Rifle Cannon Math

[Charistoph]

It sounds reasonable. Absolutely. But with a Light Rifle doing 0 damage, that means 10,000 of them still do 0 damage. I appreciate the logical reasoning, though. lol I think of that stuff too.

Not when you consider that 0 damage is supposedly being rounded down per shot, and if those 10,000 LRC all hit at the same time, it would be hitting harder than by a platoon of PBI with no support weapons.

However, keep in mind, too, that Ferro-Lamellor armor does the same thing to LB-X Cluster hits and base Light Machine Guns hits, too.

What makes the situation even more bizarre is that a mech could throw a ton of LRC ammo at a BAR-10 armored target and do more damage than any number of LRC would actually firing at the target.

Or if that LRC ammo explodes inside a BAR-10 armored target?

[DevianID]

So if you use direct hits advanced rules with your experimental rifles, light rifles don't do 0 damage always, they do 1 damage when hitting 3 above the TN.  This fixes all my issues with a weapon designed below 3025 standards.  Versus Bar7 support vehicles light rifles are really good, so they have a niche.

In 3150 play, an alternate ammo for rifles can fix any remaining issues, like how alternate ammo fixes autocannons.

[Daryk]

While I'm glad that solution works for you, I still maintain the flat -3 was a mistake by TPTB.

As much as Paul keeps saying TW>AToW, the page 171 formula in the Companion is the basis for the infantry weapons table in Tech Manual.  And that table underpins ALL of the canon infantry units employed at the TW level.  This is exactly why consistency is important, and the flat -3 is the biggest inconsistency in the entire system at the moment.  It's easily fixed by an errata, even if TPTB don't want to go for the procedural fix I propose.

[RifleMech]

Or if that LRC ammo explodes inside a BAR-10 armored target?

Yeah

So if you use direct hits advanced rules with your experimental rifles, light rifles don't do 0 damage always, they do 1 damage when hitting 3 above the TN.  This fixes all my issues with a weapon designed below 3025 standards.  Versus Bar7 support vehicles light rifles are really good, so they have a niche.

In 3150 play, an alternate ammo for rifles can fix any remaining issues, like how alternate ammo fixes autocannons.

The problem is Machine Guns, Thumper and Sniper Artillery, Vehicle Flamers, Fluid Guns, Vehicle Sprayers along with Rifles are all pre-spaceflight weapons. So are Chainsaws, Combines, Dual Saws, and many other physical weapons. Along with quite a few infantry weapons. Yet only Rifles have the -3 damage. Sure you can argue they're using modern ammo but why wouldn't that apply to Rifles also? It's totally inconsistent.

While I'm glad that solution works for you, I still maintain the flat -3 was a mistake by TPTB.

As much as Paul keeps saying TW>AToW, the page 171 formula in the Companion is the basis for the infantry weapons table in Tech Manual.  And that table underpins ALL of the canon infantry units employed at the TW level.  This is exactly why consistency is important, and the flat -3 is the biggest inconsistency in the entire system at the moment.  It's easily fixed by an errata, even if TPTB don't want to go for the procedural fix I propose.

I'm still not understanding the math. I get multiple answers depending on what the AP is and whether or not splash damage is included. And the LRC still does nothing if the -3 damage is included. The easiest fix is to just remove the -3 damage. I really doubt removing that will cause people to go wild with Rifles.

[Daryk]

I think the -3 was a misinterpretation of the AToW page 185 rule.  There is a -3 in the math (due to the difference between BAR 10 and an assumed AP of 7), just not at the TW scale.  The -3 is applied to the AP and BD of the weapon.  When you re-enter the adjusted values into the AToW Companion page 171 formula, you get what I outlined in the first post (i.e., 5 points against BAR 10 armor for HRCs, 3 for MRCs, and 1 for LRCs).

[RifleMech]

I think the -3 was a misinterpretation of the AToW page 185 rule.  There is a -3 in the math (due to the difference between BAR 10 and an assumed AP of 7), just not at the TW scale.  The -3 is applied to the AP and BD of the weapon.  When you re-enter the adjusted values into the AToW Companion page 171 formula, you get what I outlined in the first post (i.e., 5 points against BAR 10 armor for HRCs, 3 for MRCs, and 1 for LRCs).

It could be. Not that any other Vehicle Scale Weapon has it's AP reduced by 3. But if it were just Rifles don't get penetrating critical hits against BAR-8-10 armor (Which really only effects the Heavy.) that'd be okay. (Well, not really since a punch doesn't have the muzzle velocity of a Rifle but still does damage.) The math comes out to the listed damage 9, 6 and 3. So no -3 damage. But the -3 is applied to both AP and BD and we get 6,3, and 0.

I'm not sure how you got 5,3, and 1. It looks like you're reducing the damage from the BD that would be absorbed by Infantry/BA Armors but that only works against PBIs and BA. And the damage isn't reduced. It's just absorbed by their armor. Rifle Cannon's are damage is being reduced before the hit. AToW says that Vehicle Scale Weapons are 10AP and BD = TW damage x 6. For the LRC that's 10AP/0BD when against BAR8+ Armor. 3 damage -3 damage x 6 is 0.

Of course I get more damage with 10AP so there's a problem there. To me the more serious problem is the -3 not the penetration. Again that only effects the Heavy and only against BAR8 Armor. The -3 completely nullifies the Light and nerfs the other two.

[Daryk]

Read page 185 again... it specifically says to apply the same reductions to AP and BD against tactical armor.

[RifleMech]

Read page 185 again... it specifically says to apply the same reductions to AP and BD against tactical armor.

Yes, but we're talking vehicle scale damage which is 6x infantry damage. So -3TW damage = -18BD. Right?

[Daryk]

Only if you think TPTB did it correctly, which I don't.

[monbvol]

Looks like my previous reply disappeared.


I can't say I'd be in favor of infantry doing no damage. That'd end up meaning that platoons of infantry with auto-rifles couldn't dent the family car. Infantry need some work but I don't think that's it.

Back to Rifle Cannons, I understand what TPTB were trying to do but it goes too far, isn't consistent with other pre-spaceflight weapons, isn't consistent against other advanced armors, and causes problems. Just looking at the math, I think Rifles are already bad enough without the -3 damage, and the extra penetrating critical hit roll for the heavy.

Or instead you could far more sensibly just say family cars are personal scale and thus can be damaged by autorifles but autorifles have trouble against tactical scale.

Likewise you could make the same declaration for the various motorized/mechanized infantry vehicles and thus keep autorifles very relevant.

[monbvol]

My experience so far is that it works well enough at 10 TW damage and below.  I agree it goes off the rails completely above that.

Except that is what proves the conversion formula was never meant for the task you've assigned to it nor a good basis from which to work.

If it were then it'd not go off the rails at all.

[Daryk]

But it's close enough to tell me it CAN work.

[monbvol]

But it's close enough to tell me it CAN work.

The problem is to me to be the one equation to rule them all it should not require special case rules.  I can't make the conversion work for Mech scale weapons without special case rules or fundamentally changing the formula and even potentially the stats of Small Arms.

[Maingunnery]

I think that I can replace the -3 with something completely different.
Lower TW damage value (1/2/4 or 1/3/5) and allowing it to use 'Primitive AP ammo' that only has the AP effect on low BAR armor (BAR 9 or lower).

[Daryk]

My proposed 1/3/5 comes from the existing formula (which I pointed out works below 10 TW points of damage, 9 being less than 10).

Monbvol: Newtonian physics only work for "some" conditions in the universe, but enough to successfully launch probes from here to Mars (as long as you remember to convert the units correctly).  And more seriously, a single different "special" case rule above 10 TW points of damage is less inconsistent than the mess that has been inflicted by Rifle Cannons as written.

[monbvol]

My proposed 1/3/5 comes from the existing formula (which I pointed out works below 10 TW points of damage, 9 being less than 10).

Monbvol: Newtonian physics only work for "some" conditions in the universe, but enough to successfully launch probes from here to Mars (as long as you remember to convert the units correctly).  And more seriously, a single different "special" case rule above 10 TW points of damage is less inconsistent than the mess that has been inflicted by Rifle Cannons as written.

For me it is more like the current conversion formula is for aerodynamics and you're trying to use it to solve hydrodynamics.  The math may be similar but there are enough fundamental differences that you'd wind up with a pretty terrible boat.

[Daryk]

I'm all ears for the formula tweaks that will bring weapons above 10 TW damage into line while not breaking those below 10 TW damage! 

[monbvol]

If I ever figure it out I'll gladly share it.

[RifleMech]

Only if you think TPTB did it correctly, which I don't.

Well, I'm not going to say that. 

Or instead you could far more sensibly just say family cars are personal scale and thus can be damaged by autorifles but autorifles have trouble against tactical scale.

Likewise you could make the same declaration for the various motorized/mechanized infantry vehicles and thus keep autorifles very relevant.

That would open another can of worms.  Personal has one value and Battle Armor has another. And at what point do we go from regular van protection to armored car?

How I'd treat motorized/Mechanized was talked about in another thread.

I think that I can replace the -3 with something completely different.
Lower TW damage value (1/2/4 or 1/3/5) and allowing it to use 'Primitive AP ammo' that only has the AP effect on low BAR armor (BAR 9 or lower).

Considering how big Rifles are supposed to be I wouldn't go that low. They already do less damage than the same size Autocannon.
It also nerfs the medium and heavy so much that there is zero reason to use any of them after 2255. Which is when the AC/5 becomes common. Right now, the Medium and Heavy still have penetrating power against BAR6&7 armors. You'd be removing that.

[monbvol]

That would open another can of worms.  Personal has one value and Battle Armor has another. And at what point do we go from regular van protection to armored car?

How I'd treat motorized/Mechanized was talked about in another thread.

Considering family vehicles have no armor, and are not built to military specs it should be fine.

As far as motorized/mechanized they are pretty explicitly stated to either have no armor or not full scale tactical armor already so calling them personal scale shouldn't be a problem either.

Battlearmor I'm not sure would be the problem you think they would under such a paradigm but I will admit would actually take some thought/care to get right.

[Maingunnery]

It also nerfs the medium and heavy so much that there is zero reason to use any of them after 2255. Which is when the AC/5 becomes common. Right now, the Medium and Heavy still have penetrating power against BAR6&7 armors. You'd be removing that.

I consider that to be a good thing.

[monbvol]

I consider that to be a good thing.

I also wouldn't say zero even with the -3 but yes I also agree with Maingunnery.

[Daryk]

I don't really have a problem with the Medium and Heavy.  It's the ZERO for the Light that trips my trigger.

[DevianID]

Seriously try the direct fire rules--if only on cannons.  Needing a direct hit to deal a point of damage with a single shot from an old sub 80mm cannon works perfectly.

[Daryk]

I'm glad that works for you.  If I decide to use the direct hit rules, I'd use them for everything, not just Rifle Cannons.

[CVB]

...a single shot from an old sub 80mm cannon...

Are they really? A ton of LRC ammo gives 18 shots, that's 55kg per shot. We are in the 6"/155mm caliber ballpark with that. A 3 ton LRC weighs about the same as the current 130mm Rheinmetall smoothbore prototype, including recoil system.
Now we all know that reality as we know it doesn't always work in the BTU, so from now on, I will try to use BT equivalents.

An LRC shell (18/t)is heavier than a Thumper shell (20/t). We know that the Thumper derives its damage mainly from HE, not kinetic energy (it's defined as an area effect weapon in the rules, after all).
A HE shell's effect doesn't care much which weapon delivered it, so why should an LRC shell be that much inferior to a Thumper shell? Is there any reason why an LRC shell shouldn't be able to use the same HE filler as a Thumper shell?

Or let's compare the LRC with the AC/10. Nearly the same range, indicating a similar velocity, and per the rulebook definitions the ACs fire "multiple" shells from one "shot" of ammo. One AC/10 "shot" is 100kg, "multiple" means at least two shells and therefore a maximum of 50kg per shell, so again, an LRC shell should be heavier than a single AC/10 shell. If the AC/10 derives its damage from HE, see the same conclusion as above, if it's from kinetic energy, the heavier LRC shell should even keep momentum better (cube-square-law). Again, it's hard to see why the LRC should be unable to do any damage at all.

The only possible solution could be that for some reason, rifle cannons are somehow unable to fire any shell more advanced than when they were first introduced. Maybe I have overlooked the Comprehensive Rifle Cannon Ammunition Development and Test Ban Treaty of 2525  .
But it's still strange that an LRC field gun platoon can do more damage against a battlemech by breaking their cleaning rods and use the pieces as improvised clubs than to fire their guns (really, do the math!), and that eight 200g microgrenades as support weapons are more dangerous than eight 55kg shells.

Another inconsistency: LRCs do full damage against BA, but are unable to damage protomechs. The heaviest BA is 2tons, the lightest protomech is 2tons as well, both use BAR10 armor, so what's the significant difference that gives one of them its immunity?

Sidenote: The HRC uses a shell only slightly lighter than a Long Tom shell....

[Daryk]

Based on the discussion in the other thread, it seems the LRC was an attempt by some of TPTB to start down the road of nerfing infantry weapons completely.  Being that would invalidate a significant number of now canon units, I can't see that working.

[Maingunnery]

Based on the discussion in the other thread, it seems the LRC was an attempt by some of TPTB to start down the road of nerfing infantry weapons completely.

Its more the other way around, both were related to the old kitchen-sink symptom, if TPTB could now go back in time then Rifle Cannons would not have been introduced and the infantry section in the rulebooks would be a lot thinner.

Being that would invalidate a significant number of now canon units, I can't see that working.

No problem, just redesign them for a new template.

[Daryk]

Not "no" problem, but a surmountable one certainly, with a LOT of work.

[RifleMech]

Considering family vehicles have no armor, and are not built to military specs it should be fine.

As far as motorized/mechanized they are pretty explicitly stated to either have no armor or not full scale tactical armor already so calling them personal scale shouldn't be a problem either.

Battlearmor I'm not sure would be the problem you think they would under such a paradigm but I will admit would actually take some thought/care to get right.

The Barrier Armor Table AtoW page 187 gives these examples of items with a BAR2 Rating; Window, Safety Glass; Interior Wall/Door, Residential/Commercial; Personal Computer. So it isn't inconceivable of a family car with a BAR2 armor. We even have examples in TRO:Vehicle Annex.

That's how Motorized/Mechanized are treated in canon. I would treat them more like Battle Armor with a small vehicle replacing the BA. And right now, small support vehicles with BAR8 armor are immune to LRC shots while BA with BAR10 armor are not.

Battle Armor are a problem because they have BAR10 armor and take full damage from Rifles. Protomech's don't. Small Support Vehicles don't. Mechs don't. The game mechanics aren't consistent.

I consider that to be a good thing.

Then shouldn't all pre-spaceflight weapons be reduced 3 points against BAR8+ armor?

I don't really have a problem with the Medium and Heavy.  It's the ZERO for the Light that trips my trigger.

That's what tripped mine. The 0 damage for the Light. I'd of been okay with damage reduction if it weren't for that. I wouldn't like it, as it's still inconsistent but not as bothered by it.

Well said