widowmaker
10/16/03 12:50 AM
24.171.110.132
|
In reply to:
Can you quote a part of a novel where Victor's Victor fired an autocannon instead of a gauss rifle?
I'm not going to insist that I'm correct here, but I can't think of an instance where Victor's Victor fired a gauss rifle. The way I remember, Victor went from piloting the Victor (with the AC20), to piloting Prometheus (his Dire Wolf). I don't remember him ever piloting a Victor with a gauss rifle.
If I'm wrong, point me to the book. I need to read more.
widowmaker
What's your dice fetish?
|
Cray
10/16/03 05:37 AM
68.200.106.99
|
Fair 'nuff.
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.
|
Diablo
10/20/03 07:22 AM
24.114.50.66
|
May I point out that it's probably not the Propellent explosion that causes the damage, it's the subsiquest shooting off of the prjectile heads into the internal structure that does the damage. so ya, I can see about 12000 (assuming a MG fires 60 rounds in 6 seconds) machine gun bullets ripping through internal structure doing that much damage. although you must account for the fact that the ammuniton will not be reaching it's intended damage potential due to the lack of space and accuricy. but that may be offset by the explosion itself.
|
tgsofgc
10/20/03 12:35 PM
67.4.200.133
|
Yes but would 1200 small bullets cause more damage than huge explosions (ie missile ammo) or even the blowing through of giant armor peircing rounds (ie auto cannons). If you look at the damage charts an autocannon which we decided earlier fires bursts of shells, each much much larger, faster, and more damaging to armor would do far less damage to the is.? Think of it this way, just for illustrating my point of view. You have a concrete room and in the middle of this reinforced concrete room is one case of ammunition. This case could either be small arms rounds or explosives (possibly grenades). Either way this case weighs the same. If each were to explode Despite the ammunition being shot into every corner of the room I would expect the case of grenades to do far more damage. Similarly I expect that in battletech the explosion of the ammunition of anti armor weapons inside a mech would cause much more damage than the explosion of anti infantry weapons with in a mech.
Also from a new stand point:
Dismissing reality and considering Battletech simply as a game. It is illogical to put in components towards a game that are useless. As currently modelled Machine guns are generally useless because they have three uses as I can percieve.
1. Munchkin designs, ie 50 machine guns
2. Anti Infantry
3. Low weight secondary weapon.
Assuming no GM allows a player to use option #1. In option #2 the unit gets a good infantry fighting weapon at the cost of space to mount an anti armor weapon. Unfortunately the risk of huge ammo explosions means in early tech at least this pointless. Do I risk any unit getting a single lucky hit and killing my 100 ton mech just so i can kill infantry somewhat faster? Option 3 is a similar arguement. For instance if I have limited extra weight small lasers are almost always a safer better choice. And if I had sufficient tonnage to mount multiple mgs to decrease the extra weight cost of ammunition I can usually use the tonnage to mount light weapon systems with better range like small missile racks or lasers. If mg ammo wasn't so over the top destructive it would bring at least uses 2 and 3 back in line with the game.
So why did battletech make it like this?
1. It limits option 1, a mech loaded down with machine guns. Or one that abuses them as a low heat anti armor weapon can find it self exploding.
2. To encourage a choice between it and small lasers. A small laser does 3 damage and with 1 heat sink does 0 heat. If machine gun ammo didnt come in such large packs that you can save tonnage when mounting multiple there would never be a reason to use it over a small laser.
3. Because they couldn't think of a better system with out making the game more complex, such as the extra complexity of giving mg ammo free localized case. This in any boad game can quickly become unweildy. As battletech was initially percieved as a board game and I am sure designers already questioned its complexity (which is minimal in comparision to some other modern war games) they may have wanted to avoid changes.
4. Didnt plan on adding CASE. Well the clan stuff wasn't planned and added with the new tech till players excepted huge ammo explosions as cannon. At that point changing the older base rules on a weapons very function would have been unpopular.
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
|
widowmaker
10/21/03 03:03 AM
24.171.110.132
|
You're leaving out the most obvious reason why the initial designers modeled MG ammo that way: they liked making 'Mechs go BOOM!!! Why do you think so many original 'Mechs had MGs? 
widowmaker
What's your dice fetish?
|
Deathshadow
10/21/03 04:20 PM
24.128.172.206
|
Actually, without the barrel to hold the shell casing intact and contain the expanding gasses, the bullets aren't going to do anything! The reason bullets go fast is the gasses of the fast burning propellant are contained inside the barrel. If they are allowed to expand outward the moment the seal on the casing goes, they really aren't going to accellerate up to speed at all. It's the sudden release of gasses in an armored enclosed space (like an ammo bin) that's going to do the real damage; not the bullets themselves.
You ever set off a gun-round outside a gun? The sides of the shell casing explode out in all directions, and the round just kind of 'pops' up into the air a foot or two. In truth, it doesn't come out as that big an explosion, but that stands to reason as the force is allowed to expand in all directions since it's no longer contained in the narrow pipe of a barrel. As such, it would take a lot of rounds to add up to enough force; like that in an ammo bin.
Again, I wasn't the safest kid to be around.
Too much hollywood. I always laugh myself silly when they have something like a ammo belt tossed into a fire, and they have bullets firing off and richocheting everywhere. 100% fiction, doesn't work that way. Kind of like the uber-fireballs that directors insist on when they have explosiongs. Rarely, if ever, do you get fireballs like those from ANY high-order explosive. Remember OK City? No fireballs there!
Explosions are caused by rapidly expanding gasses. While this is often from combustion, that type of burn is usually so fast it consumes all the oxygen long before you get anything resembling a flame.
Kept my cool under lock and key,
and I never shed a tear,
another sign of my condidtion.
|
Vicen_Korel
10/24/03 03:09 PM
216.69.5.177
|
what about ultra auto's?
"Nothing sends your love like an ER PPC"
--Vicen Korel
|
Diablo
11/02/03 01:45 AM
24.114.50.66
|
Ultra Autocannons are autocannons designed to spit out more shells per round. normal autocannons and wern't designed with this in mind and were upgraded by the Ultra varient and LBX AC's were designed with the shotgun aspect. it's becuase of the Ultra AC's that regular AC's phased out.
|
sinsear
11/03/03 12:49 AM
211.26.118.52
|
In the absence of anything solid, I've decided to use the technique that FASA have used for so long in resolving these matters.
I'll make something up.
Autocannons use a rotating barrel assembly, which allows a quick loading procedure. The barrel is fired much like a revolver is, except that when the barrel is out of line of the firing pin (at between 7 and 4 o'clock, if viewed from front on) the next shell is injected.
Ammo is stored in clips, with one for each barrel. AC-2's have two rotating barrels, AC-20's have twenty. The ammunition is stored in clips of between 2 and 20 respectively.
Whena clip is depleted, it is ejected from the breach, and a new clip is moved up to replace it. This causes a small delay in firing.
Some autocannons have the rotating barrels housed in a cowl or external cover, but keep a single longer fixed barrel as the main firing barrel. This allows less moving parts to be exposed, hence, less maintence or possibliity or the weapon being knocked out, whereas a whole rotating barrel assembly is superflous, as one barell being knocked out renders the weapon useless (firing into a blocked barell), just as having the main fixed barrel does.
Ultra autocannons have a selector that allows two clips to be loaded simultaneously.
One clip loads every even barrel, at 7 o'clock, whilst the other clip loads the odd barrels at 4 o'clock. Thus the load time is faster, and the delay between clip reloads is doubled, allowing for "Ultra bursts".
The increase in moving parts however increases the likelyhood of an ammo jam.
Whaddya think?
|
Cray
11/03/03 06:11 AM
68.200.106.99
|
Quote:
In the absence of anything solid,
FASA and FanPro have provided a lot of solid descriptions of autocannons. In fact, the post you responded to (by NathanKell) contained one of those descriptions. The artwork for mechs often includes clear pictures of single-barreled weapons. Multi-barrel weapons are generally rare and tend to appear on mechs with UACs or RACs.
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.
|
tgsofgc
11/03/03 10:43 PM
67.4.193.233
|
oh no not this thread again...
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
|
Cray
11/04/03 05:39 AM
68.200.106.99
|
Yup, five months and counting. But it's staying near the top of the stack in this forum, so it's getting a lot of readers.
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.
|
Vicen_Korel
04/15/04 11:29 AM
66.38.4.205
|
um...so what about RAC's, shouldn't they be just a different AC if the numbers simply the damage potenial for ten seconds...see where i'm getting?
"Nothing sends your love like an ER PPC"
--Vicen Korel
|
Cray
04/15/04 12:12 PM
68.200.105.33
|
Quote:
um...so what about RAC's, shouldn't they be just a different AC if the numbers simply the damage potenial for ten seconds...see where i'm getting?
...RACs are specifically different than standard ACs in that RACs can fire up to 6x as much ammo as standard ACs of the same class. Even if an AC/5 has the same number of barrels as a RAC/5, the RAC/5 is distinctly heavier and can use 6x as much ammo as the standard AC/5. So, no, RACs shouldn't be just different ACs...they're entirely distinct weapons with unique abilities not found in standard ACs.
In other words, don't mistake similar form for similar function. RACs are different weapons.
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.
|