Akirapryde2006
12/01/15 06:23 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Good day everyone and welcome to the Back to the Drawing Board for my FSDS Cannon idea.
While I don't want anyone confused between the two designs. The previous design (which can be found on THIS THREAD )
While there were a lot of ideas which I didn't initially supported. After deeply considering the comments and the concepts behind them, I decided to see where these ideas can take this weapon.
I would like to outline the goals of what I am looking for with my revision of the FSDS Smooth-barrel Cannon.
First: To create a weapon system that could compete with other traditional BT weapon systems while not requiring new rules.
Second: To create a weapon that could just as easily seen on the modern "real" battlefield as well as on the BT battlefield.
Third: To create a weapon that is both unique to the BT battlefield as it is deadly to enemy units.
The areas that I would like to look at while I am going back to the Back to the Drawing Board is:
Karagin: mentioned the traditional Ranges vs Damage in relation to Autocannons.
While I don't think I can mirror the traditional norms, I can try to get closer.
Retry: brought up the importance of "Muzzle Velocity as a highly important aspect of effective range"
While the original design did take muzzle velocity in to account, it is my intention to reflect this even more in focusing on ranges. Though I am not sure how I can incorporate this in to my new weapon system, I am going to try and hopefully Retry will offer his wisdom once more.
Both ghostrider and Retry mentioned that Penetration and Damage should not be considered one and the same. Which is where I made one of my first mistakes. Dealing with Penetration beyond damage is a desired key factor to my weapon system. One that I am planning on using a modified version of the existing rules for the T-C SRM Warhead.
But most importantly, Shadrak mentioned the key of ammunition and weight.
This is going to be key to my new weapon system. Instead of being a tradition auto cannon that fires many rounds. My weapon system will fire one single round at a time.
I am looking at the AC 5, AC 10 and AC 20 for my references. These are the three weapons I plan on modeling my system off of.
For this to work, I will need to look at the damage of tradition autocannons vs. the number of rounds that the shot down range to achieve that damage. That being said, does anyone know where this information can be found so that I can look it up or does anyone know the answer?
Akirapryde
|
Cray
12/01/15 07:53 PM
72.189.109.30
|
Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:
For this to work, I will need to look at the damage of tradition autocannons vs. the number of rounds that the shot down range to achieve that damage.
The information you're looking for is scattered in fluff across many different Tech Readouts, with a unifying blurb made in Tech Manual. However, I don't think it's what you're looking for, or the right place to start. But to answer your question:
The autocannon classes are just that: broad classes of weapons that deliver the same damage from the same mass of ammo at the same range. For example, different models of AC/20 have been explicitly named as 120mm, 155mm, and 203mm - purely in fluff. Meanwhile, AC/5s have also been named in sizes from 55mm to 90mm to 120mm (notice the overlap with AC/20s). As Tech Manual p. 207 says:
"autocannons (often abbreviated as ACs) are a broadly varied class of rapid-firing, auto-loading, heavy ballistic weaponry: gigantic machine guns, in other words. With calibers ranging from 30 to 90 millimeters at the lighter end, to as much as 203 millimeters or more at the heaviest, most autocannons deliver their damage by firing high-speed streams or bursts of high-explosive, armor-defeating shells through one or more barrels. While caliber and firing rate can vary greatly, four main classes have emerged over the centuries, setting the standards by which all other ACs are rated based on their relative ballistic damage. At the lightest end is the AC/2 class, followed by the long-time standard AC/5, then the heavy punch of the AC/10 class, and finally the brutal, close-in AC/20."
A 203mm AC/20 might just burp out a couple of rounds per burst, while a hypothetical 30mm AC/20 might spray hundreds of rounds. Both would use 200kg of ammo per shot (5 shots per ton), have a range of 9, and do 20 points of damage.
Anyway...I said what you're looking for is - in my opinion - the wrong approach. Fluff should be a result of your rules, not a source for them. That's how continuity review works during BT's writing: rules always trump fluff, not vice versa. Fluff's a secondary source of continuity decisions, despite the frequency with which it's invoked.
So, start with the rules you want: what range, what damage, what shots per ton, what special effects (e.g. chance for crits). If you're referencing autocannon fluff, then it'll probably be flexible enough to wrap around your rules.
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.
|
Karagin
12/01/15 07:56 PM
72.176.187.91
|
MaxTech, the old Tactical Handbook, the current rule set will give you a good standing point to start with, then I would suggest looking at the fiction aka the novels and see how the autocannons and such are described as this can give you some ideas as to how yours might be seen by others working etc...
One word of caution, no matter what you do, always assume and plan for the worse case abuse of the weapon, meaning someone will find away to cram as many of this cannon on a vehicle or mech or what ever and so you need to make sure the balance is still there, not saying it can't be the best weapon ever, just need to take into account those power gamers.
Looking forward to your stuff.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Akirapryde2006
12/01/15 08:23 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
Cray writes:
Anyway...I said what you're looking for is - in my opinion - the wrong approach. Fluff should be a result of your rules, not a source for them. That's how continuity review works during BT's writing: rules always trump fluff, not vice versa. Fluff's a secondary source of continuity decisions, despite the frequency with which it's invoked.
Cray, allow me to explain what I am going to try to do.
If you recall there was an issue with damage vs range in comparison with the Gauss Rifle.
So my idea is this. I am going to start with the AC 10 which was where we actually started. (yes I know I have to toss out some of the fluff from our game, but I want to remain as close to what actually happened as possible) I am going to figure out how many rounds the AC 10 fires in a single pull of the trigger to reach 10 points of damage. For example, the AC 10 fires twenty shots in one pull of the trigger. That means that the ammo for an AC 10 is actually 20 shots per round, and 200 shots per ton. This means that each shot weighs about 10 pounds. This will help me calculate the ammo per ton as well as damage.
If each round does ten points of damage it would be save to assume that each shot does half a point of damage. So for a 10 pound shot does .5 points of damage.
Once I have this figure, I am going to calculate the damage for my single shot. If weighs 60 pounds, than it would be safe to assume that my shot can potential do 3 points of damage.
I know it doesn't sound like much, but this is just the first stage of creation. Remember I want this to be as realistic as possible. And yes I know, the closer to realism I get, the more unlikely I will be to cannon. But if you and the others would be able to say, "yeah I could see this on the battlefield of BT" then I would have done what I wanted.
Akirapryde
|
ghostrider
12/01/15 10:06 PM
98.150.102.177
|
From the looks of it, it seems most ac damage potential of 90 to 100.
Lrms are 120. Srms from 180 to 200. Normal gauss it 120.
I know that if for all shots to hit, but it seems the longer the distance, the less damage the shots do with less ability to do the damage as well.
In shorter ranges the damage goes up for potential hits but that is missile systems.
I can see the range and damage potential being kept, but dropping the shots per ton down.
The artillery seems to work like that. The longer and more damage done, the less shots you have per ton.
Which might give you the out you need. Switch the weapon to a direct fire artillery piece. Or maybe SUB artillery.
Kind of hate the pictures for the weapons as the arrow IV looks like it has multiple tubes in the launcher.
Time line would be an issue with it, but you could go the route of an alternative arrow missile system. Sacrifice range for punch. And if it does fire multiple missiles, then drop it to a single missile. That might help without coming up with a whole new system.
A minimum range might help offset the power and range as well.
|
Shadrak
12/02/15 12:05 AM
173.88.45.54
|
Trying to make a weapon system fit reality and battletech may be a bridge to far...Battletech weapons are so far advanced from modern weapons they must have their own rule of physics or some form of unobtainium....
I would just invent a new technology that is not cannon...call it a rail cannon...keep all ranges the same across the weapon system, increase heat with size and damage, and increase weapons failure rate with size.
If you are looking for a modern weapon system to convert:
Light rifle is 3 tons 3 damage and 12 range
Medium rifle is 5 tons 6 damage and 15 range
Heavy rifle 8 tons 9 damage 18 range....
You could retrofit it with a gyrojet/ramjet round...
Minimum range would be high.
Possibly might have a to-hit modifier
What causes damage? Kinetic penetrator or explosive? Perhaps a more advanced explosive inflicts greater damage...say 1 point of damage per 10kg of warhead. Perhaps weight of propellant is 1.5:1 for range 3, 2:1 for range 6, 4:1 range 12, 8:1 range 24, 64:1 for range 48.
The biggest problem I see is having a kinetic penetrator that is accelerated by a chemical explosive...you are limited by this if you want it to be both real world and legitimate in battletech
In the end, you should play what you like. Other players, honestly, aren't likely to care that it fits too much in real life or in BT so long as it doesn't unbalance the game
I would recommend looking at TRO Primatives or the conversions of WWII weapons systems or use support vehicles to get a feel for modern systems.
|
Shadrak
12/02/15 12:05 AM
173.88.45.54
|
*canon...not cannon
|
Akirapryde2006
12/02/15 08:05 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
From the looks of it, it seems most ac damage potential of 90 to 100.
Lrms are 120. Srms from 180 to 200. Normal gauss it 120.
I know that if for all shots to hit, but it seems the longer the distance, the less damage the shots do with less ability to do the damage as well.
In shorter ranges the damage goes up for potential hits but that is missile systems.
A minimum range might help offset the power and range as well.
You bring up a good point ghost, but there is a problem with minimum ranges. That shot that comes out of the barrel doesn't care if the range is 100m or 1000m. It will hit what ever is in the flight path of the penetration. Direct fire ballistic minimum ranges (Like with the AC 2 and the Gauss Rifle) never really made sense to me. I can understand LRM's having minimum ranges due to safeties within the missiles themselves.
Based off of the conversations to date, What I am looking at will be a highly accurate long range weapon that has penetration special properties. The "balance" will come in the form of limited damage. And there will be a minimum range, as explained below.
Quote:
Shadrak writes:
Trying to make a weapon system fit reality and battletech may be a bridge to far...Battletech weapons are so far advanced from modern weapons they must have their own rule of physics or some form of unobtainium....
I disagree, we (our gaming group) has in the past managed to bridge reality with battletech successfully on a number of occasions. The Original FSDS design was one of those bridges. But the first change we needed to make was to the Map Board. We changed the size of a hex from 30m across to 300m and included extended ranges for all weapons. Once more realistic ranges were used, it allowed us a better chance to balance ranges more accurately. But this thread isn't about that. I want to make this weapon closer to BT standards than realism. I understand I am going to loss a lot of realism, but at the end of the day I am hoping to retain just enough that the weapon is believable. And it is here I want to focus the conversation.
Quote:
Shadrak writes:
I would just invent a new technology that is not cannon...call it a rail cannon...keep all ranges the same across the weapon system, increase heat with size and damage, and increase weapons failure rate with size.
If you are looking for a modern weapon system to convert:
Light rifle is 3 tons 3 damage and 12 range
Medium rifle is 5 tons 6 damage and 15 range
Heavy rifle 8 tons 9 damage 18 range....
Are you talking about a hybrid weapon or an actually rail gun? Cause a rail gun does exist in the game in terms of a Gauss Rifle. I am not sure that a hybrid weapon like this could work due to the nature and how both chemical propellants and the electromagnetic propulsion work.
Quote:
Shadrak writes:
You could retrofit it with a gyrojet/ramjet round...
Yes the FSDS design is a Gryojet hybrid already. The penetrator is fired from the barrel using propulsion from the chemical charge like a normal bullet. Once the discarding sabot falls away, the rocket motor kicks in and increases the penetrator's speed to its Ultrasonic speeds.
Quote:
Shadrak writes:
Minimum range would be high.
Possibly might have a to-hit modifier
What causes damage? Kinetic penetrator or explosive? Perhaps a more advanced explosive inflicts greater damage...say 1 point of damage per 10kg of warhead. Perhaps weight of propellant is 1.5:1 for range 3, 2:1 for range 6, 4:1 range 12, 8:1 range 24, 64:1 for range 48.
While normally I have a issue with direct fire ballistic minimum ranges, this is a hybrid weapon that is both bullet and rocket. So what I plan on doing is not making the weapon harder to hit at closer ranges, but removing the special property till range 5 (which is one less than LRM's). Within the minimum range, the weapon does its damage normally. Outside the minimum range, the weapon will deal its damage under its special rules (which will be the same as the TC SRM warheads. Part of the damage goes against the armor while the majority of the damage will hit the internal structure of the target, thus causing a chance for critical)
Quote:
Shadrak writes:
The biggest problem I see is having a kinetic penetrator that is accelerated by a chemical explosive...you are limited by this if you want it to be both real world and legitimate in battletech
I will let you read what I posted before addressing this.
Akirapryde
|
Cray
12/02/15 08:55 PM
72.189.109.30
|
Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:
So my idea is this. I am going to start with the AC 10 which was where we actually started. (yes I know I have to toss out some of the fluff from our game, but I want to remain as close to what actually happened as possible) I am going to figure out how many rounds the AC 10 fires in a single pull of the trigger to reach 10 points of damage. For example, the AC 10 fires twenty shots in one pull of the trigger. That means that the ammo for an AC 10 is actually 20 shots per round, and 200 shots per ton. This means that each shot weighs about 10 pounds. This will help me calculate the ammo per ton as well as damage.
What I was trying to tell you is that there is not a single value of "number of bullets per shot" for an autocannon class.
For example, there are AC/10s that will do 10 points of damage with 2 big-bore shots, and there will be AC/10s that will do 10 points of damage per 500 small-caliber shots. The same applies to other AC classes, as I showed in my last post. A given autocannon class will have a huge range of calibers with different damage per shot.
Just start with the rules you want, THEN fill in the fluff. Don't try to reverse engineer something from fluff.
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
12/02/15 09:32 PM
98.150.102.177
|
I want to say the minimums are for targeting a unit, not if it can hit was is in front of the barrel when the trigger is pulled. I agree it sounds kind of dumb, but the only guess is the longer barrel makes it more difficult to stabilize quick adjustments that are needed for the shorter ranges. I agree it sounds wrong, but then logic isn't a big necessity for a lot of the game.
From the last set of details you gave, your rounds are kinetic with explosive tips that arm at a certain distance. Ok. I can understand that some, but the minimum range is a problem as clan lrms have no minimum ranges. So technically they should have to worry about splash damage just as firing any other explosives at point blank. I think safety for warriors was why the IS put in the minimum.
With the description, it sounds like the ammo count is higher then it should be. Mixing an ac shot with an lrm rocket is not going to produce more shots per ton then either units would separately. Not sure, but the size of the shot might also need specialize loading and storage bins as well. It could be a way to limit it as well. More crits needed to use it, as well as maybe a second location for a single ton of ammunition/feeder units.
And with the point cray said about the cannons firing different size projectiles in different amounts, is part of the question I raised about clan verse innersphere weapons and ammunition. 2 different ac 10s made in one location could very well use different ammunitions. Why would they work with each other?
The clans would standardize their ammunitions so they would work in ALL the same weapons type. But that is another threat.
|
Akirapryde2006
12/02/15 09:34 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
Cray writes:
What I was trying to tell you is that there is not a single value of "number of bullets per shot" for an autocannon class.
For example, there are AC/10s that will do 10 points of damage with 2 big-bore shots, and there will be AC/10s that will do 10 points of damage per 500 small-caliber shots. The same applies to other AC classes, as I showed in my last post. A given autocannon class will have a huge range of calibers with different damage per shot.
Just start with the rules you want, THEN fill in the fluff. Don't try to reverse engineer something from fluff.
Trust me, I understand what you are saying. But I think there is a misunderstanding of why I am taking this approach. For the sake of this, please give me a bit of consideration. Take a step back from the norm that is how weapons in the system are created. Please bare with me while I attempt to explain why this approach is better.
Take the conversation I quoted in this post. The AC/10 was created by the original authors of this game. It has a set range, heat, ammo per ton and damage. However how it does this can not be nailed down. It just does. It could be many small-caliber shots or few large caliber shots. Don't worry about the details, just the rules. Fill in the details later after the rules have been created. And this works nicely for a gamer mindset, but there is a problem with this approach.
Now I know that it was decided upon at one point that the Autocannon fires multiple shots. This makes no sense because anyone that has fired a machine gun knows that it is impossible to hit the target with every round, or with a similar number of rounds, or for that matter in a close grouping to damage one location. This fact creates disbelief in the way the Autocannon functions, and forces the players to accept it on faith that the weapon works according to the rules, but the "fluff" doesn't make sense and stands against logic.
For an Autocannon to operate per the established rules of the game, it has to fire a single shot. But the "fluff" says it doesn't, only because someone thought that this would be more cool or what ever the reason was. I don't want to argue why the Autocannon operates or how it operates. I am only pointing out that the "Fluff" creates disbelief in its operation and forces the players to accept its operations on faith instead of logic.
If the operation of the weapon (which is what you are calling "fluff") can be established and proven, then there is no disbelief in the weapon or its operation. I don't want the people involved to take this weapon on faith that it works. I want the weapon's functions to be rooted in fact even if it was created in a fantasy framework.
Does this help explain why I want to take this approach Cray?
Akirapryde
|
Akirapryde2006
12/02/15 09:52 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I want to say the minimums are for targeting a unit, not if it can hit was is in front of the barrel when the trigger is pulled. I agree it sounds kind of dumb, but the only guess is the longer barrel makes it more difficult to stabilize quick adjustments that are needed for the shorter ranges. I agree it sounds wrong, but then logic isn't a big necessity for a lot of the game.
And that is one of the largest problems I have with the game. Why should logic take a backseat to having fun in the game. Why can't the two actually go hand-in-hand. There is no need for logic to take a backseat when so much of the game can easily fit logic in to the game with just a bit more thought. Would it require weapons, movement and rules to be revised? Yes, but once they were fixed, the game would run a whole lot simpler. We don't need to be scared to face the fact that there are flaws in the game. Instead of just ignoring them or trying to explain the flaws with "fluff", actually fix them.
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
From the last set of details you gave, your rounds are kinetic with explosive tips that arm at a certain distance. Ok. I can understand that some, but the minimum range is a problem as clan lrms have no minimum ranges. So technically they should have to worry about splash damage just as firing any other explosives at point blank. I think safety for warriors was why the IS put in the minimum.
Actually you are slightly off. The penetrator has no explosives within it. The actual special penetration rules (Or TC Warhead rules) comes from pure velocity and the density of the penetrator (unlike a shape charged round like the TC Warhead). The minimum range works because the penetrator has yet to reach that minimum velocity. Because of this, its damage would only be limited to the surface of the armor instead of penetrating it.
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
With the description, it sounds like the ammo count is higher then it should be. Mixing an ac shot with an lrm rocket is not going to produce more shots per ton then either units would separately. Not sure, but the size of the shot might also need specialize loading and storage bins as well. It could be a way to limit it as well. More crits needed to use it, as well as maybe a second location for a single ton of ammunition/feeder units.
Ammo will be higher than AC, or LRM for that matter. Remember that this weapon fires one shot per round. Not multiple shots. So the actually weight per shot will be calculated to come up with the shots per 1/2 ton. What I plan on doing is allowing the ammo to be bought in 1/2 ton increments. Remember we are not talking about a lot of damage per shot, so you will be able to get more bang for the ton, much like the MG. But I am no where near dealing with ammo or weight/space yet.
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
And with the point cray said about the cannons firing different size projectiles in different amounts, is part of the question I raised about clan verse innersphere weapons and ammunition. 2 different ac 10s made in one location could very well use different ammunitions. Why would they work with each other?
The clans would standardize their ammunitions so they would work in ALL the same weapons type. But that is another threat.
I agree, that is a good topic for another thread. To continue that topic here will only distract this conversation.
Akirapryde
|
ghostrider
12/03/15 01:36 AM
98.150.102.177
|
I was thinking of a mirv missile set up for your ammunition, so that is why the size thing came to mind. Figured one large shot, not a bunch of smaller ones that fit into a smaller container easily. Sorry if that isn't the case.
As you know, there have been several attempts to ask why some logics are not followed in the game. Cray did point out that if it did, the only way to actually invade a planet would be basically bomb in into oblivion as a dropship would be the target for every artillery piece, cruise missile left and such in range.
But that might be why they make it sound like they did not get back to the level yet, but it would be stupid to think the capital or a major industry, like Defiance would not have an sas going.
So I will take another stab at the way the weapon works. It fires a slug like projectile that uses propellants to increase the speed of a smaller projectile the in inside the head of the original one further, and uses that force to do the damage, with the rocket assist allowing penetration of the armor?
And as for another logic fail, the ac's are implied to use clips for their ammo. And if you look at the shoulders of alot of mechs, how do you fit that thru that area into an arm, especially if they have other weapons like missiles and such there?
|
Shadrak
12/03/15 03:35 PM
70.194.209.233
|
Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:
Quote:
Shadrak writes:
Trying to make a weapon system fit reality and battletech may be a bridge to far...Battletech weapons are so far advanced from modern weapons they must have their own rule of physics or some form of unobtainium....
I disagree, we (our gaming group) has in the past managed to bridge reality with battletech successfully on a number of occasions. The Original FSDS design was one of those bridges. But the first change we needed to make was to the Map Board. We changed the size of a hex from 30m across to 300m and included extended ranges for all weapons. Once more realistic ranges were used, it allowed us a better chance to balance ranges more accurately. But this thread isn't about that. I want to make this weapon closer to BT standards than realism. I understand I am going to loss a lot of realism, but at the end of the day I am hoping to retain just enough that the weapon is believable. And it is here I want to focus the conversation.
Adjusting house rules in that way makes it work a little closer to reality...my only point was when a tabletop game tells you a projectile travels at 3000m/s but only has an effective range of 690 meters, you have a problem...6900 meters is a little closer to reality
Quote:
Akira writes: Quote:
Shadrak writes:
I would just invent a new technology that is not cannon...call it a rail cannon...keep all ranges the same across the weapon system, increase heat with size and damage, and increase weapons failure rate with size.
If you are looking for a modern weapon system to convert:
Light rifle is 3 tons 3 damage and 12 range
Medium rifle is 5 tons 6 damage and 15 range
Heavy rifle 8 tons 9 damage 18 range....
Are you talking about a hybrid weapon or an actually rail gun? Cause a rail gun does exist in the game in terms of a Gauss Rifle. I am not sure that a hybrid weapon like this could work due to the nature and how both chemical propellants and the electromagnetic propulsion work.
Railguns are similar to gauss but they are different enough I think you could develop a separate rules set...they tend to be less complex and more prone to wear and heat.
Quote:
Akira Quote:
Shadrak writes:
You could retrofit it with a gyrojet/ramjet round...
Yes the FSDS design is a Gryojet hybrid already. The penetrator is fired from the barrel using propulsion from the chemical charge like a normal bullet. Once the discarding sabot falls away, the rocket motor kicks in and increases the penetrator's speed to its Ultrasonic speeds.
Quote:
Shadrak writes:
Minimum range would be high.
Possibly might have a to-hit modifier
What causes damage? Kinetic penetrator or explosive? Perhaps a more advanced explosive inflicts greater damage...say 1 point of damage per 10kg of warhead. Perhaps weight of propellant is 1.5:1 for range 3, 2:1 for range 6, 4:1 range 12, 8:1 range 24, 64:1 for range 48.
While normally I have a issue with direct fire ballistic minimum ranges, this is a hybrid weapon that is both bullet and rocket. So what I plan on doing is not making the weapon harder to hit at closer ranges, but removing the special property till range 5 (which is one less than LRM's). Within the minimum range, the weapon does its damage normally. Outside the minimum range, the weapon will deal its damage under its special rules (which will be the same as the TC SRM warheads. Part of the damage goes against the armor while the majority of the damage will hit the internal structure of the target, thus causing a chance for critical)
Quote:
Shadrak writes:
The biggest problem I see is having a kinetic penetrator that is accelerated by a chemical explosive...you are limited by this if you want it to be both real world and legitimate in battletech
I will let you read what I posted before addressing this.
Akirapryde
Using a chemical with a ramjet addresses thor issues effectively, I think, but, again, you might want to give a rail gun a look to see if it also meets you requirements.
You could also ditch the minimum range but give increased damage at medium and long range amd reduced damage at short amd extreme range, especially it this is a ramjet effective to extremely long ranges. Just an alternative, I think the option you are going with works too.
|
Akirapryde2006
12/03/15 09:07 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
As you know, there have been several attempts to ask why some logics are not followed in the game. Cray did point out that if it did, the only way to actually invade a planet would be basically bomb in into oblivion as a dropship would be the target for every artillery piece, cruise missile left and such in range.
But that might be why they make it sound like they did not get back to the level yet, but it would be stupid to think the capital or a major industry, like Defiance would not have an sas going.
Well that is clearly a good topic, but for the moment lets focus on this weapon system and not planetary invasions. 
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
So I will take another stab at the way the weapon works. It fires a slug like projectile that uses propellants to increase the speed of a smaller projectile the in inside the head of the original one further, and uses that force to do the damage, with the rocket assist allowing penetration of the armor?
Yes that is correct. But for a better understanding of how these kinds of weapons work, here is some reading. This might help further the conversation.
"KE penetrators for modern tanks are commonly 2-3 cm in diameter, and 50-60 cm long; as more modern penetrators are developed, their length tends to increase and the diameter to decrease. However the development of heavy forms of reactive armour such as the Soviet, later Russian, Kontakt-5 which were designed to shear long rod penetrators, has prompted the reversal of this trend in the newest U.S. rounds.
To maximize the amount of kinetic energy released on the target, the penetrator must be made of a dense material, such as tungsten carbide or depleted uranium (DU) alloy (Staballoy). The hardness of the penetrator is of less importance, but is still a factor as abrasion is a major component of the penetrator defeat mechanism. As DU is itself not particularly hard, it is alloyed with nickel, zinc, or both. DU is pyrophoric; the heated fragments of the penetrator ignite after impact on contact with air, setting fire to fuel and/or ammunition in the target vehicle, thereby compensating for the lack of an explosive warhead in the penetrator. Additionally, DU penetrators exhibit significant adiabatic shear band formation. A common misconception is that, during impact, fractures along these bands cause the tip of the penetrator to continuously shed material, maintaining the tip's conical shape, whereas other materials such as unjacketed tungsten tend to deform into a less effective rounded profile, an effect called "mushrooming". Actually, the formation of adiabatic shear bands means that the sides of the "mushroom" tend to break away earlier, leading to a smaller head on impact, though it will still be significantly "mushroomed". Tests have shown that the hole bored by a DU projectile is of a narrower diameter than for a similar tungsten projectile.
Typical velocities of APFSDS rounds vary between manufacturers and muzzle length/types. As a typical example, the American General Dynamics KEW-A1 has a muzzle velocity of 1,740 m/s (5,700 ft/s). This compares to 914 m/s (3,000 ft/s) for a typical rifle (small arms) round. APFSDS rounds generally operate in the range of 1,400 to 1,900 m/s. The sabots also travel at such a high velocity that upon separation, they may continue for many hundreds of metres at speeds that can be lethal to troops and damage light vehicles.
The counterpart of APFSDS in rifle ammunition is the saboted flechette. A rifle firing flechettes, the Special Purpose Individual Weapon, was under development for the U.S. Army, but the project was abandoned."
Cited Source: Armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot
Quote:
Shadrak writes:
Adjusting house rules in that way makes it work a little closer to reality...my only point was when a tabletop game tells you a projectile travels at 3000m/s but only has an effective range of 690 meters, you have a problem...6900 meters is a little closer to reality.
Yes you are correct. But I don't think the powers to be are willing to make any changes to the scale on the Maps. So this issue is kind of moot.
Quote:
Shadrak writes:
Railguns are similar to gauss but they are different enough I think you could develop a separate rules set...they tend to be less complex and more prone to wear and heat.
You will have to explain how you see Rail Guns and Gauss are different that they could be separate weapons. Cause for all my knowledge with both BT and real world Rail Guns, they are nearly the same weapon.
Quote:
Shadrak writes:
Using a chemical with a ramjet addresses thor issues effectively, I think, but, again, you might want to give a rail gun a look to see if it also meets you requirements.
You could also ditch the minimum range but give increased damage at medium and long range amd reduced damage at short amd extreme range, especially it this is a ramjet effective to extremely long ranges. Just an alternative, I think the option you are going with works too.
I am still confused on your idea regarding Rail Guns vs Gauss Rifles. I don't want to make a premature assumption before I am sure what you are talking about.
Akirapryde
|
Shadrak
12/03/15 11:19 PM
173.88.45.54
|
Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:
Quote:
Shadrak writes:
Railguns are similar to gauss but they are different enough I think you could develop a separate rules set...they tend to be less complex and more prone to wear and heat.
You will have to explain how you see Rail Guns and Gauss are different that they could be separate weapons. Cause for all my knowledge with both BT and real world Rail Guns, they are nearly the same weapon.
http://www.reeza.com/sinster/essays/gauss.html
http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2014/04/08/railguns-vs-coilguns/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm
Basically, a rail gun is a system of a positively charged rail and a negatively charged rail with an armature (projectile) set across the two...the magnetic field of the two rails force the armature down the length of the rails until it exits...normally, there is physical contact between the armature and the rails. I believe the sabot or projectile needs to be electrically conductive. Lots of friction and heat, lots of magnetic "pressure". Projectile is not magnetic, but is conductive. HIGH AMPERAGE. Components will likely suffer damage.
For a coil/gauss gun, a series of electromagnets are arranged along a "barrel"...a projectile is accelerated along through the barrel by setting the magnets ahead of the projectile so they attract the projectile while the magnets behing the projectile repulse the projectile...in theory, this reduces physical friction in the system as the projectile is not always in direct contact in the barrel, but it requires advanced, high speed sensors and switches to operate properly. HIGH VOLTAGE.
In real life, the rail gun exists as a prototype used by the US Navy: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=rail...05C611D44F06DE5
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Rail...CF363DB43C7212C kid with a rail gun...shows deterioration over time...kid builds a rail gun and a coil gun.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Rail...C177A872F9EE714
|
ghostrider
12/04/15 02:00 AM
98.150.102.177
|
I just wanted to get a feel for what you were doing.
My understanding of a sabot round is the 'bullet' actually is a shell for a smaller round inside of it, much like a icbm and smaller 'bombs' inside of them.
If I have read the truth, they tend to be used in sniper rounds that need to penetrate bullet proof glass and such, though this is supposed to be 'secret' knowledge. Like there is much of that with the news reporting everything.
Now shadrak. The rail gun is basically a barrel that uses magnetics to propel the projectile instead of chemicals and such, where the gauss suspends the shell in the field as it fires without touching the barrel?
|
Shadrak
12/04/15 12:16 PM
70.194.209.233
|
Not quite, ghostrider, but close enough I think...
Looking at some of the homebuilt coil guns, I think the projectile is touching the barrel...but in an advanced weapon like battletech I think it would work like you describe. But there are many magnetic fields in a straight line that reverse polarity based 9n the location of the projectile..first they pull then they push.
From what I can tell ( I would need someone with more knowledge than I have) the railgun is kind of like two separate wires, one with positive and one with negative current...any powered wire creates a magnetic field whose direction (clockwise/counterclockwise) is determined by polarity...an inward pushing magnetic field on both sides will create a force that will create forward momentum for an armature.
Magnetic fields for Railguns are at right angles to the direction of projectile travel...magnetic fields in a gauss system are along the path of protective travel first attracting/pulling the projectile, then, as it passes through, repulsing/pushing by reversing polarity at just the right time.
Comparing benefits and drawbacks in a battletech system, in my mind, is difficult because you don't know exactly what technologies exist in battletech....are the sensors and switches operating in the femtosecond range or are they in the nano/Picosecond range? How much current and voltage is available through the battletech systems...
In the end, these systems remain largely fictional/magical/fantasy rather than science because the technologies required and the technologies available in Battletech are not fully known.
|
Akirapryde2006
12/07/15 08:06 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Here is something I was kicking around in terms of range.
We know that the weapon is nothing more than a rocket powered super dense/heavy arrow. I have been trying to kick around the ranges. I think I found something that will reflect what I am working towards. I just need everyone's input on it.
Code:
Caliber Short Med Long Ext.
All FSDS Cannons 1-10 11-15 16-18 19-24
The minimum range will be 6 (See the above mentioned rule ideas)
So I left the ranges the same as the original concept, but I made it a heck a lot better at hitting at ranges. To off set this, I plan to reduce the original damage by 30% from the original concepts.
Your thoughts?
|
ghostrider
12/08/15 11:32 PM
98.150.102.177
|
Main question at this point is the long range. 3 hexes?
Not sure how the new rules deals with extreme ranges for ground combat, so can't say much about it, though not sure if it is space combat capable.
An option to this, might be drop 10% damage for ever range category past short, ie medium would be -10%, long 20%, and extreme would reach 30%. Or just subtract some damage like that. Granted that is complicating things a bit.
Another question is it like a normal slug or does it have limited tracking?
|
Akirapryde2006
12/09/15 01:14 AM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Main question at this point is the long range. 3 hexes?
Not sure how the new rules deals with extreme ranges for ground combat, so can't say much about it, though not sure if it is space combat capable.
Yes, long range is only three hexes. I didn't change the over all ranges. What I wanted to test was to only increased the accuracy of the weapon by extending the short (no modifier) range and Medium (+2 Modifier) range. By doing this, I am increasing the accuracy without creating any new rules for the weapon.
Long (+4 Modifier) Range and Extended (+6 Modifier) would remain the same. No the extended range by itself make this weapon space combat capable. This is part of Max Tech rules, where every weapon would have an extended ranges with an increased modifier.
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
An option to this, might be drop 10% damage for ever range category past short, ie medium would be -10%, long 20%, and extreme would reach 30%. Or just subtract some damage like that. Granted that is complicating things a bit.
Are you suggesting this in replacement of my idea of decreasing the damage? Meaning the damage would remain the same at short range then take the damage as the weapon continues to fly through the range categories?
Or are you suggesting this on top of that 30% decrease?
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Another question is it like a normal slug or does it have limited tracking?
Not sure what you mean. Could you please explain?
|
ghostrider
12/09/15 02:36 PM
98.150.102.177
|
Was thinking of replacing the 30% damage with the new idea. But it is just a suggestion.
Maybe do the reverse and have short range at -30% (or -10% if you want to go that route) as you suggested the ordinance is not up to speed until further out.
The question of a normal slug from a gun is the standard straight flight path. I was trying to find out if this weapons has the ability to change it's path some as it heads out, such as a guided missiles does. Not suggesting a full comes back at the target until it hits, like some missiles do in cartoons, but maybe a hex change on it's flight outwards. Semi guided might be the a better term for it. I guess a good comparison might be a torpedo.
|
Akirapryde2006
12/09/15 02:58 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Was thinking of replacing the 30% damage with the new idea. But it is just a suggestion.
Maybe do the reverse and have short range at -30% (or -10% if you want to go that route) as you suggested the ordinance is not up to speed until further out.
Actually that is a good idea. Unlike other weapons who losses damage at range, Lets make this weapon more like a upward curve. Within minimum range, you loss that 30% damage plus the loss of the penetration bonus. Outside of minimum range but within short range, you gain the penetration bonus but still loss 25% of its damage. At medium range where this weapon is at its deadliest, you loss no damage and gain penetration. At long ranges and beyond you loss accuracy. Outside of Medium range, the weapon losses its Penetration Bonus.
I think instead of using the base 24 points of damage (for the Heavy Model, I will have to calculate the other two models) I am going to still remove the 33%. Giving the weapon a damage potential of 16 points.
The range damages would look like this (all figured are rounded to the nearest whole number)
At Short (Within Minimum Range) Range: 11 Points (No Penetration Bonus, all damage to the armor)
At Short (Outside of Minimum Range) Range: 12 Points (6 to the armor, 6 to the Internal Structure with the possibility of Crits)
Medium Range: 16 Points of damage (8 to the armor, 8 to the Internal Structure with the possibility of Crits)
Long and Extended Ranges: 16 Points of Damage (all damage to the Armor)
Something tells me that this is over complicating my weapon system.
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
The question of a normal slug from a gun is the standard straight flight path. I was trying to find out if this weapons has the ability to change it's path some as it heads out, such as a guided missiles does. Not suggesting a full comes back at the target until it hits, like some missiles do in cartoons, but maybe a hex change on it's flight outwards. Semi guided might be the a better term for it. I guess a good comparison might be a torpedo.
Actually, this was something I was thinking about as I looked at the Modern battlefield in relation to this weapon. This weapon system has to be a direct fire weapon only. There can be no semi guidance for this weapon. The weapon has to be a LOS system with no indirect fire options. Basically its a fire and forget weapon, either it hits or misses.
Akirapryde
|
ghostrider
12/09/15 07:26 PM
98.150.102.177
|
It does force the user to try to keep a range with the weapon, unlike most where almost touching is a good thing. Yeah, splash damage is a pain, but only if you use it.
I know I said it might complicate it, but it does give a unique type of weapon, though ammunition variants could change this as well. Just thoughts if you want to mess with it some more.
Glad you can use some of the suggestions. I don't see why other weapons can't do something similar with ranges, ie an srm that does 3 points in short range due to fuel causing explosion or something like that.
Big issue with the game is stagnation due to the issues of existing weapons. Hard to do much when things have to be a certain range, or damage. There are still somethings out there, but they could have done more. They still can, but it will take some doing.
Much heavier weights for things like really extended ppcs, that go out to a kilometer or more, but in the weight and size of a long tom. Only heavy and assault units might be able to use and have something like auto heat shut down after fired. One maybe 2 rounds of down time. Not usable against fast moving units. Crap like that.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 94 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: 9763
|
|
|
|
|
|
|