellant canister would be locked on to sub-projectile while in the barrel. When fired, the sub-projectile would travel at nearly ten thousand feet per second. However what the design team learned was that the loading of the rounds was simply too complicated for a standard loading systems. The team experimented with several different loading designs with near catastrophic results.

Still after a few months of experiments, the first Heavy FSDS Cannon was issued to 3/15th Mechanized Infantry Battalion. The deployment came just in time to take part in the Battle of Hollowshore off the shores of Lake Belmoor. The 3/15th was tasked with holding a vital bridge head against attack COB forces. Three Heavy FSDS Cannons were deployed with the unit. The dug in battalion was hit by a light Mech Lance supported by an armor company. Thanks to the range advantage of the Heavy FSDS Cannon, the 3/15th were able to fire first. In their first volley, the 3/15th was able to take down one of the light mechs and critically damage a second. The first exchange was enough to force the COB to pause their assault.

This pause allowed the 3/15th to focus on the tanks without fear of the COB Mechs. By the time the Mechs resumed their attack, the COB tanks were forced to withdraw to regroup. Thanks to the three Heavy FSDS, the infantry battalion was able to hold the bridge head long enough for supporting government units to reinforce the battalion with a loss of only one of their FSDS Cannons. With the success of the Towed version of the Heavy FSDS recorded, Tetsuhara and her team received orders for enough of these field guns that each infantry battalion could have two. Tetsuhara created Quantum Tech in the field with a handful of techs to fill the order. The Heavy FSDS Field guns were built at their Rothn Facility.

The next version of this cannon came at the special request by Tetsuhara's boyfriend, Colonel Jake Death. He wanted an autocannon that was able to give his LAM scouts a stronger punch without loss of weight or space. But more importantly he to give his LAM's the ability to remain behind enemy's line with limited direct support. Tetsuhara and her team set out to create the Light FSDS Cannon. Using the best material that was available, the team produced the Light FSDS that closely compared to the Autocannon 5 in terms weight, range and size. However the Light FSDS had a forty percent larger damage capability over its normal counterpart and double the heat.

But it was in the design of the Light FSDS which gave it the advantage. Tetsuhara's team created a weapon that was not directly mounted to the LAM. Much like the main weapons of the Stinger LAM, Wasp LAM and Phoenix Hawk LAM, the Light FSDS resembled an infantry rifle than a Mech mounted weapon. The weapon was designed much like a rifle with all the control systems linked through the hand holds of the weapon. This gave the LAM's of the Government the ability to switch out damaged weapons with as much ease for the pilot as picking up an object.

Along with this design, the loading system helped achieve Colonel Death's wishes. Taking a modern infantry rifle as a base model. Tetsuhara and her team moved away from the standard internal ammo bays on the mech and designed the weapon to hold a lower amount of ammo in a magazine. While this lowered the weight of the overall weapon system, this also lowered the number of rounds that the unit could carry in one armored magazine. But the benefit was that the LAM could pick up a new magazine and reload the weapon without tech support.

Tetsuhara's team created two base magazine designs which are in use today with the Light FSDS Cannon. A one ton, fifteen round magazine and a two ton, thirty round version. These are the only two versions that the magazines come in. However, it is possible for LAM's on extended patrols to carry more than one magazine or to be resupplied in the field. Tetsuhara's team created a twenty ton armored carrier for these magazines to be used in supply drops. The Light FSDS Cannon became the main weapon of New Earth's new Raptor LAM design during the 3030's

The last version of the FSDS design created by Quantum Tech was its mounted Heavy FSDS Cannon. This weapon takes the original field gun version and attempted to mount it on a Battlemech. However loading issues proved to be unavoidable. The weapon was too heavy to be practical to be mounted in most armored units. Pushing the limits, the team developed a heavy tank around the massive cannon. This gave birth to the King Main Battle Tank.

The design plans for the King started near the end of New Earth's Civil War, but due to concept problems, the prototype didn't see trails till well after the war. Tetsuhara refused to allow the prototype tank to reach field tests till it was completely ready. This delay nearly killed the program but allowed the creation of one of finest tanks in the Inner Sphere. The Heavy FSDS Cannon gives the King MBT a very powerful punch at ranges that compare to energy based weapons. Despite lacking an automatic loading system, a highly trained gun crew could match the firing rate of normal autocannons.

There are rumors about plans for an airborne version of the Heavy FSDS to be used in the role of direct fire support mounted to specially designed Mark VII's. If these rumors are true, it is likely that these Mark VII's would be used in conjunction with Special Forces behind enemy lines. While there is no supporting evidence to these rumors currently. If they do prove to be true, it would continue to show a steady shift that New Earth is taking away from standard Battlemech deployments and towards a more counter mech operations.

Current New Earth is one of few regional armies that actively fields the Towed FSDS Cannon in the roll of a field gun. These towed weapons are seen among their infantry units as direct support weapons and local small unit support fire weapons. During both the battles of Luthien and Tukayyid, the Towed FSDS made impressive showings against Clan Omnimechs. NEDF Gun crews were able to inflict heavy damages on approaching clan mechs from dug in positions.

Prior to the Lyran Blockade and the creation of the Lyran Alliance, the Federated Commonwealth Armed Forces (AFFC) were field testing a number of these weapon systems for possible future deployment in AFFC units. With creation of the Lyran Alliance, Quantum Tech has stopped selling support products for the weapon system to the Lyran Alliance Armed Forces (LAAF). Quantum Tech personal sabotaged the production/research lines at Defiance Industries. This act set Defiance Industries back years on producing this weapon system. This turn of events did have a broad effect on the number of Lyran fielded FSDS systems.

Because these weapons require special ammunition and because of the events at the Defiance Industries, these weapons have only seen limited deployment across the LAAF. Still a few of these weapon systems saw action during the Lyran Invasion of New Earth on the Lyran side of the Invasion. These weapon systems were primary in the form of the Medium or Mech Version of the FSDS Cannon and the Towed Heavy FSDS Cannon. In sharp contrast to what the Lyran's deployed, the New Earth forces deployed these units heavily across all their theaters.

With the creation of the Chaos March, Quantum Tech started selling a large number of the FSDS Cannons and ammunition to Davion friendly governments across the region. The single most popular versions bought are the mech version (120mm) Medium FSDS Cannon and the Towed (155mm) FSDS Field Gun. Despite the Lyran Blockade these sales are still very popular among governments within the Chaos March. The blockade has had little effect on Quantum Tech to sell these weapons and ensure that the combat reputation of these weapons continues to spread.

Months before the Lyran Invasion, and possible a cause of the invasion, a mech version of the FSDS was developed with the help of Quantum Tech by New Samarkand Metal within the Draconis Combine. While the weapon was already in production under license by Corean Enterprises at their New Avalon facility, the fact that the Draconis Combine had been able to purchase a license to build the weapon system was more than Lyrans could tolerate.



There are four basic types of AP FSDS Cannons which are produced by Quantum Tech.
Code:

Caliber Heat Dmg Short Med Long Ext. Tons Crit. Ammo
Light FSDS Cannon (105mm) 2 7 1-6 7-12 13-18 19-24 8 4 **
Med FSDS Cannon (120mm) 5 14 1-6 7-12 13-18 19-24 14 7 24
*Towed FSDS Cannon (155mm) 10 28 1-6 7-12 13-18 19-24 16.25 NA NA
*King FSDS Cannon (155mm) 10 28 1-6 7-12 13-18 19-24 16.25 9 14

*Special Note: The Towed and King FSDS do not have any auto load equipment nor feed mechanisms. Because of this they cannot be equipped on Mechs or other units without a loading crew.
** Uses special loading magazine at half ton increments, see description.


Edited by Akirapryde2006 (11/17/15 03:21 PM)
Karagin
11/18/15 06:46 AM
72.176.187.91

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ranges go against what is set as the norm for Battletech, where the smaller guns have the amazing range and the larger ones have far less range. Based off or you stats you have 4 cannons that are competing with LRMs and ELRMs and that changes the balance of the game. Why would I use a Gauss rifle on my tanks if I can now use your King Cannon? I get similar range, more damage, more ammo per shot and just a mere two and quarter tons extra and still lose the same slots to the weapon for my tank. Even the need for a loader in the tank doesn't off set any thing.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akirapryde2006
11/18/15 11:08 AM
71.100.132.249

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I guess this is where we get to prove your signature. Lets have enough time and paper...:)

I will address your statements in turn.

Quote:
Karagin writes:
Ranges go against what is set as the norm for Battletech, where the smaller guns have the amazing range and the larger ones have far less range.



Yes you are correct. My ranges go against what is considered "norm" for Battletech. Which mind you makes completely no sense in the first place. But I don't argue this point nor the example given.

Quote:
Karagin writes:
Based off or you stats you have 4 cannons that are competing with LRMs and ELRMs and that changes the balance of the game.



Actually we used the Autocannon/5 for our base line model in terms of ranges. We wanted a cannon that was more realistic. We did our homework and found that as you increase caliber the ranges also tend to increase as well. Take for instance the 75mm Gun which had a effective range of around 3000m (though it could be argued to be much lower than that) compared to the modern 120 mm gun with an effective range of 4,000 meters.

While I contend that the ranges are stagnate, this was done for no other reason that simplicity. The actually ranges are somewhat closer to accurate than those that are of cannon. Think about it. At long range the FSDS can reach 18 hexes, which is 540 meters. A far better measure of a cannon than what has been listed in canon autocannons. Or for laughs, a Mech Machine gun which only is able at shooting targets ninety meters in front of it.

Quote:
Karagin writes:
Why would I use a Gauss rifle on my tanks if I can now use your King Cannon? I get similar range, more damage, more ammo per shot and just a mere two and quarter tons extra and still lose the same slots to the weapon for my tank.



Okay, so you choose to compare the Heavy FSDS to the Gauss Rifle. Its a fair match up, I will give you that.

Ranges: Gauss' Long Range 22, Heavy FSDS has a Long Range of 18. That's 120 more (4 thirty meter hexes) meters that Gauss Rifle out ranges the Heavy FSDS. But the actually difference lays deeper than that. While both have similar short ranges. It is in the Medium Range that the Gauss Rifle takes the win. While the Heavy FSDS is transitioning to long range at 13 hexes. The Gauss is still using Medium range modifiers till range 15! This gives the Gauss the advantage.

Damage: Gauss Rifle does 15, the Heavy FSDS does 24. Okay, nearly a ten point advantage. The FSDS does take this category.

Ammo: Gauss Rifle is 8 per ton while the Heavy FSDS is 14. And yes, the FSDS does take this advantage as well.

Tonnage: The Gauss Rifle is 15 tons while the Heavy FSDS is only 16.25 tons (this is minus the loading equipment. We wanted a weapon that couldn't be mounted on Battlemechs that is why the Heavy doesn't come with it), So yes the FSDS is only slightly heavier.

Space: Gauss Rifle is 7 while the Heavy is 9. Though on vehicles this doesn't really apply, so this goes to neither. However the Gauss Rifle can be mounted on a Mech while the Heavy FSDS was designed by its players to not be able to be mounted on a Mech.

But you are over looking one critical factor, Heat. The Gauss Rifle only generates one heat compared to the ten generated by the Heavy FSDS. Ten Heat is nothing to laugh at. It could make all the difference in a battle if ignored.

While you have addressed the extra crew member, it shouldn't be discounted either.

Quote:
Karagin writes:
Even the need for a loader in the tank doesn't off set any thing.



Lets make one thing clear in this. When we developed this weapon system as well as others, it wasn't in terms of off setting it to the board game. We created them to show innovation in the game. I mean think about it, prior to the Clan Invasion the only major innovation came from recovered lost tech and a few bits and pieces here and there of "new tech".

The FSDS wasn't designed to compare or compete with other Autocannons. It was designed to be a market replacement for them. Much like the tank was the replacement of the mounted soldier. Or the musket replaced the bow and arrow only to be replaced by the rifle and that was replaced by the assault rifle. The FSDS is meant to be the next step in Autocannon design. This is how innovation works, and why the game is stagnated. Too much focus has been placed on balance than on opening up new lines of thought.

Does it push the envelope, sure does. But that is because we wanted it to. We wanted a weapon system that would help us win on the battlefield. Doesn't any other inventor of a weapon system want that as well?

Akira
Retry
11/18/15 07:56 PM
76.7.232.58

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Actually we used the Autocannon/5 for our base line model in terms of ranges. We wanted a cannon that was more realistic. We did our homework and found that as you increase caliber the ranges also tend to increase as well. Take for instance the 75mm Gun which had a effective range of around 3000m (though it could be argued to be much lower than that) compared to the modern 120 mm gun with an effective range of 4,000 meters.



Effective range is very arbitrary and depends on the target. The 75mm Gun would have an effective range of nearly point blank against a Tiger I, while the modern L/55 gun with HEAT would have an effective range as far as the cannon's mechanical accuracy and optics quality allow against that same Tiger.

Your research appears to have missed Muzzle Velocity as a highly important aspect of effective range, of which the L/55 has around a 2.5-3x advantage over the 75mm. the Long 88 found on a Tiger II would have a higher effective range against hardened targets than a Su-122's 122mm howitzer due to the poor muzzle velocity of the howitzer which would make leading shots very difficult.

Shell mass is also important for penetration characteristics, as a heavy shell is less affected by the force of drag and is thus able to retain pen with distance, assuming all other parameters stay the same.

Quote:
While I contend that the ranges are stagnate, this was done for no other reason that simplicity. The actually ranges are somewhat closer to accurate than those that are of cannon. Think about it. At long range the FSDS can reach 18 hexes, which is 540 meters. A far better measure of a cannon than what has been listed in canon autocannons. Or for laughs, a Mech Machine gun which only is able at shooting targets ninety meters in front of it.



Sure but I don't understand why this APFSDS needs an entirely new gun to fire them. It's basically a needle with a tail, the fluff of this additional "heat" being produced by it doesn't really make sense nor is realistic.

Quote:
-snipped a lot of numbers-



I have to agree with Karagin, there's very few situations in which one of these new guns would not be preferred.

The range advantage is rather small, and the advantages you get out of the new cannon make up for it.

The King Cannon at 28 damage is around a 85% damage increase for a gain in a ton and a quarter, and it head-caps every Mech possible. The only other weapon in the game that can do that to my knowledge is the Heavy Gauss Rifle at close range brackets.

You're also underplaying the ammunition advantage. At 14 shots a ton with damage dealt per ton at 28, the potential damage per ammo ton is 392. The potential damage of a Gauss cannon with 15 damage and 8 shots a ton is 120. The potential damage of one ton of ammo of these APFSDS rounds is more than three times that of a gauss rifle, unrivaled by any other ammo-tied weapon system. After factoring in tonnage and space requirements for ammo, the new weapon will quickly overtake the Gauss in these areas as well.

Quote:
But you are over looking one critical factor, Heat. The Gauss Rifle only generates one heat compared to the ten generated by the Heavy FSDS. Ten Heat is nothing to laugh at. It could make all the difference in a battle if ignored.



There's nothing to overlook. Vehicles don't need heat sinks to operate ballistic and missile weapons. This includes the AC/2, UAC/20, and this new FSDS cannon. So yes, ten heat is something to laugh at; Armored vehicles can and will.

The proliferation of this weapon series would likely have the following long-term effects:

Make Assault and maybe Heavy BA obsolete. They have no range advantage unless equipped with LRMs and faced with this weapon with great range and the damage to pen through such puny armor with one hit. Thus without its durability advantage, medium BA or lighter would be the remaining practical option.

Mechs without a version of this weapon becomes obsolete due to its sheer capacities. They can't compete with vehicles arming themselves with the new gun that vastly outclasses their overwhelming damage capabilities, unless the arm themselves with the smaller (yet less capable) variants.

Vehicles become the new King of the Battlefield, alongside Field Gunners. They don't need to mess with heat and so can maximize their utility. VTOLs would lose their luster because their light weight prohibits the carrying of all but the lightest version of this weapon. Penultimate vehicle designs would include tracked tanks armed with the turreted King and an ECM/Stealth Armor package, tracked tanks armed with the turreted King and augmented with a Targeting Computer, and 50 ton hovers armed with either a frontal King and 1t ammo or a Medium and an ECM/Stealth Armor package.

Quote:
Lets make one thing clear in this. When we developed this weapon system as well as others, it wasn't in terms of off setting it to the board game. We created them to show innovation in the game. I mean think about it, prior to the Clan Invasion the only major innovation came from recovered lost tech and a few bits and pieces here and there of "new tech".



There's innovation, but from the fluff it just seems like a bunch of technobabble that resulted in a infinity+1 gun. It doesn't make sense for a HEAP or full-caliber round to deal *less* damage than the sub-caliber APFSDS. It definitely doesn't make sense for the manually loaded version to deal twice as much damage as the autoloaded variant.
Akirapryde2006
11/18/15 10:14 PM
71.100.132.249

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I would like to beg for consideration as we continue this conversation. This weapon was developed in the mid 1990's. So some of the newer ideas were not considered when we created this weapon. I am only rehashing old ideas and getting the communities input on it.

Quote:
Retry writes:
Effective range is very arbitrary and depends on the target. The 75mm Gun would have an effective range of nearly point blank against a Tiger I, while the modern L/55 gun with HEAT would have an effective range as far as the cannon's mechanical accuracy and optics quality allow against that same Tiger.

Your research appears to have missed Muzzle Velocity as a highly important aspect of effective range, of which the L/55 has around a 2.5-3x advantage over the 75mm. The Long 88 found on a Tiger II would have a higher effective range against hardened targets than a Su-122's 122mm howitzer due to the poor muzzle velocity of the howitzer which would make leading shots very difficult.

Shell mass is also important for penetration characteristics, as a heavy shell is less affected by the force of drag and is thus able to retain pen with distance, assuming all other parameters stay the same.



Actually our research didn't miss that factor or penetration values. Please keep in mind that this concept (for the game) came from a group of guys who were all in the military at the time. We actually took quite a bit of factors in to creating this weapon. If you noticed in the writing above, I even wrote that velocity was a factor. This wasn't added as fluff. While I am sure that this concept goes against everything that is the standard for the game. I ask for a bit of leeway and I will show you how we did put some pretty good thought in to this. And no I don't pretend that this will fit in the canon rule set. It was only submitted as a good talking point. A series of threads have raised the question of Battlemechs and why they are the king of the battlefield. How the rules were written to ensure that Battlemechs would remain the kings of the battlefield.

I went digging back through our old game notes looking for what we did to change the scope of the battlefield. Like I said in my above post, this weapon wasn't meant to make Battlemechs better but to level if not give a bit more advantage over to infantry and armor. Though the Light and Medium FSDS can be mounted on a Mech.

Without further delay, please allow me to address your comments.

Quote:
Retry writes:
Sure but I don't understand why this APFSDS needs an entirely new gun to fire them. It's basically a needle with a tail, the fluff of this additional "heat" being produced by it doesn't really make sense nor is realistic.



Two issues here, allow me to comment on Heat first. Heat in this game is a major factor. For some reason even spaceships in deep space (where Heat is hardly a negative factor) seems to have to deal with heat as a limiting issue. This is one of the only parts of the weapon that we really didn't have a logical reason to this other than to make it heat heavy due to its damage. Like the PPC and AC/20, we gave it a large heat rating. I know I promised logic and realism with this weapon. In this issue, I can't deliver and won't lie about the reasoning. It doesn't make sense nor is it realistic and for that I apologize. I am open to your ideas to make it more realistic and logical.

With that said, the reason why we made this a completely new weapon system was because it as a nod to the way the canon rules. I know, doesn't make sense. The LB-X was a large influence in what we were working on. Within Canon, there is the LB-X autocannon that could fire fletch rounds as well as normal rounds. What makes the LB-X special is that only it can fire this Fletch Round. However in the real world, any gun can fire fletch rounds (or also known as Canister or Beehive rounds). The Game Designers of the time felt that this special round should only be used with this special cannon. So we did the same and gave a nod to the way the LB-X was made within the rules.

When the Tactical Handbook first came out, there were some really kicking ideas in it. But the designers introduced the idea of Caseless ammunition. We were faced with an issue. Change the way we created the weapon or shift it towards the concept of a better ammunition. I can't remember the reasons why we kept it the way we did and I don't have this in my notes. But I am almost sure that the idea was because of the direction we wanted to take the battlefield away from the all expensive and all powerful Battlemech. Remember, we were working on low tech (meaning less dependent on Mechs) concepts.

Quote:
Retry writes:
I have to agree with Karagin, there's very few situations in which one of these new guns would not be preferred.

The range advantage is rather small, and the advantages you get out of the new cannon make up for it.

The King Cannon at 28 damage is around an 85% damage increase for a gain in a ton and a quarter, and it head-caps every Mech possible. The only other weapon in the game that can do that to my knowledge is the Heavy Gauss Rifle at close range brackets.

You're also underplaying the ammunition advantage. At 14 shots a ton with damage dealt per ton at 28, the potential damage per ammo ton is 392. The potential damage of a Gauss cannon with 15 damage and 8 shots a ton is 120. The potential damage of one ton of ammo of these APFSDS rounds is more than three times that of a gauss rifle, unrivaled by any other ammo-tied weapon system. After factoring in tonnage and space requirements for ammo, the new weapon will quickly overtake the Gauss in these areas as well.



I don't contend that the weapon wouldn't be preferred over others for tanks. And you are correct, the Heavy Gauss Rifle is only 25 at close range. The Heavy Gauss Rifle came out in 3061. Ask yourself, why did it take over three hundred years to develop a weapon that increases damage? Why can't Autocannons fire comparable ranges as Laser weapons? These were the questions we wanted to deal with.

This is where we were coming from. It didn't make sense to us for military technology to become so stagnated. Remember, there wasn't much in terms of new ideas within the game at this time. Unbound had just come out and the Tactical Handbook was promising more.

As far as ammo goes, I am not under playing it. Take the M829 Round, which is the standard AP FSDS 120mm round for the M1A1 MBT. It weighs in at right around 50 lbs. Our rounds are just over 140 lbs per round. Comparable 155 mm round are just over a 100 lbs per round. It was our assumption that the game was taking weight/rounds for granted. We went to correct this problem with the creation of our weapon system.

Quote:
Retry writes:
There's nothing to overlook. Vehicles don't need heat sinks to operate ballistic and missile weapons. This includes the AC/2, UAC/20, and this new FSDS cannon. So yes, ten heat is something to laugh at; Armored vehicles can and will.



There are times when a person has to look at the facts and bow their head. Fair enough, good point. I concede the issue of heat to your argument, Sir.

Quote:
Retry writes:
The proliferation of this weapon series would likely have the following long-term effects:

Make Assault and maybe Heavy BA obsolete. They have no range advantage unless equipped with LRMs and faced with this weapon with great range and the damage to pen through such puny armor with one hit. Thus without its durability advantage, medium BA or lighter would be the remaining practical option.

Mechs without a version of this weapon becomes obsolete due to its sheer capacities. They can't compete with vehicles arming themselves with the new gun that vastly outclasses their overwhelming damage capabilities, unless the arm themselves with the smaller (yet less capable) variants.

Vehicles become the new King of the Battlefield, alongside Field Gunners. They don't need to mess with heat and so can maximize their utility. VTOLs would lose their luster because their light weight prohibits the carrying of all but the lightest version of this weapon. Penultimate vehicle designs would include tracked tanks armed with the turreted King and an ECM/Stealth Armor package, tracked tanks armed with the turreted King and augmented with a Targeting Computer, and 50 ton hovers armed with either a frontal King and 1t ammo or a Medium and an ECM/Stealth Armor package.



I completely agree with what you assessment on this.

And this would force Battlemech, Aerospace, VTOL designs to create new designs to counter this armor trend. And such is why military technology is never stagnant. New ideas force innovation by means of remaining relevant on the battlefield. I ask you this question, tell me. Does this not create a more realistic evolution for the game than the way technology has advanced so far?

Imagine how the Inner Sphere would have looked in 3050 had this weapon really came in to being within the Canon Universe.

Quote:
Retry writes:
There's innovation, but from the fluff it just seems like a bunch of technobabble that resulted in an infinity+1 gun. It doesn't make sense for a HEAP or full-caliber round to deal *less* damage than the sub-caliber APFSDS. It definitely doesn't make sense for the manually loaded version to deal twice as much damage as the autoloaded variant.



Actually damage is very misleading. As you mentioned above, when dealing with weapons like this the key one is looking for is penetration. But the game makes no mechanics for that. So we are suck with this very catch all and misleading concept of damage.

Proven research has shown that Full-Caliber rounds have less penetration than HEAP. HEAP has less penetration than FSDS rounds. But I think that is a topic for another thread.

But when we created this weapon, we took Penetration in to consideration and made a formula that allowed for an AC/20 round to be considered as a HEAP round and we converted our round based on this factor. Which is why our round (the Heavy FSDS Round) does more damage than an AC/20 HEAP round.

There is one thing I do want to add. What I posted is not just a "bunch of technobabble". Please understand that we put months of thought in to what we were working on. No I don't defend the fact that the weapon breaks most (if not all) the rules of the canon universe. But we did use facts, science and logic in most of what we did. I don't expect this weapon to be accepted for canon, but please understand we did put thought in to it.

Akirapryde
Karagin
11/18/15 10:59 PM
72.176.187.91

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Two things, first this is Battletech, you know the game with 3 story tall robots blasting each other to bits...

And the second thing, reality doesn't mix well with this game, I have pages of home tech weapons, many of which try to bring modern and near future weapons into the game and found it doesn't work well. With the range issue, which is done, as it's been pointed out to keep things on table vs the living room floor or in some cases the front yard, you end up leaving the Autocannons and other weapons in the dust.

As for the heat, Retry pointed it out, vehicles don't worry about heat for ballistics weapons. What I think you could do is come up with a new ammo type or something like that for the existing weapons, just a thought.

Now having new stuff is cool, and if done right it can add a lot of flavor and fun to the game, but home tech can overpower the game pretty fast too. Example my friend made a home tech weapon called the MPC (Magentic Power Cannon if I recall right) similar range to the PPC, weight was comparible to the AC10 and the ammo was like 10 shots per ton, 12 points of damage and 4 heat. Sounds simple and nothing too crazy, until you actually use it, then you find it's a headcapper, one hit to the head for the early tech era aka 3025 and poof no more mech. Took us a few games to figure that out and we stopped using it. Now that didn't stop us from making other stuff, some super silly AC 25 or AC 30, but it did let us know that sometimes things can over power the game.

My suggestion is to tweak the ranges make it worth getting the bigger guns for the damage vs the smaller one which have the range or offering more ammo or something.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
11/19/15 12:28 AM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Artillery does conform to the larger weapons having a longer range. But the direct fire weapons do tend to shorten range as damage goes up.

The heat in vehicles was covered so no issues there, but I would suggest there be a limit to how fast it can fire. Like maybe once every 3 rounds or something.
Or classifying it like energy weapons that the heat does need to be removed from the vehicle.
Maybe have a firing penalty with it would help even it out some.
Even needing to be stationary to fire it.
Just suggestions.

Now as for the weapons range stagnation and lack of logic, just look at what we have today and realize, the logic fails completely.

I do see there is issues with new ammo being used in the same weapon. The lbx and silver bullet gauss require a different weapon barrels to fire the shotgun style ammunitions. I can see why they would need a different gun to fire this. It seems to be a rocket fired bullet that mirvs in flight. Might need to coat the inside of the barrel with an anti corrosive material to avoid the rocket exhaust destroying the insides of the barrel.
Might suggest a little heavier weight to compensate for this.

And really. Why can't you put a capital weapon (NAC) in a mount facing a pass to obliterate anything coming thru the pass? Shear kinetic force should be enough.
And no this is not a dig on this weapons system.
Akirapryde2006
11/19/15 07:22 PM
71.100.132.249

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:
Two things, first this is Battletech, you know the game with 3 story tall robots blasting each other to bits...



*sighs* yes I know. But wouldn’t the game be bettered if the technology of Battlemechs increased out of need of being better rather than rules that limit other units on the battlefield just to make the Battlemech better. While I don't expect other rules to be changed, this could go a long way to reaching a level field between Mechs and Tanks.

Quote:
Karagin writes:
And the second thing, reality doesn't mix well with this game, I have pages of home tech weapons, many of which try to bring modern and near future weapons into the game and found it doesn't work well. With the range issue, which is done, as it's been pointed out to keep things on table vs the living room floor or in some cases the front yard, you end up leaving the Autocannons and other weapons in the dust.



While I see your point. I have played several combat games using different scales that allow weapons ranges to be more realistic in terms of the game maps. We don’t have to change the maps much, just the scale if we want to represent scale more accurately. Okay that being said, I understand that this issue is moot as neither of us have the ability to actually have any say in the scale of the maps or the official rules of the game. Which makes that whole point of the conversation more a point of thought than anything else.

Quote:
Karagin writes:
As for the heat, Retry pointed it out, vehicles don't worry about heat for ballistics weapons. What I think you could do is come up with a new ammo type or something like that for the existing weapons, just a thought.



There is a lot of logic in what you say. But this is where the whole standard of rules gets confusing. Think of the Caseless Ammunition. It can be fired from standard Autocannons while LB-X Ammunition can’t. For that matter, there is the Hyper-Velocity Autocannon (which is very close in concept to our FSDS Cannon) which calls for a new style of cannon. But then the rules twist logic even further. Even though you need a new cannon, they still hit you with limited ammunition per ton. My question is, why is ammunition limited? (don’t answer that here. Lol that is truly a topic for another thread lol)

As much as I agree with you, the AP FSDS should be considered a variation in Ammunition. While first developed for the Mech (based off of the AC/10 and AC/5), we later decided to take the weapon in to the ranks of the Infantry and Tanks. If you consider the limitations that the Tank and Infantry unit has on the battlefield against the Mech, the FSDS gives these two units a much better fighting chance.

Quote:
Karagin writes:
My suggestion is to tweak the ranges make it worth getting the bigger guns for the damage vs the smaller one which have the range or offering more ammo or something.



I am not sure what you mean. Care to explain? While what you see above is what we came up with. I don’t mind talking about making changes to help make the system better. Please be respectful for the goal that we were looking for though.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Artillery does conform to the larger weapons having a longer range. But the direct fire weapons do tend to shorten range as damage goes up.



Actually Artillery ranges have a lot more to do with trajectory than out right ranges. But actually damage is hardly the factor in ranges as far as ranges go. In fact if you really want to get technical. The HEAT round does nearly twice as much ‘damage’ as the FSDS rounds to. However the FSDS rounds actually have three times more penetration than the HEAT Rounds. It is this that makes them more deadly to tanks. But that is reality and doesn’t have much influence in the game. An argument that I concede.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
The heat in vehicles was covered so no issues there, but I would suggest there be a limit to how fast it can fire. Like maybe once every 3 rounds or something.
Or classifying it like energy weapons that the heat does need to be removed from the vehicle.



You know what, I didn’t even think about that.

Karagin, what do you think. Shifting the rule of this weapon to the fact that this weapon must dissipate the heat generated.

There is another option. Karagin take a look at this.
Green fire rate: ¼ rounds fire per turn
Regular fire rate: 1/3 rounds fired per turn
Veteran fire rate: 1/2 rounds fired per turn
Elite fire rate: 1/1 rounds fired per turn

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I do see there is issues with new ammo being used in the same weapon. The lbx and silver bullet gauss require a different weapon barrels to fire the shotgun style ammunitions. I can see why they would need a different gun to fire this. It seems to be a rocket fired bullet that mirvs in flight. Might need to coat the inside of the barrel with an anti-corrosive material to avoid the rocket exhaust destroying the insides of the barrel.
Might suggest a little heavier weight to compensate for this.




Not sure I am going to increase the weight of the weapon or mess with the ranges/damage, But I am willing to listen to ideas. The rational for the need of a new cannon to fire the round could work though.

Yes I am aware that this weapon system does give a strong advantage to the tank and gun crews. Yes it can cripple a light/medium mech in one shot at good range. But so can other weapons like the Gauss Rifle. It can give a Heavy and an Assault class mech something serious to think about when dealing with a King MBT. Still despite this, the tank is disadvantaged in terms of how it takes it damage and how crits can easily kill the tank or its crew. It does go to level the field, but the mech will still hold the overall advantage. Or at least that is my opinion.

I also want to express my gratitude for everyone’s involvement in this conversation to this point.

Akirapryde
Karagin
11/19/15 07:28 PM
72.176.187.91

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
My suggestions are based off what I have found that plays out well, the game is not about one shot one kill, that is not Battletech, I agree with you things should be different, but the question is how different before you are into things like how Renegade Legion handles armor damage or Micro-Armo.

I too have played many games with weapons having better ranges, thus forcing large scale or larger number of hex maps to be used or as I said playing the living room floor vs a table top. They are fun games, and it's really cool to see the 2cm Gauss hit a target at short range of 24 hexes and blast an arm of a mech with one shot, but again for many that is not Battletech.

The range tweak was to make the weapons comparable to the the existing ACs, BUT offering something for the user to get more for what they paying for aka more ammo, or more punch or more range with the better ammo type.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akirapryde2006
11/19/15 07:47 PM
71.100.132.249

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

My suggestions are based off what I have found that plays out well, the game is not about one shot one kill, that is not Battletech, I agree with you things should be different, but the question is how different before you are into things like how Renegade Legion handles armor damage or Micro-Armo.

The range tweak was to make the weapons comparable to the the existing ACs, BUT offering something for the user to get more for what they paying for aka more ammo, or more punch or more range with the better ammo type.



I don't mean to sound disrespectful, I just want to make sure I am understanding what you are saying.

So you mean that the more damage the round does, I should limit the range of the weapon just like regular autocannons?

If this is the case, that just doesn't make much sense. I know that the normal standard for Autocannons is set up that way. I really do want to move away from that standard. If you look at real ballistic weapons, this is not how they work. Surely there has to be another way to do this.

*sighs* something tells me that there isn't much of a better way to do this. Even if I limit damage down to 20 points, the ranges are going to kill me.

Quote:
Karagin writes:
I too have played many games with weapons having better ranges, thus forcing large scale or larger number of hex maps to be used or as I said playing the living room floor vs a table top. They are fun games, and it's really cool to see the 2cm Gauss hit a target at short range of 24 hexes and blast an arm of a mech with one shot, but again for many that is not Battletech.



I would have to climb in to my attic to find it, but I was talking about a WWII game. The cloth map fits nicely on a normal diner table. Tank ranges are scaled to the battlefield in such a way that they are realistic.

But you see, in terms of Tanks and Infantry this is the case. Often Tanks and Infantry can be slaughtered in one shot. And I accept that this is Battletech where the Mech is the King. But that doesn't mean the other units have to hamstrung to prove this. Follow?

Akirapryde
Karagin
11/19/15 10:05 PM
72.176.187.91

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Not saying limit the damage, I am saying that if you want more folks to use it and want to use then adjusting the range to what is the norm would be better. Again reality doesn't work in this game, since lasers are LOS and should in theory be shooting as far as the horizon yet get stopped by any kind of obstacle in the way aka a tree leaf or girder etc...I am all for home tech weapons and such. If you are going to move away from the standard, then you run the risk of folks ignoring the weapon, a grand example of things offered as cool improvements was the entire Tactical Handbook, neat weapons, new ammo, new rules etc...and 85% (rough guess based on the countless complaints and gripes folks make when anyone mentions using THB weapons) disliked one or all of things offered. Each weapon came with what was considered a game balancer, aka the Caseless AC having issues or the HV-AC having a lot of issues. Some folks use the weapons and ignore the parts they don't like others dismiss them all together. So what I am getting at here is if you want to see someone outside of your group use it, the it has to appeal to them and for many that means close to what is the norm while offering them something new and different.

Now an idea would be to adjust the scale of the hex, that would make things like you are offering a lot more of interest.

I do follow and agree that units' should not be hamstrung as they are in the game, but I have spent many years on here and other boards trying to get the point across and it's not one that TPTB seem to care about. If they didn't we wouldn't have two rule sets for making and using vehicles.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Retry
11/19/15 11:50 PM
76.7.232.58

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Two issues here, allow me to comment on Heat first. Heat in this game is a major factor. For some reason even spaceships in deep space (where Heat is hardly a negative factor) seems to have to deal with heat as a limiting issue. This is one of the only parts of the weapon that we really didn't have a logical reason to this other than to make it heat heavy due to its damage. Like the PPC and AC/20, we gave it a large heat rating. I know I promised logic and realism with this weapon. In this issue, I can't deliver and won't lie about the reasoning. It doesn't make sense nor is it realistic and for that I apologize. I am open to your ideas to make it more realistic and logical.



Honestly the ammo type sounds like an upgraded Precision round. At least that's what I originally thought with the ABFSDS thing. Modifying the rules or adding the new ammo type with its rules entirely to current ACs would probably work well without greatly changing the current WT rules.

Quote:
With that said, the reason why we made this a completely new weapon system was because it as a nod to the way the canon rules. I know, doesn't make sense. The LB-X was a large influence in what we were working on. Within Canon, there is the LB-X autocannon that could fire fletch rounds as well as normal rounds. What makes the LB-X special is that only it can fire this Fletch Round. However in the real world, any gun can fire fletch rounds (or also known as Canister or Beehive rounds). The Game Designers of the time felt that this special round should only be used with this special cannon. So we did the same and gave a nod to the way the LB-X was made within the rules.



Actually, the LB-X Cluster Ammunition differs from Flechette rounds which are only available to standard and light Autocannons. I don't recall the in-game rules for the Clusters, but Flechettes deal full damage to unarmored infantry (AC/20 with flechettes will kill 20 standard footsoldiers).

Quote:
When the Tactical Handbook first came out, there were some really kicking ideas in it. But the designers introduced the idea of Caseless ammunition. We were faced with an issue. Change the way we created the weapon or shift it towards the concept of a better ammunition. I can't remember the reasons why we kept it the way we did and I don't have this in my notes. But I am almost sure that the idea was because of the direction we wanted to take the battlefield away from the all expensive and all powerful Battlemech. Remember, we were working on low tech (meaning less dependent on Mechs) concepts.



You sure moved the battlefield away from the Battlemech. However, have you considered... Well, considering operational costs and unit prices? Battlemechs are generally far more expensive than their vehicle counterparts, and they can also be built at more locations due to being inherently less complex.

Quote:
Actually damage is very misleading. As you mentioned above, when dealing with weapons like this the key one is looking for is penetration. But the game makes no mechanics for that. So we are suck with this very catch all and misleading concept of damage.



Well, not quite. Penetration is generally relevant to whether damage is inflicted to a tank's internals at all with a few exceptions (HESH, really high caliber HE, huge kinetic guns). Internal damage primarily depends on caliber (full-caliber rounds like normal AP will result in more spalling than sub-caliber rounds like WWII APCR and discarding sabots) and high-explosive filler (APHE would go through a tank creating spalling and then explode after traveling some time inside to create additional havoc). Unless you include AP autocannon ammo and TC missile warheads, the game doesn't make any mechanic for that because the fluff of ablative WT armor doesn't really allow for it, probably because more random OHKOing crits would not make for a more fun game.

Quote:
Proven research has shown that Full-Caliber rounds have less penetration than HEAP. HEAP has less penetration than FSDS rounds. But I think that is a topic for another thread.



Not sure what you're talking about. There's no such thing as HEAP in real life, that is a pure BT invention. Some full-caliber rounds use a high explosive filler and are called APHE (Armor Piercing High Explosive) or some variation thereof. There's HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) which is a high explosive shaped charge which derives its explosive power from its chemical energy instead of kinetic energy, making it useful even on low-velocity or lightweight weapons E.G. handheld antitank weapons. FSDS does not inherently have superior armor penetration to HEAT, for example, the 3BK-31 triple-charged warhead can penetrate around 800 millimeters at any range.

Quote:
But when we created this weapon, we took Penetration in to consideration and made a formula that allowed for an AC/20 round to be considered as a HEAP round and we converted our round based on this factor. Which is why our round (the Heavy FSDS Round) does more damage than an AC/20 HEAP round.



But that's the thing, Penetration is not damage, it's just the potential to inflict internal damage. Gamma radiation probably has more "penetration" than any current weapon type currently available, but it's not going to kill anyone outright. FSDS is a needle, which doesn't give any inherent damage bonuses against bowling ball BT HEAPs or HE if they can already pen the target. APFSDS would in fact be the least damaging type of armament against lightly armored vehicles like trucks and cars than APHE, HESH, HEAT, or even regular full-caliber AP.

Quote:
And this would force Battlemech, Aerospace, VTOL designs to create new designs to counter this armor trend. And such is why military technology is never stagnant. New ideas force innovation by means of remaining relevant on the battlefield. I ask you this question, tell me. Does this not create a more realistic evolution for the game than the way technology has advanced so far?



Somewhat, but the benefits of the APDS cannon in comparison to standard autocannons where they currently stand does not make sense. Raw damage potential should not be one of the areas where the APDS ammo takes an advantage. Accuracy or range perhaps because of its muzzle velocity. Chances to deal critical strikes because of armor penetration abilities. But if anything, damage shouldn't increase and should actually probably decrease with the use of the sub-caliber ammunition.

Quote:
As far as ammo goes, I am not under playing it. Take the M829 Round, which is the standard AP FSDS 120mm round for the M1A1 MBT. It weighs in at right around 50 lbs. Our rounds are just over 140 lbs per round. Comparable 155 mm round are just over a 100 lbs per round. It was our assumption that the game was taking weight/rounds for granted. We went to correct this problem with the creation of our weapon system.



Found your ammo problem.

Every turn is 10 seconds in-game time. Every BT "round" of ammo does not necessary mean literally one shot. An AC/20 could fire one 200kg round every turn, but more likely it will fire multiple smaller rounds like 5 40kgers or 4 50kgers depending on its model and caliber. The effect in-game is the same due to the standardization of rules. Such effects should be taken into account with the implementation of the APFSDS
ghostrider
11/20/15 03:51 AM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I have heard of heap rounds before and outside of battle tech. I think they might have changed it to the aphe designation to avoid confusing it with the heat rounds. A game for the amiga had them in there with a special unit from a game called full metal planet.
I know I have heard of them otherwise as well.
If it was pure science fiction or not is another story.

As for autocannons, they do say they fire 3 to 5 round bursts, with only the gauss rifle suggesting a single slug expelled.
They also imply recoil from the burst fire, which is why the shot 'scatters' across the target some. It is the basis for why the ultra doesn't always hit with the second shot and why not it requires a separate hit location roll when it does.

I understand the issues of the heavier damage done by weapons being an issue with standard units. Introducing something will throw most of the exisiting units out of whack.
The standard ways of dealing with it is higher weight, higher heat output, as well as other issues, like the new heavy gauss not being allowed in arms. Like a frigging ultra 20 in an arm full fire rate isn't going to produce more torque. Or worse dual ultras of a smaller caliber firing at a different time. Or the new rotaries.
Still. A simple thing like a long tom not really working in a mech but in a vehicle does come into play, and to my knowledge, the vehicle does not need heatsinks to fire it.

One suggestion would be follow the manual loading of it. Slow down the fire rate and make it dangerous for the crew to reload it, as I said before.
Another suggestion to add to it is drop the amount of shots per ton. Just a number but the high damage might suggest 4 shots a ton.
Since the system sounds alot like a mirv thunderbolt missile set up, maybe work with that system and see what you can come up with.
I agree with part of the fix you had, with making a new cannon and not allowing them to slap it into an older one. Another draw back might be the breach system and run it like an ultra set up. Jams or maybe even explodes if hit. Extreme, but just a suggestion.
Akirapryde2006
11/20/15 10:27 PM
71.100.132.249

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I know its my turn to reply, but my family and I are getting ready for a major family trip starting on Sunday. I am hoping to have my facts straight for a possible post tomorrow.

In the meantime allow me to say.

I don't know why I stated HEAP. I think I did pick that up when I was looking at Battletech Autocannons. I was referring to HEAT rounds. Sorry for the misconception/misleading mistake.

As for damage. I do not argue that HEDP or HEAT do more 'damage'. However in talking about modern armor units (or in this case Battlemechs) HEAT and HEDP rounds have been steadily less effective at damaging these units. This is where Penetration comes in to play. In a world where the first penetration means victory, you can do as much damage in one shot as you want. But if you can't penetrate the armor you are dead. This fact was proven during Desert Storm when T-72's and T-80's were incapable of penetrating the armor of the M1A1 MBT. Not saying that none of the Iraqi tanks score kills. I am saying that of the hits scored by the Iraqi tanks, a large number of them were not kills because their HEAT and HEAP shells couldn't penetrate the armor where US APFSDS round did.

And to address the comment about the 3BK-31 triple-charged warhead can penetrate around 800 millimeters at any range. Allow me to show you why the APFSDS is superior. The DM33 which is a AP FSDS round can penetrate 560 millimetres (22 in) of steel armor at a range of 2,000 meters (2,200 yd). The new M829A2 (which is also a AP FSDS Round) is supposed to be vastly superior to that. Both of which hold much of their penetrations out to 4,000 meters. No HEAT or HEDP can compare with that.

As for the AP FSDS rounds being less effective on light armored and soft targets (like Bunkers), I would agree with you. This is why the M1A1 carried a wide range of rounds. So that they can engage different kinds of targets.

Okay I don't have anymore time right now. But I am sure that you can pick at this

I will check back after work tomorrow morning.

Akirapryde


Edited by Akirapryde2006 (11/20/15 10:35 PM)
ghostrider
11/21/15 01:30 AM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The only real problem with most of this is the game itself. You can pierce the armor and not kill the unit in one shot. And the next round doesn't follow into the hole, but hits the armor still on the unit.
And we are talking about ranges under 1km or 1,000 meters. Not 2000 like your example.

Yes, you can kill a unit with a single penetrating shot, but it is not automatic in mechs. Hell, even just a center torso hit isn't automatic. Side torsos might do nothing but laugh at you.

And this game doesn't really have anything other then limb blown off to suggest the slabs of armor still on the unit haven't fallen off from hits holding it on there. (TOG game does deal with that.) So if you don't kill with one penetrating shot, you have to deal with all the armor. Now if you have a weapon that removes ALL the armor in one shot, then taking 2 isn't that bad. One that does but doesn't stop the unit isn't necessarily better.
Sorry if that throws the argument off some.
Akirapryde2006
11/21/15 01:19 PM
71.100.132.249

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Retry writes:
Honestly the ammo type sounds like an upgraded Precision round. At least that's what I originally thought with the ABFSDS thing. Modifying the rules or adding the new ammo type with its rules entirely too current ACs would probably work well without greatly changing the current WT rules.



Well if the Precision Round is a hypersonic round designed to increase range without losing damage (and even increasing damage due to velocity and increased penetration). Then I guess you're right. But I don't know anything about the Precision Round to speak on it.

Quote:
Retry writes:
Actually, the LB-X Cluster Ammunition differs from Flechette rounds which are only available to standard and light Autocannons. I don't recall the in-game rules for the Clusters, but Flechettes deal full damage to unarmored infantry (AC/20 with flechettes will kill 20 standard foot soldiers).



Based on your post, I looked up Flechette ammunition. It is a type of special round used for slug-throwing weapons. Rather than a bullet it releases a spray of tiny darts which are very effective against unarmored or lightly-armored personnel and virtually useless against armored targets. In game terms, Flechette ammunition does double damage against conventional infantry and woods but half damage to all other targets. They may only be loaded in standard and light autocanons. So your AC/20 would kill forty standard foot soldiers, not twenty.

Quote:
Retry writes:
You sure moved the battlefield away from the Battlemech. However, have you considered... Well, considering operational costs and unit prices? Battlemechs are generally far more expensive than their vehicle counterparts, and they can also be built at more locations due to being inherently less complex.



Yes, I have. However the cost of a Battlemech is hardly a factor when dealing with onboard games. Battle Factors is what drives the setup.

Quote:
Retry writes:
Not sure what you're talking about. There's no such thing as HEAP in real life, that is a pure BT invention. Some full-caliber rounds use a high explosive filler and are called APHE (Armor Piercing High Explosive) or some variation thereof. There's HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) which is a high explosive shaped charge which derives its explosive power from its chemical energy instead of kinetic energy, making it useful even on low-velocity or lightweight weapons E.G. handheld antitank weapons. FSDS does not inherently have superior armor penetration to HEAT, for example, the 3BK-31 triple-charged warhead can penetrate around 800 millimeters at any range.



I know I addressed some of this above, I wanted to point out about your Russian round, the 3BK-31, is experimental and has not been fielded. Nor have I been able to locate anything about ranges. If you have a source for your round, I would love to review this experimental round.

Quote:
Retry writes:
But that's the thing, Penetration is not damage, it's just the potential to inflict internal damage. Gamma radiation probably has more "penetration" than any current weapon type currently available, but it's not going to kill anyone outright. FSDS is a needle, which doesn't give any inherent damage bonuses against bowling ball BT HEAPs or HE if they can already pen the target. APFSDS would in fact be the least damaging type of armament against lightly armored vehicles like trucks and cars than APHE, HESH, HEAT, or even regular full-caliber AP.



I would agree with you about soft targets. Such types of targets like lightly armored vehicles, bunkers and VTOL's would be a fitting for HEAT and HEDP rounds. The AP FSDS round is not a golden bullet for every target. It is designed to hit and destroy heavily armored targets like tanks (or in this case, Battlemechs).

Yes you are right, the AP FSDS is a needle. But you are wrong in regards to the damage capabilities of the AP FSDS. We are talking about a needle that weighs about 4.6 kg and is about 684mm long. Traveling at speeds between 1,400 to 1,900 meters per second. The US built 120 mm DM 33A1 APFSDS-T is arguably the best tank killing round in the world.

Quote:
Retry writes:
Somewhat, but the benefits of the APDS cannon in comparison to standard autocannons where they currently stand does not make sense. Raw damage potential should not be one of the areas where the APDS ammo takes an advantage. Accuracy or range perhaps because of its muzzle velocity. Chances to deal critical strikes because of armor penetration abilities. But if anything, damage shouldn't increase and should actually probably decrease with the use of the sub-caliber ammunition.



Now you see, this is an argument that I can sink my teeth in to. We could allow the ranges to remain the same. The reason why you see the same ranges across the entire weapon line is became of the ratio the game uses for its maps and the actually ranges of the real AP FSDS rounds. As I said we used the AC/5 for the base line. While I don't suspect that we need to change this any further, I would be open to hear what you are suggesting.

I would like to know what you are considering the modifiers for accuracy and critical strikes.

What do you think about changing the damage back to the base lines? The light AP FSDS damage would remain the same as we are actually not gaining anything in terms of range. The Medium AP FSDS would revert back to 10, and the Heavy would revert back to 20.

Your thoughts?

Quote:
Retry writes:
Found your ammo problem.

Every turn is 10 seconds in-game time. Every BT "round" of ammo does not necessary mean literally one shot. An AC/20 could fire one 200kg round every turn, but more likely it will fire multiple smaller rounds like 5 40kgers or 4 50kgers depending on its model and caliber. The effect in-game is the same due to the standardization of rules. Such effects should be taken into account with the implementation of the APFSDS



I have heard this comparison before. However there is equal amount of sources within the universe that claims the Autocannon round is a solid slug. I have seen arguments about if the autocannon is firing more than one round, how is it assured that all hit with LRMs and SRMs don't have the same. Oh the echoes of the past are rushing forward now. We (in our group) had a session killing massive debate over this very issue. Oh the books and novels were thrust forward as supporting arguments on each side. I really don't want to relive that. Is there a way we can avoid that? lol

Akirapryde
ghostrider
11/21/15 09:42 PM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
An Autocannon is a type of rapid-firing, auto-loading direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) or kinetic rounds at targets in bursts. It is, basically, a giant "machine gun" that fires predominantly cased explosive shells though models firing saboted high velocity kinetic energy penetrators or caseless ordnance do exist.
This is directly from the wiki on this website. Notice rapid firing as well as firing heap rounds and soboted rounds.
To my knowledge only the gauss rifle fires a single shot from the barrel. Almost everything else dealing with ac's is burst fire.

Now an idea of why an ac hits with all shots and missiles don't might stem from the launchers firing from different postions ie not the same tube, as well as spreading out to avoid the missiles colliding or setting off each other from the propellant being spewed out onto each other. Even a double barrel gun may hit with one shot but not the other.
Why they don't have better tracking systems is left to other threads.
Shadrak
11/23/15 01:22 AM
64.233.172.250

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I read through about half if this...

An APFSDS round is a penetrator...as such, it will do little damage to the armor relative to its potential to penetrator the armor.

I have several weapons and rounds I have made that are similar to this and I generally go with a reduction in damage to armor with a potential for a critical hit or with damage to the internal structure.

In the NY world, though, this type of round doesn't make too much sense as described. A gauss round is supposedly composed of a dense metal with enough magnetic material to be used for a gauss application...at 8 per ton, it is about 250 lbs and it is travelling at more than 5 times the speed of sound (theoretically could be higher)...an APFSDS round travels at up to 5.5 mach...really, you are creating a chemical propellant gauss-like weapon, assuming your round is 250 lbs.

I like the idea if this being more like a gauss round that inflicts 10pts damage to armor and 5 points damage to internal structure if the armor covering the area is 25 pts or less. This I have placed these damage points arbitrarily since I only want to illustrate where I think this type of weapon would fit in the BT universe.

The other option that I see to use this type of ammo in the BT universe is as a special purpose round for light, medium, and heavy rifles. In this case, rifle damage is reduced by 1/3 but the round cuts the BAR rating of the attacked armor in half. Complicated rule that could probably be made easier to use, but this is the other avenue I see for a weapon/ammo like this. Or the ammo just makes the rifle like a mini gauss...heavy rifle does 8 pts damage, medium 5, light 2. The 8 pts of damage for the heavy rifle would equate to a roughly 125 lb penetrator...the heavy rifle standard round is about 330-350lbs, so a penetrator of 125 lbs is not unreasonable...in fact, if weight were the only issue and not space, you could probably increase the number of rounds/ton or increase damage to 9, 10, or 11 points. Assuming the penetrator is composed of an expensive high density composite, you could turn a cheap rifle it a weapon that competes well with an autocannon...

So those are the two ways I see this type of technology being used in BT universe
Shadrak
11/23/15 01:27 AM
64.233.172.242

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
BTW, canon sources explain autocannon as ghost rider describes; multiple rounds, not single...as for why they have a single tohit, it's really because the AC predates complex rules. To make it make sense, the writers would probably use an explanation like ghost riders or would say that the damage is an average damage.
Shadrak
11/23/15 01:41 AM
64.233.172.130

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Finally, I would like to point out the 120mm APFSDS round that is the ultimate weapon of modern times is roughly a 41 lb penetrator traveling at gauss speeds. ..that 120mm APFSDS round is not even a light gauss in BT power...it is like 1/6 the weight of a gauss and 1/3 the weight of a light gauss round...that M1 abrams is doing 2-3 points of damage with its bad **** round.
CrayModerator
11/23/15 07:17 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Shadrak writes:

Finally, I would like to point out the 120mm APFSDS round that is the ultimate weapon of modern times is roughly a 41 lb penetrator



Nitpick: The total M829 cartridge weight is 41lbs. The DU penetrator itself is 12.5kg / 27.5lbs. That's grown a bit through the M829A1, A2, and A3, with specs not available for the new A4, but 12.5kg is a useful figure.

Quote:
traveling at gauss speeds.



Well, the 1670m/s muzzle velocity of the old M829 is low even by the standards of experimental real world rail guns. The BAE Systems' 32-megajoule prototype delivers 2500m/s, and over 5000m/s has been demonstrated in other electromagnetic launchers.

But, BT isn't the real world. The muzzle velocity of BattleTech's Gauss rifles (and autocannons, for that matter) can be estimated from the aerospace combat rules. Hexes there are 18 kilometers across; turns are 60 seconds long; and the Gauss rifle has a 20-hex range. To be able to cross its maximum range in 60 seconds requires the Gauss rifle to have a muzzle velocity of at least 6,000m/s.

However, it is unlikely that a Gauss rifle slug takes the full 60 seconds, since the pilot may fire later in the turn, and a 60-second flight time would allow even the most sluggish of DropShips and WarShips to dodge out of the way by several kilometers. One can therefore guess that the BT Gauss rifle has a velocity more in the range of 18,000 to 36,000m/s (i.e., requiring 20 to 10 seconds of flight).

Similar calculations may be performed for autocannons, which have ranges of 6 to 20 aerospace hexes. Those BattleTech autocannons ain't your grandpa's Bofors, nor do they resemble any reasonable extrapolation of real world chemical propulsion technology.

Quote:
..that 120mm APFSDS round is not even a light gauss in BT power...it is like 1/6 the weight of a gauss and 1/3 the weight of a light gauss round...that M1 abrams is doing 2-3 points of damage with its bad **** round.



When you factor in BT muzzle velocities, the gap is even more impressive.
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.
Akirapryde2006
11/24/15 07:36 AM
74.209.29.138

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I am on vacation right now at the Bentley Brook Resort just off of the Jiminny Peak Sky resort in Mass. It is amazing to think how far my family and I have gone since the days my group and I created this weapon. Back then, I was a Spec 4 in the US Army. Going out to eat at BK was the big night on the town.

Now I work as a licensed electrician for a major theme park. Yesterday on our long two day journey here, I saw two privates eating at a Wendy's. I remembered how hard it was just making enough to survive. I bought them a pair 20$ gift cards and had my wife deliver our thanks for their service. This morning as I type this reply, I can look out the door to my balcony and watch the sky resort making snow. It was a long road but we have finally made it.

But I am sure that is a story for another thread. Anyway, my replies will be spotty and if anyone lives in the area. Give me a message and we can meet for lunch or something lol.

As for Cray,

Quote:
Cray writes:

But, BT isn't the real world. The muzzle velocity of BattleTech's Gauss rifles (and autocannons, for that matter) can be estimated from the aerospace combat rules. Hexes there are 18 kilometers across; turns are 60 seconds long; and the Gauss rifle has a 20-hex range. To be able to cross its maximum range in 60 seconds requires the Gauss rifle to have a muzzle velocity of at least 6,000m/s.

However, it is unlikely that a Gauss rifle slug takes the full 60 seconds, since the pilot may fire later in the turn, and a 60-second flight time would allow even the most sluggish of DropShips and WarShips to dodge out of the way by several kilometers. One can therefore guess that the BT Gauss rifle has a velocity more in the range of 18,000 to 36,000m/s (i.e., requiring 20 to 10 seconds of flight).

Similar calculations may be performed for autocannons, which have ranges of 6 to 20 aerospace hexes. Those BattleTech autocannons ain't your grandpa's Bofors, nor do they resemble any reasonable extrapolation of real world chemical propulsion technology.

When you factor in BT muzzle velocities, the gap is even more impressive.



When we calculated this weapon. We wanted it not only comparable to other weapons but also a improvement on them. Keep in mind, no one develops a weapon that doesn't have improvements.

We based our calculations on the normal Battletech rules. We found that the Gauss Rifle had a velocity of just over 42,000m/s giving it a flight time of right around two seconds. Regular Autocannons were far less, right around 5,000m/s. This is why we developed our cannon to fire just above 10,000m/s. Already I think I can see where we made our mistake in using the normal rules/ranges instead of Aerospace rules/ranges.

Either way, I can see a couple of directions I would like to go with this weapon.

I think I am going to drop the suggestion on the rate of fire and play around with the way the weapon deals damage.

What is your (Cray) ideas on what Shadrak said about part of the damage being done to the armor and the rest being done to the internal structure. I could lower the over all damage and use this. That could give the weapon its lethal potential while balancing it without hamstringing it.

I still want to keep the Heavy as a Towed or Tank gun.

Akiapryde
CrayModerator
11/24/15 06:07 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

What is your (Cray) ideas on what Shadrak said about part of the damage being done to the armor and the rest being done to the internal structure. I could lower the over all damage and use this. That could give the weapon its lethal potential while balancing it without hamstringing it.




Honestly? I think the potential for FSDS cannons is found in conventional autocannons using AP ammo.

Saboted darts offer a potential for getting through armor without destroying large swaths of it, and that can be represented by giving a critical opportunity with each hit. AP ammo already does that in a reasonably balanced manner that fits in with the game system: you still mark off armor points like normal and have a variable chance of critting (8 for AC/20s, 11 for AC/2s, IIRC), the drawback being half as many shots per ton. Plus, it gives a new reason to use the old ACs (and light ACs) rather than ultras, RACs, and LBXs.

Further, there are rules for towed and field-mounted standard ACs. AP ammo is a drop-in option for them.

If you want to differentiate from existing armor piercing AC ammo, you could drop damage for an improved crit chance. But it seems like AP AC ammo does what you want and all the rules are there for it, down to the field guns.

PS: Cool move with the gift cards.
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
11/25/15 03:07 AM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
thought came to mind about this idea.
Use a gauss style slug that splits into the multiple sabot rounds allowing for a better hit. No propulsion for the smaller munitions but acting like an lbx round. There would be little chance of all the rounds hitting a target, but the average would be used. Almost like a wider spread lbx round or silver bullet round.
Add in armor piercing to it as well.
If you really want to get fancy, they can have guided munitions once they separate. Maybe allowing multiple targets to be hit in and area. Swarm type of shot, but only going outward to max range.
I would not say all three at once, but combined 2 for your load types.

Might suggest the thunderbolt launcher be used as an alternative to the cannon/rifle as a launch mechanism.
I could see range being improved by this, but accuracy would drop after a certain point.
Maybe short range hits with more, while long range drops the amount of munitions that actually hit the target.
It should drop the main damage some, but allow the more accurate punch we all are looking for in a weapon or ammo.
As for explosive tips. Well not sure if it would be set off by the launcher. That is beyond my field of knowledge.
Akirapryde2006
11/30/15 11:00 PM
71.100.132.249

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Okay after spending an entire week of thinking about it. I came to the conclusion that much of what has been said regarding the FSDS Cannon needs to be addressed.

While I am sure some will not like the path I am deciding to take with this weapon, no one can deny that every bit of "constructive criticism" was taken to heart.

So here is what I am going to do.

A: Could I get a mod/admin to close this thread? (please don't delete it as I am using it for notes) I don't want this thread to become misleading or confusing what I am working towards with the return to the drawing board.

B: Within a few days I will reopen a new thread under the same name (well close to it). This will be a return to the drawing board.

C: Once I have my "Lab" opened up I am going to reintroduce the weapon in its redesigned form. There was a lot of opinions that I got I want to build on. My goal is to build a weapon that fits five goals. 1) Its a logical weapon, meaning it uses real world military logic. 2) It acts much like (as close as possible) what you would think a real weapon like this would act in the real world. 3) Can it operate within the constraints of the current rules without having to create new rules for the weapon (IE using the same/similar penetration rules that are used for the T-C SRM warheads). 4) Could survive the test of the critics. 5) Lastly, could it survive the test of "would you buy it for your outfit?"

I want to thank everyone for their comments in this forum. I will still need a lot of help from everyone. My new cannon is far from complete and everyone has given me tons of questions.

I hope to have the same level of support and "constructive criticism" as before.

So without further ado, Back to the Drawing Board! lol

Akirapryde


Edited by Akirapryde2006 (11/30/15 11:02 PM)
ghostrider
11/30/15 11:55 PM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It is a weapon in your game. Keep it they way you want it.
It does not fit canon ideas for the game, but that is up to you and your players to decide.

I do think it is stupid that the game has basically been stuck in some mode where there is no real chance of engaging units like the real world, and that weapons of warfare used now, are at such short ranges it isn't even funny. Sniper rifles can hit targets at a klick. Yet some how lrms can't even match that.
I believe the heat seeking sidewinder missile has a range of 2 miles, yet there is nothing in atmosphere that comes close.

And one last thing for all here.
Do not ask people for opinions as you will get them, and most the time, not like them.
qaivid
10/23/21 05:04 AM
110.226.68.115

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Effective range is very arbitrary and depends on the target. The 75mm Gun would have an effective range of nearly point blank against a Tiger I, while the modern L/55 gun with HEAT would have an effective range as far as the cannon's mechanical accuracy and optics quality allow against that same Tiger.
ghostrider
10/23/21 11:50 AM
45.51.181.83

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Range is very much an issue in the game. The most advanced tanks in the world today can reliably hit a moving target, while moving full out itself at ranges of about a mile. The game doesn't allow shots at even a kilometer, which is approximately .6 of a mile. 3/4 of a kilometer is about the best for land battle weapons.
With this, we are talking hitting targets building sized mechs, that are moving even 90 KPH, which means 55 MPH. We are not talking hitting a man on a bicycle or even motorcycle. The excuse for lasers is acceptable but still questionable, as they have to focus on a single spot to do damage. But for ACs, this is a bit much.
Missile launchers should be renamed to rocket launchers, as they don't really seem to have guidance systems in them. Even detecting a mech is difficult in the game. This was shown as a problem in another thread, as a mechs sensors don't reach out to the range of the portable sensors infantry can set up, which has a better range then the big dedicated sensors around military bases and such.
Most stories do not have someone disabling those sensors around bases to allow anything that approaches a sneak attack.
The game keeps things simple to play, but there are times when this does not fit logically. A mech should be easier to hit then a vehicle, which is easier to hit then infantry. But the game does not have such a thing.
I understand why, as it would put mechs at a major disadvantage for being hit. It doesn't make sense that they aren't, but I understand it.
Pages: 1
Extra information
0 registered and 44 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 disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 14082


Contact Admins Sarna.net