Register Register

Author Topic: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.  (Read 4159 times)

Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1094
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #30 on: 25 October 2020, 15:51:53 »
fuel for fire: What about better MG ranges, but the rounds come equipped (ie worse grouping) with HGR style parachutes? ... the longer the range the less damage and the less d6 v infantry.

PB: 4 dmg, 4d6
short: 3 dmg, 3d6
Med: 2 dmg, 2d6
long: 1 dmg, 1d6
extreme: 0mdg, 1d6

would drop the rapid fire rule as a rapid burst of 1d6 x4 could be pretty devastating if you roll a 6 .. for a half-ton (or 1/4) weapon is absurd.  Although, it would feel like MW 2 again! I felt like a god in my MAD IIC with all MGs and one SPL (it made it seem like a tracer/targeting laser) ... some JJ for fast zipping, everything was toast with a short burst.

I do like the direction this is going.

The ammo bomb is the worst part of Machine Guns, though, and even a half ton at the Long Range value would be painful.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2492
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #31 on: 02 December 2020, 11:53:33 »
A Piranha would not be scary anymore . Light Machine Gun array/4s   stop being crit or head hunting tools looking for floating ammo hits or multiple consciousness checks . Machine guns are huge tools for combat vehicles.  Mechs have the heat sinks for a small x pulse laser for anti infantry work . So I am way against this idea .

Wolf72

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1893
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #32 on: 02 December 2020, 17:43:39 »
would not take away dmg to mechs/armor, just sayin'.
War does not determine who is right, only who is left. -- said no Clanner ... ever!

KS #1357

SteelRaven

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7959
  • Fight for something or Die for nothing
    • The Steel-Raven at DeviantArt
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #33 on: 02 December 2020, 20:58:55 »
Weighing in at a half ton/quarter ton a piece, the 'machine guns' mounted on mechs and tanks are less actual machine guns and more micro auto canons.

Problem is when the writers talk about MGs as if they are M2 Browning or a Kord-12.7 rather than something closer to it's stated weight such as the GAU-8 Avenger or a MK44 Bushmaster. While small compared to a standard AC, these are still big guns and the only reason have short range because of the armor in the BTU ignores anything not traveling at it's highest velocity. (These guns can probably still splatter infantry from across the map while bouncing off armor like hail stones) The Rapid Fire rules also hint at MG's GAU-8 Avenger like nature as the weapon doesn't heat up unless the Mechwarrior holds down on the trigger longer than that 1 short burst, firing more rounds in the same relatively short amount of time (1 turn) 

Should Mechs ignore small arms? Absolutely and do so in fiction (unless writers decide otherwise because plot) but the game made some abstract concessions in order to make combined arms more appealing. For myself, I consider each PBI squad to be carrying 1 squad support anti-mech weapon among then to justify their TW numbers. They are not just spraying their space AKs/M4's at the towering armor and hopping for the best but firing one carefully aimed shot from their biggest gun (possible modular and carried in pieces) 

Should both MGs and AMS both be used as point defense similar to Naval CIWS? Why not? It would justify the insane ammo counts and give both weapon systems more utility on the battlefield. Yes, I'm saying the Piranha should be both a walking war crime and a walking iron dome AMS platform *evil laughter*               
Battletech Art and Commissions
http://steel-raven.deviantart.com

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2219
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #34 on: 06 December 2020, 18:14:03 »
Weighing in at a half ton/quarter ton a piece, the 'machine guns' mounted on mechs and tanks are less actual machine guns and more micro auto canons.

Problem is when the writers talk about MGs as if they are M2 Browning or a Kord-12.7 rather than something closer to it's stated weight such as the GAU-8 Avenger or a MK44 Bushmaster. While small compared to a standard AC, these are still big guns and the only reason have short range because of the armor in the BTU ignores anything not traveling at it's highest velocity. (These guns can probably still splatter infantry from across the map while bouncing off armor like hail stones) The Rapid Fire rules also hint at MG's GAU-8 Avenger like nature as the weapon doesn't heat up unless the Mechwarrior holds down on the trigger longer than that 1 short burst, firing more rounds in the same relatively short amount of time (1 turn) 

Should Mechs ignore small arms? Absolutely and do so in fiction (unless writers decide otherwise because plot) but the game made some abstract concessions in order to make combined arms more appealing. For myself, I consider each PBI squad to be carrying 1 squad support anti-mech weapon among then to justify their TW numbers. They are not just spraying their space AKs/M4's at the towering armor and hopping for the best but firing one carefully aimed shot from their biggest gun (possible modular and carried in pieces) 

Should both MGs and AMS both be used as point defense similar to Naval CIWS? Why not? It would justify the insane ammo counts and give both weapon systems more utility on the battlefield. Yes, I'm saying the Piranha should be both a walking war crime and a walking iron dome AMS platform *evil laughter*               


Actually, rapid firing of machine guns does generate heat. It's 1D6 per rapid firing machine gun.

I also wouldn't ignore small arms fire. The novels I remember support weapons were dangerous and small arms fire was distracting.

I wouldn't mind if MGs could be used for AMS but then I think all weapons that Aerospace use for AMS should be able to be used for AMS. Especially against arrows. There's one scene I remember where all the mechs starting firing up to shoot down the incoming missiles.




PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1148
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #35 on: 06 December 2020, 23:38:23 »
MG in Rapid Fire mode do generate heats and that's why it can't be suited for mechs - for same heat you can have a Flamer instead. Battle Armors can use the glitch freely, though.

My best idea for using machine gun ammo is;
1. Order a J-27.
2. Fill it with full of machine gun ammunition.
3. Grab it by your Atlas.
4. Shalt thou count to three, no more, no less.
5. Once the number is three, then lobbest thou thy Holy J-27 Ordnance Transport towards thou foe.

Amen.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2219
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #36 on: 09 December 2020, 03:35:41 »
 ;D ;D

Mendrugo

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4814
  • Manei Tetatae
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #37 on: 09 December 2020, 03:56:23 »
I also wouldn't ignore small arms fire. The novels I remember support weapons were dangerous and small arms fire was distracting.

I wouldn't mind if MGs could be used for AMS but then I think all weapons that Aerospace use for AMS should be able to be used for AMS. Especially against arrows. There's one scene I remember where all the mechs starting firing up to shoot down the incoming missiles.

Speaking of arrows...there was a table in TRO:3026 that allowed for small arms to have a chance to do 'Mech-scale damage.  If you rolled an insanely lucky streak (high "to hit" roll, 12 to actually do 1 damage, 2 for hit location, then high again for 2-3 critical hits) a person with a bow and arrow could conceivably take out an Atlas.
"We have made of New Avalon a towering funeral pyre and wiped the Davion scourge from the universe.  Tikonov, Chesterton and Andurien are ours once more, and the cheers of the Capellan people nearly drown out the gnashing of our foes' teeth as they throw down their weapons in despair.  Now I am made First Lord of the Star League, and all shall bow down to me and pay homa...oooooo! Shiny thing!" - Maximillian Liao, "My Triumph", audio dictation, 3030.  Unpublished.

SteelRaven

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7959
  • Fight for something or Die for nothing
    • The Steel-Raven at DeviantArt
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #38 on: 09 December 2020, 16:00:02 »

Actually, rapid firing of machine guns does generate heat. It's 1D6 per rapid firing machine gun.


Yes, why I compared it to the GAU-8. On the A-10, they can only fire in sort burst to prevent super heating the gun barrels.So firing a signal burst would generate 0 but holding down the trigger in Rapid Fire mode would start building up heat your Heat Sinks would need to absorb. 

As for small arms, I have already gone on record that I don't agree how Fasa treated small arms but I'll concede to the rules and whatever logic each player uses to justify them. I will not be the one to kill a cat girl today.   
Battletech Art and Commissions
http://steel-raven.deviantart.com

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2219
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #39 on: 10 December 2020, 21:21:29 »
Yes, why I compared it to the GAU-8. On the A-10, they can only fire in sort burst to prevent super heating the gun barrels.So firing a signal burst would generate 0 but holding down the trigger in Rapid Fire mode would start building up heat your Heat Sinks would need to absorb. 

As for small arms, I have already gone on record that I don't agree how Fasa treated small arms but I'll concede to the rules and whatever logic each player uses to justify them. I will not be the one to kill a cat girl today.   

You'd have to change the rules though so you can fire a standard burst or rapid fire one.

I still kind of like how small arms mostly didn't do damage but could sometimes get lucky while support weapons always did damage. Having enough troopers to do damage is okay. Changing it would mean needing to change how armor takes damage though.

And thank you. Cat Girls everywhere appreciate your not killing any today.  :thumbsup:

SteelRaven

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7959
  • Fight for something or Die for nothing
    • The Steel-Raven at DeviantArt
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #40 on: 10 December 2020, 23:16:48 »
You'd have to change the rules though so you can fire a standard burst or rapid fire one.
I must be misunderstanding the Rapid Fire rules.
Battletech Art and Commissions
http://steel-raven.deviantart.com

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2219
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #41 on: 13 December 2020, 01:28:44 »
I must be misunderstanding the Rapid Fire rules.

You can't change from short to long bursts. Only MGs set to rapid fire can do so and do so for the whole came. It'd be nice if rapid fire rules were that simple but they're not. :(

Wolf72

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1893
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #42 on: 13 December 2020, 10:26:25 »
I think that's just a rule abstraction and simplification as to keep from adding another in combat rule to be kept track of. (totally support, pick a mode and stick with it for the battle.  UAC's get a pass on it it though)
War does not determine who is right, only who is left. -- said no Clanner ... ever!

KS #1357

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2219
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #43 on: 15 December 2020, 07:46:27 »
I think that's just a rule abstraction and simplification as to keep from adding another in combat rule to be kept track of. (totally support, pick a mode and stick with it for the battle.  UAC's get a pass on it it though)

Yep. I think RACs are the only ones too.

imperator

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 655
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #44 on: 25 January 2021, 13:43:26 »
If it hasn't been stated, yet, I would bring the Ammo Count of the MG down to 50-60 per ton to be more in line to the other ballistic weapons.  100-120 dmg a ton vs 90-100 per ton for ACs and Artillery.
Their is no problem Jump Jets and an assault class auto-cannon can't handle.

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1017
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #45 on: 25 January 2021, 21:40:01 »
I think that's just a rule abstraction and simplification as to keep from adding another in combat rule to be kept track of. (totally support, pick a mode and stick with it for the battle.  UAC's get a pass on it it though)
It's an entirely unnecessary abstraction: anybody seriously considering adding such a small change for their games, that applies to a tiny group of weapons that aren't even intended for anti-mech combat, aren't going to be confused by just one more weapon with multiple firing modes.

If the intent was simplification, it had the opposite effect.  Most other weapons with more than one firing modes are toggleable in-game, including UACs, RACs, Bombast Lasers, Mech-scale Vibroblades).  That makes Rapid-fire MGs the outlier that has a special rule to keep track of, a situation that could be simply avoided if that value-less part of the rule hadn't existed in the first place.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19602
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #46 on: 26 January 2021, 20:22:18 »
GAU-8s are proper Autocannons.  GAU-19s are the .50 cal versions, and I'd say they can definitely ablate some BAR 10 armor, if not much.  Regular MGs are the three barelled versions, with Heavies being six.  Ye olde Ma Deuce (with "modern" materials and ammo) is the Light MG in my headcannon.

Frabby

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3857
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #47 on: 27 January 2021, 02:38:25 »
I'm in the camp who view the problem as lying with the name, not the game stats. BT "machine guns" are effectively what you might call an autocannon in the real world. We're talking about a weapon here that can punch holes into armor rated AR10, after all.

The infantry weapon most people associate with the term "machine gun" is the miniature thingy that is mounted on Elemental BA, for example, and it does no damage to 'Mechs.

Given all the above comments, I think we don't need a rules change so much as a name change or clarification for the item in question.
Sarna.net BattleTechWiki Admin
Author of the BattleCorps stories Feather vs. Mountain, Rise and Shine, Proprietary, Trial of Faith & scenario Twins

DevianID

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 254
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #48 on: 27 January 2021, 03:35:57 »
Im actually really happy with mguns now that rapid fire has been moved towards general acceptance.  Also, switching mguns before a game makes a lot of sense to me, as even the a-10 gau has a limiter that was installed to avoid wasting ammo with unnessarilly long bursts.  The original fire mode of the GAU was faster, but jammed and wasted a lot of ammo.  They modified the GAU to a less jam-happy cyclic rate and put 1 or 2 second burst limits on the gun to greatly improve efficiency.  Removing this efficiency limiter is exactly how I see rapid fire mguns; its a physical piece of equipment you are taking away from the gun, not a switch in a cockpit.  The 'switch' in the cockpit is a 1 second burst or a 2 second, less efficient burst, corresponding to regular and ultra mode autocannon firing.

As for gun size, the btech mgun as others stated is somewhere in the 50cal range, commonly a tiny 3 barrel minigun, firing about 40 rounds per action when on stock ultra-efficiency mode.  (A mgun does 2d6 to infantry, doubled in the open, doubled if the arnt armored at all, for up to 48 potential infantry casualties in one action).  This can be set to pull up to 720 rounds from 40 on crazy full auto melt your barrel mode, but against infantry that crazy full auto wont cause any more casualties as you pump hundreds and hundreds of rounds uselessly into the ground--against a big brick of a tank though you can expect up to 3x the damage however since the recoil spread is somewhat managed by the target being bigger.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2219
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #49 on: 28 January 2021, 08:34:31 »
It's an entirely unnecessary abstraction: anybody seriously considering adding such a small change for their games, that applies to a tiny group of weapons that aren't even intended for anti-mech combat, aren't going to be confused by just one more weapon with multiple firing modes.

If the intent was simplification, it had the opposite effect.  Most other weapons with more than one firing modes are toggleable in-game, including UACs, RACs, Bombast Lasers, Mech-scale Vibroblades).  That makes Rapid-fire MGs the outlier that has a special rule to keep track of, a situation that could be simply avoided if that value-less part of the rule hadn't existed in the first place.


I wouldn't say that Machine Guns aren't intended for anti-Mech combat. True they're mostly thought of as anti-infantry weapons but they're still good back up weapons. Especially during eras where DHS aren't available. Being able to fire at an approaching enemy and not generate heat when you're already overheating is a good thing.


GAU-8s are proper Autocannons.  GAU-19s are the .50 cal versions, and I'd say they can definitely ablate some BAR 10 armor, if not much.  Regular MGs are the three barelled versions, with Heavies being six.  Ye olde Ma Deuce (with "modern" materials and ammo) is the Light MG in my headcannon.


That's how I figured them. Especially when reading old RPG fluff about them. But I can also see Frabby's point. There is also fluff that has MG's fluffed to be 20mm - 30mm. That sounds a bit big for a traditional machine gun. I'm starting to wonder if there shouldn't be another class of weapons. Like AP Machine Guns.

The Machine Guns would be 20-30mm mini-autocannons. What we have now. AP Machine Guns would be the traditional machine guns and mini-guns. Light APs would be like the Ma Duece. Medium and Heavy would be the mini-gun types with the Heavy being the GAU-19. That'd also let us use smaller sized Machine Guns like the .30 cal as a vintage weapons with reduced range or damage is added up like infantry weapons or something.



Im actually really happy with mguns now that rapid fire has been moved towards general acceptance.  Also, switching mguns before a game makes a lot of sense to me, as even the a-10 gau has a limiter that was installed to avoid wasting ammo with unnessarilly long bursts.  The original fire mode of the GAU was faster, but jammed and wasted a lot of ammo.  They modified the GAU to a less jam-happy cyclic rate and put 1 or 2 second burst limits on the gun to greatly improve efficiency.  Removing this efficiency limiter is exactly how I see rapid fire mguns; its a physical piece of equipment you are taking away from the gun, not a switch in a cockpit.  The 'switch' in the cockpit is a 1 second burst or a 2 second, less efficient burst, corresponding to regular and ultra mode autocannon firing.

As for gun size, the btech mgun as others stated is somewhere in the 50cal range, commonly a tiny 3 barrel minigun, firing about 40 rounds per action when on stock ultra-efficiency mode.  (A mgun does 2d6 to infantry, doubled in the open, doubled if the arnt armored at all, for up to 48 potential infantry casualties in one action).  This can be set to pull up to 720 rounds from 40 on crazy full auto melt your barrel mode, but against infantry that crazy full auto wont cause any more casualties as you pump hundreds and hundreds of rounds uselessly into the ground--against a big brick of a tank though you can expect up to 3x the damage however since the recoil spread is somewhat managed by the target being bigger.

That you're actually removing a limiter to get the rapid fire makes a lot of sense.  :thumbsup: :beer:






Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19602
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #50 on: 28 January 2021, 18:13:49 »
RifleMech: have you checked out the "Machine Guns" thread linked in my sig block?

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2219
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #51 on: 30 January 2021, 05:55:43 »
RifleMech: have you checked out the "Machine Guns" thread linked in my sig block?

I think so but it's been a while since I looked that close at AToW so I'll look at it again

edit
Yes, I did. Last time was last April.  Did you ever compare the XTRO:1945 weapons to BT weapons?
« Last Edit: 30 January 2021, 06:06:03 by RifleMech »

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19602
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #52 on: 30 January 2021, 09:56:34 »
It's been such a hell of a year, I totally forgot I even HAD XTRO: 1945!  It looks like they kluged the AP vs. BAR rules there too, but in a different way than Rifle Cannons (grumble).  The biggest problem I think we'll have bringing the 1945 rules over is ranges (converting to the proper AP vs. BAR rules will be painful but straight forward).  Having gotten to shoot a Ma Deuce once, I think 15 hexes might be a bit long for "short" range.  I'm at least glad to see TPTB agreed with my assessment that the Support Machine Gun IS the Ma Deuce...

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2219
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #53 on: 01 February 2021, 04:53:44 »
It's been such a hell of a year, I totally forgot I even HAD XTRO: 1945!  It looks like they kluged the AP vs. BAR rules there too, but in a different way than Rifle Cannons (grumble).  The biggest problem I think we'll have bringing the 1945 rules over is ranges (converting to the proper AP vs. BAR rules will be painful but straight forward).  Having gotten to shoot a Ma Deuce once, I think 15 hexes might be a bit long for "short" range.  I'm at least glad to see TPTB agreed with my assessment that the Support Machine Gun IS the Ma Deuce...

Lol. That one I remember. I usually forget the tech from the Third League PDF and the tripods from Necromo Nightmare.

I'm not sure if getting ranges will ever be right do to how close combat is in battletech.

You've gotten to shoot a Ma Deuce? Lucky. I'm glad they made it a support machine gun too.

Charistoph

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1094
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #54 on: 01 February 2021, 11:12:46 »
Having gotten to shoot a Ma Deuce once, I think 15 hexes might be a bit long for "short" range.  I'm at least glad to see TPTB agreed with my assessment that the Support Machine Gun IS the Ma Deuce...

True, but 90m seems way to short for Long range as well.  A lot depends on platform and target, too.  A crew-served platform is usually low,but the angle of attack from the top of a tank or above the waist of a Warhammer could get better range out of the weapon system.  The P-51's guns were usually set to converge at about 300m, i.e. 10 hexes, while the AA mounts usually could effectively hit a target at 4900 ft (about 1500m) in the air.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19602
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #55 on: 01 February 2021, 17:28:38 »
I think the original BattleTechnology article on extreme range rules did it better than TacOps.  It gave much improved Extreme Range to Machine Guns.

CrossfirePilot

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #56 on: 04 February 2021, 19:12:36 »
I wish the original MG rules had some sort of advantage over a small laser.  Like Short range 1-3 hexes, med 3-4, long 6.  and only about 50 rds per ton.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19602
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #57 on: 04 February 2021, 20:24:34 »
That would be a whole new weapon...

CrossfirePilot

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #58 on: 04 February 2021, 20:38:17 »
yeah i know...thought from the beginning that it should be something different than an SL with less damage and more liability.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19602
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Do away with mech machine guns dealing mech damage.
« Reply #59 on: 04 February 2021, 20:43:23 »
No heat is important... weapons this size are often mounted in multiples.

 

Register