Register Register

Author Topic: Rifle Cannon Math  (Read 14054 times)

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3393
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #360 on: 12 July 2021, 06:18:37 »
I actually really like the BAR system. I wish BAR 10 was an actual BAR, actually. Or have it as an advanced rule that anything above 10 damage causes a crit check. Then you could rate other armors (Hardened as BAR 20, Ferro-Lamellor as BAR 15, etc.) as higher, to show their advanced capabilities.

Interesting. I think with variations of FF armor it might end up a bit complicated but it is an interesting idea.


I'm not saying that there aren't lots of improvements. I'm saying that there are almost no incremental improvements on already existing types of items, but that technological progress is almost always applied to new item types. The Omni175 installed on the 2483 Firebee differs in no way from that on the 3068 Wight. That's a bit like installing Rudolf Diesel's original engine on a 2020 SUV. The standard fusion engine doesn't change over centuries, it just gets the XL etc. placed alongside. 
The Thumper Artillery piece installed on the Apostle in 2331 is exactly the same as the Thumper on the Danai that debuted in 3071. For 740 years the Thumper didn't become lighter, get more range, higher rate of fire, less heat, better aiming, whatever. No improvement at all. When we compare that to the real life development of 150/152/155 howitzers from 1918 to 2018, just one hundred years, the stagnation of the Thumper can only be explained as a board game abstraction, but doesn't really fit with a millennium of future history. People are just too inventive about killing to allow such stagnation </cynic>. (snip)

I think it's not because there aren't incremental changes, but that they're usually not worth bothering with. I'd love a rules for this armor is a bit stronger than that armor or this PPC is more powerful than that one and so on. I don't think they're going to be the main thing though




Quote
And BT armies still seem to be somehow able to cope with 12 different designs in a company, none of which even use the same engine rating, 4 of which are from manufacturers nuked into oblivion 200 years ago, 3 come from loot from across the border, one from loot that my enemy looted himself from somewhere two realms over.... :)

And as long as they have standard parts, I can grab a knee joint off this mech and an elbow joint off that one. Armor and engine shielding from the wrecked tank along with some heat sinks. When the mech uses non-standard parts those kind of repairs are a lot harder to do. Especially when the factory was nuked 200 years ago.


Quote
Right. And over several centuries, those little changes should add up. And in times of war, money has rarely restrained a government.

Are all those increments worth stating out though?


Quote
Actually I don't even want to depict such incremental changes on the game table. I think that all the new weapons/armor type or electronics interactions of the tech beginning to be added from around the FCCW years already require too much memorized knowledge to allow for a good game flow. Adding ten different kinds of slightly different laser generations would be a nightmare. There is a reason why Alpha Strike is popular, after all.  :)

 ??? Why bring it up and complain about it then? I wouldn't mind rules to allow us to have odd or specialized version of things. Quirks help with this. Salvage rules help some. AToW or the Companion has rules for customizing infantry weapons. Just scale it up.



Quote
That's why I would prefer to see as few exceptions as possible, and that's why I would rather see that BA are treated the same as any other BAR8+ unit, even if it possibly loses a small amount of perceived realism, but would prefer even more to completely refrain from such unique rules mechanisms such as slapping a fixed damage reduction on a complete weapon type but then rescinding that for a single type of target unit.

I agree with not wanting weird rules mechanisms. I'd rather BA be BAR5 for reasons I've stated. They're already a weird in between already. Keep on with it.


Quote
I just want to draw attention to the fact that technologies are rarely completely obsoleted in the BT universe, because they normally do not compete against their children (the next generation, same operation but better), but their younger siblings (similar, overall better, but still different enough to leave niches). When the ACs were finally no longer competitive against other weapons to such a degree that there was no reason to install them, they got help (out of universe) by the rapid-fire and multiple-target rules and special ammo.

I agree that weapons are rarely obsoleted. Actually, other than vintage infantry weapons and RCs I can't think of any. And Rifles got it worse. ACs getting more ammo was never a problem to me. It does make me wonder why RCs don't have more ammo types. or why there weren't any improvements made to the ammo. Just using newer propellant should free up weight to add more ammo per ton.


Quote
For RC fan rules I would like to see:
a) RCs to be made slightly worse than AC by their inherent standard BT data, like damage, range, weight, heat etc., not by some arbitrary and unique damage reduction mechanism
b) RCs getting some special ammo types (selection from existing special ammo similar to ACs, no new rules) to justify their continued existence up to the 29th century and later renaissance during the Jihad.
c) getting the damage per ton of ammo more in line with other weapon types

From the official publications I would like to see RCs to be actually used on designs between the age of war and their extinction date.
Edit: the Historicals alluded to several times might be a fitting place for that.

I totally agree.
A) I think they are already with full damage. I'd be okay with some damage reduction but not to a complete 0 that we have now. 0 at long range is okay.
B) Maybe even some rounds that are unique to Rifles because they can't be loaded as fast as Autocannons or the AC rounds are too small. Some damage and alternate munitions would keep them around. They'd still be poor replacements for an AC but sometimes one wants a bolt action rifle instead of a machine gun.
C) Yeah. These are more artillery rounds. Which I'd be okay with if Rifles could be used as artillery. It'd be another reason to keep them around.

Historicals would be okay. I'd rather they appeared in TROs dated for that time period. I don't like the new Era versions. Era's are too broad. They're also confusing with units going extinct part way though. With a dated TRO, I knew that as of that date that unit was still around. The factory may be long gone but the unit was still in service. I'm okay with "reprints" with a cover letter but let it be set in the past.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3393
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #361 on: 12 July 2021, 06:19:09 »
As Maingunnery wrote,  TO, p.108.
Same as TO:AR, p. 107. Keep in mind that this only applies to Bearhunters and King Davids mounted on battle armor, not to infantry/SV ones. And it does also apply only to the BA King David, not the BA David (same TW damage and ammo weight, but one hex less range) or BA Magshot (same range, twice the TW damage for half the ammo weight).  ???

Thanks. I looks like an optional rule for BA vs BA fights.



You just think no one is telling because you're asking the wrong question.  No one has said that BA can't support an attack from a Rifle Cannon, but support a hit from an Autocannon.  Look again, and you will not find it.

What is happening is that BA cannot RESIST Rifle Cannons, so they take full damage, just like they take full damage from Autocannons.

Basically it comes down to the basics on how each unit is constructed.  My theory is that it is due to how the structure is designed for Battle Armor as opposed to ProtoMechs, Combat Vehicles, and Battlemechs, such that their structure can be seen and hit on the Total Warfare scale, and Battle Armor cannot.

The problem is we're told that Rifle Cannons have a -3 against BAR10 armor and then told, "Except they do more damage on BA."
If 5 points is full damage from an AC/5 against BAR10 armor why does Rifle Cannon damage vary by 3? It either should do full damage or it shouldn't.

I keep being told my math is wrong but when I keep seeing 1+1=3 I'm going to question it.

You still have to get through the armor. I know there's a lot of abstraction with BA but either the armor is BAR10 or it isn't. If it is, RCs shouldn't do full damage. If it is, then RC's -3 damage should be removed.

The only armors where all weapons do full damage are BAR7 and under. Making BA BAR5 (2,3,4,6,or 7) allows all weapons to do full damage without any weirdness.

Quote
Again, Battle Armor is fully defending against Rifle Cannons just as much as it is against Autocannons, which is why Autocannons don't do more damage.

Here's a guide: What is the damage value listed for Light Rifle Cannons?  How much damage does Battle Armor take?  What is the damage value listed for the AC/5?  How much damage does Battle Armor take?

They don't change because there is no extra resistance that the other units have due to their construction.

Maybe it isn't the internal structure but BAR level? I say that because blaming the structure makes no sense. There is more structure on a 2 ton BA than there is on a 2 ton Proto. There's more structure on a 2 ton BA than on a 3.5 ton hovercar. Yet these units can shrug off a LRC with no damage but a BA will but it's only RCs that do more damage and it's the chassis to blame? Sorry. Not buying it. I can see blaming the armor but not the chassis.


Quote
Yes, you're math is wrong.

Every single time you said that BA take 3 more damage from Rifle Cannons, you treated it as a +3 damage bonus, in fact you're doing it in your questions in this very post I'm quoting.

It is NOT +3 damage, it is just not X-3 damage other units types get.  The -3 is the resistance that the other unit types have that Battle Armor does not.  X-3 <> X+3.

I'm not the one saying 1+1=3. That's what I'm seeing here. Mech 1+1=2. Tank 1+1=2. BA 1+1=3.


Quote
Why the damage types?
First reason:  Because those are the rules.  Realistically, it doesn't NEED anything more, but you won't accept that.

I got no idea. None. This thread is about fixing what we see as problems with the rules. If I liked them I wouldn't be posting in this thread trying to fix them.


Quote
Second reason:  Because it is not just about Ballistic Weapons (which no one has said but you), but how that specific line of Ballistics works.  Because of how they work, certain unit types have a resistance to the damage they cause if armored properly.

If you go back and look I've said various weapons. Every time I get the run around. Also please not the bold and underlined in the your quote. IF BA were armored properly, they wouldn't take full damage from Rifle Cannons.


Quote
Third reason:  There is something innate about the build which causes the lack of resistance.  Which specific part of the build?  Unknown, but since it is based on the unit type, it must be a factor of construction.  Since the Armor is the same, it might be what the armor is mounted on, the structure.  How the structure is designed such that the structure cannot hold on to as much armor from a Rifle Cannon hit as a Combat Vehicle does, I cannot say, partly because that level of detail is not really allowed to us in sufficient quantity.  It could simply be a factor in allowing the BA suit to have its mobility, but that's still just a theory.

Or maybe their armor isn't really BAR10. It's just a Theory but there are some facts. All weapons do full damage against BAR2-7 units. Against BAR8-10 units all weapons, except Rifles do full damage. Rifles have a -3. BA AToW BAR levels go up to 18. It's a theory but it sure looks like TW BA aren't BAR10.


Quote
Wow, you didn't even realize your error.  You were listing an AC/20 doing 13 damage.  I can't think of a single situation where when you try to do 20 damage with an autocannon, it LOSES 7 points of damage (short of 13 points of damage left in the Center Torso).

Wow! You completely missed what I said, I said a single shot. Not burst. As in the Multiple Target Rules in Tac Ops page 98. AC/20 half damage = 10 points. IF BA chassis can't withstand a hit from a RC why doesn't a single round from a AC/20 do 13 points of damage?


Quote
And your math is still wrong even going by the assumption.  X does not become X+3 elsewhere just because it isn't X-3 against something.

If there wasn't an X-3, there wouldn't be a problem to fix.


Quote
I have no problem addressing fixes, but in order to understand what is truly wrong, you have to understand the problem is in the first place.  Your starting point is just flat out wrong.  BA defends against RCs just as well as it defends against more powerful weapons.

They take X damage from everything.  Meanwhile, the other units get X-3 from Rifle Cannons.  You're converting that in to +3 damage to Battle Armor, which is in high error.

If BA defends against RCs as well as other BAR10 units, why do RCs do full damage against them?



Quote
Then that is a severe retcon, because it should have been known by Phelan Kell the exact weapon mix on that Timberwolf Prime such that they could have rebuilt it.  Except, it wouldn't recognize any of the weapons because of how different they were from normal until they fired.

Oh, and which TacOps, now that there are two?

I'm guessing this is before Phelan Kell was captured by the Clans. I'd say that the sensors were scanning just fine but the warbook was having issues because nothing matched up. Clan Tech wouldn't have been known at the time. So the scanner says, "I see this" to the warbook and the war book says, "That can't be! That weapon is X tons and that weapon is Y. Non of this makes sense! AAARRRGGG!!!!

The Rules only one.

Quote
The frontline where?  By whom?

It's a very bad theory because it assumes a fault in physics when you don't have all the information.

The people living on New St. Andrews.

True we don't have all the information but it makes more sense than "because a heavier stronger chassis can't do it".


Quote
Actually, I was using your BAR5 argument to point out to you something you aren't doing by providing an example.  (Though, your "rules are wrong" theory does actually state that it wasn't JUST a suggestion.)

In several of our conversations, your responses have been structured as my "as it currently is" to be "this is as it should be", including this one.  This leads to very very bad communication.

I have no idea where you're getting that. As is currently means as is currently. Not as it should be because it already is.

A Rifle Cannon hits any unit with BAR7 or less armor. That hit does full damage. Same Rifle hits BAR8 or better armor it suffers -3 damage. Do I really need to list a specific vehicle?


Quote
Or you're not operating at a scale where a normal human being can be taken out after being hit by anything?

AToW page 186 puts BA armor in between personal and tactical and hits can penetrate.
Quote
If, after accounting for BAR effects, a battlesuit or exoskeleton suffers more than 1 point of damage to its tactical armor, each additional point of tactical armor damage also delivers 1 Standard damage point to the character within. Triple this penetrating damage (to 3 points of Standard damage per point of tactical damage) if the suit is an exoskeleton.

That sounds very similar to have units with BAR2-7 take damage.


Quote
Then come up with an actual armored vehicle for your analogy next time, not a private roadster.  Most rounds will go through the skin of a Chevy Nova with ease.

Correction.  In the case of the Support Vehicle versus BA, the armor is equally strong, point by point.  The difference is how much armor is being placed, and on what.

A custom Blue Nova with BAR 8 armor, good?

If the chassis can't support it, the armor wouldn't be as strong.


Quote
Actually it did.  200 years of production means that both are there at the same time for 200 years.  More time than without each other, in fact.

200 years of concurrent production is irrelevant. It was said to be intended for OMNIs. There were no OMNIs for anything to be intended for them.
« Last Edit: 12 July 2021, 08:04:22 by RifleMech »

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25129
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #362 on: 12 July 2021, 06:33:55 »
*snip*
BAR as far as AToW and its use by support vehicles, I think was thought out. Infantry vs BAR in TW, I'm going to go with TPTB didn't want a bigger spreadsheet of Infantry damages vs BAR armors. They'd also have to have a conversion process for each BAR, which I think they figured would be a pain.
*snip*
That's the thing... they HAVE a conversion process for every BAR!  It's right there in AToW, on page 185.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3393
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #363 on: 12 July 2021, 08:08:01 »
They both have and haven't.


Confusing.  :(

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3393
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #364 on: 12 July 2021, 08:18:09 »
Riflemech, I want to point out that you dismissed this point about infernos and LRC being similar due to what I assume is not checking the math on infernos.  How many infernos does it take to kill a tank from the front?  If you think the answer is less than fifty, yes 50, hits with infernos, then I must have missed a very important errata on how infernos work.  Likewise, it will take a massive number of LRC hits, probably more than 50, for enough of them to be direct blows.

Every inferno hit is an automatic roll on the critical hits table so it could take just one.



Quote
How can this be?  Easy.  The light cannon on a m2 bradley fires 25mm tungsten penetrates rated to about 60mm.  From the front, a t-72 can't be damaged by them, nor can it from the side, as the side has 80mm rated armor.  However, from the side at short range well placed DIRECT hits can penetrate the 80mm armor, despite the listed penetration being 0 just looking at armor stats.  The LRC in battletech has this EXACT SAME FEATURE.  So fluff matches reality, there is no conflict.

If things matched the LRC would do damage, at close range at least.


Quote
But what about BA armor?  Well, the fluff in btech constantly talks about how elementals are losing limbs or getting broken bones and burns from attacks that "just" hit the armor, and how it is painkillers and medical devices applying tourniquets that keep the trooper fighting despite still having armor.  Meanwhile the crew in tanks don't feel a thing until crits start rolling in.  A rifle does full damage to battle armor because battle armor "armor points" dont protect the troopers inside, the just represent when the suit stops functioning.  Hence why battle armor doesnt protect against infernos.  Hence why any critical hit to battle armor that has been hit before, regardless of how much armor it has, kills the trooper.  Srms and LBx pellets are great elemental killers, hence the anti elemental snake battlemech.  It wasn't always, but it has been for as long as tac ops has been out.

AToW says that hits that remove BA's armor points are also penetrating. That happens with other units with BAR2-7 armor. BA also take damage from infernos because they can't deal with the heat.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3393
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #365 on: 12 July 2021, 08:23:47 »

 :thumbsup:

I've said this before, but rifles arnt shooting shells with shots/tonnage for 111kg per mrc trigger pull, unlike how an AC/20 puts out 200kg of various shells per salvo.  Rifle ammo shots are reduced by a factor of 2-3, for various fluff reasons of being an old weapon, and in-game reasons for game balance as an advanced weapon type.  Precision ammo for a.c. weapons is likewise reduced... A precision ac20 round isnt 500kg because it has 2 shot/ton, for the same reason MRC ammo isnt 111kg because it has 9 shots/ton--precision ammo is an advanced ammo type and they nerfed the ammo per ton for balance.


2-3? What?

Precision ammo is being fluffed as heavier than standard ammo. That's why there's less per ton. Caseless is light so more per ton.
So I can see vintage precision ammo being half per ton. I can also see modern versions equaling shots per ton because their standard rounds have doubled.

CVB

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1475
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #366 on: 12 July 2021, 08:38:36 »
I've said this before, but rifles arnt shooting shells with shots/tonnage for 111kg per mrc trigger pull, unlike how an AC/20 puts out 200kg of various shells per salvo.  Rifle ammo shots are reduced by a factor of 2-3, for various fluff reasons of being an old weapon, and in-game reasons for game balance as an advanced weapon type.  Precision ammo for a.c. weapons is likewise reduced... A precision ac20 round isnt 500kg because it has 2 shot/ton, for the same reason MRC ammo isnt 111kg because it has 9 shots/ton--precision ammo is an advanced ammo type and they nerfed the ammo per ton for balance.
There is no reason to think a 1 ton ammo bay is pure ammo.  Besides the skin of the bay, there are all the mechanisms used for loading the bay as well as moving the ammunition out of the bay (if not in to the weapon's receiver).

For a sample of this, Plasma Rifle is 10 rounds of foam.  So either those are very large pieces of foam that mass the same as a round of AC/10 ammo, or there is a lot more working in the bay because of its relative fragility.

With this concept, the feeding mechanisms just take up more mass for Rifle Cannon rounds than they do for Autocannons, leaving their bays at just over 50% of an Autocannon's damage capacity (before the resistance kicks in).

This is the Fan Rules Forum. I didn't argue that CGL should un-nerf/retcon RCs and their ammo, I stated what I would like to see from a fan rule, and why. As they have stated many times, TPTB don't visit the fan rules and design boards to avoid any accusation of plagiarism, so they will never even see what I write.
Rationalizations why the official rules as written (RAW) are the way that they are therefore are besides the point. If you think that the RAW are to your liking, I'm happy for you and promise I will not secretly break into your game room and redact your rule books.
There are some parts of the RAW that are not to my liking, things that I perceive as purely arbitrary especially,  and I enjoy to exchange ideas about how they can be changed as fan/house rules.
IMHO, some of the rationalizations I've read are just adding even more arbitrariness and inconsistency. So frex RC ammo contains tonnage for loading/feeding mechanisms, but AC/20 ammo doesn't. Can I get a list which weapons are complete and which need their loader provided from each ton of ammo, please? If one ammo bay supplies two guns, does it have to give up  some more shells for the second loader? Do I have to install additional feed mechanisms when ammo is stored in a different location from the gun and has to move from the left leg to the right arm?

BTW: TM (4th ed.)p. 88 tells us what each shot weighs for many weapons, and they confirm that the shots/ton listed actually contain only ammo (except for the AC/s, which get 50 shots instead of 45, unless you argue that every single shot gets its own mini loader.

If any weapon is deemed to be too light (which I actually do think regarding the RCs), isn't the increased weight better allocated to the gun, not the ammo?  I'm sure TPTB won't change the books for me, so again I'm talking about house rules.

Thanks for pointing out the precision ammo and plasma rifle cases. I do indeed think that this is questionable game design.
We aren't told how many kg of plastic foam per shot are needed. If the foam cartridge is so bulky that a normal one ton ammo bay can't contain it, the bay should be increased in size (crits), not the ammo in weight. If it is too delicate and fragile, then the ammo might just need an extra-heavy casing that would account for some weight, but still 100kg for a bit of foam is ridiculous. Just off the cuff: adding 1.5tons and 1 crit to the weapon, allowing ammo in a half ton lot and increasing the number of cartridges/ton to 40 would result in the same total weight, crit space and number of shots while IMHO looking more believable. YMMV. I'm not saying that these are the exact values that should be used, only that a lot of arbitrariness can be worked around to increase suspension of disbelief.
For the precision rounds: again I think arbitrarily changing the number of shells by punishing the ammo for some benefit is questionable and leads to inconsistencies. If a shell of double the weight could be fired at the same range, then why not putting an AC/40 shell in an AC/20? If is simply larger, how does it fit into the gun breech and chamber, and why increase the weight of the bay instead of the size?
Off the cuff proposal: since the shells have to contain the guidance package, the damage per shell is reduced (say, down to 80%, FRD). If that's not enough, the guidance package is too delicate to take the full acceleration, so the shell loses some range. Or maybe the -2 TMM reduction is too much, and -1 is more believable? Fine tune with ammo price per your liking.

I simply want to eliminate as many inconsistencies and unnecessary special cases as possible at my table.
"Wars result when one side either misjudges its chances or wishes to commit suicide; and not even Masada began as a suicide attempt. In general, both warring parties expect to win. In the event, they are wrong more than half the time."
- David Drake

I'm willing to suspend my disbelief, but I'm not willing to hang it by the neck until it's dead, dead, dead!

CVB

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1475
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #367 on: 12 July 2021, 08:46:28 »
??? Why bring it up and complain about it then? I wouldn't mind rules to allow us to have odd or specialized version of things.

I didn't want to complain about it. Just a long winded way to arrive at the statement "technology in BT is rarely if ever completey obsolete because progress is mostly  applied to new tech items and rarely to existing items." Got a bit carried away, sorry about that.
"Wars result when one side either misjudges its chances or wishes to commit suicide; and not even Masada began as a suicide attempt. In general, both warring parties expect to win. In the event, they are wrong more than half the time."
- David Drake

I'm willing to suspend my disbelief, but I'm not willing to hang it by the neck until it's dead, dead, dead!

Maingunnery

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6398
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #368 on: 12 July 2021, 10:58:48 »
Do cannon fodder get the best equipment that can be obtained?
The best equipment that can be obtained are the limited imports/salvage, the RC is for the cannon fodder.


Quote
And the whole reason for the RC's -3 is that they're not powerful enough.
That assumption is incorrect, it is clearly a 'weapon type vs unit type' effect. The world will always make no sense if one uses bad assumptions as the foundations.


Quote
Again, Sorry but that makes no sense.
You have to go into more detail, what is difficult to understand about "that there are damage and unit specific counters and defenses in BT, be it by design or coincidence"?


Quote
Besides that RCs weren't around for BA to develop counters and defense against, it still does nothing to explain why more powerful weapons aren't more effective.
The whole 'more powerful' weapons is nonsensical because your examples are different weapons with their own ways of doing damage.


Quote
Maybe but it doesn't solve any of the problems and even makes things worse.
That is a decent description of the BAR system. Even a SV car with two points of BAR 2 armor on one facing has enough armor to handle a 20mm machine gun burst or a single SRM, which is a massive deviation with what people associate with a car. This only becomes more extreme when using even higher BAR armor.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

Fan XTRO: The Society
Nebula Confederation Ships

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11750
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #369 on: 12 July 2021, 12:21:49 »

Confusing.  :(

I can agree TPTB's stance on the matter is not entirely clear.  I know they consider TW/TacOps>AToW and while they don't outright say it the implication is they consider any remaining issues related to my various BAR questions too fringe to be anything near the issue others seem to think they are.

The evidence is also growing that they simply haven't thought through the BAR system fully, do not intend to either, and as a result we now have two distinct BAR systems at minimum.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25129
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #370 on: 12 July 2021, 12:39:58 »
And those two parallel systems are why we're having this discussion.  They don't have to be cross-threaded.  It's just TPTB aren't interested in the relatively minor tweaks necessary to make them mesh cleanly.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3393
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #371 on: 12 July 2021, 14:19:16 »
I simply want to eliminate as many inconsistencies and unnecessary special cases as possible at my table.

 :thumbsup: :beer:


I didn't want to complain about it. Just a long winded way to arrive at the statement "technology in BT is rarely if ever completey obsolete because progress is mostly  applied to new tech items and rarely to existing items." Got a bit carried away, sorry about that.

No worries.  :thumbsup: It is a valid observation. It's also one of the things that makes me question the Rifles -3.



The best equipment that can be obtained are the limited imports/salvage, the RC is for the cannon fodder.

If imports were possible the RC wouldn't be used. And they seem to be doing the job as there's not enough salvage to go around.



Quote
That assumption is incorrect, it is clearly a 'weapon type vs unit type' effect. The world will always make no sense if one uses bad assumptions as the foundations.

It's not an assumption. It's from TacOps.

Quote
You have to go into more detail, what is difficult to understand about "that there are damage and unit specific counters and defenses in BT, be it by design or coincidence"?

That there can be counters by coincidence is fine. No problem. That a 2 ton BAR takes full damage from a LRC while those same rounds are bouncing off a 500kg vehicle with inferior armor just isn't believable.



The whole 'more powerful' weapons is nonsensical because your examples are different weapons with their own ways of doing damage.

Quote
That is a decent description of the BAR system. Even a SV car with two points of BAR 2 armor on one facing has enough armor to handle a 20mm machine gun burst or a single SRM, which is a massive deviation with what people associate with a car. This only becomes more extreme when using even higher BAR armor.

That is certainly a problem with TW's abstraction.


Maingunnery

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6398
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #372 on: 12 July 2021, 14:41:55 »
If imports were possible the RC wouldn't be used. And they seem to be doing the job as there's not enough salvage to go around.
So you think that if some import is possible then that would mean that they can import an infinite quantity? Or if not that their older imports suddenly vanish?

Quote
It's not an assumption. It's from TacOps.
The rules as written say otherwise.

Quote
That there can be counters by coincidence is fine. No problem. That a 2 ton BAR takes full damage from a LRC while those same rounds are bouncing off a 500kg vehicle with inferior armor just isn't believable.
That vehicle can be build to withstand a SRM, comparing it to current day vehicles is a bad comparison. A more valid comparison might be a 14th century Pot-de-fer cannon vs a Humvee, you know irrelevant damage.

Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

Fan XTRO: The Society
Nebula Confederation Ships

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4746
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #373 on: 12 July 2021, 15:12:22 »
Hence looking for opportunities to fix it.

Okay. So, you don't like the rules, as is, either, right?

Then...
That is the point I'm trying to make.  While the structure is more than enough there to handle its movement and the rest of its work, even with a heavier load, it obviously isn't sufficient to handle every impact since it isn't dropping off of the car.

If you have another theory, let's hear it.  Until you have one, though, it's rather hard to disprove.

Why bother to rationalize what isn't working to begin with?

I did that with the advent of Tech Manual Infantry Construction, tried to rationalize it, even though I didn't like it.  But, once people started pointing out what the lore says about it, or rather doesn't say about it, versus what the lore does say about Mechs, I realized that I didn't have to rationalize anything.  No reason to entertain thoughts about what I didn't like.

Now, granted, I get what you're trying to say.  In the picture of the elemental suit, you don't see much in the way of a skeleton supporting the armor plates.  In fact, it could be argued that the armor is the structure, to which slabs of Myomer are attached internally.  So, without some sort of backing to give it a little extra support to redirect the damage, the armor loses its integrity more readily since it's having to absorb all the energy that an armor/structure layout would potentially divide.  And!  Since the suit is designed to protect the wearer for as long as possible without presenting breachable plates, that translates into full damage.

Reasonable.

I see a problem with the fact that RCs do full damage against internal structure.  So, this kinda suggests that Structure may be accounted for separately.  This is arguable, of course, and I'm not going to try to justify it. 

Aside:
However, for me, it brings up another inconsistency with the application of RC and the -3 damage being arbitrary.  I personally don't see armor 'vanishing' once it's reached zero points.  That's the point holes start getting punched through it, having lost cohesive integrity overall.  This is my take on why you don't get to auto-hit an exposed location at any range to destroy it, because the armor's still there, providing some protection that the combat unit may use to deflect shots against.  It also contributes, in my opinion, to why you still have a high probability of not crippling an item with structure damage.  (But, of course, this is part of my automated defensive motion I view all combat units as using to some degree or other.  A rare view when interpreting what you imagine on the tabletop.)

But, I stand by my earlier point.  You want the rules to change.  Why rationalize what is, if you want it to change?
It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3393
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #374 on: 12 July 2021, 15:16:24 »
So you think that if some import is possible then that would mean that they can import an infinite quantity? Or if not that their older imports suddenly vanish?

If they had the imports would they go to the expense of building a factory to make inferior weaponry?



Quote
The rules as written say otherwise.
Those are the rules.
Quote
However, because they lack the armor penetrating
power of modern autocannons, rifles of all sizes must subtract 3 points of damage (to a minimum of 0)

Infantry don't have BAR10 armor. But they're weird and enough armor will give them a damage divisor, which effects all weapons equally. So RCs do full damage minus any divisor.

Mechs using Commercial Armor. That's BAR5 so RCs do full damage.

Support Vehicles with a BAR rating below 8. RCs do full damage.

Battle Armor. They're BAR10 but they take full damage even though RCs are -3 against BAR10.   :blank:   At one point I was okay with that. I'm still okay with RCs doing full damage to them. That BA have BAR10 armor...that I don't buy any more. If they have BAR10 armor then Rifles should not have a damage reduction.


Quote
That vehicle can be build to withstand a SRM, comparing it to current day vehicles is a bad comparison. A more valid comparison might be a 14th century Pot-de-fer cannon vs a Humvee, you know irrelevant damage.

Considering how damage is done in BT, I wouldn't call the damage from a Pot-de-fer irrelevant. It'd certainly do more than a LRC. That's the problem.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25129
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #375 on: 12 July 2021, 15:25:21 »
If you look at the table on page 187 of AToW, you can see that BA don't technically have BAR 10 armor.  Except that TPTB keep saying AToW and the BAR system don't count at the TW level, then turn around and deliver us this current mess.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3393
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #376 on: 12 July 2021, 15:34:33 »
(snip)
Now, granted, I get what you're trying to say.  In the picture of the elemental suit, you don't see much in the way of a skeleton supporting the armor plates.  In fact, it could be argued that the armor is the structure, to which slabs of Myomer are attached internally.  So, without some sort of backing to give it a little extra support to redirect the damage, the armor loses its integrity more readily since it's having to absorb all the energy that an armor/structure layout would potentially divide.  And!  Since the suit is designed to protect the wearer for as long as possible without presenting breachable plates, that translates into full damage.

Reasonable.

Reasonable? Yes. That Battle Armor's protection is a 10? Not reasonable.

Quote
I see a problem with the fact that RCs do full damage against internal structure.  So, this kinda suggests that Structure may be accounted for separately.  This is arguable, of course, and I'm not going to try to justify it. 

 ???  Are you still talking BA or other units? If other units Structure does have points and it isn't armored.

Quote
Aside:
However, for me, it brings up another inconsistency with the application of RC and the -3 damage being arbitrary.  I personally don't see armor 'vanishing' once it's reached zero points.  That's the point holes start getting punched through it, having lost cohesive integrity overall.  This is my take on why you don't get to auto-hit an exposed location at any range to destroy it, because the armor's still there, providing some protection that the combat unit may use to deflect shots against.  It also contributes, in my opinion, to why you still have a high probability of not crippling an item with structure damage.  (But, of course, this is part of my automated defensive motion I view all combat units as using to some degree or other.  A rare view when interpreting what you imagine on the tabletop.)

I've picture damage ranging between melted gouges to dents to divots and so on up to big holes. Once the armor gets to zero points, there maybe be some armor still there but it's not enough to provide any protection. I picture similar for structure. Get to zero and there might be a stump left or the arm still there but dangling from the myomer and power cables and clearly not functional.

Quote
But, I stand by my earlier point.  You want the rules to change.  Why rationalize what is, if you want it to change?

Excellent question. :thumbsup:



If you look at the table on page 187 of AToW, you can see that BA don't technically have BAR 10 armor.  Except that TPTB keep saying AToW and the BAR system don't count at the TW level, then turn around and deliver us this current mess.

I've seen it. Worse, the armor levels vary between IS and Clan armors and none have 100% full 10/10/10/10 protection. And since TW does have a BAR system, why is it odd for me to think that BA's BAR in TW is 7 or less? It fits right in with SVs and Rifles doing full damage. It'd be one less mess. 

CVB

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1475
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #377 on: 12 July 2021, 16:23:18 »
The whole 'more powerful' weapons is nonsensical because your examples are different weapons with their own ways of doing damage.

Maybe the whole discussion could become more productive if someone could authoritatively describe what their own ways of doing damage actually are, at least for
RCs, ACs, Gauss Rifles, King Davids, other BA Gauss weapons (David, Magshot), missile warheads and  artillery, 
against BA, BAR7- units, BAR8+ units except BA

Anyone?
"Wars result when one side either misjudges its chances or wishes to commit suicide; and not even Masada began as a suicide attempt. In general, both warring parties expect to win. In the event, they are wrong more than half the time."
- David Drake

I'm willing to suspend my disbelief, but I'm not willing to hang it by the neck until it's dead, dead, dead!

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4746
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #378 on: 12 July 2021, 16:43:11 »
But what about BA armor?  Well, the fluff in btech constantly talks about how elementals are losing limbs or getting broken bones and burns from attacks that "just" hit the armor, and how it is painkillers and medical devices applying tourniquets that keep the trooper fighting despite still having armor.  Meanwhile the crew in tanks don't feel a thing until crits start rolling in.  A rifle does full damage to battle armor because battle armor "armor points" dont protect the troopers inside, the just represent when the suit stops functioning.  Hence why battle armor doesnt protect against infernos.  Hence why any critical hit to battle armor that has been hit before, regardless of how much armor it has, kills the trooper.  Srms and LBx pellets are great elemental killers, hence the anti elemental snake battlemech.  It wasn't always, but it has been for as long as tac ops has been out.

See, back in the day, and even now, I always looked at those depictions as being that last point of damage to 'kill the trooper'.  You lose that gun arm, how are you participating in squad fire?  You lose your leg, how do you plan on going anywhere without assistance?

As for Tac Ops, what are you referring to, specifically?
It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Maingunnery

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6398
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #379 on: 12 July 2021, 17:28:19 »
If they had the imports would they go to the expense of building a factory to make inferior weaponry?
Because they can't import enough.


Quote
Mechs using Commercial Armor. That's BAR5 so RCs do full damage.

Support Vehicles with a BAR rating below 8. RCs do full damage.

Battle Armor. They're BAR10 but they take full damage even though RCs are -3 against BAR10.   :blank:   At one point I was okay with that. I'm still okay with RCs doing full damage to them. That BA have BAR10 armor...that I don't buy any more. If they have BAR10 armor then Rifles should not have a damage reduction.
No problem here, BA are not 'Mechs or Vehicles. But if you want to make everything equal across unit types you could start by making fan rules for adding motive damage to 'Mechs or removing it from vehicles.

 
Quote
Considering how damage is done in BT, I wouldn't call the damage from a Pot-de-fer irrelevant. It'd certainly do more than a LRC. That's the problem.
Actually there is no corresponding weapon in BT for the Pot-de-fer, so it also would do no notable damage, so 0 damage in TW.


Maybe the whole discussion could become more productive if someone could authoritatively describe what their own ways of doing damage actually are, at least for
RCs, ACs, Gauss Rifles, King Davids, other BA Gauss weapons (David, Magshot), missile warheads and  artillery, 
against BA, BAR7- units, BAR8+ units except BA

Anyone?
Well how does the compounds of an XL engine shielding work? What is the exact current required to power a PPC capacitor? The exact mechanism is unknown because it is scifi, the minimal technobabble is the most we can expect. So asking for the exact mechanism in BT is silly at best. The game can only work by abstracting and categorizing various pieces of technology.
For example in the BT universe there are likely tens of thousands of different weapons but that will not fit in a rulebook or be very playable, so it has to be abstracted step by step. For example a Medium Laser has over 20 different brands that are all slightly different, however they are all: heavy weapons, energy weapons, laser weapons, standard lasers, and their size and performance fall within the medium laser subcategory.
In short it is a medium laser because it performs like a medium laser, and that goes for all equipment. 
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

Fan XTRO: The Society
Nebula Confederation Ships

Charistoph

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2003
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #380 on: 12 July 2021, 17:33:26 »
The problem is we're told that Rifle Cannons have a -3 against BAR10 armor and then told, "Except they do more damage on BA."
If 5 points is full damage from an AC/5 against BAR10 armor why does Rifle Cannon damage vary by 3? It either should do full damage or it shouldn't.

FALSE.  The rules state, "because they lack the armor penetrating power of modern autocannons, rifles of all sizes must subtract 3 points of damage (to a minimum of 0) for successful attacks against any unit except for... battle armor..."

The 3 more damage is a player euphemism at best and bad math at worst.  It is simply Battle Armor takes full damage from Rifle Cannons and Autocannons.  That simple.  You're complicating it more than it is every single time you type +3.

I keep being told my math is wrong but when I keep seeing 1+1=3 I'm going to question it.

Because it is not "1+1=3".  It is simply X without X-3, and you're converting it to X+3.  That is why your math is wrong.

You still have to get through the armor. I know there's a lot of abstraction with BA but either the armor is BAR10 or it isn't. If it is, RCs shouldn't do full damage. If it is, then RC's -3 damage should be removed.

And if that was the only thing involved in the equation, I would be in agreement.  But it is not.

The only armors where all weapons do full damage are BAR7 and under. Making BA BAR5 (2,3,4,6,or 7) allows all weapons to do full damage without any weirdness.

Maybe it isn't the internal structure but BAR level? I say that because blaming the structure makes no sense. There is more structure on a 2 ton BA than there is on a 2 ton Proto. There's more structure on a 2 ton BA than on a 3.5 ton hovercar. Yet these units can shrug off a LRC with no damage but a BA will but it's only RCs that do more damage and it's the chassis to blame? Sorry. Not buying it. I can see blaming the armor but not the chassis.

Except that would be going against the rules.  You're changing what the armor is in your theory, and then applying it as your suggestion?  Make up your mind as to which it is, please.

There may be more mass in the structure, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is configured the same way.  A hovercar is structured to provide the frame for the armor, 1-2 doors, maybe a turret, and the propulsion mechanisms.  Battle Armor has to not only support the armor, but provide the mobility needed in the average Infantryman.  Those parameters are quite different as our own people are finding out just trying to invent the first producible PA(L).

I'm not the one saying 1+1=3. That's what I'm seeing here. Mech 1+1=2. Tank 1+1=2. BA 1+1=3.

Which perfectly demonstrates that your math is wrong.  I'm not your kindergarten teacher or your mother who will give you a pass because of your effort.  I'm the engineer telling you that you're using the wrong formula and coming to incorrect conclusions which will lead to something that won't work.  You're using basic math when you need to be doing at least a little algebra.

BA take X damage from Rifle Cannons.  Battlemechs take X-3 damage from Rifle Cannons.  There is no 1+1 involved at all.

I got no idea. None. This thread is about fixing what we see as problems with the rules. If I liked them I wouldn't be posting in this thread trying to fix them.

Yet you spend all this time arguing about possibilities of the cause of it, and have even claimed that the canon and rules are wrong.

If you go back and look I've said various weapons. Every time I get the run around. Also please not the bold and underlined in the your quote. IF BA were armored properly, they wouldn't take full damage from Rifle Cannons.

No, you don't get the run around, you've gotten an "I don't know" and theories, and that's it.  You've also try to equate Rifle Cannons and Autocannons as if they were the same exact thing, when they aren't aside from both pushing rounds out a barrel through explosive propulsion.  You might as well be comparing Standard AC rounds with AP rounds or Streak SRMs with Tandem-Charge SRMs.  Until you can demonstrate that they both use the same type of rounds, it really is you who is running around on your own wondering why no one is talking to you.

As the rules exist, it wouldn't matter if BA were armored in BAR5 or BAR 27, they still take the full damage from Rifle Cannons unless the armor itself has some advantage against all Ballistic weapons.  The "if armored properly" was for those were that armor does matter.

Or maybe their armor isn't really BAR10. It's just a Theory but there are some facts. All weapons do full damage against BAR2-7 units. Against BAR8-10 units all weapons, except Rifles do full damage. Rifles have a -3. BA AToW BAR levels go up to 18. It's a theory but it sure looks like TW BA aren't BAR10.

Wow, back to confusing your theory with your suggestion.  Make up your mind, will you?

Wow! You completely missed what I said, I said a single shot. Not burst. As in the Multiple Target Rules in Tac Ops page 98. AC/20 half damage = 10 points. IF BA chassis can't withstand a hit from a RC why doesn't a single round from a AC/20 do 13 points of damage?

Nope, you said, "If a HRC can do 9 points of damage to a BA, a single round from an AC/20 should do 13 points as it's hitting harder."  You stated no other rules, and some AC/20s do just fire a single round in their fluff.  In game terms, a "round" from an autocannon could be a burst shot or a single shot and considered the same until such advanced rules are put in to play.  Any implications were purely in your head and otherwise unstated.

If there wasn't an X-3, there wouldn't be a problem to fix.

Not in argument, but you do need to realize that this IS an X-3 situation, not an X+3 or 1+1=3 situation.  Until you do, you're running around with theories that do not match the situation, so your suggestions will not make sense.

If BA defends against RCs as well as other BAR10 units, why do RCs do full damage against them?

Why are you asking a question about something I did not say?

I did not say that, "BA defends against RCs as well as other BAR10 units."  I said, "BA defends against RCs just as well as it defends against more powerful weapons."  Those are two completely different statements.

I'm guessing this is before Phelan Kell was captured by the Clans. I'd say that the sensors were scanning just fine but the warbook was having issues because nothing matched up. Clan Tech wouldn't have been known at the time. So the scanner says, "I see this" to the warbook and the war book says, "That can't be! That weapon is X tons and that weapon is Y. Non of this makes sense! AAARRRGGG!!!!

Then why would it think it was facing a Marauder with weapons it didn't know were Large Lasers in the arms?  Confusing it with the MAD-3M?

The Rules only one.

Interesting.  I still only have the old one before they split it, not the two new ones... yet.

The people living on New St. Andrews.

Reference, please.

True we don't have all the information but it makes more sense than "because a heavier stronger chassis can't do it".

Who said "heavier stronger chassis"?  The ability for construction to do something is largely determined by how the structure is arranged just as much as the materials being used for it, more in the cases where the materials are of a similar strength.  That's basic engineering.

I have no idea where you're getting that. As is currently means as is currently. Not as it should be because it already is.

Because you have often confused my "as it is" with "as it should be" in several conversations, and you have often argued as one being the other in the same conversation.

A Rifle Cannon hits any unit with BAR7 or less armor. That hit does full damage. Same Rifle hits BAR8 or better armor it suffers -3 damage. Do I really need to list a specific vehicle?


AToW page 186 puts BA armor in between personal and tactical and hits can penetrate.
That sounds very similar to have units with BAR2-7 take damage.

And I was talking about the difference in scale where any damage from anything can take out a normal human being would be Total Warfare, while ATOW operates on a more personal basis.  The concepts do get blurred in the transition.

A custom Blue Nova with BAR 8 armor, good?

Nope.  You were using a modern reference.  A closer analogy would have been a Bradley, or maybe even the armored trucks banks use to get cash from businesses.

If the chassis can't support it, the armor wouldn't be as strong.

More the armor wouldn't be as effective.  Which is my point about BA taking the full damage from Rifle Cannons.  Now you're getting it.  A plate of armor intended for an Abrams, and mounted on a Chevy Nova would be far more effective than you just holding on to it or having it strapped to you.

200 years of concurrent production is irrelevant. It was said to be intended for OMNIs. There were no OMNIs for anything to be intended for them.

I would say 200 years of concurrent production is quite relevant when compared to just a couple decades between the introduction of the Warhammer IIC and the Coyotl, and the Hunchback IIC came out just a couple years afterward.  Still it took a decade or two for Omnitech to really take hold, but after more than 150 years, it would be rather idiotic to not be building your weapons to take pod mounts, which would then start universalizing mounts in the rest of your equipment.  And the Clans abhor waste of any kind.

It would be a dated quirk, like say, after 2900, but still there.  Still, it is a discussion best saved for another thread.

If imports were possible the RC wouldn't be used. And they seem to be doing the job as there's not enough salvage to go around.

That depends on where you're able to import from.  Importing from another corner of the Periphery that is just as bad off as you are won't really give you Improved Heavy Gauss Rifles in a pinch.

That there can be counters by coincidence is fine. No problem. That a 2 ton BAR takes full damage from a LRC while those same rounds are bouncing off a 500kg vehicle with inferior armor just isn't believable.

Sorry, but this whole thread is about a counter by coincidence.

The rules as written say otherwise.

Actually the rules on Rifle Cannons say, "because they lack the armor penetrating power of modern autocannons, rifles of all sizes must subtract 3 points of damage..."

Okay. So, you don't like the rules, as is, either, right?

Then...
Why bother to rationalize what isn't working to begin with?

It's not to rationalize what isn't working, but to rationalize the reasons for the decisions to try and be consistent.  It also provides a base work on how to operate the changes and if something should be kept in a specific situation to keep such lore in tact.

That, and trying to rationalize something that isn't specifically told is as much fan creation as any of the changes.

The only reason it's lasted this long is for the same reason that someone thinks X is considered X+3 because it isn't X-3.

Now, granted, I get what you're trying to say.  In the picture of the elemental suit, you don't see much in the way of a skeleton supporting the armor plates.  In fact, it could be argued that the armor is the structure, to which slabs of Myomer are attached internally.  So, without some sort of backing to give it a little extra support to redirect the damage, the armor loses its integrity more readily since it's having to absorb all the energy that an armor/structure layout would potentially divide.  And!  Since the suit is designed to protect the wearer for as long as possible without presenting breachable plates, that translates into full damage.

Or at least, the structure is configured so the result is the same.

I see a problem with the fact that RCs do full damage against internal structure.  So, this kinda suggests that Structure may be accounted for separately.  This is arguable, of course, and I'm not going to try to justify it.

Rifle Cannons don't do full damage to Internal Structure if it taken at least one point off of the armor protecting and reducing the damage.  And as noted, on the Total Warfare scale, Battle Armor do not have any notable Structure to damage.

Aside:
However, for me, it brings up another inconsistency with the application of RC and the -3 damage being arbitrary.  I personally don't see armor 'vanishing' once it's reached zero points.  That's the point holes start getting punched through it, having lost cohesive integrity overall.  This is my take on why you don't get to auto-hit an exposed location at any range to destroy it, because the armor's still there, providing some protection that the combat unit may use to deflect shots against.  It also contributes, in my opinion, to why you still have a high probability of not crippling an item with structure damage.  (But, of course, this is part of my automated defensive motion I view all combat units as using to some degree or other.  A rare view when interpreting what you imagine on the tabletop.)

I've thought about that, too, but in order to justify it, one would have to be seeing damage to the Structure's damage reduced by the armor over all.

If I ever get around to organizing and writing it down, I've been theorizing on how to do Warmachine's damage model in to the system, but instead of Armor itself being dropped, it is the Armor Integrity, much as you're suggesting in your mind's eye, which is what would provide full armor protection until gone, and then mitigate internal damage to a certain point.  But there's a lot to work with considering all the equipment currently in Battletech.
« Last Edit: 12 July 2021, 17:41:24 by Charistoph »
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.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25129
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #381 on: 12 July 2021, 19:17:30 »
Maybe the whole discussion could become more productive if someone could authoritatively describe what their own ways of doing damage actually are, at least for
RCs, ACs, Gauss Rifles, King Davids, other BA Gauss weapons (David, Magshot), missile warheads and  artillery, 
against BA, BAR7- units, BAR8+ units except BA

Anyone?
I did that in the first post...

ActionButler

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5060
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #382 on: 12 July 2021, 19:56:42 »
Locked for review.

Yes, again.
Experimental Technical Readout: The School
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56420.0

Bedwyr

  • A Sticky Wicket
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9453
  • RIP. Again. And again. And again.
Re: Rifle Cannon Math
« Reply #383 on: 13 July 2021, 12:58:56 »
After review, the moderators have noted the repeated tense and testy exchanges escalating. I did my best earlier to counsel people about how to conduct themselves under our rules and people wanted to keep an intellectual octagon of heated debate. We'll accede to those wishes, but ask you all to do that elsewhere.

In the future keep in mind that we stop discussion well short of flaming. If you check out the forum's rules and expectations for conduct, you may find that the rules are designed not for a free market of vigorous debate, but a friendly fan forum about a fun Sci Fi property.

We're done here.
Alas poor Photobucket. I knew him Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.