BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat

BattleTech Player Boards => Fan Designs and Rules => Topic started by: Daryk on 21 June 2021, 18:26:40

Title: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 21 June 2021, 18:26:40
For quite some time now, I've been advocating for a change to how Rifle Cannons work.  The flat -3 to damage for them (regardless of size) results in ZERO damage for the Light (a singularity that is anathema to any game system).  I propose the Heavy take -4 (resulting in 5), the Medium take the canonical -3 (resulting in 3), and the Light take only -2 (resulting in 1).  The math backing that up is below, based on the AToW page 211 and AToW Companion page 171 formulas.  I could have sworn I posted this math before, but I can't find it.  7 AP for the Rifle Cannons is based on them being able to defeat Tech Level C "state of the art" armor, which was BAR 7.

Code: [Select]
Heavy
Assuming 7AP/54BD (6 points BD per 1 point TW scale damage per AToW page 211):
Assuming "splash damage" ammunition and a single shot while using the AToW Companion page 171 formula:
Penetration Factor: 7 AP / 4 = 1.75
Damage Factor: 54 BD * (3.5 + 1 for "splash damage") = 243
TW Damage = PF * DF / 50 = 8.51, rounds to 9 points of TW damage

7 AP is 3 points below 10 BAR, so both AP and BD are reduced by 3 (per AToW page 185), to 4 AP and 51 BD against BAR 10:
Assuming "splash damage" ammunition and using the AToW Companion page 171 formula:
Penetration Factor: 4 AP / 4 = 1
Damage Factor: 51 BD * (3.5 + 1 for "splash damage") = 229.5
TW Damage = PF * DF / 50 = 4.59, rounds to 5 points of TW damage (-4 compared against BAR 7)

Against BAR 8: 6 AP / 53 BD yields 7.16 points of damage, rounding to 7 (-2 compared against BAR 7)
NOTE: The above shows how finely "tuned" the HRC was to the armor of its time.
Against BAR 9: 5 AP / 52 BD yields 5.85 points of damage, rounding to 6 (-3 compared against BAR 7)

Medium
Assuming 7AP/36BD (6 points BD per 1 point TW scale damage per AToW page 211):
Assuming "splash damage" ammunition and a single shot while using the AToW Companion page 171 formula:
Penetration Factor: 7 AP / 4 = 1.75
Damage Factor: 36 BD * (3.5 + 1 for "splash damage") = 162
TW Damage = PF * DF / 50 = 5.47, rounds to 6 points of TW damage

7 AP is 3 points below 10 BAR, so both AP and BD are reduced by 3 (per AToW page 185), to 4 AP and 33 BD against BAR 10:
Assuming "splash damage" ammunition and using the AToW Companion page 171 formula:
Penetration Factor: 4 AP / 4 = 1
Damage Factor: 33 BD * (3.5 + 1 for "splash damage") = 148.5
TW Damage = PF * DF / 50 = 2.97, rounds to 3 points of TW damage (-3 compared against BAR 7)

Against BAR 8: 6 AP / 35 BD yields 4.73 points of damage, rounding to 5 (-1 compared against BAR 7)
Against BAR 9: 5 AP / 34 BD yields 3.83 points of damage, rounding to 4 (-2 compared against BAR 7)

Light
Assuming 7AP/18BD (6 points BD per 1 point TW scale damage per AToW page 211):
Assuming "splash damage" ammunition and a single shot while using the AToW Companion page 171 formula:
Penetration Factor: 7 AP / 4 = 1.75
Damage Factor: 18 BD * (3.5 + 1 for "splash damage") = 81
TW Damage = PF * DF / 50 = 2.84, rounds to 3 points of TW damage

7 AP is 3 points below 10 BAR, so both AP and BD are reduced by 3 (per AToW page 185), to 4 AP and 15 BD against BAR 10:
Assuming "splash damage" ammunition and using the AToW Companion page 171 formula:
Penetration Factor: 4 AP / 4 = 1
Damage Factor: 15 BD * (3.5 + 1 for "splash damage") = 67.5
TW Damage = PF * DF / 50 = 1.35, rounds to 1 point of TW damage (-2 compared against BAR 7)

Against BAR 8: 6 AP / 17 BD yields 2.3 points of damage, rounding to 2 (-1 compared against BAR 7)
Against BAR 9: 5 AP / 16 BD yields 1.8 points of damage, rounding to 2 (-1 compared against BAR 7)
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 25 June 2021, 01:25:11
I'd certainly prefer the LRC doing some damage than none. I'm having trouble with the math though. ATOW says that the BD is 6 times the TW damage. For a Heavy Rifle Cannon against BAR8-10 armor that would be 36. Right? 6x6=36 As the damage done against those armors is 6. 

When I do the math for the HRC 7AP/36BD against BAR10 armor I get 5.67, rounded to 6.
For the Medium Rifle Cannon (7AP/18BD) I get 2.83 rounded to 3.
For the Light Rifle Cannon (7AP/0BD) its 0 damage. Against Internal Structure, BA, etc. I get I get 2.83 rounded to 3. That's keeping the reduced AP though.

When I do full damage I get
HRC (10AP/54BD) = 12.15 rounded to 12
MRC (10AP/36BD) = 8.1 rounded to 8
LRC (10AP/18BD) = 4.05 rounded to 4.

So to me, if I did all the math right, the listed damage for Rifles has already been reduced to start with. The -3 damage reduces them even more. Do I have this right?

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 25 June 2021, 04:59:33
I forgot to cite AToW page 185.  That's where the step that reduces AP and BD by 3 comes from.  I'll edit that in shortly.

The Rifle Cannons don't do "full" damage against BAR 10 armor.  My assumption is that they are AP 7 weapons, and that's what I use with the AP vs. BAR system.  Because AP 7 is 3 points below BAR 10, both AP and BD are reduced by 3, yielding the math in the first post.

Here's a hopefully clearer summary of the results:
Code: [Select]
BAR: 7 & < 8 9 10
Heavy   9 7 6 5
Medium   6 5 4 3
Light   3 2 2 1
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 25 June 2021, 11:42:00
Unfortunately this is really starting to show that the conversion in AToW Companion is not really meant to be used this way and that there are at least two separate BAR systems in Battletech.

Case in point a Large Laser does not do more damage against BAR 9 or lower armor but is clearly an AP 10 weapon.  Even page 211, possibly 212 I'm away from my books to double check, of AToW indicates when shooting at something with a Large Laser that isn't an AToW character you defer to TW/TacOps rules/procedures.

But going the other way an AToW character armed with a Autorifle using AP ammo is going to do more damage against a BAR 9 target under AToW's rules.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 25 June 2021, 11:46:27
A Large Laser against something with less than BAR 8 gets a free crit check, though.

And I believe it won't take that much to tweak the systems to finally give us one formula that works from top to bottom that rounds to the current values at each scale.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 25 June 2021, 17:20:07
That's where I'm confused though. Rifles are the only weapons that function this way. Their AP isn't reduced against Internal Structure, Battle Armor, Buildings or other things. Just BAR8-10 Armors. The thing is going by the math Rifles have a AP of 7 against everything. Even when their BD isn't reduced.  7AP/54BD converts to 9 points of damage. That's what HRC does against BAR7 armor and every other target they don't suffer a -3 against. They're not doing the full 10AP that ATOW says Vehicular Scale Weapons should do. If they did, the HRC would do 12 points of damage against those targets. The MRC would do 8 points of damage and the LRC would do 4 points.

This is what I get at full ATOW conversions and full TW damage as listed in TO.
HRC (10AP/54BD) = 12.15 rounded to 12
MRC (10AP/36BD) = 8.1 rounded to 8
LRC (10AP/18BD) = 4.05 rounded to 4.

This is what I get with ATOW conversions Vehicle Scale = 10AP and the -3 TW damage. Based on Rifles TO listed damage.
HRC (10AP/36BD) = 8.1 rounded to 8
MRC (10AP/18BD) = 4.05 rounded to 4.
LRC (10AP/0BD) = 0 rounded to 0.

This is what I get when using 7AP and TO listed "full" damage.
HRC (7AP/54BD) = 8.505 rounded to 9
MRC (7AP/36BD) = 5.67 rounded to 6
LRC (7AP/18BD) = 2.835 rounded to 3.

This is what I get when reducing the AP and including the -3 damage. The Official TO damage against BAR-8+ Armors.
HRC (7AP/36BD) = 5.67 rounded to 6.
MRC (7AP/18BD) = 2.83 rounded to 3.
LRC (7AP/0BD) = 0 damage

The last two are the Official damages for Rifles with and without the -3 damage.  If I'm right, Rifles are being nerfed against all armors.

None of those figures include splash damage either. If it's included then the "full" damages would be
HRC (10AP/54BD) 14.85 rounded to 15
MRC (10AP/36BD) 9.9 rounded to 10
LRC  (10AP/18BD) 4.95 rounded to 5

So something is wonky.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 25 June 2021, 17:28:19
The wonkiness is the arbitrary -3 at the TW scale.  That's what I've been saying.  I assume they have an AP of 7 because BAR 7 is where there's no penalty.  In my opinion, they should have just set them to 1/3/5 (Light/Medium/Heavy) damage and call it good.  If anything should have a special rule, it would be their "improved" performance against BAR 7 and below.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 25 June 2021, 17:41:11
What if the AP is 6?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 25 June 2021, 17:46:09
If it's 6, you'd reduce the AP and BD by 4 against BAR 10.  That would yield 3.38 (rounding to 3) for the Heavy, 2.16 (rounding to 2) for the Medium, and 0.95 (rounding to 1) for the Light.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 25 June 2021, 18:09:30
According to AToW all mechscale weapons have a 1 meter splash effect.  Can't remember if that is radius or diameter off top of my head and still stuck at work.  Either way there is no minimum area of effect to qualify as splash given in the formula.

All this math as interesting as it may be is honestly just more proof that the conversion formula is not the basis to start from as it is too heavily flawed for bidirectional conversion.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 25 June 2021, 18:33:55
The splash effect is accounted for in the math above.

And as I said in the other thread, if TPTB had avoided the singularity of ZERO damage for the LRC, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

The AToW Companion formula works just fine... if anything is flawed, it's the 10AP/6xTW Damage BD equation.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: TigerShark on 25 June 2021, 20:04:17
I hate the Rifle (Cannon) rules. They are "suspension of disbelief" breaking weapons. Am I to believe that an "Assault Rifle" from an infantryman does 0.54 damage, but a hit from a tank shell does ZERO?! That's insane. It would be better fixed by most infantry small arms doing 0 damage, but if you go the other way, than the Light Rifle (Cannon) should do SOMETHING. Let's assume it's a 120mm APFSDS shell with a common core that isn't tungsten. Something that won't penetrate "modern" armor. And that the "Heavy Rifle" is 200mm or something with a tungsten core.

Either way, they'd do SOME damage v 'Mechs. Or, if they're immune, then infantry rifles should do 0. Either way..... this makes no sense.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 25 June 2021, 20:08:49
I advocate for LRCs to do SOME damage vice nerfing all infantry for the rest of time.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 25 June 2021, 20:16:52
I advocate for LRCs to do SOME damage vice nerfing all infantry for the rest of time.
Why not both?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 25 June 2021, 20:32:44
Because infantry should be able to do SOME damage too...
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 25 June 2021, 20:35:50
Because infantry should be able to do SOME damage too...
Sure but that should be more of the role for disposable secondaries, such as SRM launchers instead of infantry rifles.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 25 June 2021, 20:37:26
TPTB built quite the system to allow 31st century Auto-Rifles to damage BAR 10 armor.  I think it does its job just fine.  Rifle Cannons were a later add that throws a wrench at that system.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: TigerShark on 25 June 2021, 20:38:29
I advocate for LRCs to do SOME damage vice nerfing all infantry for the rest of time.
They should. Just from the squad weapons, like a Support PPC.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 25 June 2021, 20:39:43
Support PPCs are their own very special kettle of fish.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: TigerShark on 26 June 2021, 06:31:05
Sorry about the thread drift to infantry weapons, BTW. I just feel it's relevant to the point of WHY Rifle (Cannon)s should have some kind of errata. BAR 10 armor was supposed to be revolutionary. So advanced, in fact, that it could stop tank rounds entirely. That same armor should not be able to be damaged by a 5.56 round from an AR-15 if 120mm shells are bouncing off.

It's a "one or the other, but not both" scenario. If you have to make Rifles do more damage, then good. That'd work at my table, for sure.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 26 June 2021, 07:19:20
No worries!  The infantry weapon question is part and parcel of the debate.  For the record, individual 4AP/4BD shots will round down to zero against BAR 10.  Both the burst fire modifier and the abstraction of infantry units is what gets the bog standard Auto-Rifle into "pay attention" territory for BattleMechs.  Conventional infantry still has to hit (not easy with 1/2/3 range for just Auto-Rifles), then roll on the cluster hit table, THEN break up whatever damage gets through into 2-point groups.  Penetration is extremely unlikely, but not impossible.  And I think that's exactly what it SHOULD be.  Which is why I'm absolutely in the camp that says the LRC should do 1 point of damage, not ZERO.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 26 June 2021, 10:24:30
The splash effect is accounted for in the math above.

And as I said in the other thread, if TPTB had avoided the singularity of ZERO damage for the LRC, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

The AToW Companion formula works just fine... if anything is flawed, it's the 10AP/6xTW Damage BD equation.

Except to make the equation even begin to work more than the BD of mech weapons needs changed.

I know.  I tried.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 26 June 2021, 10:33:11
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 26 June 2021, 17:32:27
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 26 June 2021, 17:43:03
The inconsistency is exactly why I've been harping on this issue for ages.  TPTB had already established the conversion formula (even if they hadn't shared it with us yet) when they introduced Rifle Cannons.  There's simply no excuse for introducing a singularity that late in the process.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 26 June 2021, 18:24:39
Sorry about the thread drift to infantry weapons, BTW. I just feel it's relevant to the point of WHY Rifle (Cannon)s should have some kind of errata. BAR 10 armor was supposed to be revolutionary. So advanced, in fact, that it could stop tank rounds entirely. That same armor should not be able to be damaged by a 5.56 round from an AR-15 if 120mm shells are bouncing off.

It's a "one or the other, but not both" scenario. If you have to make Rifles do more damage, then good. That'd work at my table, for sure.

The only reason I ever thought it was near workable is a combination of the nature of the new armor and the high volume of Infantry rifle fire.  Our "modern" armor is designed to counter penetration, just like most infantry rifles (and a lot of anti-armor rounds) are designed around penetration.  Battletech armor is ablative, which prevents most penetration by transferring that energy in to breaking off those scales of armor.

The Rifle rounds and big and explody, but designed for penetrative power in a single hit.  The Autorifle rounds are equally designed for penetration, but there are a LOT of them being used to dislodge those scales of armor, so their quantity takes on a quality all its own.  To use another game's reference, it is why a squad of 40 Space Army Conscripts scares the hell out of Space Marine Terminators.

It's the only way I could make it work.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 26 June 2021, 19:07:47
The inconsistency is exactly why I've been harping on this issue for ages.  TPTB had already established the conversion formula (even if they hadn't shared it with us yet) when they introduced Rifle Cannons.  There's simply no excuse for introducing a singularity that late in the process.

I've never liked it either. It's always bugged me that weapons do X damage in the RPG and Y damage in the boardgame. The Rifles just make things worse because they aren't consistent with either rule set.

Looking at the math also has me asking myself, why convert XTRO:1945 weapons to "modern" battletech equivalents, when their listed damage puts them right among Rifle Cannons now. It also reminds me that Herb had the 120mm Cannon doing 12 points of damage. Which is what my math came out to for a HRC doing full damage when converted to AToW. But that might be a different topic. 
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: TigerShark on 26 June 2021, 19:22:14
The only reason I ever thought it was near workable is a combination of the nature of the new armor and the high volume of Infantry rifle fire.  Our "modern" armor is designed to counter penetration, just like most infantry rifles (and a lot of anti-armor rounds) are designed around penetration.  Battletech armor is ablative, which prevents most penetration by transferring that energy in to breaking off those scales of armor.

The Rifle rounds and big and explody, but designed for penetrative power in a single hit.  The Autorifle rounds are equally designed for penetration, but there are a LOT of them being used to dislodge those scales of armor, so their quantity takes on a quality all its own.  To use another game's reference, it is why a squad of 40 Space Army Conscripts scares the hell out of Space Marine Terminators.

It's the only way I could make it work.
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 26 June 2021, 19:49:03
That's exactly why zeros and infinities are so bad for game design.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 26 June 2021, 20:05:20
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 26 June 2021, 21:18:18
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?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: DevianID on 27 June 2021, 06:33:47
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 27 June 2021, 06:47:26
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 27 June 2021, 19:00:01
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 27 June 2021, 19:04:58
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).
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 27 June 2021, 19:26:40
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 27 June 2021, 19:34:10
Read page 185 again... it specifically says to apply the same reductions to AP and BD against tactical armor.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 27 June 2021, 21:10:59
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?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 28 June 2021, 03:17:40
Only if you think TPTB did it correctly, which I don't.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 28 June 2021, 08:15:28
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 28 June 2021, 08:18:06
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 28 June 2021, 15:08:32
But it's close enough to tell me it CAN work.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 28 June 2021, 15:35:21
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 28 June 2021, 15:43:07

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).
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 28 June 2021, 16:03:59
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 28 June 2021, 16:33:46
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 28 June 2021, 16:35:04
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!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 28 June 2021, 16:36:20
If I ever figure it out I'll gladly share it.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 28 June 2021, 17:58:22
Only if you think TPTB did it correctly, which I don't.

Well, I'm not going to say that.  ;D





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.


Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 28 June 2021, 18:32:04
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 28 June 2021, 18:36:56
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 28 June 2021, 18:45:06
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 28 June 2021, 20:08:49
I don't really have a problem with the Medium and Heavy.  It's the ZERO for the Light that trips my trigger.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: DevianID on 28 June 2021, 23:16:47
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 29 June 2021, 03:35:25
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 29 June 2021, 08:15:04
...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....
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 29 June 2021, 16:51:42
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 29 June 2021, 17:35:23
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 29 June 2021, 18:04:21
Not "no" problem, but a surmountable one certainly, with a LOT of work.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 29 June 2021, 20:18:30
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 :thumbsup:


Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 29 June 2021, 20:40:38
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.

I don't know about that as it would invalidate to many canon units as well as 35+ years of game play. I do think that some do want to nerf infantry. Otherwise their weapons wouldn't be reduced from BA and vehicle versions, even though they're fluffed as being the same.

Mostly, I just don't think they thought Rifles out. They and a lot of others are too caught up with muzzle velocity and that Rifles are supposed to be old and inferior. In doing so they ignored all the other pre-spaceflight weapons would have similar muzzle velocities or be inferior in other ways. They also forgot that armor is ablative so muzzle velocity isn't as big a concern.
 
When I look at everything, Rifles are already outclassed and obsolete when doing full damage. Even XTRO:1945's Tank Cannons outclass them. So I just ignore the -3 now. Otherwise there's no reason for Rifles, especially the Light, to stay in existence so long. No even if they could fire indirectly or had area effect ammo. Zero damage is still zero damage


Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 29 June 2021, 21:18:31
I regard them as a BT equivalent to the WW2 vintage german Infantry Guns, leIG18 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_leichtes_Infanteriegesch%C3%BCtz_18) and sIG18 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_sIG_33). Useful against infantry, but ineffective against tanks. Just one more (rather limited) tool in the combined arms toolbox.

Cetero censeo: I would prefer to see the LRC do some damage against BAR8+ units, but not full damage against BA.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 29 June 2021, 22:25:19
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.

From the same page:
This value—determined by the gamemaster based
on the nature of the barrier—does not necessarily translate
to the same resilience as the kind of armor carried by
battlefield vehicles

But let's go ahead and turn to the section where it has example vehicles.  Page 324.  Let's go ahead and take the A-M Fiver Traveler minivan.  F/S/R are all 2 points of tactical armor.  BAR 4.  For vehicles like these IS will be 1 point and match the BAR.  So with 4 shots from a bolt action rifle this civilian grade van will be rendered  unsalvageable.

Motorized/mechanized infantry are explicitly stated to use stuff like that.  Stuff we do not have construction rules for, not even the small support vehicle rules work for it.

Also please stop using XTRO 1945 as a source.  It isn't meant to be one.  It is just a gag product.  It has exactly zero bearing how Battletech actually works.  Otherwise I could use Nebula California as a valid counter argument.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 30 June 2021, 03:17:48
*snip*
Mostly, I just don't think they thought Rifles out. They and a lot of others are too caught up with muzzle velocity and that Rifles are supposed to be old and inferior. In doing so they ignored all the other pre-spaceflight weapons would have similar muzzle velocities or be inferior in other ways. They also forgot that armor is ablative so muzzle velocity isn't as big a concern.
*snip*
There have been assurances that they "meant to do that".  And I believe them.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 30 June 2021, 03:33:19
From the same page:
This value—determined by the gamemaster based
on the nature of the barrier—does not necessarily translate
to the same resilience as the kind of armor carried by
battlefield vehicles

But let's go ahead and turn to the section where it has example vehicles.  Page 324.  Let's go ahead and take the A-M Fiver Traveler minivan.  F/S/R are all 2 points of tactical armor.  BAR 4.  For vehicles like these IS will be 1 point and match the BAR.  So with 4 shots from a bolt action rifle this civilian grade van will be rendered  unsalvageable.

Motorized/mechanized infantry are explicitly stated to use stuff like that.  Stuff we do not have construction rules for, not even the small support vehicle rules work for it.

Also please stop using XTRO 1945 as a source.  It isn't meant to be one.  It is just a gag product.  It has exactly zero bearing how Battletech actually works.  Otherwise I could use Nebula California as a valid counter argument.

You'd still have the internal structure to destroy. In TW, it'd take twice as many shots to destroy all the armor and then there's the internal structure to destroy the vehicle.

Actually, we have cannon examples of Infantry using vehicles like that and the construction rules do allow it. In fact we even have game stats for the same vehicles mechanized/motorized infantry are stated as using. The problem is they're not treated as vehicles but just a group of rapid moving foot infantry. I think you'd agree that there's a big difference between a guy with a rifle and a guy in a Battle Armor. So why isn't there a difference between a guy with a rifle and a guy in a vehicle? I think there should be and it does work in the game.

I wasn't using it as a source. Someone asked how it compared so I compared. The last time I mentioned them was as a preference. At no point did I say that they were canon. Also, gag product or not, it's still a product that we can use in a game. As such Tank Rifles end up outclassing Rifle Cannons.

If we were to bring in Nebula California, I'd bring up how the Dual Small Blaster Cannon does 0 damage even though both Infantry Support Blasters end up doing 1 point of damage each. Which also makes zero sense. It's like saying .50 cal machine guns do more damage when used by infantry than those mounted on vehicles.

This topic isn't about gag products though. which is why I didn't mention them. It's about Rifle Cannons and if they have a role on the battlefield. I think they do, without the -3 nerf. With it, the Light doesn't and it'd iffy about the Medium and Heavy. Considering how common Autocannons are though, I think finding any Rifle Cannon after the start of the Star League would be as easy as finding a Tank Cannon or Blaster Cannon.  If that -3 damage wasn't there though, or at least the Light did 1 point of damage, then I could see Rifles lingering around. Not going extinct, just being harder to find.

Personally, I think more thought went into XTRO:1945 and Nebula California than went into Rifle Cannons. Rifle Cannons feel like someone had an idea about arming IndustrialMechs with Ancient Ballistic Weapons. I think it's a cool idea. I love the idea. Only the reasoning behind the -3 and the Light doing no damage just doesn't hold up. 


And for those interested, here's some muzzle velocities.
M16 Rifle; 3,150 ft/s (960 m/s) (M855A1 round)
AK47; 715 m/s (2,350 ft/s)
Brown Bess; 1,300–1,800 ft/s (400–550 m/s)
M1919 Browning machine gun; 2,800 ft/s (850 m/s)
M2 Browning machine gun; 2,910 ft/s (890 m/s) (M33 ball)
75mm gun M2–M6; M48 high explosive round, 625 m/s (2,050 ft/s);
Canon de 75 modèle 1897; 500 m/s (1,600 ft/s)
76 mm gun M1; between 900 ft/s (270 m/s) for Smoke Rounds and 3,400 ft/s (1,000 m/s) for T4 (M93) HVAP (APCR) rounds.
8.8 cm KwK 43;  1,130 m/s (3,700 ft/s)
3-inch ordnance rifle; 1,215 ft/s (370 m/s)
M101 howitzer; 1,550 ft/s (472 m/s)

If we just go by size the 3-in ordnance rifle's muzzle velocity is nearly that of the 8.8cm and if muzzle velocity determines damage...  >:D Know what that means?

Thinking about the -3 damage while looking up things, and considering reality, if muzzle velocity is to be the determining factor, why not have the -3 against BAR8+ at long range only? In reality the closer they were the better they performed. It'd also be more consistent with other weapons which lose damage beyond long range rather than losing damage right out of the barrel. As older lower velocity weapons the damage decrease for range just happens sooner. It would also be a reason these weapons would continue to exist through the Star League and beyond. They're no where near as good as AC/s but they'll work.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 30 June 2021, 04:02:06
There have been assurances that they "meant to do that".  And I believe them.

I know they meant to make Rifles inferior. I just don't think they thought out all the ramifications of how they were making Rifles inferior. The 0 damage for the Light especially. It's created a mess.

The biggest argument I've seen against Rifles doing full damage is that the Heavy become better than the AC/10 because of it's greater range and lower weight. I suppose that could be true, but what about availability? They shouldn't be easy to find.

Also reading their fluff again, muzzle velocity isn't mention. What is are Rifles slower reloading and rates of fire as well as relying on larger rounds with a greater amount of propellant. In the rules part it says they lack penetration but unless you're using Armor-Piercing  Rounds, penetration isn't how damage is inflicted. It's ablation. So why the -3 damage?

Another thing to think about is that the fluff says that the Clans had abandoned the weapon. How can you abandon a weapon, unless you had the weapon? Which comes right back to why Rifles would exist through the Star League unless they were useful?

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 30 June 2021, 06:42:23
if muzzle velocity determines damage... 
It does not, in BT the relationship is nonlinear. First off there are cases of needing a minimum threshold before doing any damage. Secondly increased velocity seems to decrease the efficiency in how kinetic energy turns into damage, which is why Gauss rifles only do 15 dmg, and railguns seem to be extremely extinct. This might be partly related in how it seems to be highly capable of resisting penetration, this can also be seen from the surviving ballistic weapons (Autocannon, mech-scale MG) that are more focused on jack-hammering a small section of armor with many hits.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 30 June 2021, 08:19:32
You'd still have the internal structure to destroy. In TW, it'd take twice as many shots to destroy all the armor and then there's the internal structure to destroy the vehicle.

I did account for internal structure.  But still more proof if we're going to truly solve this issue in a consistent manner we're going to also have to accept that infantry small arms might have to be massively reduced or even outright rendered ineffective against proper vehicular armor and that the current conversion system is not meant to work for mech scale weapons.

Quote
Actually, we have cannon examples of Infantry using vehicles like that and the construction rules do allow it. In fact we even have game stats for the same vehicles mechanized/motorized infantry are stated as using. The problem is they're not treated as vehicles but just a group of rapid moving foot infantry. I think you'd agree that there's a big difference between a guy with a rifle and a guy in a Battle Armor. So why isn't there a difference between a guy with a rifle and a guy in a vehicle? I think there should be and it does work in the game.

There is a difference already.

Quote
I wasn't using it as a source. Someone asked how it compared so I compared. The last time I mentioned them was as a preference. At no point did I say that they were canon. Also, gag product or not, it's still a product that we can use in a game. As such Tank Rifles end up outclassing Rifle Cannons.

If we were to bring in Nebula California, I'd bring up how the Dual Small Blaster Cannon does 0 damage even though both Infantry Support Blasters end up doing 1 point of damage each. Which also makes zero sense. It's like saying .50 cal machine guns do more damage when used by infantry than those mounted on vehicles.

This topic isn't about gag products though. which is why I didn't mention them. It's about Rifle Cannons and if they have a role on the battlefield. I think they do, without the -3 nerf. With it, the Light doesn't and it'd iffy about the Medium and Heavy. Considering how common Autocannons are though, I think finding any Rifle Cannon after the start of the Star League would be as easy as finding a Tank Cannon or Blaster Cannon.  If that -3 damage wasn't there though, or at least the Light did 1 point of damage, then I could see Rifles lingering around. Not going extinct, just being harder to find.

Personally, I think more thought went into XTRO:1945 and Nebula California than went into Rifle Cannons. Rifle Cannons feel like someone had an idea about arming IndustrialMechs with Ancient Ballistic Weapons. I think it's a cool idea. I love the idea. Only the reasoning behind the -3 and the Light doing no damage just doesn't hold up. 


And for those interested, here's some muzzle velocities.
M16 Rifle; 3,150 ft/s (960 m/s) (M855A1 round)
AK47; 715 m/s (2,350 ft/s)
Brown Bess; 1,300–1,800 ft/s (400–550 m/s)
M1919 Browning machine gun; 2,800 ft/s (850 m/s)
M2 Browning machine gun; 2,910 ft/s (890 m/s) (M33 ball)
75mm gun M2–M6; M48 high explosive round, 625 m/s (2,050 ft/s);
Canon de 75 modèle 1897; 500 m/s (1,600 ft/s)
76 mm gun M1; between 900 ft/s (270 m/s) for Smoke Rounds and 3,400 ft/s (1,000 m/s) for T4 (M93) HVAP (APCR) rounds.
8.8 cm KwK 43;  1,130 m/s (3,700 ft/s)
3-inch ordnance rifle; 1,215 ft/s (370 m/s)
M101 howitzer; 1,550 ft/s (472 m/s)

If we just go by size the 3-in ordnance rifle's muzzle velocity is nearly that of the 8.8cm and if muzzle velocity determines damage...  >:D Know what that means?

Thinking about the -3 damage while looking up things, and considering reality, if muzzle velocity is to be the determining factor, why not have the -3 against BAR8+ at long range only? In reality the closer they were the better they performed. It'd also be more consistent with other weapons which lose damage beyond long range rather than losing damage right out of the barrel. As older lower velocity weapons the damage decrease for range just happens sooner. It would also be a reason these weapons would continue to exist through the Star League and beyond. They're no where near as good as AC/s but they'll work.

Looking at the entry for Rifle Cannons now and it says nothing about low muzzle velocity being the reason they get the -3.  It just says lack of penetration power and not useful in space.  I suppose you could interpret the not useful in space to meant that they have lower muzzle velocities than Autocannons and Gauss Rifles but that's only really by comparison and as others have stated most likely not the only reason even if true why they get the -3.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Cannonshop on 30 June 2021, 11:19:54
I did account for internal structure.  But still more proof if we're going to truly solve this issue in a consistent manner we're going to also have to accept that infantry small arms might have to be massively reduced or even outright rendered ineffective against proper vehicular armor and that the current conversion system is not meant to work for mech scale weapons.

There is a difference already.

Looking at the entry for Rifle Cannons now and it says nothing about low muzzle velocity being the reason they get the -3.  It just says lack of penetration power and not useful in space.  I suppose you could interpret the not useful in space to meant that they have lower muzzle velocities than Autocannons and Gauss Rifles but that's only really by comparison and as others have stated most likely not the only reason even if true why they get the -3.

Monbvol, you're really trying hard to push that mushroom cloud back into the steel casing with infantry, aren't you?

It's been a little over twenty years since the late 1990s/early 2000's when they got all granular with Infantry weapons and put together the basic elements of the system we've got today.

and lots of people argued against it every step of the way, because somehow it was going to remove 'mechs as the star of the show.

It didn't.

It didn't with combat ops, it didn't with the House Books, it didn't with late BMR era and it didn't with Total Warfare/Techmanual/etcetera.

admittedly there WAS that hiccup with  MWDA, but despite where the ownership sits and what gets periodically promoted, THAT DID NOT STICK and surprise! Battlemechs are still the star of the show.

even with people getting carbon-reinforced fingernails or longbow platoons with grenades for support weapons.

Now, we've largely got a system that works-it's worked for DECADES now in realtime, and that system lets infantry weapons do damage to battlemechs.

From a pragmatic perspective, when you have a system that WORKS, that your market can use, that your market DOES use, and there's a hiccup because of a new add-on, you change the add-on, not the system that's been working.

Why? because you want to keep your audience while attracting people, and this is gaming-make too many changes too fast or too drastically, and you lose that invested market.  In the case of Battletech, that invested market represents how the game's survived three publishers going belly up, numerous staff changes, several economic recessions that have absolutely SLAUGHTERED older games and properties that at their height, eclipsed BT in all its forms.

YOUR solution means retconning something close to forty years worth of game materials, novels, sourcebooks, stories, tradition, and player involvement.

In doing so, you also have to engage in tens of thousands of dollars in new materials in the hope you won't lose the market that's been keeping this game alive for, at this point, generations of players.

Risk-assessment wise, your proposed 'solution' is a bad solution.  It's a good way to end up being an aborted kickstarter sometime twenty years from now.

The Games-Workshop method only works for Warhammer, Monbvol, they dominate their niche (which is ever shrinking) so completely that adopting their policies (which was tried) will fail.

It's too late for the reset button, alright?  it's in fact 30 years and 2 publishers too late for a hard reset to the original box-set's setting.  It's hundreds of novels too late, it's metric tons of lore too late.  The market itself has contracted so far that there's no room for a total reset and still keeping the lights on, and product coming.

simple fact: Physical attacks do damage.  Infantry does damage.  Infantry weapons (no matter how ludicrous) do damage.

That is the paradigm, that's the systems that have kept Battletech from being an also-ran only a few diehards even remember existed.

There were giant robot games where infantry were completely useless.  guess what? they're not still being made.  Battletech IS.

That's the paradigm. It's the market.  BT has a niche that's strong enough to keep it alive-which a lot of niche games never achieved and didn't maintain.

In dealing with an engineering or mechanical problem with a prototype, the simplest, least invasive fix is usually the right fix.

so which is simpler/less invasive? Adjusting the damage on LRC's, or scrapping thirty years of evolution in the game mechanics and thousands of dollars in product, promotion, market penetration and development to satisfy a minority of players who don't like that infantry can hurt 'mechs?

You tell me, what's the simpler fix?  Which adjustment generates the least amount of retcon, reboot, errata, and rules changes?

[Full discllosure here: MY solution is: if I don't like something, I don't bring it to the table, as opposed to asking for a major portion of the setting to be rewritten to exclude something I don't like, I just don't use it.]
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 30 June 2021, 11:56:08
YOUR solution means retconning something close to forty years worth of game materials, novels, sourcebooks, stories, tradition, and player involvement.
Not true, the proposed solution does not affect all infantry weapons just the small arms (nails, pistols, rifles), the old traditional anti-Mech weapons such as missile launchers, field guns and explosive satchels remain. This will result in more purposeful infantry that would be a better match for the universe.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 30 June 2021, 12:19:29
Monbvol, you're really trying hard to push that mushroom cloud back into the steel casing with infantry, aren't you?

It's been a little over twenty years since the late 1990s/early 2000's when they got all granular with Infantry weapons and put together the basic elements of the system we've got today.

and lots of people argued against it every step of the way, because somehow it was going to remove 'mechs as the star of the show.

It didn't.

It didn't with combat ops, it didn't with the House Books, it didn't with late BMR era and it didn't with Total Warfare/Techmanual/etcetera.

admittedly there WAS that hiccup with  MWDA, but despite where the ownership sits and what gets periodically promoted, THAT DID NOT STICK and surprise! Battlemechs are still the star of the show.

even with people getting carbon-reinforced fingernails or longbow platoons with grenades for support weapons.

Now, we've largely got a system that works-it's worked for DECADES now in realtime, and that system lets infantry weapons do damage to battlemechs.

From a pragmatic perspective, when you have a system that WORKS, that your market can use, that your market DOES use, and there's a hiccup because of a new add-on, you change the add-on, not the system that's been working.

Why? because you want to keep your audience while attracting people, and this is gaming-make too many changes too fast or too drastically, and you lose that invested market.  In the case of Battletech, that invested market represents how the game's survived three publishers going belly up, numerous staff changes, several economic recessions that have absolutely SLAUGHTERED older games and properties that at their height, eclipsed BT in all its forms.

YOUR solution means retconning something close to forty years worth of game materials, novels, sourcebooks, stories, tradition, and player involvement.

In doing so, you also have to engage in tens of thousands of dollars in new materials in the hope you won't lose the market that's been keeping this game alive for, at this point, generations of players.

Risk-assessment wise, your proposed 'solution' is a bad solution.  It's a good way to end up being an aborted kickstarter sometime twenty years from now.

The Games-Workshop method only works for Warhammer, Monbvol, they dominate their niche (which is ever shrinking) so completely that adopting their policies (which was tried) will fail.

It's too late for the reset button, alright?  it's in fact 30 years and 2 publishers too late for a hard reset to the original box-set's setting.  It's hundreds of novels too late, it's metric tons of lore too late.  The market itself has contracted so far that there's no room for a total reset and still keeping the lights on, and product coming.

simple fact: Physical attacks do damage.  Infantry does damage.  Infantry weapons (no matter how ludicrous) do damage.

That is the paradigm, that's the systems that have kept Battletech from being an also-ran only a few diehards even remember existed.

There were giant robot games where infantry were completely useless.  guess what? they're not still being made.  Battletech IS.

That's the paradigm. It's the market.  BT has a niche that's strong enough to keep it alive-which a lot of niche games never achieved and didn't maintain.

In dealing with an engineering or mechanical problem with a prototype, the simplest, least invasive fix is usually the right fix.

so which is simpler/less invasive? Adjusting the damage on LRC's, or scrapping thirty years of evolution in the game mechanics and thousands of dollars in product, promotion, market penetration and development to satisfy a minority of players who don't like that infantry can hurt 'mechs?

You tell me, what's the simpler fix?  Which adjustment generates the least amount of retcon, reboot, errata, and rules changes?

[Full discllosure here: MY solution is: if I don't like something, I don't bring it to the table, as opposed to asking for a major portion of the setting to be rewritten to exclude something I don't like, I just don't use it.]

For a lot of that time infantry just because they were called rifle were still assumed to have grenades, vlaws, and other effective weapons that can hurt mechs.  This abstraction was done away with in Tech Manual for reasons I do not know and the game has suffered from inconsistency issues for it.

So no my solution isn't to retcon nearly fourtty years of units and history.  If anything it is to return infantry back to when they did work best and were closer to as how described in lore.  That the better idea was to reach for a VLAW/LAW/SRM launcher than an autorifle if shooting at a mech or tank.  Or even grenades if you have them.  Or Satchel charges.

I've even taken to listening to Battletech audiobooks this year and I got to say that is the impression I get of how they work in lore anyway.

Not true, the proposed solution does not affect all infantry weapons just the small arms (nails, pistols, rifles), the old traditional anti-Mech weapons such as missile launchers, field guns and explosive satchels remain. This will result in more purposeful infantry that would be a better match for the universe.

Indeed.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Cannonshop on 30 June 2021, 13:04:04
For a lot of that time infantry just because they were called rifle were still assumed to have grenades, vlaws, and other effective weapons that can hurt mechs.  This abstraction was done away with in Tech Manual for reasons I do not know and the game has suffered from inconsistency issues for it.

So no my solution isn't to retcon nearly fourtty years of units and history.  If anything it is to return infantry back to when they did work best and were closer to as how described in lore.  That the better idea was to reach for a VLAW/LAW/SRM launcher than an autorifle if shooting at a mech or tank.  Or even grenades if you have them.  Or Satchel charges.

I've even taken to listening to Battletech audiobooks this year and I got to say that is the impression I get of how they work in lore anyway.

Indeed.

You're still trying to push the mushroom cloud back into the steel casing, Monbvol.  I was INVOLVED with some of the debates (and even got credited as a playtester) around the Infantry damage system.  initially I advocated for separating anti'mech capabilities from base damage/range on the infantry sheet.

So you're not completely wrong about that imho, but the system they came up with? it works.  It's worked consistently through multiple editions at this point.

We actually have players now, who've never used infantry as we learned it in BMR days, and not newbies still in high school, but people who've got careers after learning hte game back in Junior High (or earlier).

I even advocated for WEIRDER shit-like 'mech machineguns having six times the range against light infantry on the TW map, but it was tested and found clunky and unworkable to keep separate ranges along with the damages.

One challenge I'll put up to you, because maybe you haven't actually put a hand to applying your ideas on your own table, is to work it out and play-test it with your own local community, see if your ideas have legs by putting them in someone else's hands.

a lot of what came out for infantry in terms of the infantry build system and the conversion charts, is a compromise reached because the initial ideas were good-but they didn't WORK when put into hands that weren't part of the person who developed them.

It's possible to teach the basics of Battletech in thirty minutes to a curious person-we tested this repeatedly, including at game conventions, friendly local game-stores, etcetera.  in terms of play, we did this with both BA generation and infantry rules, and that's on top of the months spent playtesting systems in closed settings.

I was one of those people who used to beat Clanners using mostly-conventional forces PRIOR to total Warfare, and without access to Maxtech or unbound.  I played for YEARS with those 'simpler' rules and made guys who ran icebox energy boats (with clan pilots) throw the table over in frustration.

BEFORE all the enhanced survival and extra tables were added to vehicles, and long before we could make custom infantry sheets at all.

so I've seen a little of this evolution I'm talking about, and I know a bit about where it came from and why it passed, when a lot of my own ideas that looked good in the forums, did not and do not work.

I like to think I've been at this long enough to spot when something will turn into a sink-hole that ends up going nowhere good.  Nerfing never gets the result you want, unless it's a very SMALL nerf, that doesn't invalidate player agency.

The LRC 0 problem is something that eliminates player agency-it's over-compensation for an imbalance unlikely to matter, because in the end, rifle cannons aren't the star of the show, neither is infantry.  or Battlearmor.

I'm one of the people on the boards who openly stated "Mechanized' infantry was a mistake.  I still think so, but it's in the game and it works for people who want to use it well enough that it's not a deal-killer when it gets incorporated into a published scenario.

That's where it's at with this-the system you object to, works for the players who bother to use it. It's imperfect, but it works, and your proposed changes have already failed in playtest once, unless you've got a new version that needs some tread-wear.

So, I'll submit two challenges to the forum here:

1. Take Daryk's suggested change to Rifle cannons and TEST IT.

2. Take Monbvol's suggested changes to infantry, and "TEST THEM."

Put up your version of what rules need to be changed, Monbvol, do the math, and put it up here on the board, and get people to give it a shot.

Daryk and Riflemech? same thing. You're further because you've already got your references out, but put up a document and get people who aren't you to run a few scenarios with it and report back.

It's like my house-rules for asymmetrical initiative-people tried it, and now 'front loaded initiative' shows up on Megamek as an option.  It won't ever be published material in anything official, but I know it works well enough that people see it as a viable alternative for their own games, and that's good enough.

If you want a revolution, lead the way.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 30 June 2021, 13:42:05

Sounds like an interesting challenge, I am starting to feel inspired.
So a small rewrite of the rules/tables and creating a number of basic record sheets.
Any specific platoon types you think we should focus on?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 30 June 2021, 13:59:32
For my group, we've got too many people just coming in to the game new or after a while.  They weren't even enthused about using the Enhanced Flamer rule from the Battlemech Manual.  We haven't even introduced Combat Vehicles to our regular sessions, much less any type of Infantry.  So probably wouldn't be able to help much.

Off hand, I wonder if using the range-based damage found in the Snub-Nose PPC, VSP Lasers, and Heavy Gauss Rifle might not be a better solution?

Say, using 3/2*/0* for the LRC with the * indicating that it does short-ranged damage to Support Vehicles and Infantry.

Edit: A better specificity as to who the "we" are.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 30 June 2021, 14:08:31
Hmmm....

Honestly I could be convinced to go for the simple solution of keep the final stats, just forget the details, and go back to the more abstracted nature where not everything had to be listed on the infantry recordsheet but could be assumed to still be carried by said infantry.  This would also largely require forgetting we even have infantry construction rules but the older I get and the more I play this game I only see two possibilities:

1. Players having construction rules needs to be deemed a bad thing and we should start forgetting them all really.

2. The game needs a foundation up overhaul so that the construction rules work better with how much they influence the game rules because how it is now is frankly a mess that only works because of sheer inertia at this point.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 30 June 2021, 17:38:35
Monbvol, it sounds like you're developing your own "First Principles", and I can't applaud that enough!  :thumbsup:

Cannonshop: Thank you for the history there!  Having only the results in print hides a lot of the back and forth in development.  The forum here provides a potential view into that development, and I encourage that too!  :thumbsup:

As far as playtesting, I don't have quite that much pull with my local group.  They're in an era where even my proposed change has literally no relevance (I believe I've mentioned the Orion in our unit with a Long Tom Artillery Cannon; we discovered early on you can kill vehicles in defilade by simply knowing they're there, and shooting a hex near them you CAN see, and we're not even using thermobarics yet...).

Honestly, that's been my main consternation with this whole discussion across two threads (one locked) at the moment.  TPTB made a bad game design decision (an unnecessary singularity) for no perceptible reason.  LRCs would be just as irrelevant to the vast majority of players if they did 1 point of damage, and those of us who care wouldn't be complaining.  Consistency is my #1 priority, and I don't see how that harms TPTB's bottom line in any way.  Seriously... I gave up on 40K the edition after Rogue Trader because I saw exactly where that nonsense was going, and lo and behold, we've had it for over 20 years now.  Companies who base their business models on "there's a sucker born every minute" have suckers for customers, no matter how many of them there are.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 30 June 2021, 18:06:38
All it's taken is a global pandemic, me getting a stable 40 hour a week job for the second time in my life but this one is less likely to get yanked out from under me, and not even having played a living person in probably at least three years even via MegaMek.  Hell it's been a bit since I even bothered to fight the bot.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 30 June 2021, 18:33:24
Whatever it takes, brother!  Keep pushing!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 01 July 2021, 14:11:05
It does not, in BT the relationship is nonlinear. First off there are cases of needing a minimum threshold before doing any damage. Secondly increased velocity seems to decrease the efficiency in how kinetic energy turns into damage, which is why Gauss rifles only do 15 dmg, and railguns seem to be extremely extinct. This might be partly related in how it seems to be highly capable of resisting penetration, this can also be seen from the surviving ballistic weapons (Autocannon, mech-scale MG) that are more focused on jack-hammering a small section of armor with many hits.

However, I keep reading how it's Rifles slow velocity that causes them to do less damage. If slower does more damage then why the -3? As for Rail Guns, we don't know what their stats would be. They're among the weapons we haven't been given.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Cannonshop on 01 July 2021, 14:19:28
Sounds like an interesting challenge, I am starting to feel inspired.
So a small rewrite of the rules/tables and creating a number of basic record sheets.
Any specific platoon types you think we should focus on?

The types you feel (or the board here feels) are the most problematic would be a start, along with some that replicate the most basic layout or 'generic' you can come up with.

basically, you need a control group (something book-basic under the system) to compare with your more extreme cases, and probably more than one scenario or run to really get good data-I'd suggest for your first series, rotate players between sides with specific loadouts, that way you get both the 'virgin' test, and one based on player-lessons-learned to catch edge cases or unintended consequences.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 01 July 2021, 14:45:59
I did account for internal structure.  But still more proof if we're going to truly solve this issue in a consistent manner we're going to also have to accept that infantry small arms might have to be massively reduced or even outright rendered ineffective against proper vehicular armor and that the current conversion system is not meant to work for mech scale weapons.

At what scale would infantry weapons do no damage though? AToW does one thing. TW does another. Or should we do something else?


Quote
There is a difference already.

Yeah. When used by infantry in TW they pretty much aren't there. When used in AToW or as Vehicles in TW they're far superior.


Quote
Looking at the entry for Rifle Cannons now and it says nothing about low muzzle velocity being the reason they get the -3.  It just says lack of penetration power and not useful in space.  I suppose you could interpret the not useful in space to meant that they have lower muzzle velocities than Autocannons and Gauss Rifles but that's only really by comparison and as others have stated most likely not the only reason even if true why they get the -3.

I said that. It's in the forums I keep reading about muzzle velocity. Not useful in space is also applied to Tube Artillery but they don't get a -3 damage.


For a lot of that time infantry just because they were called rifle were still assumed to have grenades, vlaws, and other effective weapons that can hurt mechs.  This abstraction was done away with in Tech Manual for reasons I do not know and the game has suffered from inconsistency issues for it.

So no my solution isn't to retcon nearly fourtty years of units and history.  If anything it is to return infantry back to when they did work best and were closer to as how described in lore.  That the better idea was to reach for a VLAW/LAW/SRM launcher than an autorifle if shooting at a mech or tank.  Or even grenades if you have them.  Or Satchel charges.

I've even taken to listening to Battletech audiobooks this year and I got to say that is the impression I get of how they work in lore anyway.

Indeed.

I never assumed that. It was Anti-Mech Infantry that had Satchel Charges. Also, infantry SRM and such do far less damage than they're fluffed unless you're using the rules in TRO:3026 or Battledroids Infantry. Currently they're not really any better than Auto-Rifles.

Auto-Rifle .52 damage
SRM Launcher (Light) .57
Machine Gun (Support) .94
Recoilless Rifle (Heavy) .57
Support Laser .84
Rocket Launcher (LAW) .53
Grenade Launcher .81

They all round up to 1 point of damage. I think its so the abstracted infantry types (Rifle, Laser, Flamer, MG, SRM) aren't completely overshadowed.

Edited to fix damage values.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 01 July 2021, 14:48:46

 :thumbsup:



Not true, the proposed solution does not affect all infantry weapons just the small arms (nails, pistols, rifles), the old traditional anti-Mech weapons such as missile launchers, field guns and explosive satchels remain. This will result in more purposeful infantry that would be a better match for the universe.

Actually it is true as we've had a variety "abstracted" infantry types for 30+ years now. Rifle, Laser, Flamer, SRM, MG. TM just allows us greater variety, and I believe some of the weapons are intentionally nerfed so that the older "abstracted" infantry are still valid.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 01 July 2021, 15:18:12
So, I'll submit two challenges to the forum here:

1. Take Daryk's suggested change to Rifle cannons and TEST IT.

2. Take Monbvol's suggested changes to infantry, and "TEST THEM."

Put up your version of what rules need to be changed, Monbvol, do the math, and put it up here on the board, and get people to give it a shot.

Daryk and Riflemech? same thing. You're further because you've already got your references out, but put up a document and get people who aren't you to run a few scenarios with it and report back.

I'd love to get other people to play just normally. Unfortunately, between a lack of space, just about everything being packed up, and a serious lack of interest I'm not able to right now. :) The last is the biggest problem. :(

I can say thought that in the past, We've played with Rifles doing full and damage reduced, all the way to zero for Lights. (I haven't tried reduced damage only at long range though. I'd love to try it.) Will full damage, Rifles were bad but useful. They became less useful as the damage was reduced but as long as they did damage there was a reason to use them. Once we got to -3, Lights only saw use as low tech BA hunters post 3050 or in early Age of War games.

Playing infantry doing no damage? I think I've done that a long time ago and if I remember right, it didn't go over well. I'd be willing to try again if I had means to do so. I do remember using Battledroids infantry. That went okay. I've also tested my version of mechanized/motorized infantry and it worked. We liked it more than the currant version. Currant is okay but we didn't like the abstraction.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 01 July 2021, 15:27:18
Off hand, I wonder if using the range-based damage found in the Snub-Nose PPC, VSP Lasers, and Heavy Gauss Rifle might not be a better solution?

Say, using 3/2*/0* for the LRC with the * indicating that it does short-ranged damage to Support Vehicles and Infantry.

Sounds kind of familiar and a lot better than a flat -3 damage.  :thumbsup:


Honestly, that's been my main consternation with this whole discussion across two threads (one locked) at the moment.  TPTB made a bad game design decision (an unnecessary singularity) for no perceptible reason.  LRCs would be just as irrelevant to the vast majority of players if they did 1 point of damage, and those of us who care wouldn't be complaining.  Consistency is my #1 priority, and I don't see how that harms TPTB's bottom line in any way.  Seriously... I gave up on 40K the edition after Rogue Trader because I saw exactly where that nonsense was going, and lo and behold, we've had it for over 20 years now.  Companies who base their business models on "there's a sucker born every minute" have suckers for customers, no matter how many of them there are.

That's how I feel. I probably wouldn't have given Rifles, reduced damage a second though if the Light was only reduced to 1. It doing 0 is what caused me to question it.

I also wish things were more consistent. I know things change over the years but the differences between TW and AtoW is just frustrating.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 01 July 2021, 17:03:07
Actually it is true as we've had a variety "abstracted" infantry types for 30+ years now. Rifle, Laser, Flamer, SRM, MG. TM just allows us greater variety, and I believe some of the weapons are intentionally nerfed so that the older "abstracted" infantry are still valid.
Sorry I can't make sense of your reply, it doesn't seem to be connected to my post. Could you please rephrase it?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 01 July 2021, 17:39:03
What reference are you using RifleMech?  Most of your weapon conversions are right, but Auto-Rifles are only 0.52 and Support Lasers are only 0.84 by the current Tech Manual errata.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 01 July 2021, 18:43:22
Monbvol: switching the BD per TW point of damage to 4.5 (from 6) seems to work with the assumptions of every TW scale weapon getting the "splash" bonus and a single shot.  Did you not try varying that parameter?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 01 July 2021, 19:37:45
Sorry I can't make sense of your reply, it doesn't seem to be connected to my post. Could you please rephrase it?

Sorry about that.

Cannonshop said,
Quote
Quote from: Cannonshop on 30 June 2021, 11:19:54
YOUR solution means retconning something close to forty years worth of game materials, novels, sourcebooks, stories, tradition, and player involvement.

You replied,
Not true, the proposed solution does not affect all infantry weapons just the small arms (nails, pistols, rifles), the old traditional anti-Mech weapons such as missile launchers, field guns and explosive satchels remain. This will result in more purposeful infantry that would be a better match for the universe.

I'm saying that Cannonshop is right. Infantry have been using small arms (Rifles) since at least 1987. That's almost 35 years of Rifles doing damage to Mechs and Vehicles. That's 35 years of all those things Cannonshop mentioned needing to be retconned.

Now I can see an advanced rule saying that "For additional realism,  Infantry weapons that do or are using ammo with an AP of 4 or less will have no impact on BAR 5 or greater.  Armor Piercing Ammo rounds are played normally." or something. It wouldn't retcon anything, just add an extra degree of realism for those that want it.


What reference are you using RifleMech?  Most of your weapon conversions are right, but Auto-Rifles are only 0.52 and Support Lasers are only 0.84 by the current Tech Manual errata.

I was looking in TechManual and you're right. Sorry about that.  I really hate reading PDFs with these glasses. I'll fix it.

Monbvol: switching the BD per TW point of damage to 4.5 (from 6) seems to work with the assumptions of every TW scale weapon getting the "splash" bonus and a single shot.  Did you not try varying that parameter?


So instead of x6 you think it should be x4.5? So a small laser or LRC would have an BD of 13.5 instead of 18?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 01 July 2021, 19:53:54
13.5 rounded to 14, yes.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 01 July 2021, 20:13:12
13.5 rounded to 14, yes.

Cool!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 01 July 2021, 20:18:39
And that 7 AP / 14 BD would work out to 0.99, which would still round to 1 against BAR 10 for the LRC.  MRCs would drop to 2 points due to rounding, and HRCs would drop to 3.  That feels a LOT more like obsolescence to me than 0/3/6.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 01 July 2021, 20:38:07
And "rifle cannon do one third damage against hard targets" is easy to memorize.

Would that apply to BA targets equally? For me that's the biggest inconsistency of the whole RC issue.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 01 July 2021, 21:01:31
BA are their own very special ball of snakes.  AToW has BAR ratings for them that don't exactly translate to tactical armor cleanly.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: TigerShark on 01 July 2021, 21:04:53
BA should absolutely take full damage. Unless that armor is 100mm thick or something, there's no reason even an antiquated tank shell shouldn't penetrate. Let's not pretend BT is in the realm of Pathfinder, where it's enchanted and cannot be penetrated unless it's a +1 or better object. There's at least SOME suspension of disbelief.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 01 July 2021, 21:30:43
Monbvol: switching the BD per TW point of damage to 4.5 (from 6) seems to work with the assumptions of every TW scale weapon getting the "splash" bonus and a single shot.  Did you not try varying that parameter?

The closest I've come to a consistent fix without going complete overhaul can be found in this (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/fan-designs-rules/fixing-the-atow-companion-conversion-to-tw-for-mech-weapons/) thread.

I used DV*5 instead of 6 and a special 0.5 splash modifier(seems somewhat reasonable as they only splash 1 meter according to AToW) to completely eliminate the creeping error.

4.5 seems to round correctly so maybe it can work.

HGR short range DV of 25 with 4.5 and splash works back out to 25.31.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 01 July 2021, 21:41:24
BA should absolutely take full damage. Unless that armor is 100mm thick or something, there's no reason even an antiquated tank shell shouldn't penetrate. Let's not pretend BT is in the realm of Pathfinder, where it's enchanted and cannot be penetrated unless it's a +1 or better object. There's at least SOME suspension of disbelief.
Armor on a BA seems to be thicker than on a Savannah Master, wouldn't you think? Or on a Union DS at 1.8kg armor/m2 (that's equal to 10mm of balsa wood).
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 01 July 2021, 22:37:32
And "rifle cannon do one third damage against hard targets" is easy to memorize.

Would that apply to BA targets equally? For me that's the biggest inconsistency of the whole RC issue.

I think the best reason behind it is how Battle Armor is constructed.  It is constructed as armor for a person, and not as an independent structure on its own.  In other words, damaging the fleshy bits inside is still well and possible, which is why they take full damage.

Armor on a BA seems to be thicker than on a Savannah Master, wouldn't you think? Or on a Union DS at 1.8kg armor/m2 (that's equal to 10mm of balsa wood).

Savannah Master front 10 points.  Elemental whole body 10 points.  Savannah Master is a combat vehicle while the Battle Armor moves with the pilot.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 02 July 2021, 04:16:16
Savannah Master front 10 points.  Elemental whole body 10 points.  Savannah Master is a combat vehicle while the Battle Armor moves with the pilot.

Elemental: surface slightly larger than man sized. Savannah Master: enough surface for 5 BA with mag clamps to cling to.  :)

Edit: But I agree that any damage may be affecting the trooper more directly, either when penetrating or by concussion even w/o penetration.

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 02 July 2021, 04:31:43
The closest I've come to a consistent fix without going complete overhaul can be found in this (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/fan-designs-rules/fixing-the-atow-companion-conversion-to-tw-for-mech-weapons/) thread.

I used DV*5 instead of 6 and a special 0.5 splash modifier(seems somewhat reasonable as they only splash 1 meter according to AToW) to completely eliminate the creeping error.

4.5 seems to round correctly so maybe it can work.

HGR short range DV of 25 with 4.5 and splash works back out to 25.31.
I extended the sheet a bit further, and the error creeps in at 27 points of damage with 4.5.  Since physicals work differently anyway, I think 4.5 might be safe.  It's easier to calculate mentally than dialing down to 4.4 or something too.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 02 July 2021, 04:47:10
And that 7 AP / 14 BD would work out to 0.99, which would still round to 1 against BAR 10 for the LRC.  MRCs would drop to 2 points due to rounding, and HRCs would drop to 3.  That feels a LOT more like obsolescence to me than 0/3/6.

AToW doesn't doesn't reduce Rifles AP though. All Vehicle Weapons have an AP of 10. Going with AToW's 10AP for Vehicle Weapons and your x4.5, I get 10AP/14BD, 10AP/27BD, 10AP/41DB. When converted back I get 3/6/9.

Remember a HRC has a barrel size of an AC/20 but does less than a single AC/20 round. The HRC does 9 points of damage, with no extra penetrating critical hit roll, against BAR8 Armor. A single AC/20 round will do 10 points of damage and still get the extra penetrating critical hit roll. I believe that's a 10% reduction in damage against a single target. Unless the AC/20 is splitting fire between targets, both rounds fired will hit for 20 points of damage. That's an 11 point decrease in overall firepower. That's what? A 55% decrease in firepower per shot?

The Medium and Light Rifle Cannons do 1 point more against single rounds of AC/10 and AC/5 fire but still ultimately have a 40% decrease in overall firepower compared to ACs. If someone has better %'s please post but for me that's a big decrease in firepower without the -3. And that's when used by vehicles and Mechs. As Field Guns Autocannons can rapid fire without blowing up. That's a rate of fire of 4 to 1. Or 40 points of damage to 9. 20 points of damage to 6. 10 points of damage to 3. That's a pretty big difference in firepower. At least to me it is.








Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 02 July 2021, 04:54:42
My original post started with the assumption that the Rifle Cannons are 7 AP.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 02 July 2021, 05:10:11
I think the best reason behind it is how Battle Armor is constructed.  It is constructed as armor for a person, and not as an independent structure on its own.  In other words, damaging the fleshy bits inside is still well and possible, which is why they take full damage.

Savannah Master front 10 points.  Elemental whole body 10 points.  Savannah Master is a combat vehicle while the Battle Armor moves with the pilot.


The Center Torso of a Hussar (300-D) has 4 points of armor. The rear torso locations only have a single point of armor each. A mech is much bigger than an Elemental or a Savannah Master so the armor is going to be a lot thinner. So if an Elemental takes full damage from a Light Rifle why is the Hussar Battlemech immune?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 02 July 2021, 05:22:14
My original post started with the assumption that the Rifle Cannons are 7 AP.
[/quote

I understand where you got the 7AP from and it makes sense considering the HRC's loss in penetrating critical hits. However, AToW gives vehicle weapons an AP of 10. Also the math should go both ways. It comes out with 10AP/BD=TWx4.5. It comes out 7AP/fullBD without splash damage. It doesn't all the other ways I've done the math.

I do think you're right about the x4.5 being better than 6 though. The math seems to work out with 10AP/TWdamagex4.5BD which includes splash damage.  Although, I freely admit I'm not sure about the math but I think it works out.
 
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 02 July 2021, 05:35:01
The 7 AP assumption is why this thread is down here in Fan Rules.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 02 July 2021, 05:50:21
The 7 AP assumption is why this thread is down here in Fan Rules.

Like I said, I understand where you got it. The Rules and math say other things, so... :-\
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 02 July 2021, 05:58:18
Right... I'm proposing a change to that AP10 rule for Rifle Cannons.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 02 July 2021, 06:40:47

The Center Torso of a Hussar (300-D) has 4 points of armor. The rear torso locations only have a single point of armor each. A mech is much bigger than an Elemental or a Savannah Master so the armor is going to be a lot thinner. So if an Elemental takes full damage from a Light Rifle why is the Hussar Battlemech immune?
Although I dislike the inconsistencies attached to the RCs, in the BA's case I could accept that even if the LRC doesn't technically do penetration damage, a limb hit by the shell might be shattered from concussion. The momentum of ~50kg at several hundred m/s has to go somewhere, after all.

Of course, I would rather prefer to change the zero damage of the LRC instead of rationalizing an additional inconsistency.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 02 July 2021, 13:05:44
Elemental: surface slightly larger than man sized. Savannah Master: enough surface for 5 BA with mag clamps to cling to.  :)

Sorry, no.  There is more armor covering the sides and rear of the Savannah Master than just the referenced 10 points (a total of 24 for the Vehicle), meanwhile the 10 points on Elemental armor is the entire totality of its armor.  Not to mention, those BA riding a Savannah Master won't be riding on the front, but only the sides and rear.


The Center Torso of a Hussar (300-D) has 4 points of armor. The rear torso locations only have a single point of armor each. A mech is much bigger than an Elemental or a Savannah Master so the armor is going to be a lot thinner. So if an Elemental takes full damage from a Light Rifle why is the Hussar Battlemech immune?

Already stated in what you quoted, the internal support structure of the Battle Armor isn't sufficient to withstand the round like the structure of a Combat Vehicle or a Mech, leading to more internal damage, which causes the armor to not be supported, either.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 02 July 2021, 14:36:49
Right... I'm proposing a change to that AP10 rule for Rifle Cannons.

I wouldn't be agreeable to that. It's inconsistent with all the other pre-spaceflight weapons. I'm not even sure how you get .99 for the LRC. I get 2.205. 



Although I dislike the inconsistencies attached to the RCs, in the BA's case I could accept that even if the LRC doesn't technically do penetration damage, a limb hit by the shell might be shattered from concussion. The momentum of ~50kg at several hundred m/s has to go somewhere, after all.

Of course, I would rather prefer to change the zero damage of the LRC instead of rationalizing an additional inconsistency.


I can see that happening but to kill a BA you have to eliminate all the armor points and the trooper in it. That's up to 18 points of armor +1 for the trooper. That's a lot more protection than a few points spread over a whole mech/vehicle location. If a LRC hit will do full damage to BA, shouldn't the LRC round go right through 1 point of armor on a Mech or Vehicle?


 
Already stated in what you quoted, the internal support structure of the Battle Armor isn't sufficient to withstand the round like the structure of a Combat Vehicle or a Mech, leading to more internal damage, which causes the armor to not be supported, either.

I can see that however, as I said above, you still have to eliminate all the armor points plus the trooper to kill a BA. That's armor the same BAR level as a Mech. If a LRC can do 3 points of damage to a BA, why can't it do 3 points of damage to a mech?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 02 July 2021, 14:59:16
I can see that however, as I said above, you still have to eliminate all the armor points plus the trooper to kill a BA. That's armor the same BAR level as a Mech. If a LRC can do 3 points of damage to a BA, why can't it do 3 points of damage to a mech?

There are indications are that is not actually the case.

Daryk's already mentioned their conversion table in AToW and there is the added aspect of how they react to Infernos spring to mind immediately.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 02 July 2021, 15:01:13
Similar to what I laid out in the first post, I enter the table with an AP of 7, and instead of 18 (3 x 6), I use a damage of 14 (3 x 4.5, rounded normally).  Now, since I'm shooting at BAR 10 armor instead of BAR 7, I reduce the AP and BD by 3 (the difference between 7 and 10) per the procedure on AToW page 185.  That yields 4 AP and 11 BD.  Going back through the AToW Companion page 171 formula with those values (and base assumptions of a single shot with "splash") yields 0.99.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 02 July 2021, 16:15:04
Sorry, no.  There is more armor covering the sides and rear of the Savannah Master than just the referenced 10 points (a total of 24 for the Vehicle), meanwhile the 10 points on Elemental armor is the entire totality of its armor.  Not to mention, those BA riding a Savannah Master won't be riding on the front, but only the sides and rear.

I can see that happening but to kill a BA you have to eliminate all the armor points and the trooper in it. That's up to 18 points of armor +1 for the trooper. That's a lot more protection than a few points spread over a whole mech/vehicle location. If a LRC hit will do full damage to BA, shouldn't the LRC round go right through 1 point of armor on a Mech or Vehicle?


Per the rules, the SM front is one hit location, the Elemental is one hit location. BT armor doesn't care about where exactly in a location it is hit or how thin or thick that armor is, an armor point is an armor point is an armor point.
Example: A Union DS is basically an r=40m sphere, giving about 20,000m2 surface area. It has got 37.5t of armor. Estimating a roughly even distribution, that's ~1.8kg of armor per square meter. Assuming BT armor is as dense as steel, we get ~0.2mm armor thickness - that's about twice as thick as a human hair - foamed polystyrene woukd give about 45mm.

I know that this an extreme example, I just want to demonstrate that the BT rules are so full of abstractions and contradicting reasons that we all are right or wrong, depending on which abstraction we use as a starting point. You can design a 340kg motorcycle completely immune to an LRC, should that really be better protected than an Golem Assault BA?

I can see why BA might be damaged even when protected by BAR8+ armor (@Charistoph: and conceded that already in my edit).
Still I don't like how the rules put on layers of exceptions. The RCs get as an exception a linear damage reduction against certain armor grades, but then only on some types of targets. And every exception begs for another. If the RC shall do more damage against BAR8+ battle armor than against other BAR8+ targets, shouldn't then Gauss rifles and HE artillery rounds also do more damage than they already do against them? If the RCs get said reduction because they and their ammo were built with outdated technology, shouldn't the pre-space age machinegun get the same reduction? The example motorbike above could use another exception...



Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 02 July 2021, 16:24:09
You're getting to the core of my argument.  TPTB already had a mechanism for making "outdated" weapons, and instead threw in a flat -3 at the TW scale that yields a zero.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 02 July 2021, 16:47:27
What if the pre-spaceflight weapons aren't actually pre-spaceflight in the way some think?

Example while artillery as a concept certainly is pre-spaceflight the actual guns put into service on the Battletech stage are clearly not the same 155mm howitzers you'd find in the US arsenal circa 1944.

So what if what we have stats for are no longer something actually produceable by pre-spaceflight technology?

Which is something I've maintained for a while now.  The only way a lot of this makes any sense is to not assume the Ma Duece is still in service in the 31st century.  Sure something like it probably is but it's probably had some Tech C refinements added and some evolution of ballistic theory to change how it's rounds do damage but it can still be called pre-spaceflight because that's where it evolved from but it's not something you could reproduce if you went back to 1944.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 02 July 2021, 16:53:21
Well TL C does cover some 20th century technology, and to be fair, I don't think you could make the current Heavy Barrel version of the Ma Deuce in 1944.  The metallurgy alone has come a long way.  The basic mechanism is the same, though.  Just with tougher materials.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 02 July 2021, 17:16:40
I do seem to remember it being deemed even here in 2021 we'd be considered Tech Level C- with a few rare examples of higher tech items that often required several nations working together to pull off.

But still I consider it quite likely you could take the Infantry Support Machine Gun back to even 2021 and not be able to properly reproduce it to full effect.  Or a Thumper.  Or anything else one might choose.  But it can still be considered pre-spaceflight because it'd be recognizable to that lineage.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 02 July 2021, 17:32:08

So what if what we have stats for are no longer something actually produceable by pre-spaceflight technology?

Which is something I've maintained for a while now.  The only way a lot of this makes any sense is to not assume the Ma Duece is still in service in the 31st century.  Sure something like it probably is but it's probably had some Tech C refinements added and some evolution of ballistic theory to change how it's rounds do damage but it can still be called pre-spaceflight because that's where it evolved from but it's not something you could reproduce if you went back to 1944.

Ok, but why has this evolution in ballistic theory been applied to machineguns and artillery, but not to rifle cannon?

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 02 July 2021, 17:38:34
Ok, but why has this evolution in ballistic theory been applied to machineguns and artillery, but not to rifle cannon?

Maybe it has already to the limit that Rifle Cannons can handle and that is why the Medium and Heavy do damage to all targets and the -3 doesn't apply to certain exceptions?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 02 July 2021, 17:39:25
I do seem to remember it being deemed even here in 2021 we'd be considered Tech Level C- with a few rare examples of higher tech items that often required several nations working together to pull off.

But still I consider it quite likely you could take the Infantry Support Machine Gun back to even 2021 and not be able to properly reproduce it to full effect.  Or a Thumper.  Or anything else one might choose.  But it can still be considered pre-spaceflight because it'd be recognizable to that lineage.
Heh... they DO keep saying we'll have commercial fusion power any decade now...  :D

TPTB did helpfully provide us "Vintage" weapons in the Companion, and they're just about exactly where you'd expect them to be (i.e., 1-2 AP and/or BD below the TL C versions).

For handy comparison:
Vintage Auto-Rifle: 2AP/3BD, Burst 10 (TL C, btw) 4.5 kg
Auto-Rifle: 4AP/4BD, Burst 15 4 kg

Vintage MG: 3AP/4BD. Burst 15 (TL C too) 11 kg
Portable MG: 5AP/4BD, Burst 15, 11.5 kg
Support MG: 5AP/5BD, Burst 20, 44 kg (!)

My Machine Guns thread has more detail (and a proposed fix for the outlying "Light" MG).
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 02 July 2021, 17:44:13
There are indications are that is not actually the case.

Daryk's already mentioned their conversion table in AToW and there is the added aspect of how they react to Infernos spring to mind immediately.

Beyond how they take damage in AToW?

Infernos are a special ammo type and other than Inferno Bombs they're not pre-spaceflight.



Similar to what I laid out in the first post, I enter the table with an AP of 7, and instead of 18 (3 x 6), I use a damage of 14 (3 x 4.5, rounded normally).  Now, since I'm shooting at BAR 10 armor instead of BAR 7, I reduce the AP and BD by 3 (the difference between 7 and 10) per the procedure on AToW page 185.  That yields 4 AP and 11 BD.  Going back through the AToW Companion page 171 formula with those values (and base assumptions of a single shot with "splash") yields 0.99.

Yes but this is a vehicle scale weapon. The BD would be reduced more. And reducing the AP even more? I have no idea where you're getting that. Your also building in inconsistencies. Rifles would be the only pre-spaceflight weapon and the only vehicle scale weapons to have their APs reduced, and your reducing them twice. That makes no sense.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 02 July 2021, 17:51:14
As I've said a couple of times now, the procedure is on page 185 of AToW.  Here's the specific sentence that connects damage and Tactical Armor:
Quote
Tactical Armor: If an attack must pass through tactical
armor, its damage is reduced as described above for AP values
below the armor’s BAR.

The only reduction I'm suggesting is that Rifle Cannons are NOT 10AP to begin with.  The procedure on page 185 is what reduces it for purposes of computing the damage with the AToW Companion page 171 formula.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 02 July 2021, 18:22:01
(snip)
Still I don't like how the rules put on layers of exceptions. The RCs get as an exception a linear damage reduction against certain armor grades, but then only on some types of targets. And every exception begs for another. If the RC shall do more damage against BAR8+ battle armor than against other BAR8+ targets, shouldn't then Gauss rifles and HE artillery rounds also do more damage than they already do against them? If the RCs get said reduction because they and their ammo were built with outdated technology, shouldn't the pre-space age machinegun get the same reduction? The example motorbike above could use another exception...


It's the exceptions that we'd like to eliminate. Rifles doing full damage to BA but not to other BAR10 units is one I'd like to get rid of. If we removed the flat-3 against BAR, and made it more based on distance, then it'd be more consistent with other weapons. Then there would still be a reason to use Rifles, especially the Light, all through the Star League and beyond.

Quote
What if the pre-spaceflight weapons aren't actually pre-spaceflight in the way some think?(snip)
Maybe it has already to the limit that Rifle Cannons can handle and that is why the Medium and Heavy do damage to all targets and the -3 doesn't apply to certain exceptions?


I've heard that argument before too. It still doesn't explain the introdates or the technology used in the weapon. Is a sword made today a 21st Century weapon or an ancient one? The argument also doesn't explain why it only applies to Rifles. Shouldn't the -3 apply to all weapons made with that level of technology? It also does say why more modern versions couldn't be made. The Thumper and Sniper are pre-spaceflight artillery. The Long Tom was introduced in 2445. The older two don't suffer any compared to the newer one. Why not have bigger Rifles? Improved ammo?
The argument just doesn't work.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 02 July 2021, 18:32:00
It also does say why more modern versions couldn't be made. The Thumper and Sniper are pre-spaceflight artillery. The Long Tom was introduced in 2445. The older two don't suffer any compared to the newer one. Why not have bigger Rifles? Improved ammo?
The argument just doesn't work.
Concepts have limits, for example current armies are not asking for larger siege catapults or improved ammo for siege catapults.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 02 July 2021, 18:48:48
As I've said a couple of times now, the procedure is on page 185 of AToW.  Here's the specific sentence that connects damage and Tactical Armor:
The only reduction I'm suggesting is that Rifle Cannons are NOT 10AP to begin with.  The procedure on page 185 is what reduces it for purposes of computing the damage with the AToW Companion page 171 formula.

And when I look above I read
Quote
If a character suffers damage that has an AP below the
applicable BAR of the armor or barrier (other than tactical
armor)
between the damage source and the character, the
armor reduces the final AP and BD of the attack (including all
modifiers for MoS and STR, as applicable) by the difference
between the armor’s BAR and the attack’s AP.

Also at the end of your quote it says
Quote
See Tactical Armor Degradation, below.
It says

Quote
any attack that delivers damage after accounting for the tactical armor’s BAR will reduce the location’s Tactical Armor value by an amount equal to the number of Standard damage points the
weapon inflicts, divided by the armor’s BAR (rounding normally).

So going by what you've just been saying, a LRC (7AP/14BD) against BAR-10 armor would be reduced to (4AP/11BD). The Armor  Rations (BAR10) would remove another 10BD, leaving 1BD. Divide that by the BAR rating (10) and we get .1. Which when rounded does 0 damage.

With 7AP/18BD, would do .5 damage, rounded up to 1 point.
With 10AP/18BD would do .8 damage, rounded up to 1 point.

A Heavy with 10AP/54BD would do 4.4, rounded to 4 points. And before anyone thinks that's good, A Large Laser (10AP/48BD) also rounds to 4 points of damage.

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 02 July 2021, 19:21:24
You're skipping the AToW Companion page 171 conversion.  I'm using that in place of "Tactical Armor Degradation".
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 02 July 2021, 19:22:15
I can see that however, as I said above, you still have to eliminate all the armor points plus the trooper to kill a BA. That's armor the same BAR level as a Mech. If a LRC can do 3 points of damage to a BA, why can't it do 3 points of damage to a mech?
Per the rules, the SM front is one hit location, the Elemental is one hit location. BT armor doesn't care about where exactly in a location it is hit or how thin or thick that armor is, an armor point is an armor point is an armor point.
Example: A Union DS is basically an r=40m sphere, giving about 20,000m2 surface area. It has got 37.5t of armor. Estimating a roughly even distribution, that's ~1.8kg of armor per square meter. Assuming BT armor is as dense as steel, we get ~0.2mm armor thickness - that's about twice as thick as a human hair - foamed polystyrene woukd give about 45mm.

I know that this an extreme example, I just want to demonstrate that the BT rules are so full of abstractions and contradicting reasons that we all are right or wrong, depending on which abstraction we use as a starting point. You can design a 340kg motorcycle completely immune to an LRC, should that really be better protected than an Golem Assault BA?

I can see why BA might be damaged even when protected by BAR8+ armor (@Charistoph: and conceded that already in my edit).
Still I don't like how the rules put on layers of exceptions. The RCs get as an exception a linear damage reduction against certain armor grades, but then only on some types of targets. And every exception begs for another. If the RC shall do more damage against BAR8+ battle armor than against other BAR8+ targets, shouldn't then Gauss rifles and HE artillery rounds also do more damage than they already do against them? If the RCs get said reduction because they and their ammo were built with outdated technology, shouldn't the pre-space age machinegun get the same reduction? The example motorbike above could use another exception...

It's the same answer that you both missed.  What is the armor connected to?  The unit's internal structure.  What is the internal structure of a suit of Battle Armor?  What is the internal structure of a Savannah Master?  What is the internal structure of a Battlemech?

The internal structure of Battle Armor isn't sufficient to hold on to the armor after the Rifle's impact that the structure of a Combat Vehicle and a Mech have.  Yes, this is very abstracted, but so is the general use of Infantry, period.

And that's partly why I suggested that full damage to Support Vehicles be a thing.  It should also do good on Light and Medium Buildings, too, but that may get too confusing.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 02 July 2021, 19:28:38
Concepts have limits, for example current armies are not asking for larger siege catapults or improved ammo for siege catapults.

True. However, we have seen that we haven't reached those limits yet. Tube artillery was improved with the Long Tom. We've also gotten Artillery Cannons. Machine Guns were improved with Light and Heavy as well as Clan versions. Same with Vehicle Flamers.
And of course there's all the other Clan Improved weapons. Even infantry weapons have been improved. So why can't Rifle Cannons? Why not have Tech C "Improved" Rifle Cannons? Or Larger Rifle Cannons? BT Ballistics can go above 150mm so why not Extra Heavy and Ultra Heavy Rifles Cannons?

And lets say even then there's no customers, after all, who would buy a myomer powered catapult? Then why would anyone be buying Rifle Cannons past 2445 when BAR8 Armor became common? Why would they be available during the Star League? During the 1st Succession War? Why didn't they go extinct before 2825? It doesn't make sense.

I can see a -3 at long range against BAR8+ armor. I can even see a -1 at short range, and a -2 at medium. It'd be consistent with other weapons with reduced damage based on range. It's consistent with all weapons reducing damage with extreme and LOS ranges. It's consistent with Rifles being less powerful than autocannons. And that they still inflict damage on BAR8+ units would be a reason why Rifles continued to be produced. Reduce their damage to little or nothing and there's no reason for them to exist.


Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 02 July 2021, 19:53:24
You're skipping the AToW Companion page 171 conversion.  I'm using that in place of "Tactical Armor Degradation".

In which case you don't reduce the damage. You convert from what is and the result is the damage. 10AP/4.5xTW converts both ways. 7AP//6xTW, no splash damage, converts both ways but only for Rifles. So 10AP/4.5xTW works better.



It's the same answer that you both missed.  What is the armor connected to?  The unit's internal structure.  What is the internal structure of a suit of Battle Armor?  What is the internal structure of a Savannah Master?  What is the internal structure of a Battlemech?

The internal structure of Battle Armor isn't sufficient to hold on to the armor after the Rifle's impact that the structure of a Combat Vehicle and a Mech have.  Yes, this is very abstracted, but so is the general use of Infantry, period.

And that's partly why I suggested that full damage to Support Vehicles be a thing.  It should also do good on Light and Medium Buildings, too, but that may get too confusing.

Yes the Chassis of a BA can't hold as much armor as a mech but it holds far more than that of a small vehicle. A 2 ton vehicle can hold a max of 6 points of armor. A BA can hold 18. And if we have Rifle's do full damage to support vehicles with BAR10 armor, is it limited to just small support vehicles or all support vehicles? TW says that Support Vehicles with BAR10 armor are equal to Combat Vehicles in protection. And what about Protomechs? The 2 ton Proto can carry as much armor as a 2 ton BA. Should they receive full damage from rifles or reduced damage?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 02 July 2021, 20:06:19
My turn to not understand your math...
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 02 July 2021, 20:08:52
Concepts have limits, for example current armies are not asking for larger siege catapults or improved ammo for siege catapults.

Storing energy via torsion is less efficient than storing it chemically. The ammo (kinetic energy projectile) is still a valid concept.


Which concept regarding rifled cannon has reached its limit?
Expelling a projectile by exploding a chemical propellant in a metal tube open at one end?
Impacting a dense metal object at several hundred meters per second on a plate of armor? Or exploding a HE filled shell near a target? Exploding a shaped charge warhead on contact? All are still current, valid concepts in the 4th millennium BTU.

RCs compete with artillery weapons regarding shell weight, with artillery cannon regarding shell weight and range, with ACs regarding range and overall weight of shot. Their penetrators apply the same concept as Gaus weapons and are comparable regarding shot weight (LGR: 62.5kg, GR: 125kg MRC 111kg, HRC166kg including propellant).
 
2.5kg of MG ammo destroy a point of armor.
62kg of light Gauss slug destroy 8 point of armor.
50kg of Thumper shell damage destroys potentially dozens of armor points in a 90m diameter.
A 10kg shaped charge missile destroys 2 points of armor.
A random tree does up to 20 points of damage.

We know that
a) Rifle cannon can hit a moving object under battlefield conditions at ranges of 12/15/18 hexes as well as other ballistic weapons of comparable ranges.
b) They can throw shells of 55/111/166 kg, slightly heavier compared to Thumper and Sniper shells, slightly lighter vs. LongToms.
c) BT armor can be damaged by HE (artillery), shaped charge warheads (SRM), Kinetic energy (Gauss weapons, MGs, charging, punching, clubbing). Kinetic energy doesn't have to be transferred  by specially shaped objects (ramming, clubs) or special materials (uprooted trees).

So what makes that 55kg shell unable to damage BAR8+ units? What makes the other RCs losing 1/3 or 1/2 of their damage?
Why can the much smaller multiple shells of ACs apply special ammunition effects, while the much heavier and roomier RC shells can't?

Keep in mind that a ballistic weapon is
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 02 July 2021, 20:17:49
True. However, we have seen that we haven't reached those limits yet. Tube artillery was improved with the Long Tom. We've also gotten Artillery Cannons. Machine Guns were improved with Light and Heavy as well as Clan versions. Same with Vehicle Flamers.
Those are different weapon systems, thus they have their own limits. You can not equate them with RC.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 02 July 2021, 20:30:37
It's the same answer that you both missed.

I didn't miss it. I just draw different conclusions.

Can we all agree that

rating the RCs at 3/6/9 damage and giving them a -3 malus against BAR8+ units except BA

is mathematically the same as

rating the RCs at 0/3/6 damage and giving them a +3 bonus against BAR7- units and BA?

If we agree on that: If damage against a BA by a RC is increased because the armor isn't backed by internal structure, why isn't damage caused to a BA by a Gauss rifle also increased?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 02 July 2021, 20:32:13
Either way, I think a flat modifier to damage at TW scale is the wrong way to go about whatever the goal is.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Cannonshop on 02 July 2021, 22:07:03
Well TL C does cover some 20th century technology, and to be fair, I don't think you could make the current Heavy Barrel version of the Ma Deuce in 1944.  The metallurgy alone has come a long way.  The basic mechanism is the same, though.  Just with tougher materials.

Except the 1944 howitzer throws a heavier shell further more accurately...with a smaller gun crew, the M2 has an effective antipersonnel range of over a kilometer, while the Sperry-Browning everyone's got in the 31st century can't reach a third of that-even against naked men standing in the open.
 
Comparisons with the past don't yeild the kind of result you WANT it to.  the drift on BT's artillery, even with the more rational rules, would be an embarrassing disqualification to a gun crew even as far back as 1918.

The less said comparing Battletech's 'advanced' weapons compared to the 20th, nevermind 21st centuries real-world equivalents the better, honestly.  Remember, Battletech isn't science fiction, it's fantasy-space-opera, and requires a certain basic suspension of disbelief and embrace of the absurd just to function at all.

The comment on BA being 'the whole of the suit' fails one basic examination point: Direct hits with PPC's.  It's 10 points PER FACING, not total, so the savannahmaster and other vees examples are still valid criticisms-because energy weapons are directional, and a Toad (elemental) can indeed eat a PPC to the face without flinching...or even losing much in the way of offensive capability.  (He might not like the next hit...but then, neither does the Savannahmaster who takes a frontal hit to the glacis with a PPC, only the Savannabastard will likely lose the main gun.  the suit won't.)

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 02 July 2021, 23:14:15
True. However, we have seen that we haven't reached those limits yet. Tube artillery was improved with the Long Tom. We've also gotten Artillery Cannons. Machine Guns were improved with Light and Heavy as well as Clan versions. Same with Vehicle Flamers.
And of course there's all the other Clan Improved weapons. Even infantry weapons have been improved. So why can't Rifle Cannons? Why not have Tech C "Improved" Rifle Cannons? Or Larger Rifle Cannons? BT Ballistics can go above 150mm so why not Extra Heavy and Ultra Heavy Rifles Cannons?

And lets say even then there's no customers, after all, who would buy a myomer powered catapult? Then why would anyone be buying Rifle Cannons past 2445 when BAR8 Armor became common? Why would they be available during the Star League? During the 1st Succession War? Why didn't they go extinct before 2825? It doesn't make sense.

I can see a -3 at long range against BAR8+ armor. I can even see a -1 at short range, and a -2 at medium. It'd be consistent with other weapons with reduced damage based on range. It's consistent with all weapons reducing damage with extreme and LOS ranges. It's consistent with Rifles being less powerful than autocannons. And that they still inflict damage on BAR8+ units would be a reason why Rifles continued to be produced. Reduce their damage to little or nothing and there's no reason for them to exist.

Who's to say that Autocannons are not the Tech C/improved Rifle Cannons?

It is entirely possible that is the case.

As to why the Rifle Cannons held on? Even with the -3 they were still useful in certain roles.

I've heard that argument before too. It still doesn't explain the introdates or the technology used in the weapon. Is a sword made today a 21st Century weapon or an ancient one? The argument also doesn't explain why it only applies to Rifles. Shouldn't the -3 apply to all weapons made with that level of technology? It also does say why more modern versions couldn't be made. The Thumper and Sniper are pre-spaceflight artillery. The Long Tom was introduced in 2445. The older two don't suffer any compared to the newer one. Why not have bigger Rifles? Improved ammo?
The argument just doesn't work.

Only if you want to apply intro dates and tech levels as straight jackets without being willing to consider not all weapons of the same tech level are created equal or that concepts are capable of evolving.

Plus not all weapons of a given tech level and a given intro date are created equal.  Some will just prove to be better and carry on while others vanish.  So that there is uneven performance shouldn't be surprising.

As far as the sword that actually works in favor of my argument.  It is clearly an ancient weapon and while ancient smiths had pretty good understanding of metalurgy and technique modern smiths are able to get a hold of a lot more precisely balanced alloys far more reliably and have come up with a few interesting tricks of their own.  Not to mention the reliability of controlling heat in furnaces.  Yet if you showed a modern sword to an ancient smith they wouldn't be terribly baffled by it but there are steels they could conceptually understand but not be able to reproduce.

I think we can say similar things are happening in case of the Thumper, Sniper, and Mech Machinegun.  All pre-spaceflight means is that's where you can draw the lineage to then.  All Tech level B means is the final product wouldn't baffle a pre-spaceflight artilleryman/machine gunner but doesn't mean that there are not subtle yet fundamental differences that mean it really takes more than what pre-spaceflight could do.

After all the modern Battletech Tech Manual Infantry Support Machine Guns we have in Tech Manual all have introdates of pre-spaceflight but are also all Tech C, which is post spaceflight.

Beyond how they take damage in AToW?

Infernos are a special ammo type and other than Inferno Bombs they're not pre-spaceflight.

I'll dig for more citations that show Battlearmor may not be full on BAR 10 Mech/Vehicle armor if you want but the inferno counter point is another example that in a way helps show that intro dates and tech levels are not the straight jackets you seem to think they are and that not all weapons of the same intro date and tech level are created equal.

The reason inferno missiles are not pre-spaceflight while bombs are?  Entirely in the delivery method.

Except the 1944 howitzer throws a heavier shell further more accurately...with a smaller gun crew, the M2 has an effective antipersonnel range of over a kilometer, while the Sperry-Browning everyone's got in the 31st century can't reach a third of that-even against naked men standing in the open.
 
Comparisons with the past don't yeild the kind of result you WANT it to.  the drift on BT's artillery, even with the more rational rules, would be an embarrassing disqualification to a gun crew even as far back as 1918.

The less said comparing Battletech's 'advanced' weapons compared to the 20th, nevermind 21st centuries real-world equivalents the better, honestly.  Remember, Battletech isn't science fiction, it's fantasy-space-opera, and requires a certain basic suspension of disbelief and embrace of the absurd just to function at all.

The comment on BA being 'the whole of the suit' fails one basic examination point: Direct hits with PPC's.  It's 10 points PER FACING, not total, so the savannahmaster and other vees examples are still valid criticisms-because energy weapons are directional, and a Toad (elemental) can indeed eat a PPC to the face without flinching...or even losing much in the way of offensive capability.  (He might not like the next hit...but then, neither does the Savannahmaster who takes a frontal hit to the glacis with a PPC, only the Savannabastard will likely lose the main gun.  the suit won't.)

There is certainly that element and it is a large part of why I say we can't take intro dates and tech levels as absolutes.

But yes this is why I'm really trying to work on changing how I approach Battletech.  It is a game and not a reality simulator after all.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 03 July 2021, 02:20:17
Yes the Chassis of a BA can't hold as much armor as a mech but it holds far more than that of a small vehicle. A 2 ton vehicle can hold a max of 6 points of armor. A BA can hold 18. And if we have Rifle's do full damage to support vehicles with BAR10 armor, is it limited to just small support vehicles or all support vehicles? TW says that Support Vehicles with BAR10 armor are equal to Combat Vehicles in protection. And what about Protomechs? The 2 ton Proto can carry as much armor as a 2 ton BA. Should they receive full damage from rifles or reduced damage?

And you're missing what I'm saying.  There is a difference between how much it will support, and how well it will keep it on.  The internal structure of BA apparently isn't good at keeping it on when being hit by the Rifle cannons, while the rest are.  Having the armor there is good, but BA frames cannot apparently handle the pressure load of the hit.

And as I noted in what you quoted, why I also suggested that Support Vehicles receive the same issue as they aren't really as tightly designed with a structure for combat.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 03 July 2021, 04:33:26
*snip*
But yes this is why I'm really trying to work on changing how I approach Battletech.  It is a game and not a reality simulator after all.
Exactly!  Good game design doesn't include unnecessary singularities (zeros and infinities).  The LRC is one of those, and I think the AP vs. BAR system has the potential to fix it.  I've said it before, and I still believe it: AP vs. BAR could be the E=mc2 of BT.  It does need a little work, but I think monbvol and I are getting close.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: DevianID on 03 July 2021, 04:35:26
As a side note, a heavy rifle cannon doesn't throw 160kg slugs imho.  The ammo for a rifle cannon includes a loading mechanism that is not intrinsically attached to the gun.  Guns with intrinsic loading machinery for automatic loading are autocannons by real world definition, which we know the rifles are not.  That is how I rationalize the ammo for rifle cannons anyway, as each ammo ton must include feeds and such to load the cannon, which autocannons do not have.  A light cannon is pretty comparable to the (not autoloaded) 120mm l44 cannon on an abrams firing 20kg (not 55kg) shells.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: DevianID on 03 July 2021, 04:44:39
Also, while not perfect, the rifles in MW5 are darn close.  With a rpm of 6 they mirror modern rifle cannons.  Armor points are modified in MW5, but an 8 ton AC5 does 5 damage with 30 rpm, while an 8 ton heavy cannon does 18 damage 6 rpm.  The 108 damage a rifle does (6 in btech) is less than the 150 potential damage a rapid firing AC5 can do (10 max in btech), but the AC5 in rapid fire mode requires a full minute of exposing yourself to shoot while the cannon allows you to hide between shots--in btech the rapid fire AC can jam, so in both cases (mw5 and btech) the ac5 is more damage with more risk.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 03 July 2021, 08:00:35
Exactly!  Good game design doesn't include unnecessary singularities (zeros and infinities).  The LRC is one of those, and I think the AP vs. BAR system has the potential to fix it.  I've said it before, and I still believe it: AP vs. BAR could be the E=mc2 of BT.  It does need a little work, but I think monbvol and I are getting close.

Actually there are tons of games where certain weapons are ineffective against certain targets, thus creating zeros.

D&D has tons of monsters where you choose the wrong weapon and you'll do zero damage unless you roll really well.

Same with Pathfinder.

For something more akin to Battletech last I checked WH40K vehicles except for some of the really lightly armored ones were pretty immune to lasguns and other low grade weapons.

Flames of War if you try and take out a Tiger with massed M1 Garand fire you're going to be disappointed with all the zeros there.

So yeah zeros exist.  They're just dressed up in a lot of cases and don't seem to bother the popularity of some pretty big games.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 03 July 2021, 08:22:54
That's why I caveated my statement with "necessary".  Werewolves are SUPPOSED to be immune to non-silver weapons in a fantasy context.  And magic brings a LOT more of those kinds of singularities than science fiction games should.

As for 40K, last I checked, they're still using a 1d6 system.  You can argue rounding alone generates those "necessary" zeroes.

In BattleTech, I posit such zeroes are unnecessary because we have a procedure that can generate them without resorting to arbitrary fiat.  If you get the weapon damage under 0.50, it will round down to zero "naturally", with no need for fiat.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 03 July 2021, 12:09:51
My turn to not understand your math...

It's the same we've been using.

HRC full 9 points damage  Using you x4.5 and AToW 10AP =
10AP/41BD. Going back to TW  (10/4)x (41x(3.5+1 (no splash))/50

2.5x 184.5=461.25/50=9.225 rounded to 9

HRC 7AP/54BD with splash damage (7/4)x(54x(3.5+1+1)/50= 8.505 rounded to 9.

I get 9 with 7AP/54BD. I get 9 with 10P/41BD. I don't with other numbers.


Those are different weapon systems, thus they have their own limits. You can not equate them with RC.

Why not? The function the same way. Pull the trigger, the propellant is ignited sending a shell down the barrel towards the target. The differences are in rate of fire and effects to the target, and possibly materials used in their construction. If all those other weapons can be improved. Why not a Rifle Cannon?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 03 July 2021, 12:13:57
If we agree on that: If damage against a BA by a RC is increased because the armor isn't backed by internal structure, why isn't damage caused to a BA by a Gauss rifle also increased?

Good question.  :thumbsup:


Either way, I think a flat modifier to damage at TW scale is the wrong way to go about whatever the goal is.

Total agreement  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 03 July 2021, 12:15:43
As a side note, a heavy rifle cannon doesn't throw 160kg slugs imho.  The ammo for a rifle cannon includes a loading mechanism that is not intrinsically attached to the gun.  Guns with intrinsic loading machinery for automatic loading are autocannons by real world definition, which we know the rifles are not.  That is how I rationalize the ammo for rifle cannons anyway, as each ammo ton must include feeds and such to load the cannon, which autocannons do not have.  A light cannon is pretty comparable to the (not autoloaded) 120mm l44 cannon on an abrams firing 20kg (not 55kg) shells.

So when I include 5 tons of ammo for a 30 shot combat load, I get 5 loading mechanisms? And that only applies to RCs, but not for e.g. artillery (cannons)?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 03 July 2021, 12:29:03
Looks like you're rounding the wrong way for the Burst modifier.  Single shots give a +0, not +1 after Herb's errata.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 03 July 2021, 12:35:13
Why not? The function the same way. Pull the trigger, the propellant is ignited sending a shell down the barrel towards the target. The differences are in rate of fire and effects to the target, and possibly materials used in their construction. If all those other weapons can be improved. Why not a Rifle Cannon?
Just because they are all ballistic weapons, does not mean that they apply their damage in the same way, that is way too simplistic.
BAR 10 armors are excellent at resisting penetration so the surviving weapons either do not focus on penetration (artillery) or try to hammer through by rapid-firing on a small section. The first new weapon to focus on penetration is the Gauss Rifle but that had to output the kinetic energy of a large WW2 battleship gun in order to do its job, enlarging a rifle cannon to that level will likely not even fit on a 'Mech.


Just like building a carbon-fiber composite siege catapult, you just managed to waste expensive materials on an outdated concept. For catapults as example, the only current users of such a concept might be insurgents in an urban conflict but they will just build it out of disposable junk, quite similar to how Rifle Cannons were deployed in the Jihad. 
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 03 July 2021, 12:50:46
(snip)

The less said comparing Battletech's 'advanced' weapons compared to the 20th, nevermind 21st centuries real-world equivalents the better, honestly.  Remember, Battletech isn't science fiction, it's fantasy-space-opera, and requires a certain basic suspension of disbelief and embrace of the absurd just to function at all.

We all know that Battletech doesn't accurately convert real life well. That doesn't mean that representations from the past haven't been included. We've got bows and arrows. Knights on horseback with lances and swords. We've got Gatling Guns, There's a huge list of things from the past, which included weapons used in the World Wars. All of which is fine because Battletech is as you say in the underlined above. However, it does break the suspension of disbelieve when a cannon shell bounces off a motorcycle with inferior armor doing no damage, while a Battle Armor with more advanced armor takes full damage. It breaks the suspension of belief when knights on horseback will damage a mech's armor but a round fired from a tank does nothing.



Quote
The comment on BA being 'the whole of the suit' fails one basic examination point: Direct hits with PPC's.  It's 10 points PER FACING, not total, so the savannahmaster and other vees examples are still valid criticisms-because energy weapons are directional, and a Toad (elemental) can indeed eat a PPC to the face without flinching...or even losing much in the way of offensive capability.  (He might not like the next hit...but then, neither does the Savannahmaster who takes a frontal hit to the glacis with a PPC, only the Savannabastard will likely lose the main gun.  the suit won't.)

Except the Toad can't take a PPC hit from the front and the back and survive. It's 10 points of armor covers the entire suit, front back arms legs head. He's dead with the next hit, regardless of the direction it comes from. A Savannah Master might survive the next hit, to a different location and it's not from a PPC. Any hit to the front though will destroy the vehicle as it's only go the 1 internal structure point keeping the thing together. The pilot might survive but the vehicle is still scrap.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 03 July 2021, 14:04:37
Who's to say that Autocannons are not the Tech C/improved Rifle Cannons?

It is entirely possible that is the case.

As to why the Rifle Cannons held on? Even with the -3 they were still useful in certain roles.

Sure they are. In the same way that a Machine Gun is an improvement over a rifle. Rifles are still being improved though. Why not Rifle Cannons? Autocannons have been made lighter and less bulky. Why can't that technology be applied to Rifles? Ammo's been improved too. Why can't Rifles use the new propellant to increase the number of rounds per ton?

And in what roles would Rifle Cannons, especially the Light still be useful by the Star League Era? BAR10 armor is common. Anyone the Police and Militia would use them against is using BAR10 armor.  Autocannons are also commonly available. They're even found in the deep periphery. Why equip your Militia with a Rifle Cannon when they could use Autocannons?



Quote
Only if you want to apply intro dates and tech levels as straight jackets without being willing to consider not all weapons of the same tech level are created equal or that concepts are capable of evolving.

Plus not all weapons of a given tech level and a given intro date are created equal.  Some will just prove to be better and carry on while others vanish.  So that there is uneven performance shouldn't be surprising.

As far as the sword that actually works in favor of my argument.  It is clearly an ancient weapon and while ancient smiths had pretty good understanding of metalurgy and technique modern smiths are able to get a hold of a lot more precisely balanced alloys far more reliably and have come up with a few interesting tricks of their own.  Not to mention the reliability of controlling heat in furnaces.  Yet if you showed a modern sword to an ancient smith they wouldn't be terribly baffled by it but there are steels they could conceptually understand but not be able to reproduce.

I think we can say similar things are happening in case of the Thumper, Sniper, and Mech Machinegun.  All pre-spaceflight means is that's where you can draw the lineage to then.  All Tech level B means is the final product wouldn't baffle a pre-spaceflight artilleryman/machine gunner but doesn't mean that there are not subtle yet fundamental differences that mean it really takes more than what pre-spaceflight could do.

After all the modern Battletech Tech Manual Infantry Support Machine Guns we have in Tech Manual all have introdates of pre-spaceflight but are also all Tech C, which is post spaceflight.

As straightjackets? No. But why is it, every other weapon is "improved" except Rifle Cannons? Including weapons with the same introdate and tech level as the Rifle Cannons?


As for Introdates and Tech Levels, I think their definitions need to be looked at. If pre-spaceflight is before 1950 and Tech C is (21st to 22nd centuries, how do you have a Tech C, Pre-Spaceflight Item? You can't even have a Tech B, Pre-spaceflight item since Tech B is Late 20th Century and PS is early 20th Century. I know some things are abstracted but to be off that much?

If a Sword X is build with 21st Century Technology, is it really an ancient pre-spaceflight weapon?


Quote
I'll dig for more citations that show Battlearmor may not be full on BAR 10 Mech/Vehicle armor if you want but the inferno counter point is another example that in a way helps show that intro dates and tech levels are not the straight jackets you seem to think they are and that not all weapons of the same intro date and tech level are created equal.

The reason inferno missiles are not pre-spaceflight while bombs are?  Entirely in the delivery method.


I'm not the one putting things in a straight jacket. If anything, it's Rifles that are being put in straightjackets. What other weapon is nerfed this way, because it's old? Why is it Machine Guns (PS, Tech B Weapons) don't suffer the same -3 damage? Why is it they're treated as contemporaries of Autocannons? Heck, why is it AC/5's don't suffer a -3 damage against BAR8 armor? The AC/5 wasn't designed to defeat that Armor Rating. BAR8 armor won't exist for another 195 years.


Quote
There is certainly that element and it is a large part of why I say we can't take intro dates and tech levels as absolutes.

But yes this is why I'm really trying to work on changing how I approach Battletech.  It is a game and not a reality simulator after all.

I get that Battletech is a game but it breaks the game when told ABC are introduced in X with tech Y but only BC keep doing full damage because....
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 03 July 2021, 14:15:57
I only just now noticed TW scale Machine Guns are TL B.  The infantry ones are TL C.  Must be some kind of extra light material or something to make them man portable.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 03 July 2021, 14:31:33
And you're missing what I'm saying.  There is a difference between how much it will support, and how well it will keep it on.  The internal structure of BA apparently isn't good at keeping it on when being hit by the Rifle cannons, while the rest are.  Having the armor there is good, but BA frames cannot apparently handle the pressure load of the hit.

And as I noted in what you quoted, why I also suggested that Support Vehicles receive the same issue as they aren't really as tightly designed with a structure for combat.

I get what you're saying but it stretches my suspension of disbelief that BattleArmor will take full damage when other units with the same BAR level of protection don't. If they take a full 3 points of damage from a Light Rifle, shouldn't they take 6 points of damage from a Small Laser? The Small Laser's damage isn't reduced against BAR8+ so it should do more damage to BattleArmor. It doesn't though so why the -3 for Rifles?


As a side note, a heavy rifle cannon doesn't throw 160kg slugs imho.  The ammo for a rifle cannon includes a loading mechanism that is not intrinsically attached to the gun.  Guns with intrinsic loading machinery for automatic loading are autocannons by real world definition, which we know the rifles are not.  That is how I rationalize the ammo for rifle cannons anyway, as each ammo ton must include feeds and such to load the cannon, which autocannons do not have.  A light cannon is pretty comparable to the (not autoloaded) 120mm l44 cannon on an abrams firing 20kg (not 55kg) shells.


Tanks have had Auto-loaders for a while now. Does that mean they're armed with Autocannons? Should they do more damage when they're firing the same rounds as other tanks with manually loaded cannons?


Looks like you're rounding the wrong way for the Burst modifier.  Single shots give a +0, not +1 after Herb's errata.

I'm going by the formula in AToW Companion. Has that been changed?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 03 July 2021, 14:34:15
Yes... Herb's errata is linked in sig block.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 03 July 2021, 14:41:00
Just because they are all ballistic weapons, does not mean that they apply their damage in the same way, that is way too simplistic.
BAR 10 armors are excellent at resisting penetration so the surviving weapons either do not focus on penetration (artillery) or try to hammer through by rapid-firing on a small section. The first new weapon to focus on penetration is the Gauss Rifle but that had to output the kinetic energy of a large WW2 battleship gun in order to do its job, enlarging a rifle cannon to that level will likely not even fit on a 'Mech.


Just like building a carbon-fiber composite siege catapult, you just managed to waste expensive materials on an outdated concept. For catapults as example, the only current users of such a concept might be insurgents in an urban conflict but they will just build it out of disposable junk, quite similar to how Rifle Cannons were deployed in the Jihad.


So a Rifle needs either that firepower of a battleship or the the firepower of a catapult to do damage? Because that's what it sounds like and that's how things appear in the rules since a mech throwing a ton of LRC ammo does more damage to BAR10 Armor than actually firing said ammo.

Also while BAR10 armor is great at resisting penetration, that doesn't mean it's great at resisting damage. Resisting penetration means no extra penetrating critical hit rolls when hit by a weapon that does 11 points of damage or more. It doesn't mean it's not going to take damage when hit. If you need battleship firepower to do any damage, Mechs should be immune to falls, punches, kicks, physical weapons, etc. Not unless they're firing Rocket Fists at the speed of Gauss rounds.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 03 July 2021, 14:43:42
Yes... Herb's errata is linked in sig block.

Is that Herb's errata or AToW Companion's errata?  And you're going to have to give me a link if you want me to see it as I'm not seeing it. Sorry.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 03 July 2021, 14:57:14
It's listed as "Herb's AToW Companion page 170 Errata (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/a-time-of-war-companion/msg637725/#msg637725)"
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 03 July 2021, 15:17:38
So a Rifle needs either that firepower of a battleship or the the firepower of a catapult to do damage?
So are you going to address the point about wastefulness?

[/quote]Resisting penetration means no extra penetrating critical hit rolls when hit by a weapon that does 11 points of damage or more.[/quote]Not just that, it also means that any weapon that is designed around penetration will be less effective or even increasingly less effective.

Quote
It doesn't mean it's not going to take damage when hit. If you need battleship firepower to do any damage, Mechs should be immune to falls, punches, kicks, physical weapons, etc. Not unless they're firing Rocket Fists at the speed of Gauss rounds.
Again that is extremely simplistic. Do you realize that there are multiple ways to do damage and apply damage? This is even noted with the creation of Dark Age special armors such as Ballistic-Reinforced and Impact-Resistant armor.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 04 July 2021, 01:07:29
If we agree on that: If damage against a BA by a RC is increased because the armor isn't backed by internal structure, why isn't damage caused to a BA by a Gauss rifle also increased?

You're looking at it the wrong way.  The structure used in mounting that BAR10 armor is something that BA lack, so it is capable of supporting the armor so that it reduces the impact of Rifle ammo (somehow, that part is still magic for some reason, and unnecessarily so).

So when I include 5 tons of ammo for a 30 shot combat load, I get 5 loading mechanisms? And that only applies to RCs, but not for e.g. artillery (cannons)?

The ammo has to get out of the bay and directed to the weapon somehow.  And why are you assuming it doesn't for artillery (cannons)?

Just because they are all ballistic weapons, does not mean that they apply their damage in the same way, that is way too simplistic.

There is truth in this.  Just think of the differences between guns during the Age of Sail and the guns of the Dreadnought.

I get what you're saying but it stretches my suspension of disbelief that BattleArmor will take full damage when other units with the same BAR level of protection don't. If they take a full 3 points of damage from a Light Rifle, shouldn't they take 6 points of damage from a Small Laser? The Small Laser's damage isn't reduced against BAR8+ so it should do more damage to BattleArmor. It doesn't though so why the -3 for Rifles?

Just because it reduces damage from one source does not necessarily mean it increases if provided from a different source.  While there are examples of certain armors doing so, it is not a consistent system that applies all over and that weakness is built in to those specific armors.  In the case of the Small Laser, the maximum damage is 3, not 6.  That it could theoretically cause Reactive Armor to be completely lost is due to its nature, not because the Small Laser could wipe it out.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 04 July 2021, 06:44:02
It's listed as "Herb's AToW Companion page 170 Errata (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/a-time-of-war-companion/msg637725/#msg637725)"

Thank you. Didn't see it. And that's what I've been going by. I've done math with and without the splash damage and have posted it.



So are you going to address the point about wastefulness?

Resisting penetration means no extra penetrating critical hit rolls when hit by a weapon that does 11 points of damage or more.Not just that, it also means that any weapon that is designed around penetration will be less effective or even increasingly less effective.
Again that is extremely simplistic. Do you realize that there are multiple ways to do damage and apply damage? This is even noted with the creation of Dark Age special armors such as Ballistic-Reinforced and Impact-Resistant armor.

Rifles would be incredibly wasteful if they do little to no damage.  I've been saying that. That they didn't go extinct until after the 1st Succession War when they're so wasteful and useless is one of the things I've been questioning. That they've been brought back when so useless is another thing I question. And what truly boggles my mind is that people want to make them worse.

Sure there's other ways to inflict damage. BT Armor gets a lot of damage from ablation. Not so much penetrations. Autocannons are firing armor piercing rounds. The Zeus AC/20 on the Mechbuster Fighter fires hyper-velocity depleted uranium armor penetrators (HUDAP) but it's not piercing BAR-10 armor. It's blasting pieces off of it. The same as the armor piercing rounds from the Rifle Cannon. The difference is that the Rifle is firing a bigger shell using more propellant than the AC/20.

And why would an Improved Rifle be wasteful? One of the complaints about removing the -3 damage is because it makes the AC/10 look bad. Using improved propellant could easily double the number or rounds per ton for Rifles. Advanced materials could make Rifles lighter and more compact. Now we've got a 7 ton, 3 crit, HRC with 12 rounds of ammo. How is any of that wasteful? It's like saying Machine Guns have made production of Bolt-Action Rifles wasteful. Only they haven't. So why would improving Rifle Cannons be wasteful?

We're also not talking about specialty armor. If a Rifle Cannon round hit Ballistic-Reinforced Armor, by all means apply reductions and round down. We're not though. We're talking about your plain old common BAR-8, 9, and 10 Armors. If hyper-velocity depleted uranium armor penetrators (HUDAP), fired from an AC/20, are only doing ablative damage to such armors, why not the armor piercing rounds from a HRC?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 04 July 2021, 07:03:11
You're looking at it the wrong way.  The structure used in mounting that BAR10 armor is something that BA lack, so it is capable of supporting the armor so that it reduces the impact of Rifle ammo (somehow, that part is still magic for some reason, and unnecessarily so).

The question is still valid. If the BA Chassis won't support the armor enough so that a Rifle Cannon round still does full damage, shouldn't a Gauss Rifle round or AC round do an additional 3 points of damage since they hit so much harder?


Quote
Just because it reduces damage from one source does not necessarily mean it increases if provided from a different source.  While there are examples of certain armors doing so, it is not a consistent system that applies all over and that weakness is built in to those specific armors.  In the case of the Small Laser, the maximum damage is 3, not 6.  That it could theoretically cause Reactive Armor to be completely lost is due to its nature, not because the Small Laser could wipe it out.

But your argument is that the chassis of BA aren't as capable of taking a hit the way a vehicle or mech can, even is using a lower level of armor. That's why Rifle Cannons do full damage against them. Yet if Rifle Cannons are so bad against those other units, with the same armor because the rounds aren't hitting fast enough, then shouldn't a faster hitting round do even more damage to BA?

I'm being told a Tortoise and Hare story. Rifles are the Tortoise and Gauss Rifles are the Hare. The Hare moves so much faster it does full damage against BAR10 armor of a Mech or Vehicle but because the Tortoise moves so much slower it's damage gets reduced. But then the Tortoise still does full damage to BA even though it has BAR10 armor.

The thing is, the Hare isn't going to slow down any for the BA. It's going to hit the BA just as hard as it did the Mech/Vehicle. So if the Tortoise gets +3 damage against the BA shouldn't the Hare also get +3 damage against the BA? If not, why not? If the BA's BAR10 armor isn't capable of standing up to the Tortoise, it should be even less capable against the Hare.


Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 04 July 2021, 08:25:33
Monbvol: I just did a Goal Seek in XL, and 4.4137 works perfectly up to 50 TW damage for "splash" and single shot.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 04 July 2021, 11:10:05
You're looking at it the wrong way.  The structure used in mounting that BAR10 armor is something that BA lack, so it is capable of supporting the armor so that it reduces the impact of Rifle ammo (somehow, that part is still magic for some reason, and unnecessarily so).

You have lost me here. I'm "looking at it the wrong way" by asking a question about an issue I perceive as inconsistent, and the right way of looking at is that that part is unnecessarily still magic?
To rephrase: BA are abstracted in the rules in a way that every other projectile weapon, regardless if they are HE or kinetic energy types, does damage to BA the same way as to other BAR8+ targets, only Rifle Cannons do more. Why?
I don't think that "magic" is the right answer.

Quote
The ammo has to get out of the bay and directed to the weapon somehow.  And why are you assuming it doesn't for artillery (cannons)?
Because the poster I answered to singled out Rifle cannon as having loading mechanisms as part of their ammo load. If the ammo weight somehow has to account for loading mechanisms, do I get a new loader whenever I buy a ton of spare ammo? We know from the Protomech construction rules that one shot of ammo weighs exactly 1000kg/[number of shots per ton]. (8.33kg for an LRM missile, 10kg for an SRM missile, 5kg for a MG salvo, 125kg for a GR slug, etc. etc.) No weight reserved for loading mechanisms.

The poster explicitly excluded ACs from needing additional loading mechanisms in ammo bays. It seems strange to me that moving AC ammo from the left foot to the right arm shouldn't need any loading mechanism weight, but an adjacent RC ammo bay should. I would prefer not to layer still another exception on RCs to help explain the other layers of exceptions already in the rules.

Edit: 3 spelling errors + 1 grammar
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 04 July 2021, 11:17:22
And why would an Improved Rifle be wasteful?
You would be wasting good materials that could have been used to create more effective autocannons, just like the carbon-fiber composite siege catapult example I gave, it is just a proposal on wasting valuable materials on an outdated concept.

Quote
That they didn't go extinct until after the 1st Succession War when they're so wasteful and useless is one of the things I've been questioning. That they've been brought back when so useless is another thing I question.
Pure desperation and limited access to good materials, it is the same reason why primitive 'Mechs came back.

Quote
Sure there's other ways to inflict damage. BT Armor gets a lot of damage from ablation. Not so much penetrations. Autocannons are firing armor piercing rounds. The Zeus AC/20 on the Mechbuster Fighter fires hyper-velocity depleted uranium armor penetrators (HUDAP) but it's not piercing BAR-10 armor. It's blasting pieces off of it. The same as the armor piercing rounds from the Rifle Cannon. The difference is that the Rifle is firing a bigger shell using more propellant than the AC/20.
Wrong, autocannons are focused on wrecking an armor section, Rifle cannons on the other hand are about a penetrating hit. And when armor is highly effective at preventing direct penetration then the RC will loose massively in effectiveness, thus much lower damage.




ps. Are you using google translate? There seems to be some kind of language barrier.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 04 July 2021, 11:59:37
Pure desperation and limited access to good materials, it is the same reason why primitive 'Mechs came back.

That situation didn't really apply to the SL era, so why did they survive into the 29th century?

Quote
Wrong, autocannons are focused on wrecking an armor section, Rifle cannons on the other hand are about a penetrating hit.

Why? A cannnon doesn't care which kind of shell it projects. It could fire an inert depleted uranium slug just as well as a HE, HEAT, HESH, illumination, WP incendiary, AP flechette, smoke etc. shell.
A 3t LRC firing a 56kg shot at a BT range of 12 hexes is certainly a viable launch system. All we have that prevents it from being a viable weapon systems is an ex cathedra TPTB decision to give us just one kind of ammo.
A 50kg Thumper HE shot is highly effective against modern BT armor, just as a 10kg SRM or 133kg Thunderbolt-5 missile is.
Why shouldn't a rifle cannon 56kg shot be? What prevents an RC shell from using the same HE filler as other shells and warheads?
(All weights including casing and propellant)


Quote
ps. Are you using google translate? There seems to be some kind of language barrier.
  :o ??? :-X
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 04 July 2021, 12:29:13
That situation didn't really apply to the SL era, so why did they survive into the 29th century?
My guess is 'wildlife management'/ safari, but it could happen in the future that we see an errata

Quote
Why? A cannnon doesn't care which kind of shell it projects. It could fire an inert depleted uranium slug just as well as a HE, HEAT, HESH, illumination, WP incendiary, AP flechette, smoke etc. shell.
A 3t LRC firing a 56kg shot at a BT range of 12 hexes is certainly a viable launch system. All we have that prevents it from being a viable weapon systems is an ex cathedra TPTB decision to give us just one kind of ammo.
A 50kg Thumper HE shot is highly effective against modern BT armor, just as a 10kg SRM or 133kg Thunderbolt-5 missile is.
Why shouldn't a rifle cannon 56kg shot be? What prevents an RC shell from using the same HE filler as other shells and warheads?
(All weights including casing and propellant)
Well they are different types of weapons, so there will be substantial differences. For instance if someone wants to use artillery rounds in a RC, then it could be that RS use a relative smaller inner diameter for the same shell weight, this would mean the RC firing lighter rounds, but the practical solution is more likely to reserve any available AC/2s for special ammo.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 04 July 2021, 13:38:00
I'm not proposing to put actual Thumper shells into an LRC, but appropriately sized and shaped shells using the same HE filler, or a fitting shell using the same warhead principles as an SRM. Basically the same way the IRL British 120mm L30 Challenger 2 rifled gun or the older 105mm L7 can use various shells, not only KE penetrators

I don't quite get what reserving available AC/2s for special ammo has to do with the issue. They get twice the range, but also twice the weight and only 40% of the throw weight of an LRC. I would regard LRCs and AC/2s in a comparable relationship like SRMs and LRMs: Lighter, heavier throw weight, but shorter range.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 04 July 2021, 13:42:04
The question is still valid. If the BA Chassis won't support the armor enough so that a Rifle Cannon round still does full damage, shouldn't a Gauss Rifle round or AC round do an additional 3 points of damage since they hit so much harder?

But your argument is that the chassis of BA aren't as capable of taking a hit the way a vehicle or mech can, even is using a lower level of armor. That's why Rifle Cannons do full damage against them. Yet if Rifle Cannons are so bad against those other units, with the same armor because the rounds aren't hitting fast enough, then shouldn't a faster hitting round do even more damage to BA?

I'm being told a Tortoise and Hare story. Rifles are the Tortoise and Gauss Rifles are the Hare. The Hare moves so much faster it does full damage against BAR10 armor of a Mech or Vehicle but because the Tortoise moves so much slower it's damage gets reduced. But then the Tortoise still does full damage to BA even though it has BAR10 armor.

The thing is, the Hare isn't going to slow down any for the BA. It's going to hit the BA just as hard as it did the Mech/Vehicle. So if the Tortoise gets +3 damage against the BA shouldn't the Hare also get +3 damage against the BA? If not, why not? If the BA's BAR10 armor isn't capable of standing up to the Tortoise, it should be even less capable against the Hare.

You have lost me here. I'm "looking at it the wrong way" by asking a question about an issue I perceive as inconsistent, and the right way of looking at is that that part is unnecessarily still magic?
To rephrase: BA are abstracted in the rules in a way that every other projectile weapon, regardless if they are HE or kinetic energy types, does damage to BA the same way as to other BAR8+ targets, only Rifle Cannons do more. Why?
I don't think that "magic" is the right answer.

Actually, I never claimed the speed of the round was a reason, so please do not apply that to my arguments.  I only mentioned penetrative capacity, at most.

And you're assuming that just because the structure can't support against the LRC's hit, that it will automatically improve the damage of the Gauss round.  It is not that the BA is increasing damage from an LRC, it is just not capable of reducing the damage.  Since its armor isn't a type to have catastrophic damage from a specific type of damage (see laser-reflective armor for a case on that), Gauss hits do not do more damage to a BA than they would a Combat Vehicle.

You're trying to convert a negative in one scope to being a positive in another.  That's not how the system works.

Because the poster I answered to singled out Rifle cannon as having loading mechanisms as part of their ammo load. If the ammo weight somehow has to account for loading mechanisms, do I get a new loader whenever I buy a ton of spare ammo? We know from the Protomech construction rules that one shot of ammo weighs exactly 1000kg/[number of shots per ton]. (8.33kg for an LRM missile, 10kg for an SRM missile, 5kg for a MG salvo, 125kg for a GR slug, etc. etc.) No weight reserved for loading mechanisms.

The poster explicitly excluded ACs from needing additional loading mechanisms in ammo bays. It seems strange to me that moving AC ammo from the left foot to the right arm shouldn't need any loading mechanism weight, but an adjacent RC ammo bay should. I would prefer not to layer still another exception on RCs to help explain the other layers of exceptions already in the rules.

Edit: 3 spelling errors + 1 grammar

Ah, I didn't see them presuming that autocannons don't have those same loading mechanisms (which is idiotic and makes no sense).
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 04 July 2021, 13:45:01
I'm not proposing to put actual Thumper shells into an LRC, but appropriately sized and shaped shells using the same HE filler, or a fitting shell using the same warhead principles as an SRM. Basically the same way the IRL British 120mm L30 Challenger 2 rifled gun or the older 105mm L7 can use various shells, not only KE penetrators

I don't quite get what reserving available AC/2s for special ammo has to do with the issue. They get twice the range, but also twice the weight and only 40% of the throw weight of an LRC. I would regard LRCs and AC/2s in a comparable relationship like SRMs and LRMs: Lighter, heavier throw weight, but shorter range.
Because there is no guarantee that modern shells have the same density as primitive shells, the extremely limited amount of shots that RC get per ton does seem to indicate such a difference. This will mean that you can't get the same payload per shot, as the inner dimensions of the RC will prevent an equal exchange.   
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 04 July 2021, 13:57:28
Because there is no guarantee that modern shells have the same density as primitive shells, the extremely limited amount of shots that RC get per ton does seem to indicate such a difference. This will mean that you can't get the same payload per shot, as the inner dimensions of the RC will prevent an equal exchange.   

On the other hand, the same density could be due to certain mechanisms that properly transport the rounds should be considered.*

Take for instance the rounds used in Plasma Rifles.  Only 10 rounds per ton.  But they are described as a form of foam.  So this foam is supposedly more dense than the rounds used in an AC/2?  I rather doubt it, but the mechanisms for moving those delicate foam rounds could take up the rest of the literal mass used for those ammo bays.

With such a relationship, it wouldn't surprise me that Rifle ammo bays are required to be as they are due to the nature of the rounds the carry more than how heavy the individual rounds are.

* Keep in mind that this if from a world-building perspective, not a game-building perspective.  I understand that the number of rounds a weapon may carry is more closely related to game-building than any significant consideration on the physical practicalities that the world-building perspective would require.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 04 July 2021, 14:24:27
Actually, I never claimed the speed of the round was a reason, so please do not apply that to my arguments.  I only mentioned penetrative capacity, at most.
TTBOMK, I didn't apply speed of round to your arguments.
Quote
And you're assuming that just because the structure can't support against the LRC's hit, that it will automatically improve the damage of the Gauss round.

I'm not assuming, I'm asking why amongst all the weapons, only the RCs do more damage to BA than they do to any other BAR8+ unit, while every other weapon does the same damage regardless if they hit BA or any other BAR8+ unit. Or in your words above, why is that the BA "structure can't support against the LRC's hit", and only the RC hits, but behaves the same as any other BAR8+ unit against any other weapon?

What is so different about how RCs deal damage, except TPTB say so, or "magic".

Quote
  It is not that the BA is increasing damage from an LRC, it is just not capable of reducing the damage.  Since its armor isn't a type to have catastrophic damage from a specific type of damage (see laser-reflective armor for a case on that), Gauss hits do not do more damage to a BA than they would a Combat Vehicle.

You're trying to convert a negative in one scope to being a positive in another.  That's not how the system works.
Sorry, but mathematically, that's exactly how the rules work. Applying X amount of damage and subtracting 3 from all but one unit type is the same as applying X-3 to all units and adding 3 to that one type. End result both ways is the all units receive X-3 damage, except that one special type that receives X damage.


Quote
Ah, I didn't see them presuming that autocannons don't have those same loading mechanisms (which is idiotic and makes no sense).
Ok.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 04 July 2021, 14:46:51
Because there is no guarantee that modern shells have the same density as primitive shells, the extremely limited amount of shots that RC get per ton does seem to indicate such a difference. This will mean that you can't get the same payload per shot, as the inner dimensions of the RC will prevent an equal exchange.   
Are you arguing that modern shells are more or less dense and therefore smaller or larger than primitive shells?
And just to be sure, "modern" means 31st/32nd century, "primitive" means pre-spaceflight?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 04 July 2021, 15:17:20
Are you arguing that modern shells are more or less dense and therefore smaller or larger than primitive shells?
And just to be sure, "modern" means 31st/32nd century, "primitive" means pre-spaceflight?
Precisely, not only do AC get more shots per ton they also seem to operate in a different manner.
In one way it would be like trying to use 21st century shells in a 17th century cannon.
Sure something may be improvised but it won't be efficient.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 04 July 2021, 15:40:02
Sorry, seems I didn't convey my question clearly:
Are modern shells
a) more
or
b) less

dense and therefore a) smaller or b) larger than primitive shells?

I'm not talking about AC shots, which consist of a stream of an undetermined number of shells, each one of course individually smaller than RC shells, but single shells like for artillery or snub nosed artillery cannons. Frex, comparing the single 56kg shell of an LRC to a single 50kg shell of a Thumper (cannon).
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 04 July 2021, 16:03:14
I'm not actually sure artillery "rounds" are unitary shells/warheads.  It strikes me they could very well be modeling the impact of numerous sub-munitions with explosively formed penetrators, or some such.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 04 July 2021, 16:07:11
TTBOMK, I didn't apply speed of round to your arguments.

I wasn't saying you were as you didn't mention it in what I quoted.  That was the previous quote, but the rest of the response was directed to both of you.

I'm not assuming, I'm asking why amongst all the weapons, only the RCs do more damage to BA than they do to any other BAR8+ unit, while every other weapon does the same damage regardless if they hit BA or any other BAR8+ unit. Or in your words above, why is that the BA "structure can't support against the LRC's hit", and only the RC hits, but behaves the same as any other BAR8+ unit against any other weapon?

What is so different about how RCs deal damage, except TPTB say so, or "magic".
Sorry, but mathematically, that's exactly how the rules work. Applying X amount of damage and subtracting 3 from all but one unit type is the same as applying X-3 to all units and adding 3 to that one type. End result both ways is the all units receive X-3 damage, except that one special type that receives X damage.

Plasma Rifles and Cannons do more damage against BAs.  From a technical standpoint, RCs don't do more damage to BA, BA just doesn't stop the damage from RCs like other units do.  This is a very significant difference.

Technically speaking energy weapons do not do more damage to Reactive Armor, Reactive Armor just doesn't reduce them like they do with ballistic weapons and missiles.  For that same reason, Gauss weapons still do their normal damage to BA even while BA are taking full hits as well.

Considering the only things with modern armor that take full damage from RCs tend to lack the supportive structures of Vehicles or Mechs, it stands to reason that would be a contributing factor, if not THE contributing factor.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 04 July 2021, 16:08:26
Sorry, seems I didn't convey my question clearly:
Are modern shells
a) more
or
b) less

dense and therefore a) smaller or b) larger than primitive shells?

I'm not talking about AC shots, which consist of a stream of an undetermined number of shells, each one of course individually smaller than RC shells, but single shells like for artillery or snub nosed artillery cannons. Frex, comparing the single 56kg shell of an LRC to a single 50kg shell of a Thumper (cannon).
I am assuming that RC shells are more dense, because they generally have less shots per ton, but also because current/past penetration projectiles are the typical large darts made of heavy metals.


Improvising an BT artillery shell for a RC might be possible, but is that extra R&D / industrial investment worth it in universe? In universe they already have wide spread & effective autocannons/artillery pieces, so there is no real motivation to further develop the RC. Even in universe they just briefly came back as an emergency measure.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 04 July 2021, 17:21:22
I am assuming that RC shells are more dense, because they generally have less shots per ton, but also because current/past penetration projectiles are the typical large darts made of heavy metals.

Actually, current KE penetrator rounds are less heavy/dense than same caliber HEAT rounds, because a lot of volume is taken up by the relatively light Discarding Sabot. The actual penetrator of a current 120mm gun is less than an inch in diameter.

Quote
Improvising an BT artillery shell for a RC might be possible, but is that extra R&D / industrial investment worth it in universe? In universe they already have wide spread & effective autocannons/artillery pieces, so there is no real motivation to further develop the RC. Even in universe they just briefly came back as an emergency measure.

Not improvising a BT artillery shell, but developing a full range of various RC rounds. Tank guns currently in development aleady approach the LRC in caliber and shell weight.

Arms manufacturers should have had every reason to spend that R&D cost to develop a full range of ammo types already way back in the days when the RC was the state of the art gun before the ACs' introduction, just like 20th/21st century arms manufacturers do for the current tank guns and howitzers. Being able to use different kinds of ammo should have been the main point of attraction versus energy weapons.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 04 July 2021, 17:39:54
I'm not actually sure artillery "rounds" are unitary shells/warheads.  It strikes me they could very well be modeling the impact of numerous sub-munitions with explosively formed penetrators, or some such.

I would expect that both unitary and sub-munition shells exist, since we already get FASCAM and Cluster shells. Copperhead shells are probably unitary.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 04 July 2021, 17:41:31
Probably, but not certainly.  Imagine a swarm of brilliant EFPs homing in on that laser reflection...  >:D
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 04 July 2021, 18:54:15
You would be wasting good materials that could have been used to create more effective autocannons, just like the carbon-fiber composite siege catapult example I gave, it is just a proposal on wasting valuable materials on an outdated concept.

Why would it be a waste of materials? Autocannons couldn't do what the HRC could until the AC/10 was prototyped in 2443. The only difficulty was BAR8 armor which wasn't common until 2445. So there was still plenty of targets with BAR7 and lower armors against which not only would the HRC do almost twice as much damage it'd also get a chance of a penetrating critical hit. The advantage the AC/5 had is more ammo, which improving ammo would have gone a long way to helping Rifles. Making RCs lighter would also mean tonnage for more ammo.

Also the AC/5 would have been competing against the MRC, which does 1 point more damage, has an extra penetrating critical hit against BAR5 armor, and is 3 tons lighter. Improving the Rifles would mean 2 MRC for 1 AC/5, with nearly as much ammo per ton. The only edge would be in range for which there's the HRC for the same tonnage or an Improved HRC for less. Both of which would do increased damage.

Once the AC/10 is prototyped it'd only has 1 shot more than the HRC and jams. It's also 4 tons heavier. An improved HRC would be lighter with twice as much ammo and still be viable even if it didn't get that extra penetrating critical hit against BAR8 armor. So why would it be a waste to improve them? The answer is, it wouldn't be.

The question should be, if Rifles are so bad, by why waste resources to continue to produce them throughout the Star League and First Succession War?


Quote
Pure desperation and limited access to good materials, it is the same reason why primitive 'Mechs came back.

While primitive Mechs may not be as effective as standard Mechs, they are still effective combat units. How many tanks with BAR7 Armor were reintroduced?


Quote
Wrong, autocannons are focused on wrecking an armor section, Rifle cannons on the other hand are about a penetrating hit. And when armor is highly effective at preventing direct penetration then the RC will loose massively in effectiveness, thus much lower damage.

I'd have to disagree. They're using Armor piercing rounds. Clearly penetration is a factor. The AC/10 gets an extra penetrating critical hit against BAR8 and BAR9 armors. That's 10 points of damage and possible internal damage. Possibly even a one shot, one kill. That is something the HRC lost with BAR8 armor. That is a huge loss in firepower. You could say that the AC/10 was developed in response to the HRC's loss in firepower.  I'm also going to guess that the AC/10 still gets that roll even if single 5 point round hits when the fire is split between two targets. That makes the loss in firepower even greater. To top it all of the HRC is firing an AC/20 sized round. It's already doing less damage than a round that's 66kg lighter with a half the range.  Why nerf the Rifle more?


Quote
ps. Are you using google translate? There seems to be some kind of language barrier.

No.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 04 July 2021, 19:12:59
Actually, I never claimed the speed of the round was a reason, so please do not apply that to my arguments.  I only mentioned penetrative capacity, at most.

Not saying you did but it has been claimed as a reason why Rifles are nerfed.

Quote
And you're assuming that just because the structure can't support against the LRC's hit, that it will automatically improve the damage of the Gauss round.  It is not that the BA is increasing damage from an LRC, it is just not capable of reducing the damage.  Since its armor isn't a type to have catastrophic damage from a specific type of damage (see laser-reflective armor for a case on that), Gauss hits do not do more damage to a BA than they would a Combat Vehicle.

You're trying to convert a negative in one scope to being a positive in another.  That's not how the system works.

If that's true then, why is it other armored units of the same weight as BA, receive damage from Rifles but not other weapons? Do you see how odd that is? If Rifles are less effective against those armors and a unit using those armors takes full damage from Rifles, then shouldn't other weapons do greater damage because they do full damage to those armors?


Quote
Ah, I didn't see them presuming that autocannons don't have those same loading mechanisms (which is idiotic and makes no sense).

I always figured the weight of ACs (and all vehicle weapons) included loading mechanisms, ammo feed lines, power cables, coolant lines, mounting brackets, etc.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 04 July 2021, 19:43:56
Because there is no guarantee that modern shells have the same density as primitive shells, the extremely limited amount of shots that RC get per ton does seem to indicate such a difference. This will mean that you can't get the same payload per shot, as the inner dimensions of the RC will prevent an equal exchange.   

Shells can change. Propellant can change. What's fired out of the gun can change. What is important is that the shells fit in the barrel and that the amount of propellant used to fire the shells isn't too much for the weapon to handle. More effective propellant means less is needed to achieve the same result. That means an increased number of shots per ton.

We see it happen with Primitive Prototype Autocannons.  They only have 75% of the ammo load standard Autocannons do. So why couldn't Rifles have improved ammo? In away you could say we already have. A 150mm Rifle Cannon has 6 rounds per ton. A 150mm Autocannon has 10 rounds per ton (two rounds per shot). So if modern propellants can do that for an autocannon, why not a rifle?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 04 July 2021, 19:48:20
Why would it be a waste of materials? Autocannons couldn't do what the HRC could until the AC/10 was prototyped in 2443. The only difficulty was BAR8 armor which wasn't common until 2445. So there was still plenty of targets with BAR7 and lower armors against which not only would the HRC do almost twice as much damage it'd also get a chance of a penetrating critical hit. The advantage the AC/5 had is more ammo, which improving ammo would have gone a long way to helping Rifles. Making RCs lighter would also mean tonnage for more ammo.

Also the AC/5 would have been competing against the MRC, which does 1 point more damage, has an extra penetrating critical hit against BAR5 armor, and is 3 tons lighter. Improving the Rifles would mean 2 MRC for 1 AC/5, with nearly as much ammo per ton. The only edge would be in range for which there's the HRC for the same tonnage or an Improved HRC for less. Both of which would do increased damage.

Once the AC/10 is prototyped it'd only has 1 shot more than the HRC and jams. It's also 4 tons heavier. An improved HRC would be lighter with twice as much ammo and still be viable even if it didn't get that extra penetrating critical hit against BAR8 armor. So why would it be a waste to improve them? The answer is, it wouldn't be.
I am thinking that you are vastly overestimating how far they can be improved. Even when weapons go from Tech-D (intro) to Tech-F (clan), you get limited tonnage benefits and no ammo benefits.

Quote
The question should be, if Rifles are so bad, by why waste resources to continue to produce them throughout the Star League and First Succession War?
Safari.  ;) 
Just because they were kept around does not mean that they were used for genuine combat.
But as stated RC use lower grade materials so in their original form they should have been easy to make.


Quote
While primitive Mechs may not be as effective as standard Mechs, they are still effective combat units. How many tanks with BAR7 Armor were reintroduced?
And then they were discarded when the faction could get proper weapons again.


Quote
I'd have to disagree. They're using Armor piercing rounds. Clearly penetration is a factor. The AC/10 gets an extra penetrating critical hit against BAR8 and BAR9 armors. That's 10 points of damage and possible internal damage.
With those armors it has the potential to overwhelm a section of the armor, and it still does so as an autocannon unloading a burst onto an armor section. So even with BAR 10 it retained the ability to do raw damage, while the more primitive RC lost a lot of damage potential because it was too focused on just penetration.


Quote
Why nerf the Rifle more?
One could say that in their current state that they are too wacky (-3) and that it is strange that they do full damage to BA (not really my conclusion but ok). A proper fix could be to reduce their damage (LRC=1, MRC=2, HRC=3) and give them AP bonus for armor of BAR 9 and below.


Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 04 July 2021, 20:15:00
Precisely, not only do AC get more shots per ton they also seem to operate in a different manner.
In one way it would be like trying to use 21st century shells in a 17th century cannon.
Sure something may be improvised but it won't be efficient.

More shots per ton, is more a result of improved propellant autocannons are using. It doesn't take up as much weight and is more powerful so small rounds are hitting harder. Or smaller rounds are travelling further.

There's also this quote from Era Report 3052.
Quote
Any autocannon that falls into that range of performance is a class-20 autocannon, whether they fire a single 300mm, 200-kilogram shell or scores of 50mm shells.

Obviously HRC's don't have the same performance as an AC/20, but if a single AC round does as much damage as scores of AC rounds, it isn't the number or rounds that hit but the weight of those rounds. So why would a round that's only 13% lighter, going twice as far, hit for less than half the damage?

As for efficiency, is spray and pray more efficient that taking careful aim? I ask because if Rifles did full damage, I could see them being used by head hunting units. It would be one reason why they continued to serve so long and why they'd go extinct. Or at least appear to do so. 


I am assuming that RC shells are more dense, because they generally have less shots per ton, but also because current/past penetration projectiles are the typical large darts made of heavy metals.

Improvising an BT artillery shell for a RC might be possible, but is that extra R&D / industrial investment worth it in universe? In universe they already have wide spread & effective autocannons/artillery pieces, so there is no real motivation to further develop the RC. Even in universe they just briefly came back as an emergency measure.

See above about propellant changing the amount of ammo.


Using Rifle cannons as artillery would be another reason for their continued use. What other area effect weapons are available during that time period? There's very heavy tube and missile artillery. There's some LRM ammo. There's Mech Mortars, which weren't popular. And before we get to those LRMs and MMs, there were huge missiles 
Quote
that a warhead that once measured four meters in length now measured less than a meter.
  Why wouldn't there be Artillery Rounds for Rifle Cannons? Along with all other kinds of rounds?

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 04 July 2021, 22:04:30
Not saying you did but it has been claimed as a reason why Rifles are nerfed.

If I didn't use it, then don't try to use it as an argument against me.  At most, Tac Ops says that Rifles lack the penetrating power to do their full damage.  Speed is only one factor in penetration.

If that's true then, why is it other armored units of the same weight as BA, receive damage from Rifles but not other weapons? Do you see how odd that is? If Rifles are less effective against those armors and a unit using those armors takes full damage from Rifles, then shouldn't other weapons do greater damage because they do full damage to those armors?

Of which units are you talking about taking damage from BA, but not other weapons?  Your question is coming across as a non sequitur at best, or you mixed up your statement at worst.

But to your own final question, I will repeat myself for the third time because you cannot seep to grasp the concept.  Just because something doesn't reduce one type of damage doesn't correlate that it would take more damage from another.   It just means its resistance to that one avenue of damage isn't as strong as expected.

In general terms, the maximum damage of a weapon is what is listed in its rating.  In other words if a Gauss Rifle round hits a person (naked or in Battle Armor), a wooden ship, a Monitor Naval Vessel, a Battlemech, or Dropship, the damage it will inflict will be 15 AT MOST (the very fragile laser-reflective armor being a rare exception, and that's solely due the nature of the armor, nor exclusive to Gauss weaponry).  Gauss Rifles are not noted for doing extra damage (outside the aforementioned armor), so they wouldn't do more damage to BA just because the BA's structure isn't as good at supporting its Standard Armor as well as the front of a Savannah Master (theoretically).

Edit: For an already existing example, Re-Engineered Lasers don't do more damage to Standard or Ferro-Fibrous Armor, even though it doesn't get reduced damage (or altered damage) from Reflective, Hardened, or Ferro-Lamellor Armor.  By arguing that because the LRC does full damage to BA, the Gauss Rifle should do more, then Re-Engineered lasers should be doing that much more damage to Standard and Ferro-Fibrous Armor.  Re-Lasers don't because they are at the damage limit of their design.

I always figured the weight of ACs (and all vehicle weapons) included loading mechanisms, ammo feed lines, power cables, coolant lines, mounting brackets, etc.

Well, this point as about the ammo bays, not the weapon itself.  It is an assumption that each set of rounds for an AC/5 are 1/20th of a ton because each ammo bay comes with 20 turns of rounds.  There are no doubt numerous things that help move the ammo out of the bay to the weapon's feeding tubes as well as general ammo preservation appointments included which would be adding weight to each individual bay.

Safari.  ;) 
Just because they were kept around does not mean that they were used for genuine combat.
But as stated RC use lower grade materials so in their original form they should have been easy to make.

Or as I suggested in the general topic, built and maintained by either societies of creative anachronism or war reenactors.  The lengths some of those people go through can be downright scary at times.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 05 July 2021, 01:10:28
More shots per ton, is more a result of improved propellant autocannons are using. It doesn't take up as much weight and is more powerful so small rounds are hitting harder.
We do not actually know if AC use better propellant. The noted weight and shot/ton difference between prototypes and standard models of the same tech base is more likely the result of elimination of waste. I have seen this in real-life in where prototype designs were revised to remove any unnecessary material and to simplify parts for production. 


Quote
Obviously HRC's don't have the same performance as an AC/20, but if a single AC round does as much damage as scores of AC rounds, it isn't the number or rounds that hit but the weight of those rounds. So why would a round that's only 13% lighter, going twice as far, hit for less than half the damage?
If it is just a single shell then it would not be an autocannon, so the writer might have been creative with the definition of shell.


Quote
Why wouldn't there be Artillery Rounds for Rifle Cannons? Along with all other kinds of rounds?
Maybe there were but it could be that those are even relatively worse, thus the people in universe never brought those back into production.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 05 July 2021, 18:41:22
I am thinking that you are vastly overestimating how far they can be improved. Even when weapons go from Tech-D (intro) to Tech-F (clan), you get limited tonnage benefits and no ammo benefits.

AC/20 range 9. UAC/20 range 10. LBX-20 range 12. Ammo got improved. But the Improved AC/20 didn't. It's using the same old ammo however, we have newer ammo types. Some increase the number of shots per ton. Others decrease the shots per ton. Why should Improved Rifles be different?

Conversely, one could say that AC ammo is improved Rifle ammo. The AC/20 has 10 rounds per ton compared to the HRC's 6. But they only go half as far so maybe the amount of propellant was reduced in favor of increased ammo loads.


Quote
Safari.  ;) 
Just because they were kept around does not mean that they were used for genuine combat.
But as stated RC use lower grade materials so in their original form they should have been easy to make.

And they would be kept around, why?
Sure, they're easier to make but if no one is buying them because they're not effective against the enemy, why make them?


Quote
And then they were discarded when the faction could get proper weapons again.

Which begs the question, why bring back a useless weapon? Primitive Mechs are still useful combat units. Not as good as Standard Mechs but sure better than a Rifle Cannon that doesn't do anything.


Quote
With those armors it has the potential to overwhelm a section of the armor, and it still does so as an autocannon unloading a burst onto an armor section. So even with BAR 10 it retained the ability to do raw damage, while the more primitive RC lost a lot of damage potential because it was too focused on just penetration.

Again, Autocannons are using Armor Piercing Rounds. Those are made to Penetrate.
We also have Artillery rounds from the same era made with the same technology doing full damage and they're area effect weapons, not armor piercing. So why are armor piercing rounds not piercing, and not doing damage when high explosive rounds are? Why not swap the HRC 166kg Armor Piercing round for a 166kg High Explosive and do more damage than the 100kg Sniper Artillery round?


Quote
One could say that in their current state that they are too wacky (-3) and that it is strange that they do full damage to BA (not really my conclusion but ok). A proper fix could be to reduce their damage (LRC=1, MRC=2, HRC=3) and give them AP bonus for armor of BAR 9 and below.

Which is absurd. A burst from a machine gun, from the same era and using the same technology does 2 points of damage. A 150mm canon is going to do more than 3 points of damage. Rifle Cannon rounds are also heavier than Artillery rounds from the same era.
If they're not going to pierce the armor, they should still blow it off.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 05 July 2021, 19:25:14
If I didn't use it, then don't try to use it as an argument against me.  At most, Tac Ops says that Rifles lack the penetrating power to do their full damage.  Speed is only one factor in penetration.

I'm using it against everyone. And lack of penetrating power means no penetrating critical hit when a HRC rounds hits BAR8 armor. It shouldn't mean it doesn't do any damage.



Quote
Of which units are you talking about taking damage from BA, but not other weapons?  Your question is coming across as a non sequitur at best, or you mixed up your statement at worst.

But to your own final question, I will repeat myself for the third time because you cannot seep to grasp the concept.  Just because something doesn't reduce one type of damage doesn't correlate that it would take more damage from another.   It just means its resistance to that one avenue of damage isn't as strong as expected.
(snip)

That isn't how Standard Armor works. Armor gets knocked off on a slow punch, a flying box of ammo, a tiny high speed round from an infantry auto-rifle or a fast moving round from a gauss rifle. It should take damage from a fast moving round from a rifle cannon. Only the LRC does nothing and the others get reduced damage. Unless of course the unit hit is BA. Then it does more damage. And your saying Rifles do more damage because BA aren't designed to to take the impact. But they can take the impact from a Gauss Rifle without added damage? Can you not see how that makes no sense?

Your saying that BA can't take a hit from a Rifle Cannon without suffering +3 damage but a Gauss Rifle won't do +3 damage. You're also saying that for any other unit with BAR8+ armor Rifles will do less damage but Gauss Rifles won't. 

So essentially against Battle armor; A+B=C if its a Rifle Cannon. Its any other weapon, then it's A+B=D. And that gets reversed for all other units. That doesn't make sense.



Quote
Edit: For an already existing example, Re-Engineered Lasers don't do more damage to Standard or Ferro-Fibrous Armor, even though it doesn't get reduced damage (or altered damage) from Reflective, Hardened, or Ferro-Lamellor Armor.  By arguing that because the LRC does full damage to BA, the Gauss Rifle should do more, then Re-Engineered lasers should be doing that much more damage to Standard and Ferro-Fibrous Armor.  Re-Lasers don't because they are at the damage limit of their design.

That argument makes no sense. Re-engineered Lasers are still doing full damage regardless of the unit they're hitting. What you're saying though is that because BA are small they can't take a hit from a LRC. Even though their BAR10 armor reduces Rifle damage by 3 in all other units.

So if BA can't take a hit from a Rifle without suffering an additional 3 points of damage, why don't other weapons do an additional 3 points of damage to BA? Conversely, if BA can take a Gauss Rifle hit without additional damage, why do Rifles suffer a -3 against other units?


Quote
Well, this point as about the ammo bays, not the weapon itself.  It is an assumption that each set of rounds for an AC/5 are 1/20th of a ton because each ammo bay comes with 20 turns of rounds.  There are no doubt numerous things that help move the ammo out of the bay to the weapon's feeding tubes as well as general ammo preservation appointments included which would be adding weight to each individual bay.

I know there's a way for ammo to get out of the bin and to the weapon. How it's truly accounted for, I don't know. Magic I guess. It isn't the ton of ammo though. There's sources that say how much rounds weigh and added up to the number of shots equals a ton. Really, each ammo bin should weigh 1.5 tons. 1 ton for the ammo and .5 tons for the feed mechanism.

Quote
Or as I suggested in the general topic, built and maintained by either societies of creative anachronism or war reenactors.  The lengths some of those people go through can be downright scary at times.

I can see them doing that. However, why would they remain in production? There should be plenty of surplus from everyone upgrading to autocannons. It also doesn't explain why they would be brought back for use in combat if they don't do anything. And if ancient weapons will do damage why don't we have catapults, and black powder weapons?


Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 05 July 2021, 19:49:17
That isn't how Standard Armor works. Armor gets knocked off on a slow punch, a flying box of ammo, a tiny high speed round from an infantry auto-rifle or a fast moving round from a gauss rifle. It should take damage from a fast moving round from a rifle cannon. Only the LRC does nothing and the others get reduced damage. Unless of course the unit hit is BA. Then it does more damage. And your saying Rifles do more damage because BA aren't designed to to take the impact. But they can take the impact from a Gauss Rifle without added damage? Can you not see how that makes no sense?

Your saying that BA can't take a hit from a Rifle Cannon without suffering +3 damage but a Gauss Rifle won't do +3 damage. You're also saying that for any other unit with BAR8+ armor Rifles will do less damage but Gauss Rifles won't. 

So essentially against Battle armor; A+B=C if its a Rifle Cannon. Its any other weapon, then it's A+B=D. And that gets reversed for all other units. That doesn't make sense.

FALSE. 

I have said and am saying that BA isn't REDUCING the damage, not that LRCs do more actual damage to BA.  I know that functionally it seems like the same thing, but it is not. 

That argument makes no sense. Re-engineered Lasers are still doing full damage regardless of the unit they're hitting. What you're saying though is that because BA are small they can't take a hit from a LRC. Even though their BAR10 armor reduces Rifle damage by 3 in all other units.

So if BA can't take a hit from a Rifle without suffering an additional 3 points of damage, why don't other weapons do an additional 3 points of damage to BA? Conversely, if BA can take a Gauss Rifle hit without additional damage, why do Rifles suffer a -3 against other units?

Because as I said, there is an upper limit to a weapon's damage.  BA are not getting +3 damage from Rifles.  What is happening is that -3 that is normally applied elsewhere is not being applied here.  And there are other things which do not reduce that damage, either.  Just as Ferro-Lamellor reduces damage from everything but Re-Lasers, Re-Lasers don't do more damage to anything NOT Ferro-Lamellor.

You keep stating that BA has a rule that is taking +3 damage from Rifles.  THIS IS NOT THE CASE.  What is happening is that BA are just not getting -3 damage from Rifles.  You keep taking the loss of -3 as a +3.

For whatever in-world reasons, the game rules state that BA do not get the Rifle "resistance" that heavier built units get with the same armor.  So there would be ZERO reason to assume that Gauss Rifles should do more damage to BA just because BA lack the same "Rifle Resistance".

I can see them doing that. However, why would they remain in production? There should be plenty of surplus from everyone upgrading to autocannons. It also doesn't explain why they would be brought back for use in combat if they don't do anything. And if ancient weapons will do damage why don't we have catapults, and black powder weapons?

They remain in production because people are buying them for their hobby.  Then when none of the autocannon manufacturers are selling in the neighborhood, they begin upping their production and selling them to the military.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 05 July 2021, 19:59:44
We do not actually know if AC use better propellant. The noted weight and shot/ton difference between prototypes and standard models of the same tech base is more likely the result of elimination of waste. I have seen this in real-life in where prototype designs were revised to remove any unnecessary material and to simplify parts for production. 

True we don't. It could be the amount of propellant was just reduced in order to get more rounds per ton. From 6 150mm round to 10 150mm rounds per ton.


Quote
If it is just a single shell then it would not be an autocannon, so the writer might have been creative with the definition of shell.

Era report 3052 talks about a single 300mm AC/20 round being fired. The 75mm Type 9 Ultra Autocannon 10 can fire a one or two round burst. (TRO:3060) . Also TechManual says,
Quote
most autocannons deliver their damage by firing high-speed streams or bursts of high-explosive, armor-defeating shells through one or more barrels.
So, it may be that the writer got creative but  its canon.



Quote
Maybe there were but it could be that those are even relatively worse, thus the people in universe never brought those back into production.


Why would they be worse? A HRC round weighs 166kg A Sniper round weighs 100. The Rifle would deliver a far bigger bang. Unfortunately, the rules don't allow Rifles alternative ammo loads, or indirect fire capability. If they did, then I could see them hanging around even with the -3 damage. Then even the Light would be good against infantry and light vehicles. Without full damage, special abilities, or both, I'm not seeing Rifles, especially the light continuing past 2500. I can't even see them lasting to 2300 doing only 3,2,1 damage. Everyone would be using Chemical Lasers.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 05 July 2021, 20:29:43
FALSE. 

I have said and am saying that BA isn't REDUCING the damage, not that LRCs do more actual damage to BA.  I know that functionally it seems like the same thing, but it is not. 

Because as I said, there is an upper limit to a weapon's damage.  BA are not getting +3 damage from Rifles.  What is happening is that -3 that is normally applied elsewhere is not being applied here.  And there are other things which do not reduce that damage, either.  Just as Ferro-Lamellor reduces damage from everything but Re-Lasers, Re-Lasers don't do more damage to anything NOT Ferro-Lamellor.

But Rifle Cannons are doing more damage to BA than other units. Essentially they have BAR7 armor, without penetrating critical hits.
Officially though, they have BAR10 armor.

You also keep bringing up different weapons and armor but the weapons don't do different damage because they hit a different unit. Aside from PBIs which is a different problem. The armor also doesn't work differently depending on the unit using it. However, things change for Rifle Cannons and Battle Armor. Against BA Rifles do more damage than the do against other BAR10 units. That's the problem.

Quote
You keep stating that BA has a rule that is taking +3 damage from Rifles.  THIS IS NOT THE CASE.  What is happening is that BA are just not getting -3 damage from Rifles.  You keep taking the loss of -3 as a +3.

I didn't say there was a rule. I am saying that BA take full damage from Rifles. The end result is a +3 to damage to BA compared to all other BAR10 units. Other than, Because, I don't know why but it is inconsistent.

You're possible reason for why, that BA chassis isn't strong enough,  to take the hit from Rifles should also apply to all vehicle scale weapons. It doesn't make sense that BA aren't strong enough against Rifles, so Rifles do more damage, but they are strong enough against all other vehicle scale weapons.



Quote
For whatever in-world reasons, the game rules state that BA do not get the Rifle "resistance" that heavier built units get with the same armor.  So there would be ZERO reason to assume that Gauss Rifles should do more damage to BA just because BA lack the same "Rifle Resistance".

Which is the problem. If they're too small to get the same Rifle resistance, why do they have the same resistance from other weapons?

Quote
They remain in production because people are buying them for their hobby.  Then when none of the autocannon manufacturers are selling in the neighborhood, they begin upping their production and selling them to the military.

If that were the only reason for them to be in production, production would have ceased by 2500 if not earlier. Sales would be been on surplus alone. There also isn't any reason to increase their production as by the Star League Era Autocannons were just as available as Rifles. Really, if Rifles don't do damage, or have special abilities, their availability should be far less by then.

There was a dip in production during the Succession Wars but production has remained steady since then. Actually, production improved for the AC/20 during the Clan invasion. A wide variety of autocannon types has also been introduced so ACs are more plentiful than ever. So why produce a weapon, not produced in centuries that does no damage? It makes less sense than LAMs not being in production, even though they cost far less than modern scouts and can fly back to the dropship.

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 05 July 2021, 21:26:02
But Rifle Cannons are doing more damage to BA than other units. Essentially they have BAR7 armor, without penetrating critical hits.
Officially though, they have BAR10 armor.

BA also only have the pilot as internal structure.  And no, Rifle Cannons don't do more damage to BA than other units, those other units just reduce damage from Rifle Cannons.  Your refusal to recognize this VERY IMPORTANT paradigm is the problem with your argument.

You also keep bringing up different weapons and armor but the weapons don't do different damage because they hit a different unit. Aside from PBIs which is a different problem. The armor also doesn't work differently depending on the unit using it. However, things change for Rifle Cannons and Battle Armor. Against BA Rifles do more damage than the do against other BAR10 units. That's the problem.

Plasma Weapons do more damage depending on what unit type they are hitting, including BA, and those have been around longer.  Infernos do as well, and they have been around forever.  Also consider that buildings do not get that reduction, either.  So it is not that unusual for a unit's type to affect how a weapon will damage it.

However, in those cases, these weapons are actually doing more damage, instead of just not negating damage, which is the case of BA v Rifles.

I didn't say there was a rule. I am saying that BA take full damage from Rifles. The end result is a +3 to damage to BA compared to all other BAR10 units. Other than, Because, I don't know why but it is inconsistent.

You're possible reason for why, that BA chassis isn't strong enough,  to take the hit from Rifles should also apply to all vehicle scale weapons. It doesn't make sense that BA aren't strong enough against Rifles, so Rifles do more damage, but they are strong enough against all other vehicle scale weapons.

Already explained and you ignore.  It is because you are confusing something lacking an innate resistance to be a damage bonus.  Re-Lasers don't get a damage bonus versus Reflective Armor, Reflective Armor just doesn't provide its resistance.  See the difference?

Which is the problem. If they're too small to get the same Rifle resistance, why do they have the same resistance from other weapons?

First off, I never said anything about size, I talked about structure, i.e. the bones that the armor is attached to.

Second, what resistance are other units getting from those weapons?

If that were the only reason for them to be in production, production would have ceased by 2500 if not earlier. Sales would be been on surplus alone. There also isn't any reason to increase their production as by the Star League Era Autocannons were just as available as Rifles. Really, if Rifles don't do damage, or have special abilities, their availability should be far less by then.

There was a dip in production during the Succession Wars but production has remained steady since then. Actually, production improved for the AC/20 during the Clan invasion. A wide variety of autocannon types has also been introduced so ACs are more plentiful than ever. So why produce a weapon, not produced in centuries that does no damage? It makes less sense than LAMs not being in production, even though they cost far less than modern scouts and can fly back to the dropship.

Again, you are making assumptions.  Lack of production could simply be lack of production for warfare, but production could still continue for other reasons, and they only found a market again because of the Dark Age.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 05 July 2021, 22:06:04

Plasma Weapons do more damage depending on what unit type they are hitting, including BA, and those have been around longer.  Infernos do as well, and they have been around forever.

Now this I can accept somewhat more easily, because heat from a napalm-like substance  or plasma is actually a different type of damage than the pressure blast of HE or the kinetic impact of a KE projectile.
But as I repeatedly asked, what is so special about an RC shell compared to any other HE or kinetic energy projectile that it would constitute a different "avenue of damage", as you called it in an earlier post?

PS. I give up on further discussion if a unique "non-malus"  is the same as a bonus or not. I maintain that X-0 = X-3+3 > X-3. Please let's just agree to disagree.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 06 July 2021, 00:08:00
Now this I can accept somewhat more easily, because heat from a napalm-like substance  or plasma is actually a different type of damage than the pressure blast of HE or the kinetic impact of a KE projectile.
But as I repeatedly asked, what is so special about an RC shell compared to any other HE or kinetic energy projectile that it would constitute a different "avenue of damage", as you called it in an earlier post?

Why does it have to the RC shell that's special and not the BA itself? 

This is why I've been l've been using the internal structure as the probable reason for the lack of resistance to the RC round.  There is nothing special about a Plasma Rifle round which makes it do more damage to BA, except that the BA have no advanced method of venting the heat like Battlemechs do, so it does the full damage to them.

Therefore, it is not the RC shell that is fancy, it is the BA not being fancy enough.  Does that provide some thought?

PS. I give up on further discussion if a unique "non-malus"  is the same as a bonus or not. I maintain that X-0 = X-3+3 > X-3. Please let's just agree to disagree.

While your math is accurately calculated, the formula is not being set up properly.  Riflemech (and possibly yourself) is treating the concept as BA taking a X+3 hit from RC rounds and a MAD-3R just takes X damage from RC rounds, when the math is actually the BA taking X damage from RC rounds and a MAD-3R taking X-3 damage from RC rounds.  In fact, that is how the rule is literally written.

So making an assumption that a unit takes X damage instead of X-3 damage suddenly means that they should take X+3 from everything else is simply assinine.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 06 July 2021, 02:41:47
BA also only have the pilot as internal structure.  And no, Rifle Cannons don't do more damage to BA than other units, those other units just reduce damage from Rifle Cannons.  Your refusal to recognize this VERY IMPORTANT paradigm is the problem with your argument.

Wrong. Battle Armor have a chassis. The weights can be found in TechManual page 163 in the Battle Armor Structure Weights Table.

Also wrong. I did not say Rifles did more damage to BA than to other units. I said they do more damage to BA than to other BAR8+ units. Against BAR7 armor Rifles do full damage. Battle Armor use BAR10 armor, yet they take full damage from Rifles. They are the only unit type with BAR10 armor to do so. It says so in TacOps. It's in the Rules.

Your head canon explanation for why BA are an exception may be right. However, it doesn't change the fact that Rifles essentially have a +3 damage against BA when no other vehicle weapon does. If they're chassis can't keep their BAR 10 armor from receiving full damage from Rifles, why don't other weapons have a +3 against them? If their armor can't fully protect them from a Rifle, how can it fully protect them from another vehicle scale weapon?


Quote
Plasma Weapons do more damage depending on what unit type they are hitting, including BA, and those have been around longer.  Infernos do as well, and they have been around forever.  Also consider that buildings do not get that reduction, either.  So it is not that unusual for a unit's type to affect how a weapon will damage it.

However, in those cases, these weapons are actually doing more damage, instead of just not negating damage, which is the case of BA v Rifles.

Notice how those other units don't track heat? The extra damage is heat damage. For units that do track heat, their heat scale rises. So damage is still inflicted on them. It's just more temporary. 


Quote
Already explained and you ignore.  It is because you are confusing something lacking an innate resistance to be a damage bonus.  Re-Lasers don't get a damage bonus versus Reflective Armor, Reflective Armor just doesn't provide its resistance.  See the difference?

The reason for the innate damage is your own head canon. And when one weapon does more damage against one unit than other with the same armor, it can be called a bonus. You could say that Re-Engineered Lasers have a 50% bonus against Laser Reflective Armor. Subtract -50% for a laser hitting reflective, add back 50% for that laser being re-engineered. The result is full damage. It doesn't change depending on what's using it though. Laser Reflective doesn't reduce laser damage 50% for Mechs but Aerospace still take full damage. The -50% laser protection is for all units that mount it. Not some. Battle Armor and Rifle Cannons are a glaring exception. BA are fully protected from all weapons except Rifle Cannons. It doesn't make sense.

Quote
First off, I never said anything about size, I talked about structure, i.e. the bones that the armor is attached to.

Second, what resistance are other units getting from those weapons?


You also said that the only Chassis BA has is the operator. Which is not only wrong but would be even worse for the BA.
 
Any unit with BAR8+ armor gets a -3 damage resistance to Rifles. BAR8 armor is also immune to the extra penetrating critical hit from a HRC because of that.


Quote
Again, you are making assumptions.  Lack of production could simply be lack of production for warfare, but production could still continue for other reasons, and they only found a market again because of the Dark Age.


Actually is a presumption based on the facts. Rifles aren't as good as autocannons. They become less effective, and even completely ineffective for the Light, once BAR8+ armors become more common. There is no need to use much less produce a weapon that's ineffective. There's less need to make a weapon that's totally outclassed. Even really deep periphery planets are using autocannons.

So if they don't do anything, why are they in production? There should be plenty of surplus around to replace those lost to accidents and collateral damage. It's only once the supply runs out that you need to fabricate them. By the time the Star League was founded BAR8+ armors have been around for almost 150 years. By 2571, why would any House, IS or Periphery, military unit use Rifle Cannons? Why would their militias? Police Forces?

I want to believe the impression TacOps gives in that Rifles have always been around. Just out on the fringes on really low tech out of the way planets. They're no something commonly known about and those that do, have to hunt for them. That's not what I'm getting from IO though. It's also not what I'm getting from the rules -3 damage. And if Rifle's damages are reduced even more, there is no way I'm going to believe that they stay in production much less service once BAR10 armor became common. Some will be sold to collectors and reenactors. The rest would have been scrapped. To stay in production, Rifles have to do damage, or have some ability that autocannons lack.

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 06 July 2021, 03:09:37
Why does it have to the RC shell that's special and not the BA itself? 

This is why I've been l've been using the internal structure as the probable reason for the lack of resistance to the RC round.  There is nothing special about a Plasma Rifle round which makes it do more damage to BA, except that the BA have no advanced method of venting the heat like Battlemechs do, so it does the full damage to them.

Therefore, it is not the RC shell that is fancy, it is the BA not being fancy enough.  Does that provide some thought?

The Plasma Rifle does more damage against all units that don't track heat because they don't have means to deal with that heat. They just have to take it and therefor suffer more damage.

And if BA aren't fancy enough to fully defend against a Rifle Cannon round, why are they fancy enough to stop a round from a Gauss Rifle? It doesn't make sense.


Quote
While your math is accurately calculated, the formula is not being set up properly.  Riflemech (and possibly yourself) is treating the concept as BA taking a X+3 hit from RC rounds and a MAD-3R just takes X damage from RC rounds, when the math is actually the BA taking X damage from RC rounds and a MAD-3R taking X-3 damage from RC rounds.  In fact, that is how the rule is literally written.

So making an assumption that a unit takes X damage instead of X-3 damage suddenly means that they should take X+3 from everything else is simply assinine.

Except that's what is happening.
All BAR10 armored units
Other Units vs other weapons = full damage
Other Units vs Rifle Cannons = -3 damage.
BA vs other weapons = full damage.
BA vs Rifle Cannons = full damage

Essentially, Rifles are 0,3,6 weapons against all BAR10 units except BA. Against BA, Rifles do an additional 3 points of damage to them.

BA vs Rifle Cannons = +3 damage. So if BA aren't good enough against Rifle Cannons, why are they good enough against all other weapons? Or if the armor on BA is good enough to stop all other weapons, why do Rifles do less damage against other units with the same armor?

Now if BA had a BAR7 against vehicular scale weapons the results would be all vehicle scale weapons, Rifle Cannons included, doing full damage. The anomaly of Rifles doing more damage against BA but not other BAR10 armor wouldn't exist. 
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 06 July 2021, 11:20:51
<snip> is simply assinine.

I bow to your superior debating skills. Congratulations on your victory.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 06 July 2021, 11:22:31
Era report 3052 talks about a single 300mm AC/20 round being fired. The 75mm Type 9 Ultra Autocannon 10 can fire a one or two round burst. (TRO:3060) . Also TechManual says,  So, it may be that the writer got creative but  its canon.
The only way I can think of for a single shell to mimic AC performance is to have a cluster warhead with a contact-fuse, but that would require a very large inner barrel diameter.

Quote
Why would they be worse?
They weren't even worth putting back into production even during the worst of times.

Quote
Without full damage, special abilities, or both, I'm not seeing Rifles, especially the light continuing past 2500. I can't even see them lasting to 2300 doing only 3,2,1 damage. Everyone would be using Chemical Lasers.
Well we can always ask for an extinction date errata.


BA are fully protected from all weapons except Rifle Cannons. It doesn't make sense.
That is because your assumption is not correct. Every unit type has its own vulnerabilities. BA are for example also more vulnerable (than other units) to anti-BA weapons such as the Bearhunter Superheavy AC or King David Light Gauss Rifle. 


Quote
So if they don't do anything, why are they in production? There should be plenty of surplus around to replace those lost to accidents and collateral damage. It's only once the supply runs out that you need to fabricate them. By the time the Star League was founded BAR8+ armors have been around for almost 150 years. By 2571, why would any House, IS or Periphery, military unit use Rifle Cannons? Why would their militias? Police Forces?
Safari. Megafauna does not have BAR 8 armor. Also there is unlikely to be any surplus of RC, they simply aren't worth transporting (especially in times where cargo is at a premium) so the older RC were likely recycled or left to rust. As most planets can make new RC out of cheap metal it is more likely that RC are made locally upon request.


Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 06 July 2021, 12:56:15
Wrong. Battle Armor have a chassis. The weights can be found in TechManual page 163 in the Battle Armor Structure Weights Table.

And when do you damage that structure?  Elementals are 10 Armor + 1 Infantry member.

Also wrong. I did not say Rifles did more damage to BA than to other units. I said they do more damage to BA than to other BAR8+ units. Against BAR7 armor Rifles do full damage. Battle Armor use BAR10 armor, yet they take full damage from Rifles. They are the only unit type with BAR10 armor to do so. It says so in TacOps. It's in the Rules.

An unnecessary semantic distinction.  The situation under discussion is regarding both units having BAR10 armor.  That is your main complaint, so that is what I'm addressing.

Your head canon explanation for why BA are an exception may be right. However, it doesn't change the fact that Rifles essentially have a +3 damage against BA when no other vehicle weapon does. If they're chassis can't keep their BAR 10 armor from receiving full damage from Rifles, why don't other weapons have a +3 against them? If their armor can't fully protect them from a Rifle, how can it fully protect them from another vehicle scale weapon?

Except what you are using for your formula is in complete error.  BA do not take +3 damage from Rifle Cannons.  It's in the rules.  If you believe otherwise, please provide a proper quotation.

Notice how those other units don't track heat? The extra damage is heat damage. For units that do track heat, their heat scale rises. So damage is still inflicted on them. It's just more temporary. 

It is an example of how not all unit types always take the same damage from a weapon AND an actual example of a weapon receiving a damage bonus (which is NOT what happens with LRC v BA).  I actually stated this in what you quoted.  Their lack of tracking heat for this bonus is an assumption (albeit a very good one that fits the facts and what I agree with).

The reason for the innate damage is your own head canon. And when one weapon does more damage against one unit than other with the same armor, it can be called a bonus. You could say that Re-Engineered Lasers have a 50% bonus against Laser Reflective Armor. Subtract -50% for a laser hitting reflective, add back 50% for that laser being re-engineered. The result is full damage. It doesn't change depending on what's using it though. Laser Reflective doesn't reduce laser damage 50% for Mechs but Aerospace still take full damage. The -50% laser protection is for all units that mount it. Not some. Battle Armor and Rifle Cannons are a glaring exception. BA are fully protected from all weapons except Rifle Cannons. It doesn't make sense.

I never argued that the reasoning behind it wasn't my own head canon.

That doesn't change the facts of the situation, which you keep attempting to alter.  I cannot say that Re-Lasers do double damage against Reflective Armor, because that is not how the formula works.  There is no "subtract 50% and then add it back on again" in the rules, it simply ignores the "subtract 50%" in the first place. 

Mathematically speaking this is a huge difference in approach, and considering that it is a lack of resistance which allows LRC to secure damage to BA is why that other heavy weapons do not do even more damage versus BA.

Actually is a presumption based on the facts. Rifles aren't as good as autocannons. They become less effective, and even completely ineffective for the Light, once BAR8+ armors become more common. There is no need to use much less produce a weapon that's ineffective. There's less need to make a weapon that's totally outclassed. Even really deep periphery planets are using autocannons.

So if they don't do anything, why are they in production? There should be plenty of surplus around to replace those lost to accidents and collateral damage. It's only once the supply runs out that you need to fabricate them. By the time the Star League was founded BAR8+ armors have been around for almost 150 years. By 2571, why would any House, IS or Periphery, military unit use Rifle Cannons? Why would their militias? Police Forces?

Notice that those weren't the groups I say were buying those Rifle Cannons during this time.  You are progressing along a line I wasn't going down as evidence that I'm wrong.  I was talking about collectors and reenactors, but you assumed I was talking about full up military.

And if BA aren't fancy enough to fully defend against a Rifle Cannon round, why are they fancy enough to stop a round from a Gauss Rifle? It doesn't make sense.

Most aren't.  The centerline of BA is the Elemental, and they cannot take a Gauss Rifle round.  They could take a Light Gauss Rifle Round, though, but there are lighter suits which cannot.

And to repeat, you are under some very dangerous assumptions.  You are assuming that BA take bonus damage from Rifle Cannons, when it is actually they are just taking full damage from the Rifle Cannon, which is why they are taking full Gauss Rifle damage and not bonus Gauss Rifle damage.

Except that's what is happening.
All BAR10 armored units
Other Units vs other weapons = full damage
Other Units vs Rifle Cannons = -3 damage.
BA vs other weapons = full damage.
BA vs Rifle Cannons = full damage

Essentially, Rifles are 0,3,6 weapons against all BAR10 units except BA. Against BA, Rifles do an additional 3 points of damage to them.

BA vs Rifle Cannons = +3 damage. So if BA aren't good enough against Rifle Cannons, why are they good enough against all other weapons? Or if the armor on BA is good enough to stop all other weapons, why do Rifles do less damage against other units with the same armor?

You are only looking at the final results while ignoring the calculations which get you there.  This leads to the error in your assumptions that BA are taking bonus damage from RCs.  This is demonstrated in what I bolded above.  Your "essentially" skips over the math to justify your complaint.

In technical reality, RCs are 3-3, 6-3, and 9-3 versus all BAR10 units except BA.  Yes, this means that BA lose 3 more damage from RCs than other units do, but the reason other weapons don't do more damage to BA (aside from the aforementioned heat weapons) is that these weapons are already at their maximum damage output just like the Rifle Cannons are.

And that's how it should be considered, because that is what is stated in the rules.  RC damage is listed as 3, 6, and 9.  BA do not get the Resistance.  Any reason as to why they lack this same resistance is conjecture, but mathematically speaking it is pretty straight forward and you aren't following it.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 06 July 2021, 13:00:54
.

That is because your assumption is not correct. Every unit type has its own vulnerabilities. BA are for example also more vulnerable (than other units) to anti-BA weapons such as the Bearhunter Superheavy AC or King David Light Gauss Rifle. 


I assume you are referring the TO:AR "BATTLE ARMOR VS. BATTLE ARMOR TABLE".

While true, this is an optional rule, and a nice example of "special exception feature creep". Now this table gives additional damage to the Bearhunter, King David (and also the BA plasma rifle). At the same time it introduces new inconsistencies. Why only dish out additional damage when the weapons are carried on other BA? What about Bearhunters and King Davids when carried by infantry or support vehicles? What about the BA David that fires the same weight of shot as the King David for the same TW damage and almost the same range (3/5/8 vs. 3/6/9)? What about the BA Magshot that does twice the TW damage at the same range as the King David? They all follow the same paradigm of accelerating a metal slug by magnetic force, what is so special about the BA King David?


Of course TPTB can always pull same weapon from this or that list, or introduce a new one, and make it especially effective against hot air balloons or baby buggies or whatever, but every special feature of one selected weapon should answer the simple question "Is there some unique design feature or damage paradigm that other weapons don't have that makes this weapon special?" Otherwise, it's just an additional hit against suspension of disbelief. Right now, to me it seems the BA King David was simply put under a magic "+X damage against BA" spell.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: TigerShark on 06 July 2021, 13:03:01
We have Machine Guns doing 2 damage... I think a tank cannon can do at least 1. :)
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 06 July 2021, 13:07:32
I assume you are referring the TO:AR "BATTLE ARMOR VS. BATTLE ARMOR TABLE".

While true, this is an optional rule, and a nice example of "special exception feature creep". Now this table gives additional damage to the Bearhunter, King David (and also the BA plasma rifle). At the same time it introduces new inconsistencies. Why only dish out additional damage when the weapons are carried on other BA? What about Bearhunters and King Davids when carried by infantry or support vehicles? What about the BA David that fires the same weight of shot as the King David for the same TW damage and almost the same range (3/5/8 vs. 3/6/9)? What about the BA Magshot that does twice the TW damage at the same range as the King David? They all follow the same paradigm of accelerating a metal slug by magnetic force, what is so special about the BA King David?


Of course TPTB can always pull same weapon from this or that list, or introduce a new one, and make it especially effective against hot air balloons or baby buggies or whatever, but every special feature of one selected weapon should answer the simple question "Is there some unique design feature or damage paradigm that other weapons don't have that makes this weapon special?" Otherwise, it's just an additional hit against suspension of disbelief. Right now, to me it seems the BA King David was simply put under a magic "+X damage against BA" spell.
Most of the time the game does not go into such detail because it is a playable abstraction of an universe. It is a nice option that reduced the abstraction by a bit, but it is completely canon and the bearhunter isn't called bearhunter for nothing.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 06 July 2021, 13:39:22
Something I think relevant to the current discussion I dug up:

4 LRM-5s is already the kind of optimized build you're not going to generally see in canon, not to mention that MC Munitions don't affect Battle Armor, as they don't use the BAR system under Total Warfare play.

Came up in question I asked about mine clearing munitions.

Some more food for thought about how from a game play perspective that there is a difference between X-3 and X+3.

Ballistic Reinforced armor.  Shoot a Heavy Rifle Cannon at a unit equpiped with said armor.  Procedure in TacOps tells us we do the -3 first for it not being BAR 5 armor.  6/2=3.

Also keep in mind the case of damage transfer.  Rifle Cannons do full damage to Internal Structure but if even 1 point of BAR 10 armor is in the way the -3 still applies and it doesn't magically get +3 damage just because it is now tumbling through Internal Structure.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 06 July 2021, 14:19:09
The only way I can think of for a single shell to mimic AC performance is to have a cluster warhead with a contact-fuse, but that would require a very large inner barrel diameter.

300mm is pretty big. I also don't have a problem with single shot ACs. I wish there was an optional rule to reduce the rate of fire. We can increase the RoF, why not decrease it?

Quote
They weren't even worth putting back into production even during the worst of times.

Well we can always ask for an extinction date errata.

Yet they were produced long after they were less than useless and were put back into production.

We can try. I doubt it'd happen but we can try. Personally, I'd rather it not be extinct, just nearly so that they're mostly forgotten about. That would mean they'd need to do damage. And if the Light did damage, I don't think we'd be talking about it.


Quote
That is because your assumption is not correct. Every unit type has its own vulnerabilities. BA are for example also more vulnerable (than other units) to anti-BA weapons such as the Bearhunter Superheavy AC or King David Light Gauss Rifle. 

There's a difference between specialized weapons and ammo hitting units not designed to deal with them or specifically designed to destroy them and a weapon that does less damage just because.

If Rifles are so poor yet do still full damage to BA why don't other weapons do even better? It doesn't make sense. If BA can't take hits from Rifles, they shouldn't be able to from superior weapons.



Quote
Safari. Megafauna does not have BAR 8 armor. Also there is unlikely to be any surplus of RC, they simply aren't worth transporting (especially in times where cargo is at a premium) so the older RC were likely recycled or left to rust. As most planets can make new RC out of cheap metal it is more likely that RC are made locally upon request.

That's my point. If Rifles are so worthless, they're not going to survive to the Star League Era much less the First Succession War. And if they're as bad as some propose, I can't see them leaving Earth. And if Rifles are so bad, why aren't other pre-spaceflight weapons that bad?  Also considering the cost of fabrication, unless the shop makes RCs occasionally, it'd probably be cheaper to buy an autocannon.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 06 July 2021, 14:42:24
Something I think relevant to the current discussion I dug up:
*snip*
Wait... Support Vehicles aren't used in TW play? ???
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 06 July 2021, 14:54:51
300mm is pretty big. I also don't have a problem with single shot ACs. I wish there was an optional rule to reduce the rate of fire. We can increase the RoF, why not decrease it?

We're pretty expressly told that a large part of why ACs do the damage that they do is because they fire as rapid bursts as they do.  I'm not sure what you'd really gain from reducing that.

Quote
Yet they were produced long after they were less than useless and were put back into production.

At best this is personal subjective evaluation.  They clearly have objective utility on the battlefield.

Quote
We can try. I doubt it'd happen but we can try. Personally, I'd rather it not be extinct, just nearly so that they're mostly forgotten about. That would mean they'd need to do damage. And if the Light did damage, I don't think we'd be talking about it.

Arguably that is what Extinct can be interpreted to mean in some cases.

Quote
There's a difference between specialized weapons and ammo hitting units not designed to deal with them or specifically designed to destroy them and a weapon that does less damage just because.

Part of why that is happens to be because of the nature of the unit, not just the ammo.  Even using the same tech base shooting at two different unit types can have very different results even if using the same ammo.

Quote
If Rifles are so poor yet do still full damage to BA why don't other weapons do even better? It doesn't make sense. If BA can't take hits from Rifles, they shouldn't be able to from superior weapons.

For the same reason BAR 7 Support Vehicles don't take more damage from Medium Lasers.  There is such a thing as an upper limit to how much damage can be done.

Quote
That's my point. If Rifles are so worthless, they're not going to survive to the Star League Era much less the First Succession War. And if they're as bad as some propose, I can't see them leaving Earth. And if Rifles are so bad, why aren't other pre-spaceflight weapons that bad?  Also considering the cost of fabrication, unless the shop makes RCs occasionally, it'd probably be cheaper to buy an autocannon.

Considering that for even the Heavy Rifle Cannon to eliminate one Battle Armor trooper in one shot the Battle Armor has to have 8 or less armor, I'd say you're again overstating things.

Also what exactly would humanity take with them in their place?

ACs that were not invented until well after colonies in other star systems were established?

Chemical lasers that were deemed to hazardous to their crews because of the toxicity of their "ammo" and were considered obsolete in the face of the Fusion Engine?

Wait... Support Vehicles aren't used in TW play? ???

That is not what they said, they said that BA don't use the BAR system in TW play.  Minor but important distinction.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 06 July 2021, 14:57:05
Yet they were produced long after they were less than useless and were put back into production.
Because many planets could not manufacture enough better weapons, and had to resort to crap.

Quote
There's a difference between specialized weapons and ammo hitting units not designed to deal with them or specifically designed to destroy them and a weapon that does less damage just because.
There is no real difference between a weapon that effects a vulnerability by circumstance or design, the result is the same.

Quote
That's my point. If Rifles are so worthless, they're not going to survive to the Star League Era much less the First Succession War.
Not all roles are military and some people must/will use everything no matter how bad it is, for example we still see some introtech during the IlClan era

Quote
And if they're as bad as some propose, I can't see them leaving Earth. And if Rifles are so bad, why aren't other pre-spaceflight weapons that bad?
Only some pre-spaceflight weapons made it, most didn't (rail guns, chem lasers, prim missiles). The BT defensive systems likely utterly ruined their chances. The only reason why rifles didn't escape the latter fate is because it has some civilian uses.

Quote
Also considering the cost of fabrication, unless the shop makes RCs occasionally, it'd probably be cheaper to buy an autocannon.
But in those days could a civilian get an AC legally? The RC very crappyness and ease of maintenance would make it much easier for civilians to get them and use them for 'wildlife control', for which they would work quite well.   
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 06 July 2021, 15:07:27
*snip*
That is not what they said, they said that BA don't use the BAR system in TW play.  Minor but important distinction.
[/quote]
Ah, thanks for the clarification!  It is indeed an important distinction!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 06 July 2021, 15:19:23
And when do you damage that structure?  Elementals are 10 Armor + 1 Infantry member.

Don't know but that's not the point. You said they don't have a structure. They do.


Quote
An unnecessary semantic distinction.  The situation under discussion is regarding both units having BAR10 armor.  That is your main complaint, so that is what I'm addressing.

The complaint is that one units takes full damage and another doesn't.



Quote
Except what you are using for your formula is in complete error.  BA do not take +3 damage from Rifle Cannons.  It's in the rules.  If you believe otherwise, please provide a proper quotation.

I am aware of the rules. Essentially, Rifles have a +3 damage against BA when compared to other BAR10 armors.


Quote
It is an example of how not all unit types always take the same damage from a weapon AND an actual example of a weapon receiving a damage bonus (which is NOT what happens with LRC v BA).  I actually stated this in what you quoted.  Their lack of tracking heat for this bonus is an assumption (albeit a very good one that fits the facts and what I agree with).

Again, Rifle Cannons are the only ballistic weapon that does more damage against Battle Armor than they do against other BAR10 Units. This isn't a special ammo type or different weapon type. It's one ballistic weapons, one that's supposed to be inferior, doing more damage, to a BAR10 unit than more advanced ballistic weapons. That makes no sense.

Quote
I never argued that the reasoning behind it wasn't my own head canon.

Apologies but it sure feels like you are.



Quote
That doesn't change the facts of the situation, which you keep attempting to alter.  I cannot say that Re-Lasers do double damage against Reflective Armor, because that is not how the formula works.  There is no "subtract 50% and then add it back on again" in the rules, it simply ignores the "subtract 50%" in the first place. 

Mathematically speaking this is a huge difference in approach, and considering that it is a lack of resistance which allows LRC to secure damage to BA is why that other heavy weapons do not do even more damage versus BA.

Actually you can say that. 

And that makes zero sense. An inferior weapon does more damage than a superior more powerful weapon because the unit in question isn't capable of standing up to the inferior weapon even though it does stand up against the superior weapon. And at the same time said inferior weapon does no damage against units with inferior armor. It makes no sense.

Quote
Notice that those weren't the groups I say were buying those Rifle Cannons during this time.  You are progressing along a line I wasn't going down as evidence that I'm wrong.  I was talking about collectors and reenactors, but you assumed I was talking about full up military.

Oh, I got what you're saying. I just don't think they'd have reasons to manufacture Rifle Cannons. Not until the surplus of Rifles is exhausted. Then you're looking at having to fabricate new ones. That's 10 times the cost, plus you still have to buy the item once made.

Reenactors are also not going to be the ones using Rifles in combat. Not even if the reenactors are the militia as LRC's aren't going to damage their opponents.



Quote
Most aren't.  The centerline of BA is the Elemental, and they cannot take a Gauss Rifle round.  They could take a Light Gauss Rifle Round, though, but there are lighter suits which cannot.

And to repeat, you are under some very dangerous assumptions.  You are assuming that BA take bonus damage from Rifle Cannons, when it is actually they are just taking full damage from the Rifle Cannon, which is why they are taking full Gauss Rifle damage and not bonus Gauss Rifle damage.

Let's see. Rifles hitting other BAR10 units damages are 0,3,6. Rifles hitting BA do 3,6,9. That sure looks like +3. It also doesn't explain why more powerful weapons don't get a +3. That the extra damage may be wasted is besides the point. That the more powerful weapons aren't getting it is. An inferior weapon is doing more damage. 


Quote
You are only looking at the final results while ignoring the calculations which get you there.  This leads to the error in your assumptions that BA are taking bonus damage from RCs.  This is demonstrated in what I bolded above.  Your "essentially" skips over the math to justify your complaint.

In technical reality, RCs are 3-3, 6-3, and 9-3 versus all BAR10 units except BA.  Yes, this means that BA lose 3 more damage from RCs than other units do, but the reason other weapons don't do more damage to BA (aside from the aforementioned heat weapons) is that these weapons are already at their maximum damage output just like the Rifle Cannons are.

And that's how it should be considered, because that is what is stated in the rules.  RC damage is listed as 3, 6, and 9.  BA do not get the Resistance.  Any reason as to why they lack this same resistance is conjecture, but mathematically speaking it is pretty straight forward and you aren't following it.


Except, again, if BA aren't capable of fully resisting Rifle Cannons how is it they're fully capable of resisting far more powerful weapons?  Mathematically it makes no sense. It's like say BA aren't as capable of stopping arrows as they are rifle rounds so arrows do more damage.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 06 July 2021, 15:24:00
*snip*
That is not what they said, they said that BA don't use the BAR system in TW play.  Minor but important distinction.

Ah, thanks for the clarification!  It is indeed an important distinction!  :thumbsup:

Thought I had bolded and underlined everything in such a way to make it clear they were talking about Battle Armor.

*shrug*
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 06 July 2021, 15:27:04
My missing it was on me, not you... no worries!  :thumbsup:

BTW, did you see my solution to making the damage conversion two way?  Simply changing the TW damage multiplier brings the two formulas into agreement up through 50 TW damage.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 06 July 2021, 15:32:18
I did.  Aside from feeling subjectively weird it seems to work.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: TigerShark on 06 July 2021, 15:35:30
How about this?

Quote
"When a Rifle (Cannon) scores a hit on any unit with an armor rating of BAR 8 or higher, reduce damage to the target by 3. If this results in 0 damage, roll 2d6. On a roll of 8+, damage is increased to 1.

Note that this does not apply to damage to internal structure, which receives the Rifle (Cannon)'s full, unmodified damage."
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 06 July 2021, 15:37:35
4.5 (and rounding) probably works fine as a first approximation.  Of course, trying to model burst fire throws ALL kinds of wrenches into it.

TigerShark: I stand by my assertion LRCs should do 1 point.  Zero at the TW scale should be obtained procedurally, not arbitrarily.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 06 July 2021, 15:49:00
Most of the time the game does not go into such detail because it is a playable abstraction of an universe. It is a nice option that reduced the abstraction by a bit, but it is completely canon and the bearhunter isn't called bearhunter for nothing.

You have nailed the core of the problem: "Most of the time the game does not go into such detail..." (emphasis added)

Most of the time the technology of the game is rather abstract. After 37 years, we still don't know how many shells X are in an AC "shot", nor which proportion of the weight goes into projectile a, casing b and propellant c. We are not even sure if the projectile is a tungsten or DU penetrator or a HEAP warhead, if it's spin or fin stabilized, what the muzzle energy and v0 are etc. We just know that 1 ton of AC ammo does 100 points of damage against standard armor (except for the AC/2, which does 90 points, one of the early useless exceptions). We can try to deduce some of the variables from some of the special ammo types, we have some hints from various fluff texts, but we haven't got a full picture. All indications are that every brand of gun changes some of the variables so that the only firm numbers are abstractions like "50kg of AC/5 shells are fired in 5 seconds (because of rapid fire rules) or less at a range of up to 540 meters and do 5 points of damage". Even replacement ammo is abstracted. One ton of Mydron C, Imperator A, Pontiac Light ammo all cost the same. Same for the weapon itself: Weight of barrel, recoil mechanism, cooling shroud, autoloader, muzzle brake, fume excavator, aiming and stabilization are all unknown, we just know that they somehow add up to 6/8/12/14 tons. The same is true for all basic weapon types. We just know damage, range, weight, heat and number of shots per ton, where applicable.

But then suddenly from this abstract crowd of weapons the game selects some weapon (types) to be singled out by getting much more detail (we don't know propellant, HE filler and penetrator material of most shells, but are told how and with what material AC incendiary rounds are built: covered with a thin coat of magnesium) or by being better or worse against this or that target, being able to use different ammo types etc.

So of course the natural question is that if that one special weapon does more damage or uses additional ammo or hits more precisely, why can't this be applied to other, otherwise very similar weapons. But the game, after for a moment showing us some detail and special properties, goes back into hiding behind abstractions: BA Bearhunters just do this additional damage against other BA because of... reasons. Or as you said, after all they aren't called Bearhunters for nothing.

BT too often (of course IMHO) seems unsure when to apply abstraction and when to apply detail, or in game design theory, design for effect vs. design for cause; resulting in maddening (again IMHO:) ) inconsistencies.

To give some extreme examples:
Adding some kg of satchel charges and grappling tools per trooper increases the weight of an anti-mech foot platoon enough that it needs more weight in an APC (2.5 to 3t), but adding eight 300kg Heavy Support Lasers (2.4t total) adds no weight.

Equip a motorized infantry squad with StarKing gyroslug rifles (8kg each). Now change two of those to Light MGs as support weapons (7kg each). Effect: movement goes from 3MP down to 2 despite saving weight. Take the original squad and add 7 Dragonsbane Lasers as disposable weapons: movement remains the same despite adding 49kg. Or add two light rifle cannon field guns with ammo: 8t added, but still thw full 3MP.

A TSM equipped 100t mech with 2 Lift hoists can somehow carry 200t of external cargo (say 400 RL-10 in a giant container). But when I drop the cargo and take out and try to bolt on just one single RL-10, the internal structure gets so overloaded that I have to go the superheavy route with double IS weight and potentially an experimental Large Fusion Engine.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 06 July 2021, 15:54:37
And the whole point of my thread is that abstraction REALLY sticks out when you get a ZERO.  That's just bad game design.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 06 July 2021, 16:11:31
So of course the natural question is that if that one special weapon does more damage or uses additional ammo or hits more precisely, why can't this be applied to other, otherwise very similar weapons. But the game, after for a moment showing us some detail and special properties, goes back into hiding behind abstractions: BA Bearhunters just do this additional damage against other BA because of... reasons. Or as you said, after all they aren't called Bearhunters for nothing.
Very similar?
They are not very similar, even at TW level of abstraction the categories of various ballistic weapons remain distinct.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 06 July 2021, 16:25:05
We have Machine Guns doing 2 damage... I think a tank cannon can do at least 1. :)


 :thumbsup:




We're pretty expressly told that a large part of why ACs do the damage that they do is because they fire as rapid bursts as they do.  I'm not sure what you'd really gain from reducing that.

Where's it say that? I've listed three sources that have AC's firing single rounds. As for a reason to do that, conservation of ammo.


Quote
At best this is personal subjective evaluation.  They clearly have objective utility on the battlefield.

Arguably that is what Extinct can be interpreted to mean in some cases.

What objective utility does a Light Rifle Cannon have on a battlefield of BAR10 units?

That's what I understand with an Availability Rating of X. However, if Rifles don't do damage I can't see them being even rarely available.


Quote
Part of why that is happens to be because of the nature of the unit, not just the ammo.  Even using the same tech base shooting at two different unit types can have very different results even if using the same ammo.

For the same reason BAR 7 Support Vehicles don't take more damage from Medium Lasers.  There is such a thing as an upper limit to how much damage can be done.

Except we're told Rifles are so bad that they do little damage to BAR10 armor. Only for BA, Rifles do more damage. It doesn't make sense.

The Direct Hit rules say more damage can be done. We're also being told that an inferior weapon does more damage than a superior one. It's like saying an IS ERPPC does +3 damage against BA while a Clan ERPPC does normal damage against BA.


Quote
Considering that for even the Heavy Rifle Cannon to eliminate one Battle Armor trooper in one shot the Battle Armor has to have 8 or less armor, I'd say you're again overstating things.

Also what exactly would humanity take with them in their place?

ACs that were not invented until well after colonies in other star systems were established?

There weren't any BA until nearly the end of the Star League. So what is the HRC shooting at? What would LRCs be shooting at? Post 3050, I could see poorer less advanced groups using HRC as anti-BA weapons as they can kill or cripple lighter BA in one shot. But from 2500 to 3050, what are Rifles being used for?

Excellent question. Why take artillery and machine guns?  To hunt really big wildlife? Blow up obstacles? Defense against insurrectionists? Pirates?

Before ACs were introduced Rifle Cannons were common so unless you're just starting up you wouldn't need to fabricate Rifles. You wouldn't need to fabricate until surplus supplies have been exhausted. And by then, ACs are as common as Rifles once were so why fabricate an obsolete weapon?


Quote
Chemical lasers that were deemed to hazardous to their crews because of the toxicity of their "ammo" and were considered obsolete in the face of the Fusion Engine?

Support Vehicle Fusion Engines have been around since the 21st Century. Standard Lasers weren't common until 2310 (SM) and  2320 (L). That's a good 200 years worth of use. So there would be lots of experience in using them and plenty around in use by militias
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 06 July 2021, 16:42:24
Very similar?
They are not very similar, even at TW level of abstraction the categories of various ballistic weapons remain distinct.

Aren't the BA David and the BA Magshot very similar to the BA King David? Isn't the BA Bearhunter very similar to the Support Vehicle/infantry Bearhunter?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 06 July 2021, 16:51:42
Because many planets could not manufacture enough better weapons, and had to resort to crap.

Except that Autocannons were as common to find as Rifles so they could be easily imported. You're also not going to buy or manufacture a weapon that doesn't work.



Quote
There is no real difference between a weapon that effects a vulnerability by circumstance or design, the result is the same.

There is something when we're told a crap weapon does more damage against a unit with advance armor, Just Because.


Quote
Not all roles are military and some people must/will use everything no matter how bad it is, for example we still see some introtech during the IlClan era

PeaceTech isn't allowed but ceremonialTech is?   People aren't going to use a weapon that does nothing. Introtech, may be inferior but still works. LRC's don't work. The other RCs barely work.

Quote
Only some pre-spaceflight weapons made it, most didn't (rail guns, chem lasers, prim missiles). The BT defensive systems likely utterly ruined their chances. The only reason why rifles didn't escape the latter fate is because it has some civilian uses.

That BT utterly ruined other pre-spaceflight chances is an opinion. One I do not share. Chemical Lasers for example, were originally made to shoot down Capital Missiles. Capital Missiles of a type still being used now. Rail Guns? Don't know but the largest were used on spaceships. Primitive Missiles, weren't put out by more advanced BAR armor. They were obsoleted by smaller, lighter, more advanced missiles. And again, we can't have PeaceTech but CeremonialTech is okay? Re-enactmentTech is okay? Where's the black powder weapons?


Quote
But in those days could a civilian get an AC legally? The RC very crappyness and ease of maintenance would make it much easier for civilians to get them and use them for 'wildlife control', for which they would work quite well.


Legality would depend on the planet. I would think that the Rifles easy of use and maintenance would be what would make some planets outlaw Rifles. I can see how some wouldn't want just everyone having a vehicle scale weapon. And wildlife control is great reason to use Rifles. I don't think it's a great reason for them to be very common.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 06 July 2021, 16:59:18
Don't know but that's not the point. You said they don't have a structure. They do.
Quote

More accurately, I theorize do not have the structure to support the armor the way these heavier units do.  It does not mean they have no structure (and game-wise they don't in Total Warfare), it just means the structure they do have is insufficient for the job at hand.

The complaint is that one units takes full damage and another doesn't.

And then you add more bizarre theories on top of it.

I am aware of the rules. Essentially, Rifles have a +3 damage against BA when compared to other BAR10 armors.

Apparently you aren't because you keep applying an improper formula.  Rifles do not have a +3 damage against BA, they just don't stop 3 damage like the other BAR10 armors.  Those are the rules.

Again, Rifle Cannons are the only ballistic weapon that does more damage against Battle Armor than they do against other BAR10 Units. This isn't a special ammo type or different weapon type. It's one ballistic weapons, one that's supposed to be inferior, doing more damage, to a BAR10 unit than more advanced ballistic weapons. That makes no sense.

They are a different unit type with different construction standards that have been deemed by the power that be that still take full damage from Rifles.

This does not mean that these Rifles are doing more damage than more advanced ballistic weapons, either.  Your making an illogical and unmathematical assumption that has no connection to the rules.

Apologies but it sure feels like you are.

That is because you are mixing up my lore reasoning with the mathematical system being used.  You do this a lot, confusing and conflating one section with another without looking at what is being quoted for context.

Actually you can say that. 

And that makes zero sense. An inferior weapon does more damage than a superior more powerful weapon because the unit in question isn't capable of standing up to the inferior weapon even though it does stand up against the superior weapon. And at the same time said inferior weapon does no damage against units with inferior armor. It makes no sense.

I can say that because that is how the math of the rules work.

Where are you getting this concept that Rifles are being more superior than Autocannons when used against Battle Armor?  Is this part of your error-ridden belief of Rifles getting a damage bonus?

BA doesn't stand up any better against Autocannons or Gauss Weapons then they do against Rifles.  It is only that these other units stand up better against Rifles.

Oh, I got what you're saying. I just don't think they'd have reasons to manufacture Rifle Cannons. Not until the surplus of Rifles is exhausted. Then you're looking at having to fabricate new ones. That's 10 times the cost, plus you still have to buy the item once made.

Reenactors are also not going to be the ones using Rifles in combat. Not even if the reenactors are the militia as LRC's aren't going to damage their opponents.


And I never said they would use the Rifles in combat during most of this time any more than we'd use Civil War field artillery in modern combat.  You are placing assumptions on what I said that I did not reference.  We are also talking about a period of centuries where they weren't used in combat, but they could (and probably were) used for stage acting and reenactors having fun.  Which part of that last half of the sentence would imply they were buying Rifles for combat?

Let's see. Rifles hitting other BAR10 units damages are 0,3,6. Rifles hitting BA do 3,6,9. That sure looks like +3. It also doesn't explain why more powerful weapons don't get a +3. That the extra damage may be wasted is besides the point. That the more powerful weapons aren't getting it is. An inferior weapon is doing more damage. 

Because you refuse to use the proper formulas is the reason why you don't understand more powerful weapons don't get a +3.

Except, again, if BA aren't capable of fully resisting Rifle Cannons how is it they're fully capable of resisting far more powerful weapons?  Mathematically it makes no sense. It's like say BA aren't as capable of stopping arrows as they are rifle rounds so arrows do more damage.

Do you even understand what resistance even means?  Who said they are fully capable of resisting far more powerful weapons?  You keep saying this, but provide ZERO evidence other than your misapplication of mathematics. 

If BA was fully capable of resisting far more powerful weapons, a Gauss Rifle shot would do NOTHING to them.  Instead, just like the Rifle Cannons, they take full damage from the shot.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 06 July 2021, 17:05:46
How about this?


I prefer just to skip the -3 altogether but I'm open towards Rifle damage reduction based on range against BAR8 armors. -1 at short, -2 at medium, -3 at long. The result at long range are the same. It's closer to real where some weapons had a short effective range. It'd also be a reason why these weapons would remain common for so long.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 06 July 2021, 17:18:01
Except that Autocannons were as common to find as Rifles so they could be easily imported. You're also not going to buy or manufacture a weapon that doesn't work.
Easy imports during the height of the Jihad.............. Rifle Cannons and Primitive 'Mechs proliferated during the Jihad because they could be manufactured more locally and in larger numbers. Causality rates among the users was high but they did their job of blunting the enemy assaults (cannon fodder & lucky shots).

Quote
There is something when we're told a crap weapon does more damage against a unit with advance armor, Just Because.
The vulnerability is tied to the unit type, not the armor.

Quote
PeaceTech isn't allowed but ceremonialTech is?   People aren't going to use a weapon that does nothing. Introtech, may be inferior but still works. LRC's don't work. The other RCs barely work.
That is just your opinion, the various possible uses and users have been pointed out again and again. We have no trouble finding ways to link them with usage in canon.

Quote
That BT utterly ruined other pre-spaceflight chances is an opinion. One I do not share. Chemical Lasers for example, were originally made to shoot down Capital Missiles. Capital Missiles of a type still being used now. Rail Guns? Don't know but the largest were used on spaceships. Primitive Missiles, weren't put out by more advanced BAR armor. They were obsoleted by smaller, lighter, more advanced missiles.
The canon result speaks for itself, you can always write an AU for yourself if you really want to.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 06 July 2021, 17:23:23

I prefer just to skip the -3 altogether but I'm open towards Rifle damage reduction based on range against BAR8 armors. -1 at short, -2 at medium, -3 at long. The result at long range are the same. It's closer to real where some weapons had a short effective range. It'd also be a reason why these weapons would remain common for so long.
Different damage at different ranges is much less elegant than simply deriving the TW damage properly and presenting that as the TW stat against BAR 10 armor like literally every other weapon system.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 06 July 2021, 17:25:50

If BA was fully capable of resisting far more powerful weapons, a Gauss Rifle shot would do NOTHING to them.  Instead, just like the Rifle Cannons, they take full damage from the shot.


You not getting it. Rifle Cannons are doing more damage against Battle Armor than they do other BAR10 units. Why? If Rifles are so crappy that they do reduced damage on units, A, B, C, and D with BAR10 armor, why do they do more damage on unit E with the same BAR Armor?

If unit E can't take being hit by a RC, and more damage is done, why is it that other more powerful weapons don't do more damage? It's like saying being hit by a baseball will leave a bruise. Being hit with a whiffle ball will leave broken bones.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 06 July 2021, 17:29:23
That death spiral you're in is the direct result of the singularity TPTB created when they introduced that ZERO.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 06 July 2021, 17:36:39
You not getting it.
Well they are different weapons, not just a different size class, instead a different category.
It would be like objecting to that a bulletproof vest didn't protect you from a pepper-spray canister.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 06 July 2021, 17:44:24
That death spiral you're in is the direct result of the singularity TPTB created when they introduced that ZERO.

At this point I am stepping out of that particular spiral and would recommend others do the same.

As far as damage reduction based on range we do already have a precedent for it in things like the Snub Nosed PPC and Heavy Gauss Rifle so maybe frame it that way?

LRC would then be 3/2/1/0 at S/M/L/E range as an example.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 06 July 2021, 18:02:46
Much more logical, but I would argue the Extreme Range rules already take care of getting the LRC to 0 at Extreme Range.  I prefer 1 point for all normal ranges for simplicity.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 06 July 2021, 18:10:06
Easy imports during the height of the Jihad.............. Rifle Cannons and Primitive 'Mechs proliferated during the Jihad because they could be manufactured more locally and in larger numbers. Causality rates among the users was high but they did their job of blunting the enemy assaults (cannon fodder & lucky shots).

Easy imports during the Age of War and Star League Eras.
What are the casualty rates for units using Rifles during the Jihad?


Quote
The vulnerability is tied to the unit type, not the armor.

And yet we're told that its the armor that makes Rifles so crappy.

Quote
That is just your opinion, the various possible uses and users have been pointed out again and again. We have no trouble finding ways to link them with usage in canon.

And I've agreed with those uses. Collectors, Ceremonial, Re-enactment, Wildlife Control. All valid reasons to use Rifles in non-combat roles. They're not reasons to keep Rifles in production.

Quote
The canon result speaks for itself, you can always write an AU for yourself if you really want to.

Canon hasn't said anything other than Chemical Lasers were used to detonate mines, booby traps and ICBMs during the Second Soviet Civil War. Low powered lasers were used on spacecraft to shot down particles and larger rocky bodies. RailGuns were used on Warships in 2023 but caused electrical interference (EM Interference Quirk) and that the TH experimenting with them in the twenty-fifth century on Jumpship. Missile Warheads were 4 times bigger than currant LRMs and SRMs so there's a lot more missiles per ton now than then. Primitive Rockets, haven't changed size but still do the same damage. That's what Canon says about these weapons. Nothing in Canon says they're useless crap.

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 06 July 2021, 18:12:15
Much more logical, but I would argue the Extreme Range rules already take care of getting the LRC to 0 at Extreme Range.  I prefer 1 point for all normal ranges for simplicity.

I think that would be entirely fair as when I think about how devastating a field gun unit with LRCs ambushing someone with that many 3 point hits could be a little much.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 06 July 2021, 18:16:56
Different damage at different ranges is much less elegant than simply deriving the TW damage properly and presenting that as the TW stat against BAR 10 armor like literally every other weapon system.

True but there are precedents for it. And if we go by TW damage LRC do 0 damage at all ranges.


That death spiral you're in is the direct result of the singularity TPTB created when they introduced that ZERO.

Which I completely disagree with.


Much more logical, but I would argue the Extreme Range rules already take care of getting the LRC to 0 at Extreme Range.  I prefer 1 point for all normal ranges for simplicity.

I would prefer ignoring the -3 damage altogether, but I'm willing to compromise on range based damage.



Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 06 July 2021, 18:24:50
I think that would be entirely fair as when I think about how devastating a field gun unit with LRCs ambushing someone with that many 3 point hits could be a little much.
A Taurian platoon could get up to 10 guns... yeah, that would be a little much if they were 3 damage.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 06 July 2021, 18:26:40
Well they are different weapons, not just a different size class, instead a different category.
It would be like objecting to that a bulletproof vest didn't protect you from a pepper-spray canister.

No it'd be more like saying that a Snub PPC does 5 points of damage at range 15 to all units except BA. Against BA Snubs do 10 points of damage.


At this point I am stepping out of that particular spiral and would recommend others do the same.

As far as damage reduction based on range we do already have a precedent for it in things like the Snub Nosed PPC and Heavy Gauss Rifle so maybe frame it that way?

LRC would then be 3/2/1/0 at S/M/L/E range as an example.

Good idea.

Thank you.

I'd of gone -1 at short against BAR10 but that works for me.  :thumbsup:


I think that would be entirely fair as when I think about how devastating a field gun unit with LRCs ambushing someone with that many 3 point hits could be a little much.

And ambushing someone with a field gun unit with AC/20s would be better? Actually, isn't that the point of ambushes?  >:D
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 06 July 2021, 18:30:05
A Taurian platoon could get up to 10 guns... yeah, that would be a little much if they were 3 damage.

Why? An field gun platoon with 2 AC/20s, rapid firing, would do 80 points of damage. 30 points isn't a lot compared to that.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 06 July 2021, 18:37:03
You not getting it. Rifle Cannons are doing more damage against Battle Armor than they do other BAR10 units. Why? If Rifles are so crappy that they do reduced damage on units, A, B, C, and D with BAR10 armor, why do they do more damage on unit E with the same BAR Armor?

If unit E can't take being hit by a RC, and more damage is done, why is it that other more powerful weapons don't do more damage? It's like saying being hit by a baseball will leave a bruise. Being hit with a whiffle ball will leave broken bones.

I fully get what you're saying.  That's why I keep pointing out that it is the simple fact that your math is wrong and you do not understand the concept of resistance what its lack means.  You're not accepting those simple points, so you stay confused.  You're like the battleship Admiral that keeps yelling at the lighthouse Seaman to change their course and make way for them.

Understand this is paradigm: "Rifles doing more damage to BA" is wrong.  "Rifles do full damage to BA" is correct.

Why do other heavy weapons just do their full damage to BA while Rifles do their full damage to BA?  Because it is their full damage.  That is what the rules say.  That's the long and the short of it.  It really doesn't get more complicated than that.

Now, why do BA units lack this resistance and take full damage?  Because those are the rules.  Any other reason beyond that is theorizing/head canon.

Should it be that way?  Eh, I'm fine with BA lacking this strength.  It actually makes sense to me due to Battle Armor construction not being as solid as their heavier fellows, but I'm not solidly locked on it. I'm not a fan of the resistance that most units have to this weapon system in general and it should have been more normalized and do more damage at closer range.

As far as damage reduction based on range we do already have a precedent for it in things like the Snub Nosed PPC and Heavy Gauss Rifle so maybe frame it that way?

LRC would then be 3/2/1/0 at S/M/L/E range as an example.

That's similar to what I suggested, and I wouldn't have a problem with that.  Still, it should do that short-ranged damage to Infantry and Buildings.

And I've agreed with those uses. Collectors, Ceremonial, Re-enactment, Wildlife Control. All valid reasons to use Rifles in non-combat roles. They're not reasons to keep Rifles in production.

Funny, the original rifles used in the American Revolutionary War were only purchased by collectors, ceremonial uses, and hunters.  Simply put, provided there are enough purchasers, there is always a reason to keep something in production, it just may not be for the original use it was being produced for.  That's all I said before.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 06 July 2021, 18:42:10
Easy imports during the Age of War and Star League Eras.
The eras in where RC vanished from the front-lines as the AC came into prominence. So completely not relevant for the Jihad era that I was addressing.

Quote
And yet we're told that its the armor that makes Rifles so crappy.
[snip]
No it'd be more like saying that a Snub PPC does 5 points of damage at range 15 to all units except BA. Against BA Snubs do 10 points of damage.
Yes we have a unit-type (BA) that is vulnerable to certain specific weapons (RC, Bearhunter, etc), and this is fine.

Quote
And I've agreed with those uses. Collectors, Ceremonial, Re-enactment, Wildlife Control. All valid reasons to use Rifles in non-combat roles. They're not reasons to keep Rifles in production.
Rifle Cannons do not last forever, so as long as they see some use they would need some production.

Quote
Canon hasn't said anything other than Chemical Lasers were used to detonate mines, booby traps and ICBMs during the Second Soviet Civil War. Low powered lasers were used on spacecraft to shot down particles and larger rocky bodies. RailGuns were used on Warships in 2023 but caused electrical interference (EM Interference Quirk) and that the TH experimenting with them in the twenty-fifth century on Jumpship. Missile Warheads were 4 times bigger than currant LRMs and SRMs so there's a lot more missiles per ton now than then.
And none of them were worth a single line of stats in IO. That is how bad they got trashed.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 06 July 2021, 18:53:52
Why? An field gun platoon with 2 AC/20s, rapid firing, would do 80 points of damage. 30 points isn't a lot compared to that.
That Taurian platoon would be doing 60 with rapid firing, and require a box o' doom to resolve.  A little much with regard to game play...
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: TigerShark on 06 July 2021, 18:59:23
Here's another "problem." The way it stands, the BV calcs for the Rifles are ALL over the place. Right now, the Light Rifle is being calculated as if it's doing 2 damage (as per TacOps). Medium is 4 damage, and Heavy Rifle is 6 damage. So, if we're going by BV, then it should be -3/-2/-1 for Heavy/Medium/Light. Otherwise, the current BV needs to be re-evaluated. RifleMech's suggestion seems to be the most elegant stated, thus far. It explains the "shells bouncing off the Mackie" without creating the only weapon in BT which breaks a core rule of the game.

Recall the reason why empty crit slots have a "Roll Again" in them? Or why an AMS cannot cut a flight of missiles to 0 damage? When you roll and hit, it means you hit. So it means some damage was done. Having a 0-damage weapon creates an extreme exception for no logical reason, and the only 0-damage weapon in the game. The -1/-2/-3 damage at Short/Med/Long fixes that without any more math than you'd need for rolling a HAG's cluster table.

Quote
Light Rifle
0 damage: 0
1 damage: 10
2 damage: 20
3 damage: 30
TacOps BV: 21

Medium Rifle
3 damage: 37
4 damage: 49
5 damage: 61
6 damage: 73
TacOps BV: 51

Heavy Rifle
6 damage: 87
7 damage: 101
8 damage: 116
9 damage: 130
TacOps BV: 91
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 06 July 2021, 19:01:38
That Taurian platoon would be doing 60 with rapid firing, and require a box o' doom to resolve.  A little much with regard to game play...

Can RCs rapid fire?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 06 July 2021, 19:16:30
Good question... now that you mention it, I'm not sure.  ???

As far as "shells bouncing of the Mackie", I simply chalk that up to the ultimate in unreliable narrators: a defense contractor trying to sell the "new sexy"...  ^-^

TigerShark: EXCELLENT demonstration of the inconsistency of the existing Rifle Cannon rules... thanks!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 06 July 2021, 19:22:06
Or why an AMS cannot cut a flight of missiles to 0 damage? When you roll and hit, it means you hit. So it means some damage was done. Having a 0-damage weapon creates an extreme exception for no logical reason, and the only 0-damage weapon in the game.
Not completely.
1. Laser AMS can completely destroy a flight of missiles.
2. LBX pellet vs Ferro-Lam armor, this is also zero armor damage, however it still can do motive damage.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: TigerShark on 06 July 2021, 19:39:16
Not completely.
1. Laser AMS can completely destroy a flight of missiles.
2. LBX pellet vs Ferro-Lam armor, this is also zero armor damage, however it still can do motive damage.
I could make some argument against those as examples, but point taken. Thanks for putting those up. :)
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 06 July 2021, 20:02:21
There is also AMS vs. Thunderbolt and NARC (50% chance to it shoot down).
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 06 July 2021, 21:08:03
Why? An field gun platoon with 2 AC/20s, rapid firing, would do 80 points of damage. 30 points isn't a lot compared to that.

That is assuming all shells hit.  A very unlikely situation under current rules as written.

What makes potentially up to 10 3 point hits scarier is you get so many more chances for the extreme cases.  The little bit of extra range helps too.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Bedwyr on 06 July 2021, 23:09:14
edit: locked for the time being for review.

edit edit: Okay y'all. I'm going to reopen the thread. We had a short succession of reports and I conflated it with another thread that was generating a lot of complaints. Apologies for that; sometimes the moderation just swirls together like a mucky storm drain.

Some advice: A frequent source of reports we get are from forum-goers frustrated with other forum-goers. The mods are mostly delighted that you're choosing to make a report rather than engage, possibly flaming your interlocutor. Very much props for that, well done. However.

We recommend cultivating a better sense of detachment. In olden times (like 1700s), people would use the phrase "disinterested observer". Basically an attempt to be stoic about discourse. In our context this is like weightlifting to strengthen a muscle. Your interlocutor can be frustrating, even maddening sometimes. It's at this point we recommend going AFK to break the emotional feedback loop of "someone being wrong on the internet" and remembering that this is a board game used for fun, enjoyment, and hijinx. I know how hard this is from personal experience and it takes a lot to go AFK and not come back an hour later to see what that... person... wrote. But it's worth the exercise because you'll be a better debater (on other forums) and much better discussion partner (on this forum).

This is NOT to be read as patronizing, but as a reminder to me as well since I'm just as vulnerable as a fan to getting irate. Take it in a light spirit and by all means, continue your discussion about the intersection of muzzle velocity and game design.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 07 July 2021, 15:25:41
(snip)

This is NOT to be read as patronizing, but as a reminder to me as well since I'm just as vulnerable as a fan to getting irate. Take it in a light spirit and by all means, continue your discussion about the intersection of muzzle velocity and game design.


 :thumbsup:



That's similar to what I suggested, and I wouldn't have a problem with that.  Still, it should do that short-ranged damage to Infantry and Buildings.

Funny, the original rifles used in the American Revolutionary War were only purchased by collectors, ceremonial uses, and hunters.  Simply put, provided there are enough purchasers, there is always a reason to keep something in production, it just may not be for the original use it was being produced for.  That's all I said before.


I think I said it was a good idea.  :thumbsup:

That's just it. There needs to be enough purchasers to keep production going. Unfortunately, even that isn't enough. There's some vehicles that survive only on used parts because no one is making new ones. Why should Rifle Cannons be different?

If Rifles aren't effective in combat, by 2500 there should be so many surplus Rifles that the market would be flooded.  At that point, production is going to stop as it's not worth the time and expense for the company to make one when a customer can buy a used one for far less. After a while, a couple manufactures might stay around to refurbish Rifles and make replacement parts but they're not going to make whole Rifles. By then the availability should have dropped greatly.

By the time we get past the SL Civil War and 1st Succession War, Rifles should largely be a memory and alternatives are being used. You can set up an autocannon to fire a single shot for ceremonial and other uses. Just don't fully load the thing. Instead of "10 rounds in the clip" only put in 1. And if a RC can be disguised as an AC, why can't an AC be disguised as a RC?

Once we get to the Jihad, any factory having anything to do with RCs should be very far and few between. Which leaves only very expensive fabrication for a long forgotten weapon.

Now if Rifles are still usable in combat, the above still happens but not nearly to the degree it does if Rifles are useless. You're still going to have the rare factory making them as there would still be a demand for them.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 07 July 2021, 15:45:08
I think I said it was a good idea.  :thumbsup:

Well, it was directed at Monbvol, not at anything else you were saying.

That's just it. There needs to be enough purchasers to keep production going. Unfortunately, even that isn't enough. There's some vehicles that survive only on used parts because no one is making new ones. Why should Rifle Cannons be different?

If Rifles aren't effective in combat, by 2500 there should be so many surplus Rifles that the market would be flooded.  At that point, production is going to stop as it's not worth the time and expense for the company to make one when a customer can buy a used one for far less. After a while, a couple manufactures might stay around to refurbish Rifles and make replacement parts but they're not going to make whole Rifles. By then the availability should have dropped greatly.

By the time we get past the SL Civil War and 1st Succession War, Rifles should largely be a memory and alternatives are being used. You can set up an autocannon to fire a single shot for ceremonial and other uses. Just don't fully load the thing. Instead of "10 rounds in the clip" only put in 1. And if a RC can be disguised as an AC, why can't an AC be disguised as a RC?

Once we get to the Jihad, any factory having anything to do with RCs should be very far and few between. Which leaves only very expensive fabrication for a long forgotten weapon.

Now if Rifles are still usable in combat, the above still happens but not nearly to the degree it does if Rifles are useless. You're still going to have the rare factory making them as there would still be a demand for them.

The thing is, Rifles ARE usable in combat, just not AS useful in combat as Autocannons.  They even have some niche uses, such as cheaply equipping a defense force.  A lot depends on what you expect to face and can build.

If you're in the outer Periphery and you your Jumpship traffic is measured in years, and that's all your people have managed to build on their own, a Rifle is better than no heavy weapon at all.

If anything, the case of the Rifles could be made for every Autocannon below the AC/20.  Pick one of them, and one can usually find an energy weapon that can do the same job for a lower weight value and not have to worry about an ammo bomb.  Or alternatively a missile system can provide other benefits beyond what those autocannons can generally do.

Yet, they survived because there was a perceived value by someone somewhere.  So, too, the Rifles, though the case usually is looking farther out to a lower tech base with minimal indirect Spheroid traffic.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 07 July 2021, 15:49:06
edit edit: Okay y'all. I'm going to reopen the thread. We had a short succession of reports and I conflated it with another thread that was generating a lot of complaints. Apologies for that; sometimes the moderation just swirls together like a mucky storm drain.

Hats off for that!
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daemion on 07 July 2021, 16:02:23
It's sad that some of the topics I want to comment on are now were locked.  That's what happens when I'm away from the keyboard for days at a time.

Don't mind me while I play catch-up.  I have some initial thoughts from the first three pages.

Long before Rifled Cannons, I'd always considered ye' olde tank platoon or company should be able to group up and time their shots like an infantry platoon, allowing them to do AC-like damage.  It's far more inefficient, but should be possible, even on the table-top.  (Aside: Imagine my surprise when I saw the Rifled Cannons and the mere, flat, -3 modifier.  It made the BAR system a mess, and I decided to give up on that optional aspect to the game.)

Remember that ACs fire multiple rounds in quick succession, and whether through built-in electronics or super recoil compensation, or both, manage a tight impact grouping.  Anything that doesn't strike right is essentially a miss, or fails to do damage that can be tracked by marking off armor and structure dots on a piece of paper.

What had prompted this line of thought, the earliest of which was just turn of the millennium?  Reading the original House Steiner Source Book where a company of prototype Elsie BattleMechs curb-stomped a Mary invasion.  Whole brigades.  From that, I got the impression that a lot of the armor units involved were probably not that far afield from what's fielded in our 20th century.  Single shot main cannon with maybe some anti-infantry support weapons on the side.  The blurb had even suggested that only space assets were equipped with lasers and other energy weapons on the Marik side.  Now, I personally imagined that some of the Mechs did take damage.  To make it a complete victory, it had to've been gradual, over time.  Part of that would be armor platoons and companies noting the AC and trying to emulate it.

Now, don't get me wrong:  I'm with a lot of people who suggest that Infantry should have limited options for engaging armored targets.  Support weapons or dedicated heavy weapon positions.  Recall that I referenced the Autocannon's grouped shots and not that of infantry, even though such armor platoons would be emulating infantry mass fire as the current trend is to imagine it.

So, while whomever it was that tried to slip in their personal ideal into the rule-set with Rifled Cannons had an interesting idea, the basis for their logic is off.  ACs do grouped-fire as part of their very nature, and they do damage.  Using infantry as the basis for the nerf isn't applicable.



Besides, that brings me to another point.  Rifled Cannons that were presented are not what we interpret them to be.  Some people have pointed out the size of the LRC's base ammo weight, as well as that of artillery munitions.  These guns are not analogues to 20th century cannons, but futuristic upgrades. 

As such, their performance should outclass such antiquated guns.  So, I'm in agreement that the amount of damage they can do shouldn't be so light.  For one, it's not the cannon that's causing the damage!  It's the round the cannon is projecting.  (A*)  All a main gun on a tank happens to be is an artillery tube.  One of the big assets that a one-shot cannon has going for it is the capacity to change out what it's firing with each reload.  It's not beholden to a cassette.  Granted, the number of different rounds it has available limits options, but each 'shot' doesn't have to be one particular type.   A handful of rounds could be dedicated to canister shot to handle infantry, for example.  A couple Hi-Ex for demolition.  And the rest dedicated to armor defeating rounds. 

So, the performance of the gun, including its damage, should be ammo-based.  If the goal was to showcase how poorly APFSDS rounds are against modern armor, then that should be an ammo trait, not the nature of the gun in general.



A* - Let's face it.  APFSDS penetrator rods are not enough to do anywhere near a full point of damage in BattleTech.  A tank firing one of those at a BattleMech would be like firing at a person with a nail.  And, not a big one, either.  And, it would have similar effect.  It might knick a vein and cause extensive bleeding.  It could hit a nerve and cause some issues with the location taking and sending signals to the brain.  It'll most likely hurt.  But, it'll get caught in all that muscle.  The Mech can get back into motion once the affected bundles are out of the motion loop.

Much like the human body, Mechs have been depicted as far back as 2nd ed as having loads of muscle tightly packed in the limbs and the body.  The components in the torsos are also densely packed and most likely hardened for the rigors of combat.  That is a far cry from a 20th century MBT, which is a giant armored kettle with a lot of open space inside.  The goal of the armor-penetrating rod is to move the wall material of sed kettle so that it turns into buck-shot and bounces around inside, doing all kinds of damage to sensitive squishy things, including electronics and the moving parts of machinery.  The shot doesn't get very far if it's intercepted by something early.

(Aside: I'm surprised that tanks aren't more compartmentalized 400 years into the future, or crew outfitted with much better wear to protect them from such stuff.  I could see a spaced layer of Kevlar lining doing something, along with improved Air Conditioning, maybe through coolant suits.)



With that notion in mind - that Rifled Cannons are not analogues to 20th century main guns - There should be no reason to reduce damage at all if you happen to assume that the round fired is capable of such damage.  In fact, one of the things that should give this gun versatility is the capacity to have different ammo types mixed into the same hopper, amounts specified, and be able to choose which to use at the time of weapon declaration.



Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 07 July 2021, 16:18:47
Can RCs rapid fire?

Nope. Just Autocannons. Not all autocannons either. TacOps says, only standard, light autocannon. I'm also going to presume improved and protomech autocannons can also rapid fire but I haven't double checked to see if there's errata or not. But since they use the same standard and alternative rounds, I don't know why not. I'll let someone else check if they want to.


The eras in where RC vanished from the front-lines as the AC came into prominence. So completely not relevant for the Jihad era that I was addressing.

That's exactly the point. If RCs are useless, they're going to go essentially extinct during the Age of War. Not after the First Succession War. And if RCs are useless, who's going to revive a weapon that's been extinct for close to 400 years?


Quote
Rifle Cannons do not last forever, so as long as they see some use they would need some production.

They'd need refurbishment and eventually fabrication as there wouldn't be enough demand to keep RC parts in production.

Quote
And none of them were worth a single line of stats in IO. That is how bad they got trashed.

That is a false assumption. A lot of items weren't included in IO. That doesn't mean that they were trash. For pre-age of war weaponry, it means that TPTB don't care to give details on that era. We can make vehicles from that era because of how Support Vehicles have various tech levels. We have ICBMs from that era because TPTB thought it'd be cool to give them to a Periphery Planet. We have RCs because someone thought it'd be cool to put an older cannon on an armed industrialmech. (It is a cool idea.) Until TPTB decide to play around with that old tech, we're not going to see them. That doesn't mean they're going to be trash. Should TPTB make them trash, they'll be facing the same questions as now. Why are these weapons trash, when other pre-spaceflight weapons aren't?  And again, from canon we can get an indication of their capabilities. Which isn't trash.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daemion on 07 July 2021, 16:20:31
And, while I'm at it, RE - APFSDS rods, let's take a quick moment to quantify what a point of damage is like.

I point you to the Wasp.  Or Stinger.  Or Locust.  Once the armor is out of the picture, it only has four internal points of structure on one arm.  An AC-5 hit will demolish that arm.  Note: I imagine most AC/5s to fire a lot like the GAU-8 on the A-10 Warthog, which has proven to be an effective anti-tank gun in its own right.

What does that entail, though?  Is it wrecking the entire arm?  Is it merely hitting with enough damage that signal relays are destroyed enough that the arm can't merely function anymore?  Regardless of the route you choose to imagine, the Wasp and Stinger arms have a lot of volume.  Whether you use the Macross minis or vintage Ral Partha sculpts, or imagine something in between, that's still a lot of arm to deal with. 

Some of that could be open air-space, adding to the notion that damage points might be more about removing functionality compared to full-on wrecking materials.  But, I would counter that a light building can range anywhere from 1 to 15 damage points, can take up much more space, and can equally be demolished by one, two, or three AC/5 bursts, depending on the building. ;)

Regardless of the vision, can you really imagine a small nail of a dart wiping out all four structure points?  I hope not.  Now, a self-propelled Squash-head full of high explosives and a futuristic penetrator element could probably do it.  :thumbsup:

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 07 July 2021, 16:36:10
Well, it was directed at Monbvol, not at anything else you were saying.

No worries.


Quote
The thing is, Rifles ARE usable in combat, just not AS useful in combat as Autocannons.  They even have some niche uses, such as cheaply equipping a defense force.  A lot depends on what you expect to face and can build.

If you're in the outer Periphery and you your Jumpship traffic is measured in years, and that's all your people have managed to build on their own, a Rifle is better than no heavy weapon at all.

That is true. Providing RCs actually do damage. I'm okay with reduced damage as long as they all do some damage. If the damage were reduced by range, I'd be okay with that too. But the 0 damage for the LRC breaks my suspension of disbelief. You're not going to build a 3 ton weapon that doesn't do any damage. You're going to build weapons that do. Right now, a platoon armed with Auto-rifles does almost twice as much damage as a HRC without the -3. So I ignore the -3 and all it does it let the poor Periphery folk do some more damage.


Quote
If anything, the case of the Rifles could be made for every Autocannon below the AC/20.  Pick one of them, and one can usually find an energy weapon that can do the same job for a lower weight value and not have to worry about an ammo bomb.  Or alternatively a missile system can provide other benefits beyond what those autocannons can generally do.

Don't know where you're going here.


Quote
Yet, they survived because there was a perceived value by someone somewhere.  So, too, the Rifles, though the case usually is looking farther out to a lower tech base with minimal indirect Spheroid traffic.

LAMs survive too. That doesn't mean there's anyone producing them. I want RCs to survive but they need to be more useful than just a show piece. If they do damage, then they're worth the effort to produce for the defenders. If they don't, the defenders will produce weapons that will.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 07 July 2021, 16:43:54
If Rifles aren't effective in combat, by 2500 there should be so many surplus Rifles that the market would be flooded.
Not really, RC simply are not worth shipping back to logistical hubs at those times when cargo capacity is expensive, they will be left behind to either rust away or be recycled into rebar.


That's exactly the point. If RCs are useless, they're going to go essentially extinct during the Age of War. Not after the First Succession War. And if RCs are useless, who's going to revive a weapon that's been extinct for close to 400 years?
The availability dates do not make a distinction between civilian or military use. Even today blacksmiths still fabricate weapons that are worthless to the military for civilian use.


Quote
That is a false assumption. A lot of items weren't included in IO. That doesn't mean that they were trash. For pre-age of war weaponry, it means that TPTB don't care to give details on that era. We can make vehicles from that era because of how Support Vehicles have various tech levels. We have ICBMs from that era because TPTB thought it'd be cool to give them to a Periphery Planet. We have RCs because someone thought it'd be cool to put an older cannon on an armed industrialmech. (It is a cool idea.) Until TPTB decide to play around with that old tech, we're not going to see them. That doesn't mean they're going to be trash. Should TPTB make them trash, they'll be facing the same questions as now. Why are these weapons trash, when other pre-spaceflight weapons aren't?  And again, from canon we can get an indication of their capabilities. Which isn't trash.
Finding/making reasons why most ancient technology is trash is easy. That they are trash is even important in a narrative sense as this scifi universe needs significant technological progress.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 07 July 2021, 16:54:22
Long before Rifled Cannons, I'd always considered ye' olde tank platoon or company should be able to group up and time their shots like an infantry platoon, allowing them to do AC-like damage.  It's far more inefficient, but should be possible, even on the table-top.  (Aside: Imagine my surprise when I saw the Rifled Cannons and the mere, flat, -3 modifier.  It made the BAR system a mess, and I decided to give up on that optional aspect to the game.)

There is the careful aim rule. That should help with this.

Quote

With that notion in mind - that Rifled Cannons are not analogues to 20th century main guns - There should be no reason to reduce damage at all if you happen to assume that the round fired is capable of such damage.  In fact, one of the things that should give this gun versatility is the capacity to have different ammo types mixed into the same hopper, amounts specified, and be able to choose which to use at the time of weapon declaration.


I agree that that there isn't a reason to reduce the rounds damage.  The larger round and increased powder compensates for the "stream" of rounds autocannons fire.

I disagree that these aren't pre-spaceflight weapons. Individual makes aren't going to be but they're still built using pre-spaceflight technology. Otherwise, why label them as pre-spaceflight?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 07 July 2021, 17:10:44
Not really, RC simply are not worth shipping back to logistical hubs at those times when cargo capacity is expensive, they will be left behind to either rust away or be recycled into rebar.

The availability dates do not make a distinction between civilian or military use. Even today blacksmiths still fabricate weapons that are worthless to the military for civilian use.

Finding/making reasons why most ancient technology is trash is easy. That they are trash is even important in a narrative sense as this scifi universe needs significant technological progress.

If they're that worthless, why keep them in production?

How many civilian items are on IOs availability chart?

Significant progress? You're really going with the universe needs significant progress for why ancient weapons should be trash? The standard AC/5 has been around since 2250. That's 900 years. Since then there's been UAC, LBX, Rotary, In IS and Clan versions.) LACs, PAC, and IACs. New ammo types have also come out. Yet the same old AC/5 round does 5 points of damage.

Now by 2250 Rifle Cannons have been around for 350 years? That's a third of the time ACs have been in existence. And Machine Guns and Artillery have been around for about as long. So why, out of not just pre-spaceflight weapons but all vehicle weapons are Rifle Cannons the only weapons to get a -3 damage reduction to standard BAR10 armor?



Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 07 July 2021, 17:20:03
If they're that worthless, why keep them in production?
Good enough for civilian usage.

Quote
How many civilian items are on IOs availability chart?
Depending on the state, nearly everything could be available to civilians.

Quote
Significant progress? You're really going with the universe needs significant progress for why ancient weapons should be trash? The standard AC/5 has been around since 2250. That's 900 years. Since then there's been UAC, LBX, Rotary, In IS and Clan versions.) LACs, PAC, and IACs. New ammo types have also come out. Yet the same old AC/5 round does 5 points of damage.
Yep a lot of progress with the AC/5 slowly going away from the front-lines as better weapons become available for use.

Quote
So why, out of not just pre-spaceflight weapons but all vehicle weapons are Rifle Cannons the only weapons to get a -3 damage reduction to standard BAR10 armor?
Because they do not damage in a way that kept them viable. But in a sense they got lucky, the other trash weapons are missing, and TPTB have been quite generous with the RC stats.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 07 July 2021, 17:38:40
The problem is they also gave us the "trash" Vintage Auto-Rifle, and that does 0.17 points of damage to BAR 10 armor, not ZERO.  A mere three of those weapons will get you to one point at the TW scale.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 07 July 2021, 17:46:36
The problem is they also gave us the "trash" Vintage Auto-Rifle, and that does 0.17 points of damage to BAR 10 armor, not ZERO.  A mere three of those weapons will get you to one point at the TW scale.
Two points:
1. An auto-rifle is very different to a rifle-cannon it is likely closer to operation of a machine gun (although a 'Mech MG is likely of the double digit caliber range).
2. The dreaded Capellan noble platoon (with Carbon-fiber Reinforced Fingernails) principle of combining negligible damage. It is likely one of those things that is not long for this world. It is likely a worse issue then 0 damage events.

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 07 July 2021, 18:00:44
If it's not long for this world, quite a few canon units (listed in the MUL) are not long for the world.  That's why I don't think it's likely that concept will die.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 07 July 2021, 18:05:39
If it's not long for this world, quite a few canon units (listed in the MUL) are not long for the world.  That's why I don't think it's likely that concept will die.
Not a problem, it just means that many would become more specialized or fall under a more general canon unit.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 07 July 2021, 18:19:50
My main fear is BT turning into 40K.  I gave up on that game after Rogue Trader when I saw the writing on the wall.  40K editions later, they're still pushing the same line: buy these minis... NOW, buy THESE minis!  ::)
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 07 July 2021, 19:09:22
I point you to the Wasp.  Or Stinger.  Or Locust.  Once the armor is out of the picture, it only has four internal points of structure on one arm.  An AC-5 hit will demolish that arm.  Note: I imagine most AC/5s to fire a lot like the GAU-8 on the A-10 Warthog, which has proven to be an effective anti-tank gun in its own right.

Eh, I think if you tried to do a full translation, it would be closer to a UAC-2 that somehow carried AP rounds and takes huge advantage of the fact that even with all our advances, top armor isn't that extensive.

Still if the the full attack hits those 20 tonners' arms. that structure is just as gone.

That is true. Providing RCs actually do damage. I'm okay with reduced damage as long as they all do some damage. If the damage were reduced by range, I'd be okay with that too. But the 0 damage for the LRC breaks my suspension of disbelief. You're not going to build a 3 ton weapon that doesn't do any damage. You're going to build weapons that do. Right now, a platoon armed with Auto-rifles does almost twice as much damage as a HRC without the -3. So I ignore the -3 and all it does it let the poor Periphery folk do some more damage.

The thing is, damage to what?  If what you're looking at doesn't regularly carry BAR8+ armor, like a dinosaur or a neighboring city-state that is also stuck in Age of War tech so can't produce that strong armor, either.  It's also still effective against Infantry and Buildings at present, so a lot depends on what your targets are.

And that even assumes that what manufacturing left is even seriously meant to be used for any level of combat instead of just re-enactments, collection, or vermin hunting.

LAMs survive too. That doesn't mean there's anyone producing them. I want RCs to survive but they need to be more useful than just a show piece. If they do damage, then they're worth the effort to produce for the defenders. If they don't, the defenders will produce weapons that will.

There is a HUGE difference between an overly complex weapons platform that requires multi-system training (i.e. ASF and Mech piloting both) and a bog-simple ballistics weapon.

And the Rifles do damage even as they are.  They just need to be more selective about their targets than most.  That isn't saying they couldn't do better, which everyone here seems to be in agreement on.

Not really, RC simply are not worth shipping back to logistical hubs at those times when cargo capacity is expensive, they will be left behind to either rust away or be recycled into rebar.

Or sold off to places where they want something, but can't afford the latest and greatest.  The same Mauser rifle was basically built for the German army in WW1 and WW2 were still sold to numerous other places for quite some time such that it was used by Afghanis against both the Soviets and the US.

Finding/making reasons why most ancient technology is trash is easy. That they are trash is even important in a narrative sense as this scifi universe needs significant technological progress.

Very true.  The odd part is, I expect that it would be demonstrated by lower capacities in general instead of units generally having a resistance to them.  I have no reason to expect the Rifle Cannon to be the baseline and the "modern" weaponry of the Star League (to say nothing of what's available in the ilClan era) to be considered the the expansion on that frame.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Cannonshop on 07 July 2021, 22:32:28
Eh, I think if you tried to do a full translation, it would be closer to a UAC-2 that somehow carried AP rounds and takes huge advantage of the fact that even with all our advances, top armor isn't that extensive.

Still if the the full attack hits those 20 tonners' arms. that structure is just as gone.

The thing is, damage to what?  If what you're looking at doesn't regularly carry BAR8+ armor, like a dinosaur or a neighboring city-state that is also stuck in Age of War tech so can't produce that strong armor, either.  It's also still effective against Infantry and Buildings at present, so a lot depends on what your targets are.

And that even assumes that what manufacturing left is even seriously meant to be used for any level of combat instead of just re-enactments, collection, or vermin hunting.

There is a HUGE difference between an overly complex weapons platform that requires multi-system training (i.e. ASF and Mech piloting both) and a bog-simple ballistics weapon.

And the Rifles do damage even as they are.  They just need to be more selective about their targets than most.  That isn't saying they couldn't do better, which everyone here seems to be in agreement on.

Or sold off to places where they want something, but can't afford the latest and greatest.  The same Mauser rifle was basically built for the German army in WW1 and WW2 were still sold to numerous other places for quite some time such that it was used by Afghanis against both the Soviets and the US.

Very true.  The odd part is, I expect that it would be demonstrated by lower capacities in general instead of units generally having a resistance to them.  I have no reason to expect the Rifle Cannon to be the baseline and the "modern" weaponry of the Star League (to say nothing of what's available in the ilClan era) to be considered the the expansion on that frame.

Point of order?  That Mauser rifle you're using for an example?  It's still quite effective at killing the thing it was designed to kill-just more slowly and with less wasted ammunition.  (believe me, a hit from a 7.92 going 2700 fps is just as lethal (or even more lethal than) a 5.56 mm going 3000 fps, and it will retain that kinetic energy further from the point of firing.)

so it's not a good example.  A much BETTER example would be comparing a 12 pounder Napoleon to a 30mm GAU-8.

guess which one's going to work against a tank or light armored vehicle?  *Hint: not the Napoleon.

Suggests that the correct correction would be to retcon the production dates.  Nobody's casting bronze smoothbore cannons anymore, and that's the equivalent value shown by the stats.  iirc the only muzzle-loading weapon in current 21st century use by militaries is the humble infantry mortar for a reason.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 08 July 2021, 00:12:55
Point of order?  That Mauser rifle you're using for an example?  It's still quite effective at killing the thing it was designed to kill-just more slowly and with less wasted ammunition.  (believe me, a hit from a 7.92 going 2700 fps is just as lethal (or even more lethal than) a 5.56 mm going 3000 fps, and it will retain that kinetic energy further from the point of firing.)

Not so effective against kevlar and not so effective when someone can keep you pinned down with burst fire from a modern rifle.  That energy you're talking about is assuming an unarmored target, which the Rifle Cannons do just fine against.  Heck, the Garand's ability to fire quickly was one of the reasons why American infantry did so well (that and a high proportion of soldiers with a history of squirrel hunting).

so it's not a good example.  A much BETTER example would be comparing a 12 pounder Napoleon to a 30mm GAU-8.

Not really?  I would place it closer to the gun mounted on most of the Shermans than an old Napoleon.

guess which one's going to work against a tank or light armored vehicle?  *Hint: not the Napoleon.

Neither would the Sherman's, really.  It had a hard enough time with the Germans' tank armor.  Compare to a modern Leopard or Abrams, and it's laughable.

Suggests that the correct correction would be to retcon the production dates.  Nobody's casting bronze smoothbore cannons anymore, and that's the equivalent value shown by the stats.  iirc the only muzzle-loading weapon in current 21st century use by militaries is the humble infantry mortar for a reason.

Again, I disagree.  I'd place it more in the early-WW2 era level of capability before Germans had to figure out how to deal with Russian armor.

And yes, there are people casting bronze smoothbores, but as mentioned above, it is a very niche market pretty much limited to re-enacting and historical research level of engagement more than any serious level of intent for them to be produced for combat.  Which is what was being suggested.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 08 July 2021, 03:28:55
Kevlar alone is not enough against 7.62.  You need the heavy plates for that.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 08 July 2021, 04:34:50
Good enough for civilian usage.
Depending on the state, nearly everything could be available to civilians.
Yep a lot of progress with the AC/5 slowly going away from the front-lines as better weapons become available for use.
Because they do not damage in a way that kept them viable. But in a sense they got lucky, the other trash weapons are missing, and TPTB have been quite generous with the RC stats.

Common at the end of the Age of War. They wouldn't be later.
That doesn't answer the question. Sure the RC's may be legal to buy. By the SL era RCs not going to be found in the clearance section of that planet's version of Walmart. They'd of been sold out long ago. Getting it repaired in a couple centuries would be even harder.
That they are trash weapons is your opinion. It is one I do not share. They're not the best weapons but they're not trash.


Two points:
1. An auto-rifle is very different to a rifle-cannon it is likely closer to operation of a machine gun (although a 'Mech MG is likely of the double digit caliber range).
2. The dreaded Capellan noble platoon (with Carbon-fiber Reinforced Fingernails) principle of combining negligible damage. It is likely one of those things that is not long for this world. It is likely a worse issue then 0 damage events.


I believe that older weapons are seriously being under estimated.

Gatling Gun .30 cal version
Cartridge .30-06 Springfield round
Rate of fire 400-900 rounds per minute in .30 caliber
Muzzle velocity   2,800 ft/s (850 m/s)

M1919 Browning  .30 cal machine gun
Cartridge .30-06 Springfield round
Rate of fire 400–600 round/min
Muzzle velocity   2,800 ft/s (850 m/s)

In terms of performance, what's the difference? I can't see one. They're firing the same rounds with about the same rate of fire. So why does the Gatling Gun do a (2B/3B = .17) damage compared to
Machine Gun (Portable) (5B/4B=0.65) damage. Even the Light Machine Gun does (5B/3B=.49) damage. And I wouldn't call the M1919 machine gun vintage since there's older single barrel machine guns. Even the vintage machine guns, and other weapons shouldn't be as bad as they are. The damage based on the ammo since many were chambered to fire the same ammo.

Yes, I know that the rate of fire for the Gatling Gun changed along with the ammo but so did the number of barrels and caliber size. I think .58 caliber round is still going to do a good amount of damage even if fewer of them are hitting.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 08 July 2021, 05:35:43
My main fear is BT turning into 40K.  I gave up on that game after Rogue Trader when I saw the writing on the wall.  40K editions later, they're still pushing the same line: buy these minis... NOW, buy THESE minis!  ::)

That's been my fear for a while now too.  :(


The thing is, damage to what?  If what you're looking at doesn't regularly carry BAR8+ armor, like a dinosaur or a neighboring city-state that is also stuck in Age of War tech so can't produce that strong armor, either.  It's also still effective against Infantry and Buildings at present, so a lot depends on what your targets are.

And that even assumes that what manufacturing left is even seriously meant to be used for any level of combat instead of just re-enactments, collection, or vermin hunting.

I have agreed that there are other targets and uses for the Rifle Cannon.  What I'm not agreeing with are RC's availability after 2500. Sure, there might be some far flung factory still willing to take special orders. But if you don't know about it, how do you go about ordering parts and new RCs from them? Other weapons are going to be used. The Cattlemaster doesn't use RCs to kill big critters. It uses small lasers and machine guns. Even the militarized version doesn't use RCs. It uses a LRM-5. Even the
Quasit MilitiaMech doesn't use RCs. The only place in canon, so far to use a RC is the planet making the Arbiter during the Jihad. So either RC completely disappeared from the battlefield, or we're missing a lot of historical units. And even then I can't see the LRC being used on the battlefield of better weapons can be obtained.




Quote
There is a HUGE difference between an overly complex weapons platform that requires multi-system training (i.e. ASF and Mech piloting both) and a bog-simple ballistics weapon.

And the Rifles do damage even as they are.  They just need to be more selective about their targets than most.  That isn't saying they couldn't do better, which everyone here seems to be in agreement on.

The point remains. If a unit that is still effective in it's roll isn't in production, even though it costs far less than it's modern counterparts, why would a weapon still be made?

I don't think anyone's going to spend 38,855 cbills per LRC and ton of ammo, on the chance that the attacking Pirate Mechs just might have Commercial BAR5 armor or that any vehicles have BAR7 armor or less. No. You buy and manufacture weapons that are going to do some damage. Even if minimal. Fabrication at 10x, for a 0 damage weapon is even less likely.

Now if the RC did 1 point of damage, I could see them plinking and running. 2 points at short range, 1 at medium. I can see that happening more believably. "It'd be the don't fire until you see the glow of their cockpit panels", type of thing. 0 damage even at short range? Nope. Not buying it.

And again, I can also see Rifles being used, even the Light with 0 damage, if they had special ammo and abilities. Such as being able to lob a shell over a hill and effect all the units in that hex. Sure Mech Mortars are cheaper, have longer range, and more ammo but they can be used by infantry. Legally.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 08 July 2021, 05:58:58
Suggests that the correct correction would be to retcon the production dates.  Nobody's casting bronze smoothbore cannons anymore, and that's the equivalent value shown by the stats.  iirc the only muzzle-loading weapon in current 21st century use by militaries is the humble infantry mortar for a reason.

That reminds me of earlier versions of TacOps. The introduction date for Mech Mortars was Pre-Spaceflight.


Again, I disagree.  I'd place it more in the early-WW2 era level of capability before Germans had to figure out how to deal with Russian armor.

And yes, there are people casting bronze smoothbores, but as mentioned above, it is a very niche market pretty much limited to re-enacting and historical research level of engagement more than any serious level of intent for them to be produced for combat.  Which is what was being suggested.

The more I think about it, I'm thinking of having Rifles be the pre-spaceflight versions of Artillery Cannons and using Tank Cannons as "Rifle Cannons". It'd explain why so few and so heavy rounds of ammo and why they're still available. I'll have to think about it some more. 
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 08 July 2021, 10:57:59
Common at the end of the Age of War. They wouldn't be later.
That doesn't answer the question. Sure the RC's may be legal to buy. By the SL era RCs not going to be found in the clearance section of that planet's version of Walmart. They'd of been sold out long ago. Getting it repaired in a couple centuries would be even harder.
Like I said before they are simple enough that they can be made to order by local metal workshops, true mass production of the RC would quickly go the way of the Dodo after a faction gets ACs.



Quote
I believe that older weapons are seriously being under estimated.

Gatling Gun .30 cal version
Cartridge .30-06 Springfield round
Rate of fire 400-900 rounds per minute in .30 caliber
Muzzle velocity   2,800 ft/s (850 m/s)

M1919 Browning  .30 cal machine gun
Cartridge .30-06 Springfield round
Rate of fire 400–600 round/min
Muzzle velocity   2,800 ft/s (850 m/s)

In terms of performance, what's the difference? I can't see one. They're firing the same rounds with about the same rate of fire. So why does the Gatling Gun do a (2B/3B = .17) damage compared to
Machine Gun (Portable) (5B/4B=0.65) damage. Even the Light Machine Gun does (5B/3B=.49) damage. And I wouldn't call the M1919 machine gun vintage since there's older single barrel machine guns. Even the vintage machine guns, and other weapons shouldn't be as bad as they are. The damage based on the ammo since many were chambered to fire the same ammo.

Yes, I know that the rate of fire for the Gatling Gun changed along with the ammo but so did the number of barrels and caliber size. I think .58 caliber round is still going to do a good amount of damage even if fewer of them are hitting.
I think I see some of the underlying issue of time and scale, both of which are a lot broader then most might think.

Now time, even current day infantry weapons are easily vintage (so both your examples fall under the same category) and even the current day tank cannons are little more than MRCs. The generic hand weapons and HRCs are still things that have yet to come.

Secondly scale, when we think of current day machine guns most people think .30cal or .50cal, however 'Mech-scale machine guns include 20mm Gatling Guns or 30mm Mini-Guns. And as future versions can easily be assumed that they fire at higher rates then current weapons.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 08 July 2021, 13:14:19
I have agreed that there are other targets and uses for the Rifle Cannon.  What I'm not agreeing with are RC's availability after 2500. Sure, there might be some far flung factory still willing to take special orders. But if you don't know about it, how do you go about ordering parts and new RCs from them? Other weapons are going to be used. The Cattlemaster doesn't use RCs to kill big critters. It uses small lasers and machine guns. Even the militarized version doesn't use RCs. It uses a LRM-5. Even the Quasit MilitiaMech doesn't use RCs. The only place in canon, so far to use a RC is the planet making the Arbiter during the Jihad. So either RC completely disappeared from the battlefield, or we're missing a lot of historical units. And even then I can't see the LRC being used on the battlefield of better weapons can be obtained.

Which does very little to counter the basic concept that these weapons' production for a long time was NOT military in purpose.  However, it is valid to note that they would be used for such a purpose as case may be needed.

On the other hand, it should also be noted that the Rifle is a bit retconned, so it's history is going to be wonky unless we really want to get busy doing some serious retconning.  Like the Cattlemaster being provided in our world (in concept) before the Rifle Cannons were introduced for the Jihad.

The point remains. If a unit that is still effective in it's roll isn't in production, even though it costs far less than it's modern counterparts, why would a weapon still be made?

Um... what?  If you're asking why it wouldn't be made, all I can say is that I'd rather have a Springfield 1903 when hunting than a Brown Bess.  If autocannons are readily available and cheap enough, then I'd choose the autocannon (of course, I'd say that for lasers and PPCs over an autocannon in a Mech, too).

However, if I re-enacted 18th century conflicts as a red coat, I'd be wanting a Brown Bess.  And if I was called to fight, for whatever reason, and all I had was the Brown Bess because I was a re-enactor, I'd be grabbing the Bess.

I don't think anyone's going to spend 38,855 cbills per LRC and ton of ammo, on the chance that the attacking Pirate Mechs just might have Commercial BAR5 armor or that any vehicles have BAR7 armor or less. No. You buy and manufacture weapons that are going to do some damage. Even if minimal. Fabrication at 10x, for a 0 damage weapon is even less likely.

And that is not what I said earlier. If your most common target is not a Spheroid Pirate Urbanmech, but something much softer, then you take what you can get.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 08 July 2021, 15:35:08
Like I said before they are simple enough that they can be made to order by local metal workshops, true mass production of the RC would quickly go the way of the Dodo after a faction gets ACs.

I think RCs would be a bit harder to make than a muzzle loaded cannon. I do agree that mass production of the RC would quickly cease after ACs start becoming common. Definitely after BAR8 armor is common.


Quote
I think I see some of the underlying issue of time and scale, both of which are a lot broader then most might think.

Now time, even current day infantry weapons are easily vintage (so both your examples fall under the same category) and even the current day tank cannons are little more than MRCs. The generic hand weapons and HRCs are still things that have yet to come.

Vintage doesn't always equal poor damage. It could mean that it's heavier, or requires greater crew, or has a slower rate of fire. The 3-inch ordnance rifle has a muzzle velocity just better than that of a 8.8cm cannon from a Tiger II Tank. What makes the 3-inch ordnance rifle obsolete compared to the 8.8cm is the rate of fire and low range. Not the damage. It's going to hurt what it hits. It just has to live that long.

And currant day tank cannons are HRCs. If they're yet to come they'd be TechC 21st century or later weapons, so why reduce the damage? Currant infantry machine guns are also pre-spaceflight, or at least made with pre-spaceflight technology.


Quote
Secondly scale, when we think of current day machine guns most people think .30cal or .50cal, however 'Mech-scale machine guns include 20mm Gatling Guns or 30mm Mini-Guns. And as future versions can easily be assumed that they fire at higher rates then current weapons.


That is true. BT vehicle scale machine guns are more like todays autocannons. I wouldn't assume that the rates of fire are higher rates or that early versions are inferior. They are at least made with pre-spaceflight technology after all. You'll also note that the IS MGs are TechB and are introduced pre-spaceflight. Clan MGs are TechC and are introduced in 2825. Their performance is the same. Same range. Same damage. Same ammo amount. The difference? The Clan version weight's half as much. That's it. Why should other machine guns be different? 


Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 08 July 2021, 16:00:11
I think RCs would be a bit harder to make than a muzzle loaded cannon.
The workshops would also be better in the future.

Quote
Vintage doesn't always equal poor damage. It could mean that it's heavier, or requires greater crew, or has a slower rate of fire. The 3-inch ordnance rifle has a muzzle velocity just better than that of a 8.8cm cannon from a Tiger II Tank. What makes the 3-inch ordnance rifle obsolete compared to the 8.8cm is the rate of fire and low range.
That is not correct in the slightest, the 3-inch loses at every metric.
Shell weight: 4.3 kg  vs  7.3 kg
Muzzle velocity: 370 m/s  vs  1130 m/s

Quote
And currant day tank cannons are HRCs. If they're yet to come they'd be TechC 21st century or later weapons, so why reduce the damage?
An HRC made in lets say 2310 also isn't automatically tech C, so manufacturing date isn't an argument.

Quote
That is true. BT vehicle scale machine guns are more like todays autocannons.
Exactly, which is why it is quite acceptable for them to do reasonable damage to ablative armor. Their hits are hard enough to start taking small bits off and they hit enough times in an area for the sum of the hits to do just noticeable (2) damage.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 08 July 2021, 16:59:29
Which does very little to counter the basic concept that these weapons' production for a long time was NOT military in purpose.  However, it is valid to note that they would be used for such a purpose as case may be needed.

That presumes that they are in production. Even if there is a demand, that demand doesn't guarantee production. Nobody is producing parts for the Isetta even though there's a demand among collectors and enthusiasts. If you can't buy or steal a part from someone you have to fabricate it. There's not a lot of places that that are willing to do that. There are shops that won't even work on older cars. If I have a hard time finding a shop to do basic work on a 20 year old car, its going to be even harder to find a shop to fabricate parts for it.  So no, I don't think RCs would even be in limited production. They'd be special order from a few places still able to make them, or willing to fabricate them. So you might be able to get one from Planet X but if you don't know about Planet X, that old no longer working RC is either just a decoration or only functions using Hollywood magic.




Quote
On the other hand, it should also be noted that the Rifle is a bit retconned, so it's history is going to be wonky unless we really want to get busy doing some serious retconning.  Like the Cattlemaster being provided in our world (in concept) before the Rifle Cannons were introduced for the Jihad.

You mean Rifle Cannons are a retcon, right? Their history doesn't seem that wonky to me. Their extinction dates and availability ratings however are very wonky. They'd be less so if there was a military reason to use them.


Quote
Um... what?  If you're asking why it wouldn't be made, all I can say is that I'd rather have a Springfield 1903 when hunting than a Brown Bess.  If autocannons are readily available and cheap enough, then I'd choose the autocannon (of course, I'd say that for lasers and PPCs over an autocannon in a Mech, too).

However, if I re-enacted 18th century conflicts as a red coat, I'd be wanting a Brown Bess.  And if I was called to fight, for whatever reason, and all I had was the Brown Bess because I was a re-enactor, I'd b grabbing the Bess.

For me, it'd depend on what I'm hunting. If I'm hunting something big, I'd want to knock it down. Not make it angry. I think a .75 round would do that more than a .30-6. Something that's quick though, I'd want the extra shots just in case.


Quote
And that is not what I said earlier. If your most common target is not a Spheroid Pirate Urbanmech, but something much softer, then you take what you can get.

Unless it's a specialized planet, with a specialized industry, the most common targets are going to be pirates, or the troops on the other side of the boarder. And sure, you use what you can get. That's why when reading about armed agromechs before we had them, i figured they were using infantry weapons because they'd be more available. Nope. They're using vehicle scale MGs and Autocannons. They're not taking the time to fabricate a weapon that's been out of production for centuries. That specialized planet might use Rifles but not the average planet.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 08 July 2021, 17:34:14
The workshops would also be better in the future.

That depends entirely on the shop. Some would be far worse.



Quote
That is not correct in the slightest, the 3-inch loses at every metric.
Shell weight: 4.3 kg  vs  7.3 kg
Muzzle velocity: 370 m/s  vs  1130 m/s

That sure looks different from when I first read it. Either it was changed or its these glasses. I miss my old ones. If that's the case, then you're correct. It wouldn't be like the 8.8cm. More like a round from the Canon d'Infanterie de 37 modèle 1916 TRP.



Quote
An HRC made in lets say 2310 also isn't automatically tech C, so manufacturing date isn't an argument.

We don't know when the Avalon Slugger or the Meridian Mark II Heavy Rifle Cannons were made.. It doesn't really matter. The technology is pre-spaceflight. Their performance is the same as a HRC made in 1949 or earlier.

Quote
Exactly, which is why it is quite acceptable for them to do reasonable damage to ablative armor. Their hits are hard enough to start taking small bits off and they hit enough times in an area for the sum of the hits to do just noticeable (2) damage.

If more rounds hitting equals more damage, then machine guns should do more damage than a gauss rifle. RCs use the same tech as the machine guns. They just fire a bigger single shell with more propellant behind it.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 08 July 2021, 17:54:07
I have a whole thread on Machine Guns (linked through my sig block).  I think the M1919 is EXACTLY the "Vintage" Machine Gun TPTB intended (fire rate disparities notwithstanding and given their other assertions and publications; note I don't think it's exactly "right").  5 AP  for a man-portable machine gun system is anything BUT TL B.

I believe the "Support Machine Gun" is the Ma Deuce (and ALSO the 'mech scale "Light MG", with some improved AP ammo, of course), the standard 'mech scale MG is the GAU-19 tri-barrel (0.50 cal Gatling), and the Heavy MG is the six-barrel GAU-19 (with twice the burst value).
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 08 July 2021, 18:35:08
We don't know when the Avalon Slugger or the Meridian Mark II Heavy Rifle Cannons were made.. It doesn't really matter. The technology is pre-spaceflight. Their performance is the same as a HRC made in 1949 or earlier.
Well the Avalon Slugger is made some time after the colonization of New Avalon (2213). So as i said, weapons that use pre-spaceflight technology can be introduced at a later date as long as they rely on that type of technology.

Quote
If more rounds hitting equals more damage, then machine guns should do more damage than a gauss rifle.
Too simplistic, the correct statement is machine guns are more efficient at causing damage than a gauss rifle.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Cannonshop on 08 July 2021, 22:20:40
Not so effective against kevlar and not so effective when someone can keep you pinned down with burst fire from a modern rifle.  That energy you're talking about is assuming an unarmored target, which the Rifle Cannons do just fine against.  Heck, the Garand's ability to fire quickly was one of the reasons why American infantry did so well (that and a high proportion of soldiers with a history of squirrel hunting).

Not really?  I would place it closer to the gun mounted on most of the Shermans than an old Napoleon.

Neither would the Sherman's, really.  It had a hard enough time with the Germans' tank armor.  Compare to a modern Leopard or Abrams, and it's laughable.

Again, I disagree.  I'd place it more in the early-WW2 era level of capability before Germans had to figure out how to deal with Russian armor.

And yes, there are people casting bronze smoothbores, but as mentioned above, it is a very niche market pretty much limited to re-enacting and historical research level of engagement more than any serious level of intent for them to be produced for combat.  Which is what was being suggested.

Outside of movies and fiction, Christoph, it's MORE effective vs, Kevlar than 5.56.  a LOT More.  KET alone, never mind penetration.  It's all about the Kinetic Energy Transfer.   an 8mm Mauser (7.92x57mm) is throwing 180 gr. jacketed (usually FMJ) bullet with significantly more force, than a 5.56x45 mm, with the FMJ bullets, you've got similar Ballistic Coefficient, but the 8mm will retain velocity with the higher mass LONGER (Inertia for the win) outside of vacuum in a one-gee environment.

thus, the L4 kevlar vest you need to protect against it is significantly bulkier using Kevlar, than a similar vest protecting you from 5.56.

also the amount of hard materials that will resist it at a given range is by definition thicker.  It was a MAJOR upgrade when they started making ballisic plates capable of handling rounds in the same class.  (.30-06, 7.62x54R, 7.62x51Nato, etc.) without being excessively burdensome, but those still aren't light enough for most daily wear.

which isn't bad for a round that was first fielded in 1898, with the pattern finalised sometime around 1918.

5.56 is an INTERMEDIATE round, it's lighter, and smaller, so you can carry more, and 'just as goooooood' against man-sized targets with human weaknesses, but it's designed and intended for use against those human size targets at ranges below 300 meters, while 8mm was designed to reach out and kill you at over 1000.

Given similar bullet construction, and applying the same powder development (equal advances in powder formulation) and you can send a big bullet with a similar b/c at the same velocities (in this case, 3000 FPS base) out of an 8mm with no ill effects to the gun-meaning that the velocity advantage for the 5.56 goes away.  (I think I still have load data for that load somewhere in the office here.)

which leaves only the weight of carrying a lot of it, and needing a heavier rifle to fire the same amount at the same speeds.  (note: look up FG42 for a select fire weapon in 8mm with similar capability to a modern select-fire military rifle in 5.56 that was actually produced, or the Yugoslav M-78, or the AR-10(Rifle, not the fictional missile system.) or the FN-49, FN-FAL, and so on.)

point being, Battletech devs don't do realistic ballistics.  It's a FANTASY setting.  But beyond that, the small, intermediate round has less penetration and tends to have inferior, not superior, kinetic energy transfer to the big, old-school world-war-one ammunition.  the main 'features' of rounds like 5.56 is that you can carry a six pound rifle *(instead of 12) with a 30 round magazine (instead 5), and your ammo belt can schlep 120 rounds instead of 30 on an average, small-framed soldier marching, running, ducking, climbing and crawling.

savvy this?  Body armor that may stop a 5.56 will be an open doorway to something in the 7.92's power range.  (that is, kinetic energy and energy retention/mass)  Thus, why we have plate carriers and plates rated for rifle munitions have different ratings.

Here's a good layman's level site to get you started on understanding practical ballistics:

https://www.theboxotruth.com/ (https://www.theboxotruth.com/)

They demonstrate real-world testing and have been doing it for well over a decade, even before Mythbusters was a 'thing' on cable teevee.

an interesting paper on ballistics protection for vehicles:

https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/3310876.pdf (https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/3310876.pdf)

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: TigerShark on 08 July 2021, 23:05:13
God I love this discussion :) Real-world ballistics, range reports, etc. are TOTALLY my game. FYI - Not sarcasm. I stay up at night reading this stuff online. So thanks for posting :)
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 09 July 2021, 00:02:58
That presumes that they are in production. Even if there is a demand, that demand doesn't guarantee production. Nobody is producing parts for the Isetta even though there's a demand among collectors and enthusiasts. If you can't buy or steal a part from someone you have to fabricate it. There's not a lot of places that that are willing to do that. There are shops that won't even work on older cars. If I have a hard time finding a shop to do basic work on a 20 year old car, its going to be even harder to find a shop to fabricate parts for it.  So no, I don't think RCs would even be in limited production. They'd be special order from a few places still able to make them, or willing to fabricate them. So you might be able to get one from Planet X but if you don't know about Planet X, that old no longer working RC is either just a decoration or only functions using Hollywood magic.

It is more logical that they were in low production for more mundane uses in the back of beyond for someone to get the brainstorm to mount them on something to look like a Mech and sell it to pirates than to assume that they would look back 500 years to find a weapon no one has copyrighted.

You mean Rifle Cannons are a retcon, right? Their history doesn't seem that wonky to me. Their extinction dates and availability ratings however are very wonky. They'd be less so if there was a military reason to use them.

Extinction dates and availability ratings are part of their history.

Unless it's a specialized planet, with a specialized industry, the most common targets are going to be pirates, or the troops on the other side of the boarder. And sure, you use what you can get. That's why when reading about armed agromechs before we had them, i figured they were using infantry weapons because they'd be more available. Nope. They're using vehicle scale MGs and Autocannons. They're not taking the time to fabricate a weapon that's been out of production for centuries. That specialized planet might use Rifles but not the average planet.

It doesn't have to be that specialized, just off the beaten path.  And I do believe I mentioned something about local city-states, you know, "the other side of the border". 

AgroMechs have been around (in concept at least) since FASA still had control of the IP. (Heck, that's what the Arbiter basically is.)  Rifle Cannons are a relatively recent addition to the IP (from our perspective) which is why they had to be retconned in and making their history very wonky.

***snip***

And of course, the main discussion is about armored targets, not unarmored targets.  Armored such that someone is basically wearing Abrams armor on their body, not really kevlar.  And the gun we're talking about is closer to the Sherman's main 75mm gun or a Lee's secondary 37mm gun.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 09 July 2021, 06:15:44
I have a whole thread on Machine Guns (linked through my sig block).  I think the M1919 is EXACTLY the "Vintage" Machine Gun TPTB intended (fire rate disparities notwithstanding and given their other assertions and publications; note I don't think it's exactly "right").  5 AP  for a man-portable machine gun system is anything BUT TL B.

I believe the "Support Machine Gun" is the Ma Deuce (and ALSO the 'mech scale "Light MG", with some improved AP ammo, of course), the standard 'mech scale MG is the GAU-19 tri-barrel (0.50 cal Gatling), and the Heavy MG is the six-barrel GAU-19 (with twice the burst value).

Which ammo is it using though? The original .30-06 Springfield one of the later .30 caliber, 7.62 mm NATO and 8×57 mm cartridges or something in between?

It wouldn't surprise me if you were right but what ammo is being used is important. Shouldn't the stats be based not just on the weapon but on the ammo being fired? There is a bonus for armor piercing rounds. Why not a minus for vintage rounds?



Well the Avalon Slugger is made some time after the colonization of New Avalon (2213). So as i said, weapons that use pre-spaceflight technology can be introduced at a later date as long as they rely on that type of technology.

Too simplistic, the correct statement is machine guns are more efficient at causing damage than a gauss rifle.

I'm not sure if you're trying to agree with me or against me here.

With the results being MGs doing more damage. So single shot weapons need to be bigger to compensate. RCs and GRs are a lot heavier so they do can damage. However, RCs aren't as heavy as the GRs so they don't do as much damage. So there we have it. Proof RCs do damage.  ;)
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 09 July 2021, 07:05:13
God I love this discussion :) Real-world ballistics, range reports, etc. are TOTALLY my game. FYI - Not sarcasm. I stay up at night reading this stuff online. So thanks for posting :)

It sure is interesting.  :)




It is more logical that they were in low production for more mundane uses in the back of beyond for someone to get the brainstorm to mount them on something to look like a Mech and sell it to pirates than to assume that they would look back 500 years to find a weapon no one has copyrighted.

Maybe on some remote planets. Although, I'd have to wonder why any Pirate would want to mount a weapon that does no damage on their Mech or tank. I'd also wonder why the Pirate is buying the weapon and not taking the weapon.

Quote
Extinction dates and availability ratings are part of their history.

It doesn't have to be that specialized, just off the beaten path.  And I do believe I mentioned something about local city-states, you know, "the other side of the border". 

AgroMechs have been around (in concept at least) since FASA still had control of the IP. (Heck, that's what the Arbiter basically is.)  Rifle Cannons are a relatively recent addition to the IP (from our perspective) which is why they had to be retconned in and making their history very wonky.

A small part. Other than one battle in an era report, their entry in TacOps, and the TRO fluffs for the Arbiter, very little is known about these weapons. Most of what we know is AC/s perform better, and RC are terrible against BAR8+ armors. Because of which they disappeared. So the availability ratings and extinction date are very wonky.

Yes, Agromechs have been around pretty much since the beginning. FASA also stated the M1 Abrams as having a AC/5 and the M1A1 Abrams with a AC/10. And since it doesn't matter if an AC fires a single or multiple rounds as long as X weight is fired at the target, using Autocannons on the Abrams works. Now, they'd be using Medium and Heavy Rifles


Quote
And of course, the main discussion is about armored targets, not unarmored targets.  Armored such that someone is basically wearing Abrams armor on their body, not really kevlar.  And the gun we're talking about is closer to the Sherman's main 75mm gun or a Lee's secondary 37mm gun.

I'd go with the 75mm gun. The 37mm seems to light to me.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 09 July 2021, 14:58:50
Maybe on some remote planets. Although, I'd have to wonder why any Pirate would want to mount a weapon that does no damage on their Mech or tank. I'd also wonder why the Pirate is buying the weapon and not taking the weapon.

You'd have to ask the pirates in question why they would buy an Arbiter.  Off hand, I think because it is perfectly fine against the farmers they are trying to intimidate (and when said farmers confuse an UrbanMech for an Imp).  It probably wouldn't spend a lot of time intimidating a decent Merc unit after its first hit, though.

So, as I said previously, it depends on the targets one is seeking to face.  In a way, it's almost like the revolver a night guard might be issued.

Not as effective as a 9mm pistols available today, but more than enough to handle a thief who is in plain clothes.  Honestly enough, and has been said by others the same differences would apply to Rifles and Autocannons and be sufficient for one to be superior to another without granting some random flat resistance value.

A small part. Other than one battle in an era report, their entry in TacOps, and the TRO fluffs for the Arbiter, very little is known about these weapons. Most of what we know is AC/s perform better, and RC are terrible against BAR8+ armors. Because of which they disappeared. So the availability ratings and extinction date are very wonky.

Yes, Agromechs have been around pretty much since the beginning. FASA also stated the M1 Abrams as having a AC/5 and the M1A1 Abrams with a AC/10. And since it doesn't matter if an AC fires a single or multiple rounds as long as X weight is fired at the target, using Autocannons on the Abrams works. Now, they'd be using Medium and Heavy Rifles

Pretty much.

I'd go with the 75mm gun. The 37mm seems to light to me.

And more than likely if you were wearing Abrams armor like a knight, getting hit by either would probably not feel to good, nor would whatever was holding that armor together be doing so well.  Put the armor on a Hummer or fire it an actual Abrams and then shoot it with said, and it would be remarkably less effective.  That is what I am perceiving/theorizing what happens when Battle Armor gets hit by Rifle Cannon.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daemion on 09 July 2021, 17:24:30
Apologies.  Still playing catch-up, however:

I prefer just to skip the -3 altogether but I'm open towards Rifle damage reduction based on range against BAR8 armors. -1 at short, -2 at medium, -3 at long. The result at long range are the same. It's closer to real where some weapons had a short effective range. It'd also be a reason why these weapons would remain common for so long.
Different damage at different ranges is much less elegant than simply deriving the TW damage properly and presenting that as the TW stat against BAR 10 armor like literally every other weapon system.

But, we have precedence with weapons like the Snub-nose PPC and Heavy Gauss.  I would have no problem with a primitive weapon that followed that paradigm.

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 09 July 2021, 17:33:42
RifleMech: Given the stats of the Vintage MG, I would guess they use the original .30-06 ammo.  The "penalty" is right there in those very stats (3AP/4BD).  As far as mass, I note the Vintage MG weighs exactly what the German MG42 weighed...

Daemion: And I would say those other weapons are ALSO inelegant.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daemion on 09 July 2021, 18:31:54
There is the careful aim rule. That should help with this.

 ??? How is that relevant? I was just trying to make an illustration.

I disagree that these aren't pre-spaceflight weapons. Individual makes aren't going to be but they're still built using pre-spaceflight technology. Otherwise, why label them as pre-spaceflight?

And, it sounds like we'll always be at odds, here. 

As I said, I gave up on the BAR system as soon as I saw the rules for Rifled Cannons, and the apparent notion that it'll never be fixed.  It was compounded by infantry rules, but that's a different discussion entirely.  But, dismissing BAR also includes dismissing the era values. 

Let me put it to you like this:  Are you fond of TR: 1945?  Do you remember the values and rules given to the cannons introduced in that product?  What was the special case applied to these weapons when brought forward in time onto the BT Battlefield?  Light Rifles!   Complete with the -3 modifier.  On purpose.  I think he was aiming for the fact that they simply don't have an impact (go ahead and groan at the pun) on state of the art standard Battle Tech.

You can use that as an indicator where Herb, at least, looks on different eras as having different levels of effect. And, he probably had a big hand in the development of the BAR system and its application in Total Warfare. (I could be wrong on this.  However, Herb was the big RPG guy.  He was also the lead developer and top writing credit in Combat Equipment which introduced support vehicle rules, along with vehicular scale BAR armor for the first time.) 

The fact that it was a simple transposition of the personnel scale BAR system didn't help.  Y'know what that system did do?  It gave notations that if a person wanted to, some weapons could be exempted from damaging Tactical Combat Armor on vehicles if it didn't have a high enough penetration value!  But, it looks like that was merely an option for GMs, because Tech Manual shows the full extent of weapons available to infantry formations.   

So, while the introductory date for a Machine Gun may be back here in the 20th century, I don't see the Ma Deuce being remotely capable of doing a concentrated 2 armor damage.  Not without new metals and powder which we don't have in today's age.  I'd even go further on the munition front, but I've made my point.

Don't try to change my mind on this, because it's been made up a long time ago.  The eras of introduction are merely guidelines as far as I'm concerned, not hard rules. 

And, if the PsTB do happen to come out and say, 'Yes!  A Thumper Cannon is very much a 20th century Howitzer!', then I'm most likely done with official BattleTech.   ::)  I'll continue to buy the miniatures, only.   :thumbsup:


Daemion: And I would say those other weapons are ALSO inelegant.

I know.  There's no accounting for taste.  I'm personally of two minds when it comes to elegance:  Sometimes, if it's to be applied, it should be wholly applied.  But, then, the difference adds a unique aspect to gameplay that can be refreshing.

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 09 July 2021, 18:35:15
Agreed!  There is absolutely no accounting for taste... :)
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daemion on 09 July 2021, 18:40:25
 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 09 July 2021, 21:32:52
You'd have to ask the pirates in question why they would buy an Arbiter.  Off hand, I think because it is perfectly fine against the farmers they are trying to intimidate (and when said farmers confuse an UrbanMech for an Imp).  It probably wouldn't spend a lot of time intimidating a decent Merc unit after its first hit, though.

I don't think a Pirate would buy an Arbiter. I think they'd steal it, and then swap the HRC for an AC/5. And it still doesn't explain why  a LRC would be in production. It won't do anything to the Arbiter. It was BAR10 armor. And unless the Pirates are down on their luck, they're going to have a Battlemech.



Quote
So, as I said previously, it depends on the targets one is seeking to face.  In a way, it's almost like the revolver a night guard might be issued.

Revolvers are still being issued?  :o


Quote
Not as effective as a 9mm pistols available today, but more than enough to handle a thief who is in plain clothes.  Honestly enough, and has been said by others the same differences would apply to Rifles and Autocannons and be sufficient for one to be superior to another without granting some random flat resistance value.

With vintage ammo? Sure. It should apply to Rifles and Autocannons and it does. I don't agree with the random flat resistance value either.


Quote
And more than likely if you were wearing Abrams armor like a knight, getting hit by either would probably not feel to good, nor would whatever was holding that armor together be doing so well.  Put the armor on a Hummer or fire it an actual Abrams and then shoot it with said, and it would be remarkably less effective.  That is what I am perceiving/theorizing what happens when Battle Armor gets hit by Rifle Cannon.

Which has more of a chassis? A PBI or a BA? A 1.5 ton BA or a 1.5 ton Car? Answer. The BA. BA have BAR10 armor. So the damage should be reduced. Only, Rifles end up doing more damage to BA than other BAR10 Units. A LRC does 3 points of damage against BA, only 1 against a platoon of infantry, and no damage against the car. The BA should be the best protected and it's taking the most damage.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daemion on 09 July 2021, 21:46:06
Oh, yeah.  One other reason I've given up on BAR and Tech Tiers by era: The AC/5 and the Medium Laser.

Both do 5 points of damage.  However, unless their capacity to batter armor was the big thing that made them great at the time of their introductions, then, they would have been working during the age of penetration kills, before the advent of the BattleMech and it's impenetrable semi-ablative armor.  The AC/10 was about as cutting edge as the BattleMech, the two coming out about the same time.

AC/5 was a staple.  Medium lasers are ubiquitous.  Heck, if you're willing to think of it that way, the LRM-5 might have been lobbing singular giant missiles per shot, a la Thunderbolt, but not as refined.

In the Age of War section of TR:'75, everything I've seen was BAR 5 or higher.  And, remember, you have to exceed the BAR value with damage to get that piercing TAC.


Actually, there was one other thing that turned me off:  Omni-directional assignment.  There is only one BAR rating assigned to an entire unit.

20th and 21st century armor is not omni-directional.  All MBTs from our era are generally thick in the front, and thinner on the sides with next to no protection in the rear or over-head or underneath.  You can't get that if all directions protect the same.  Trying to tell me that armor points equals armor thickness is okay, but in an age where TAC Kills are the norm, I presume, then are the armor points low in number so that you are punching through after a single burst or two?  Not from what I've seen.

We already had a style of 'Damage Threshold' in Aero which actually is based off the armor points assigned to a location.  Why not use that?  Use the degrading threshold option, if you need.  Maybe come up with different divisors for different tech levels. 

 (Aside: I can't help but wonder if a lot of ideas had to be dropped because someone brought it up as an idea on one iteration these boards.   ::) )


Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 09 July 2021, 22:22:55
RifleMech: Given the stats of the Vintage MG, I would guess they use the original .30-06 ammo.  The "penalty" is right there in those very stats (3AP/4BD).  As far as mass, I note the Vintage MG weighs exactly what the German MG42 weighed...

Daemion: And I would say those other weapons are ALSO inelegant.

So the M1919 machine gun is using vintage ammo and it's AP/BD would go up with more modern ammo. And the M1917 machine gun would do the same, just be heavier since it's water cooled instead of air cooled. And the same would apply to any other weapon that used those rounds. Right?


Well, no weapon is as elegant as a Luminescent Vibrosword.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: DevianID on 09 July 2021, 22:55:04
There are possible explanations for seemingly odd rules interactions in battletech.  For example, look at shaped charge science.  The "ability" to make shaped charges was possible in the 1700s, but the science and mechanisms for how an inverted thin copper cone in an explosive charge turns into a deadly lance of molten metal that puts holes in modern tank armor was not known despite having the ability craft such a device.  So yes a thumper was able to be made in 1950, but we didn't have the need to make a 15 ton artillery piece that pierces non-existent armor with relative ease.  My take?  The thumper fires a fused shell of shaped charge warheads--a porcupine more or less--sending anti tank shaped charge spears in an area.  Modern artillery doesn't do that--you probably could make a wide mouthed piece like that, but instead we like 5 ton smaller guns with precision, low collateral rounds or airburst rounds for infantry killing pressure waves.

The light cannon dealing 0 damage seems to be the main sore spot for people, so again I'll state that the experimental rules level light cannon does do 1-2 damage with the advanced level direct fire rules to BAR10 armor.  Honestly, taking a singular experimental rule in a vacuum of all the other rules, such as an experimental LRC dealing 0 damage when using otherwise only standard rules, is like complaining the flamer is bad--the flamer has a bevy of really really good uses, just like the LRC, but you have to be using those rules.  Not using infantry/infantry digging in?  Then the flamer and LRC is worse.  Not using fires or buildings?  Then the LRC and flamer is worse.  Not using heat damage/direct fire rules?  Then the LRC and flamer is worse.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 09 July 2021, 23:20:27
??? How is that relevant? I was just trying to make an illustration.

From how you worded it, it sounded like you didn't think the whole platoon could aim at one target.


Quote
And, it sounds like we'll always be at odds, here. 

As I said, I gave up on the BAR system as soon as I saw the rules for Rifled Cannons, and the apparent notion that it'll never be fixed.  It was compounded by infantry rules, but that's a different discussion entirely.  But, dismissing BAR also includes dismissing the era values.


I think the BAR system is okay. It's more how TW abstracts things that's the problem. At least for infantry but infantry have been getting nerfed for a long time now. With Rifles, it's that flat-3 damage.


Quote
Let me put it to you like this:  Are you fond of TR: 1945?  Do you remember the values and rules given to the cannons introduced in that product?  What was the special case applied to these weapons when brought forward in time onto the BT Battlefield?  Light Rifles!   Complete with the -3 modifier.  On purpose.  I think he was aiming for the fact that they simply don't have an impact (go ahead and groan at the pun) on state of the art standard Battle Tech.

You can use that as an indicator where Herb, at least, looks on different eras as having different levels of effect. And, he probably had a big hand in the development of the BAR system and its application in Total Warfare. (I could be wrong on this.  However, Herb was the big RPG guy.  He was also the lead developer and top writing credit in Combat Equipment which introduced support vehicle rules, along with vehicular scale BAR armor for the first time.) 

Yes I do, and while I believe Herb may have based Tank Cannons on Rifle Cannons the -3 modifier is still a problem. All the lighter Tank Cannons round up to 1 point of damage against all armors. The 75mm and 76.2mm Tank Cannons (Light RC equivalant) do 0 damage against BAR8+ armor. So a 37mm cannon does more damage against BAR8+ armor than a 75mm cannon. Yet, the 37mm is supposed to be the inferior weapon. It's like having the AC/5 do no damage against BAR11 Armor while the AC/2 still does full damage. It doesn't make sense.

Let's put the flat -3 damage to Tank Cannons against BAR6+ armors. (BAR6 is where XTRO1945 says to use BT equivalents.)
Doing this, we get;
37mm-34mm - 1 point
45mm - 2 points
57mm - 3 points (LRC)
75mm - 4 points
76.2mm - 5 points
8.8cm - 6 points (MRC)
From what Herb has said the 120mm would do 9 points of damage (HRC). I'd guess 90mm would do 7 points and 105mm would do 8 points. I suppose even larger Rifles would do 10 or more points of damage. We could also remove the chance for penetrating critical hits since that's what happens in canon. Only here it'd be 2 BAR levels lower.

Does this make Tank Cannons better than Autocannons? No. It does mean that damage is more consistent. Small cannons aren't doing more damage than mediums, with mediums doing no damage. They also have really big ammo bombs compared to autocannons. I sure wouldn't want a ton of 37mm tank cannon to blow. 1 point per 1kg round.  :yikes:

Quote
The fact that it was a simple transposition of the personnel scale BAR system didn't help.  Y'know what that system did do?  It gave notations that if a person wanted to, some weapons could be exempted from damaging Tactical Combat Armor on vehicles if it didn't have a high enough penetration value!  But, it looks like that was merely an option for GMs, because Tech Manual shows the full extent of weapons available to infantry formations.   

So, while the introductory date for a Machine Gun may be back here in the 20th century, I don't see the Ma Deuce being remotely capable of doing a concentrated 2 armor damage.  Not without new metals and powder which we don't have in today's age.  I'd even go further on the munition front, but I've made my point.


Actually, way back when personal weapons only did damage on certain rolls. Support weapons did damage as they were just variants of vehicle/mech scale weapons. The MG for example fired smaller rounds but had a greater rate of fire to compensate. Now the best an infantry machine gun can do is 1 point of damage. Or equal to a vehicle Light Machine Gun.


Quote
Don't try to change my mind on this, because it's been made up a long time ago.  The eras of introduction are merely guidelines as far as I'm concerned, not hard rules. 

And, if the PsTB do happen to come out and say, 'Yes!  A Thumper Cannon is very much a 20th century Howitzer!', then I'm most likely done with official BattleTech.   ::)  I'll continue to buy the miniatures, only.   :thumbsup:

I'm not going to. I did point out a couple things but its not to change your mind. As for Introdates, something vague like pre-spaceflight or early spaceflight just means the tech originated in that time. A specific date for a specific weapon though is more solid. The tech could still be earlier, but then you're not buying that weapon. You're buying something similar.

I can see the Thumper being a Howitzer as long as its something like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_B%C3%A1rbara_Sistemas_155/52
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 09 July 2021, 23:33:54
Oh, yeah.  One other reason I've given up on BAR and Tech Tiers by era: The AC/5 and the Medium Laser.

Both do 5 points of damage.  However, unless their capacity to batter armor was the big thing that made them great at the time of their introductions, then, they would have been working during the age of penetration kills, before the advent of the BattleMech and it's impenetrable semi-ablative armor.  The AC/10 was about as cutting edge as the BattleMech, the two coming out about the same time.

AC/5 was a staple.  Medium lasers are ubiquitous.  Heck, if you're willing to think of it that way, the LRM-5 might have been lobbing singular giant missiles per shot, a la Thunderbolt, but not as refined.

In the Age of War section of TR:'75, everything I've seen was BAR 5 or higher.  And, remember, you have to exceed the BAR value with damage to get that piercing TAC.

This is where the Medium and Heavy Rifle Cannons still had value. The AC/5 had more ammo, but the RCs had penetration. Once BAR8 Armor becomes common though they lose that and damage. After that they should have quickly disappeared. Only, IO says they didn't . :-\


Quote
Actually, there was one other thing that turned me off:  Omni-directional assignment.  There is only one BAR rating assigned to an entire unit.

20th and 21st century armor is not omni-directional.  All MBTs from our era are generally thick in the front, and thinner on the sides with next to no protection in the rear or over-head or underneath.  You can't get that if all directions protect the same.  Trying to tell me that armor points equals armor thickness is okay, but in an age where TAC Kills are the norm, I presume, then are the armor points low in number so that you are punching through after a single burst or two?  Not from what I've seen.

BT has always been like that though. However,  there's always the Patchwork Armor Rules to give vehicles a more vintage feel.



Quote
We already had a style of 'Damage Threshold' in Aero which actually is based off the armor points assigned to a location.  Why not use that?  Use the degrading threshold option, if you need.  Maybe come up with different divisors for different tech levels. 

 (Aside: I can't help but wonder if a lot of ideas had to be dropped because someone brought it up as an idea on one iteration these boards.   ::) )

For some reason Aerospace units have had BAR10 Armor a lot longer than ground units. I'm not sure how to figure Thresholds with the -3 damage. If it was asked, I don't remember.

I imagine there's a few. There's ways to use them legally but people will still complain so they probably just don't to avoid problems. Although I had thought that TPTB weren't supposed to read the Fan Rules sections, just in case.

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 09 July 2021, 23:59:21
There are possible explanations for seemingly odd rules interactions in battletech.  For example, look at shaped charge science.  The "ability" to make shaped charges was possible in the 1700s, but the science and mechanisms for how an inverted thin copper cone in an explosive charge turns into a deadly lance of molten metal that puts holes in modern tank armor was not known despite having the ability craft such a device.  So yes a thumper was able to be made in 1950, but we didn't have the need to make a 15 ton artillery piece that pierces non-existent armor with relative ease.  My take?  The thumper fires a fused shell of shaped charge warheads--a porcupine more or less--sending anti tank shaped charge spears in an area.  Modern artillery doesn't do that--you probably could make a wide mouthed piece like that, but instead we like 5 ton smaller guns with precision, low collateral rounds or airburst rounds for infantry killing pressure waves.

The light cannon dealing 0 damage seems to be the main sore spot for people, so again I'll state that the experimental rules level light cannon does do 1-2 damage with the advanced level direct fire rules to BAR10 armor.  Honestly, taking a singular experimental rule in a vacuum of all the other rules, such as an experimental LRC dealing 0 damage when using otherwise only standard rules, is like complaining the flamer is bad--the flamer has a bevy of really really good uses, just like the LRC, but you have to be using those rules.  Not using infantry/infantry digging in?  Then the flamer and LRC is worse.  Not using fires or buildings?  Then the LRC and flamer is worse.  Not using heat damage/direct fire rules?  Then the LRC and flamer is worse.

In a case like that the ammo would have a later introdate even if the tech rating is for an earlier era. We see that with AC Flak Ammo.

If that works for you, great. I think relying on that to do any damage with a vehicle scale weapon, is relying too much on luck. I think it'd end up being an individual's decision, not something a bean counter would approve of.

I'm not sure where the flamer would be worse though. The oddities with Rifle Cannons is like saying Flamers do 2 points of damage against all Mechs armor except Ultralights. They take 4 points of damage.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 10 July 2021, 01:55:51
I don't think a Pirate would buy an Arbiter. I think they'd steal it, and then swap the HRC for an AC/5. And it still doesn't explain why  a LRC would be in production. It won't do anything to the Arbiter. It was BAR10 armor. And unless the Pirates are down on their luck, they're going to have a Battlemech.

I misread the blurb.  It was to intimidate pirates.  Of course it is a corporate security mech more than an actual battlemech meant for the front line.

Revolvers are still being issued?  :o

It's a security company, so they might be cheap.  More likely it was one the guard got on their own.

Which has more of a chassis? A PBI or a BA? A 1.5 ton BA or a 1.5 ton Car? Answer. The BA. BA have BAR10 armor. So the damage should be reduced. Only, Rifles end up doing more damage to BA than other BAR10 Units. A LRC does 3 points of damage against BA, only 1 against a platoon of infantry, and no damage against the car. The BA should be the best protected and it's taking the most damage.

Which has more of a shootable chassis, the 1.5 ton car or the 1.5 BA?  Unless you're going tight in on Battle Troops or TTRPG, you won't even SEE the BA's chassis.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: DevianID on 10 July 2021, 02:47:51
In a case like that the ammo would have a later introdate even if the tech rating is for an earlier era. We see that with AC Flak Ammo.

If that works for you, great. I think relying on that to do any damage with a vehicle scale weapon, is relying too much on luck. I think it'd end up being an individual's decision, not something a bean counter would approve of.

I'm not sure where the flamer would be worse though. The oddities with Rifle Cannons is like saying Flamers do 2 points of damage against all Mechs armor except Ultralights. They take 4 points of damage.

So honestly rifles should have alternate, also bad, ammo.  Like an even less damage round that gets flak, but only versus vtols.  A canister round that does cluster damage, but only to infantry.  An HE round that does extra damage to buildings.  And finally a post jihad 3100 tech D, AntiTank round (with even LESS shots per ton) that costs more and doesn't do -3 damage to BAR10.  But without those ammos that very likely exist, the base ammo still should carry a simple -3 damage.

There are very good reasons to have niche 0 damage guns in battletech.  The 0 damage water fluid gun, for example.  An LRC is valuable as a weapon to represent various light weapons that, while dangerous to infantry and buildings, can not harm modern tank armor.  Such weapons would be accessable to civilian forces and technicals to threaten infantry from longer than small arms range, while not being a major threat to proper military forces outside of lucky direct blows.

If TPTB did change the LRC to 2 damage, I would want a new 0* damage gun for this reason.

As for flamers, with advanced rules flamers do 2 damage and 2 heat, for 4 total damage, but only to mechs.  So yeah even versus mechs the introduction of advanced rules make some weapons do more or less damage to things.  Infernos are another that come to mind with wildly different rules depending on unit type under advanced rules, but in the end are 0 damage weapons.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 10 July 2021, 07:08:10
So the M1919 machine gun is using vintage ammo and it's AP/BD would go up with more modern ammo. And the M1917 machine gun would do the same, just be heavier since it's water cooled instead of air cooled. And the same would apply to any other weapon that used those rounds. Right?
*snip*
Not necessarily.  Higher velocity ammunition means more pressure in the barrel.  Trying to fire 5AP ammo out of a Vintage MG would probably result in an explosion.  This video by "Forgotten Weapons" talks about that a bit in the context of 40mm Grenade Launchers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRb2iFkwDC4
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: TigerShark on 10 July 2021, 08:00:36
Not necessarily.  Higher velocity ammunition means more pressure in the barrel.  Trying to fire 5AP ammo out of a Vintage MG would probably result in an explosion.  This video by "Forgotten Weapons" talks about that a bit in the context of 40mm Grenade Launchers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRb2iFkwDC4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRb2iFkwDC4)
Side note: If you're watching Forgotten Weapons, you HAVE to check out the worst AK lol. I laughed so hard... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nQzFGe1yMk

It's a very nice example of "repair quality" from StratOps. lol
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 10 July 2021, 09:07:45
The WECSOG... ROFL!  ;D
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 10 July 2021, 09:43:32
I misread the blurb.  It was to intimidate pirates.  Of course it is a corporate security mech more than an actual battlemech meant for the front line.

It's a security company, so they might be cheap.  More likely it was one the guard got on their own.

Which has more of a shootable chassis, the 1.5 ton car or the 1.5 BA?  Unless you're going tight in on Battle Troops or TTRPG, you won't even SEE the BA's chassis.

No prob. I wouldn't say the Arbiter isn't intended for the frontline. It's just made to be used on the frontline by those who can't get better. Of course that leads to Rifles availability during the Star League.

Probably got on their own, if the company is that cheap. And if they got it on their own, they either like revolvers or they have money issues too.

True. However, the chassis determines how much armor can be carried. The BA can carry a lot more than the car. Even if you count the Car's IS as armor, the Car still carries protection than the BA.


Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 10 July 2021, 09:44:10
*snip*
It's a very nice example of "repair quality" from StratOps. lol
And I forgot to mention I have a thread on "discount" weapons and armor for AToW that would almost fit that level of "quality"...  :D
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 10 July 2021, 10:27:00
So honestly rifles should have alternate, also bad, ammo.  Like an even less damage round that gets flak, but only versus vtols.  A canister round that does cluster damage, but only to infantry.  An HE round that does extra damage to buildings.  And finally a post jihad 3100 tech D, AntiTank round (with even LESS shots per ton) that costs more and doesn't do -3 damage to BAR10.  But without those ammos that very likely exist, the base ammo still should carry a simple -3 damage.

I agree. There should be newer and older ammo as well as other ammo types. Why wouldn't Flak be used against VTOLs? I'd go with something more like Mortar ammo for this. Probably, 1,2,3 against armored units and the same number D6 against infantry. The HE sounds good. I wouldn't go with less ammo for more advanced rounds. Advanced tech gained more ammo for Autocannons. The difference here is they're not being fired in a burst. There's all kinds of munitions that could be used, with all kinds of effects. Some gaining ammo, others reducing it. Maybe I'll work on ammo sometime.


Quote
There are very good reasons to have niche 0 damage guns in battletech.  The 0 damage water fluid gun, for example.  An LRC is valuable as a weapon to represent various light weapons that, while dangerous to infantry and buildings, can not harm modern tank armor.  Such weapons would be accessable to civilian forces and technicals to threaten infantry from longer than small arms range, while not being a major threat to proper military forces outside of lucky direct blows.

If TPTB did change the LRC to 2 damage, I would want a new 0* damage gun for this reason.

The Fluid Gun only does 0 damage depending on the ammo fired. Water won't damage a mech but Inferno ammo will do 2 points per shot. It's like a LRC firing a blank, or paint round and then switching to armor piercing.

Right now, the LRC couldn't stop a tractor with Industrial/Primitive Armor. Range doesn't mean much if the round won't inflict any damage. Ignoring, more advanced types, support weapons can hit at 6-9 hexes and do more damage. Not that I think firing even a low velocity paint round from a LRC at rioting civilians is a good idea unless you're intending to kill them. Weapons firing water won't kill them. 

Quote
As for flamers, with advanced rules flamers do 2 damage and 2 heat, for 4 total damage, but only to mechs.  So yeah even versus mechs the introduction of advanced rules make some weapons do more or less damage to things.  Infernos are another that come to mind with wildly different rules depending on unit type under advanced rules, but in the end are 0 damage weapons.

Heat isn't really damage to mechs though. It can be a problem that leads to damage but it isn't really damage itself. Infernos are also an ammo type, not a weapon. They also do damage depending on what they hit. If Rifles had other ammo, a LRC firing an incendiary round a mech inflicts 3 points of heat, the armor piercing round does 3 points of damage. A HE round does 3 points of damage to everything in the hex in 1 point clusters. The ammo changes the damage. It could also change the range. 
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 10 July 2021, 11:17:08
Just watched Forgotten Weapons' video on the HK G11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGKcvM2Hh4g

I now have NO problem imagining an Auto-Rifle with an expanded magazine of 45 rounds...  :o
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 10 July 2021, 11:39:35
Not necessarily.  Higher velocity ammunition means more pressure in the barrel.  Trying to fire 5AP ammo out of a Vintage MG would probably result in an explosion.  This video by "Forgotten Weapons" talks about that a bit in the context of 40mm Grenade Launchers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRb2iFkwDC4

From what I've read, manufactured rounds are made so that older weapons can use them. There are also those that know how much a weapon can be over pressurized. A lot of it depends on the quality of the weapon and how much over pressure it is. A crap weapon will blow up. A quality weapon could fire just fine depending on the load.

Also, going from one round type to another though is more than just pressure. If the round won't fit in the chamber, you're not going to fire it. The weapons received new chambers and barrels to fire the new ammo. Basically, customizing the weapon on a mass scale. We have rules for this in AToW Companion.

So a Gatling gun could start of doing 2B/3B and gradually increase both the AP and BD. Rate of fire can also increase. The Gatling Gun was introduced in 1881 and continued to be upgraded until 1911. Gatling even put an electric motor on one bumping the rof up to 1500 rounds. During that time the cartridges changed, propellant changed, number of barrels changed, rate of fire changed. So the Gatling Gun could go from .17 to 1 point or so if my math is right.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 10 July 2021, 11:57:38
Metallurgy matters enough that I think going from 2 AP to 5 AP would take your from TL B to TL C at least.  TL D is a whole other increase in capability on that score.

Of interest, I just watched the "Pom-Pom" episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG1DoHPAaRA

Basically, a TL B "autocannon"...
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 10 July 2021, 12:24:29
No prob. I wouldn't say the Arbiter isn't intended for the frontline. It's just made to be used on the frontline by those who can't get better. Of course that leads to Rifles availability during the Star League.

There is a difference between intending something for the frontline and using it in battle when you're desperate.  The Arbiter is not intended or designed to be on the battlefield against the Clans or the Houses.  The Arbiter is there to discourage some pirates and minor corporate raiding, not take on Wolf's Dragoons or Clan Jade Turkey.  A pilot may be called upon to defend against them, but by the time that is the case, the local military has already been squashed.

True. However, the chassis determines how much armor can be carried. The BA can carry a lot more than the car. Even if you count the Car's IS as armor, the Car still carries protection than the BA.

But we're talking a situation where all the armor in the world isn't being supported by a notable structure (i.e. a structure that can be directly damaged), and that armor is falling off the BA when it isn't falling off the car.

I never stated that the Car's IS is armor, merely pointing out that the armor of the car has a structure which can be seen and damaged by weaponry, while the BA either has no structure or relies on the pilot to provide the structure, as far as the game's mechanics go.  So it would appear that, for all game intents and purposes, that the Armor needs Structure points besides the pilot and itself to support it in order to resist Rifle Cannon damage.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Cannonshop on 10 July 2021, 12:55:48
There is a difference between intending something for the frontline and using it in battle when you're desperate.  The Arbiter is not intended or designed to be on the battlefield against the Clans or the Houses.  The Arbiter is there to discourage some pirates and minor corporate raiding, not take on Wolf's Dragoons or Clan Jade Turkey.  A pilot may be called upon to defend against them, but by the time that is the case, the local military has already been squashed.

But we're talking a situation where all the armor in the world isn't being supported by a notable structure (i.e. a structure that can be directly damaged), and that armor is falling off the BA when it isn't falling off the car.

I never stated that the Car's IS is armor, merely pointing out that the armor of the car has a structure which can be seen and damaged by weaponry, while the BA either has no structure or relies on the pilot to provide the structure, as far as the game's mechanics go.  So it would appear that, for all game intents and purposes, that the Armor needs Structure points besides the pilot and itself to support it in order to resist Rifle Cannon damage.

Variance of scale though.  the CAR is far easier to HIT, and presents more vulnerable facings.  basically, slap a couple milimeters of starslab on your Hyundai Elantra and your passengers are completely safe from a tank cannon?  even though a small laser will cut right through it to kill the passengers?

but that same tank gun can waste a guy wrapped in ten times as much protection?

it' doesn't fit, sorry.

No Sale.


Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 10 July 2021, 13:03:48
The mention of the Arbiter had me looking it up.  Any pirate with a war book or functioning magscan is going to scoff and stomp it flat.  Playing around in SSW, I can get a 3/5/3 20-ton actual 'mech with a Snub-nosed PPC and Machine Gun for less money.  9-hex short range is ALL when you're hiring bush league pilots.

And glad to have you commenting here Cannonshop!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 10 July 2021, 13:08:20
Metallurgy matters enough that I think going from 2 AP to 5 AP would take your from TL B to TL C at least.  TL D is a whole other increase in capability on that score.

Of interest, I just watched the "Pom-Pom" episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG1DoHPAaRA

Basically, a TL B "autocannon"...


I would think that metallurgy would improve as improvements are made to the gun.

I hope I can get the videos to play.


There is a difference between intending something for the frontline and using it in battle when you're desperate.  The Arbiter is not intended or designed to be on the battlefield against the Clans or the Houses.  The Arbiter is there to discourage some pirates and minor corporate raiding, not take on Wolf's Dragoons or Clan Jade Turkey.  A pilot may be called upon to defend against them, but by the time that is the case, the local military has already been squashed.

Just because something is totally outclassed doesn't mean it isn't intended for frontline service. It just means that casualties will be high. Unless the Pirates are really down on their luck, they're going to be using the same Mechs and tanks as the others so that planet's militia are going to be hurting. The Militia's hope is that they can make the raid too costly for the Pirates to continue, making them leave empty handed.



Quote
But we're talking a situation where all the armor in the world isn't being supported by a notable structure (i.e. a structure that can be directly damaged), and that armor is falling off the BA when it isn't falling off the car.

Except that BA do have a notable structure. That they don't have damage points is magic but they do have a notable structure.The car can't even mount enough armor to fall off. One hit from most weapons and it's done. A squad of troopers with auto-rifles would destroy the car in one turn but only annoy the BA.


Quote
I never stated that the Car's IS is armor, merely pointing out that the armor of the car has a structure which can be seen and damaged by weaponry, while the BA either has no structure or relies on the pilot to provide the structure, as far as the game's mechanics go.  So it would appear that, for all game intents and purposes, that the Armor needs Structure points besides the pilot and itself to support it in order to resist Rifle Cannon damage.

I didn't say you did. What I said that even if you include said point of damage along with the armor, that BA of the same tonnage can carry far more armor. 10 points at best including each side and a turret for the car compared to 15 for the BA including the trooper. And really the car has it far worse. If you protect each location you'd still only need 2 points of damage to destroy the car. Maybe 3 if there's no turret. So the BA has way more protection than the Car. Yet the car with BAR 8 armor takes no damage from the LRC while the BA with BAR10 armor takes 3 points of damage. To me that doesn't make sense.

The questions shouldn't be does the car have a high enough BAR to survive a hit from a LRC but how big the pieces will be after it's hit. And if we're going internal and blowing up a car with BAR10 armor why aren't we going internal against a mech with 1 point of armor on that location? 


Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 10 July 2021, 13:11:28
If YouTube won't play for you, you have my sympathies...  :-\
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 10 July 2021, 13:19:54
Variance of scale though.  the CAR is far easier to HIT, and presents more vulnerable facings.  basically, slap a couple milimeters of starslab on your Hyundai Elantra and your passengers are completely safe from a tank cannon?  even though a small laser will cut right through it to kill the passengers?

but that same tank gun can waste a guy wrapped in ten times as much protection?

it' doesn't fit, sorry.

No Sale.

 :thumbsup:





The mention of the Arbiter had me looking it up.  Any pirate with a war book or functioning magscan is going to scoff and stomp it flat.  Playing around in SSW, I can get a 3/5/3 20-ton actual 'mech with a Snub-nosed PPC and Machine Gun for less money.  9-hex short range is ALL when you're hiring bush league pilots.

And glad to have you commenting here Cannonshop!  :thumbsup:

It's not so much cost but availability and ability. If you can't buy it or make it, you're stuck using something else. But I agree. Sensors should figure out the Arbiter's trick pretty quick. Even if they don't their surprise will soon wear off. And while the HRC is still a threat even with the -3 damage, the biggest threat to Pirates when facing a LRC is that they fall down laughing and hurt themselves.

If YouTube won't play for you, you have my sympathies...  :-\

Thanks. Sometimes it's okay but it's been pausing a lot more lately with the slow internet and high heat. The poor puter hates the heat more than I do and I don't like it. :(
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 10 July 2021, 20:18:47
Variance of scale though.  the CAR is far easier to HIT, and presents more vulnerable facings.  basically, slap a couple milimeters of starslab on your Hyundai Elantra and your passengers are completely safe from a tank cannon?  even though a small laser will cut right through it to kill the passengers?

but that same tank gun can waste a guy wrapped in ten times as much protection?

it' doesn't fit, sorry.

No Sale.

Consider that the structure of BA isn't sufficient to be even damageable on the Total Warfare scale.  That was the criteria I gave.  While a car's is.  It's not that BA structure doesn't exist, it's just not enough to be shot off separate from armor nor provide shock resistance to the pilot that the structure of the car does.

The mention of the Arbiter had me looking it up.  Any pirate with a war book or functioning magscan is going to scoff and stomp it flat.  Playing around in SSW, I can get a 3/5/3 20-ton actual 'mech with a Snub-nosed PPC and Machine Gun for less money.  9-hex short range is ALL when you're hiring bush league pilots.

And glad to have you commenting here Cannonshop!  :thumbsup:

Possibly, even probably, like a Urbanmech "Imp", but I didn't make up the fluff.  Of course, until everyone's computers are updated to indicate what the Arbiter is or one is forced to against it, then it would be proper scary.  And of course, if you're in a technical, it is quite perfectly dangerous.

Just because something is totally outclassed doesn't mean it isn't intended for frontline service. It just means that casualties will be high. Unless the Pirates are really down on their luck, they're going to be using the same Mechs and tanks as the others so that planet's militia are going to be hurting. The Militia's hope is that they can make the raid too costly for the Pirates to continue, making them leave empty handed.

As I noted above, not MY fluff.  I didn't design it, and it was designed to be a corporate security mech, not a frontline mech.  Heck, it's even less designed around being a frontline mech than a Rifleman.

Except that BA do have a notable structure. That they don't have damage points is magic but they do have a notable structure.The car can't even mount enough armor to fall off. One hit from most weapons and it's done. A squad of troopers with auto-rifles would destroy the car in one turn but only annoy the BA.

If it has notable structure, where is it?  I gave the definition I was using, but you say it is there.  Meanwhile, Mr BA is getting pulped by Rifle Cannon because there isn't the structure to support the armor in such a way as to deflect the round as easily as that car does.

I didn't say you did. What I said that even if you include said point of damage along with the armor, that BA of the same tonnage can carry far more armor. 10 points at best including each side and a turret for the car compared to 15 for the BA including the trooper. And really the car has it far worse. If you protect each location you'd still only need 2 points of damage to destroy the car. Maybe 3 if there's no turret. So the BA has way more protection than the Car. Yet the car with BAR 8 armor takes no damage from the LRC while the BA with BAR10 armor takes 3 points of damage. To me that doesn't make sense.

You certainly were treating it like it was, at least I think you were.  Some of the language was a little muddied.

Still, all we know is that Car has IS that can be shot, BA doesn't.  BA takes full damage from Rifle Cannons, while the Car may not.  Sure seems like the structure is the critical detail here when everything else is the same.

The questions shouldn't be does the car have a high enough BAR to survive a hit from a LRC but how big the pieces will be after it's hit. And if we're going internal and blowing up a car with BAR10 armor why aren't we going internal against a mech with 1 point of armor on that location?

There you go confusing what I am saying about what is as opposed to what some would wish it to be.  Please learn the difference.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Cannonshop on 10 July 2021, 21:24:36
Consider that the structure of BA isn't sufficient to be even damageable on the Total Warfare scale.  That was the criteria I gave.  While a car's is.  It's not that BA structure doesn't exist, it's just not enough to be shot off separate from armor nor provide shock resistance to the pilot that the structure of the car does.

Possibly, even probably, like a Urbanmech "Imp", but I didn't make up the fluff.  Of course, until everyone's computers are updated to indicate what the Arbiter is or one is forced to against it, then it would be proper scary.  And of course, if you're in a technical, it is quite perfectly dangerous.

As I noted above, not MY fluff.  I didn't design it, and it was designed to be a corporate security mech, not a frontline mech.  Heck, it's even less designed around being a frontline mech than a Rifleman.

If it has notable structure, where is it?  I gave the definition I was using, but you say it is there.  Meanwhile, Mr BA is getting pulped by Rifle Cannon because there isn't the structure to support the armor in such a way as to deflect the round as easily as that car does.

You certainly were treating it like it was, at least I think you were.  Some of the language was a little muddied.

Still, all we know is that Car has IS that can be shot, BA doesn't.  BA takes full damage from Rifle Cannons, while the Car may not.  Sure seems like the structure is the critical detail here when everything else is the same.

There you go confusing what I am saying about what is as opposed to what some would wish it to be.  Please learn the difference.

the problem, Christoph, is that you're not understanding that yes, you bring up internal structure, but no-it has no relevance here.  Non-combat GV, on point IS each facing, one point armor each facing.

Immune to tank gun.

NOT immune to small laser.

BA, ten points of facing armor, NOT immune to tank gun.

to put this into perspective for you, armor depletes, goes to internal.  That's how it works, right? and if you exhaust that internal structure, hit goes internal.

right?  we all get this? yes?

so you have 1 pt. external BAR 10, and 1 point (at MOST) internal structure on our hypothetical armored automobile, meaning it can't survive a fender-bender at 10 kph, because that will ablate the armor and crush the internals.

but it can ignore an impact moving something on the order of 5000 KPH without ablating the armor.  That's some stern stuff, btw....but a suit designed from day one to take TEN TIMES the impact force to the plating can not igonore that same hit?

and you're going to attribute that to eighteen gauge sheet-metal bent into a box??

do you understand how your theory plays out here?

It's a good thing that Battletech IS fantasy instead of science fiction, because that concept honestly doesn't work.  Given the material involved here, that LRC should be blowing those armored body panels OFF and annihilating the contents (Passengers)with a single hit to the thickest facing, just based on skidding rules damage.

This entire discussion really can NOT be argued logically, because the rule is fundamentally arbitrary even in relation to the rest of the setting and product.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 10 July 2021, 22:20:42
*snip*
This entire discussion really can NOT be argued logically, because the rule is fundamentally arbitrary even in relation to the rest of the setting and product.
Precisely why this thread exists!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 11 July 2021, 02:43:48
the problem, Christoph, is that you're not understanding that yes, you bring up internal structure, but no-it has no relevance here.  Non-combat GV, on point IS each facing, one point armor each facing.

You have yet to provide any other possible reason for it to be, though.  Everything else that has notable Structure and BAR10 Armor can withstand the Rifle Cannon shot.  BA cannot, and is the only thing covered in BAR10 armor that cannot withstand the Rifle Cannon shot.

Keep in mind, this is only a theory on how things ARE, not how things SHOULD be.

Immune to tank gun.

NOT immune to small laser.

BA, ten points of facing armor, NOT immune to tank gun.

to put this into perspective for you, armor depletes, goes to internal.  That's how it works, right? and if you exhaust that internal structure, hit goes internal.

right?  we all get this? yes?

so you have 1 pt. external BAR 10, and 1 point (at MOST) internal structure on our hypothetical armored automobile, meaning it can't survive a fender-bender at 10 kph, because that will ablate the armor and crush the internals.

but it can ignore an impact moving something on the order of 5000 KPH without ablating the armor.  That's some stern stuff, btw....but a suit designed from day one to take TEN TIMES the impact force to the plating can not igonore that same hit?

and you're going to attribute that to eighteen gauge sheet-metal bent into a box??

do you understand how your theory plays out here?

I think the theory is solid as far as the current rules go.  That the rules are fantasy is not in dispute.

It's a good thing that Battletech IS fantasy instead of science fiction, because that concept honestly doesn't work.  Given the material involved here, that LRC should be blowing those armored body panels OFF and annihilating the contents (Passengers)with a single hit to the thickest facing, just based on skidding rules damage.This entire discussion really can NOT be argued logically, because the rule is fundamentally arbitrary even in relation to the rest of the setting and product.

The whole idea of Rifle Cannons doing zero damage when a low-speed impact can wreck them is the fantasy, not my theory.  The problem is not that BA getting damaged by Rifle Cannons, it is the lack of effect on the Support Vehicle and IndustrialMech that is the fantasy.

A Combat Vehicle or BattleMech having that resistance makes some sense.  To continue the theory, they have hardened and shock-resistant chassis that are designed to take the hit with BAR10 armor.  Even with that, it is still fantasy for them to do zero damage when a minivan traveling at a speed of two in to either will.

Realistically, the damage these weapons perform should be rated according to what they do to modern armor and everything else getting bonus damage, at best.  At worst, their damage rating is set to the appropriate point and left to stand or fall as it is.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: DevianID on 11 July 2021, 03:07:37
On the point of BA, objecting to BA taking damage from a light rifle is like objecting the BA is destroyed by 3 inferno hits, while the 1.5 ton vehicle can shrug of a dozen infernos or LRC hits most of the time unless the inferno or LRC is lucky.  BA armor is not like vehicle armor, and weapons interact with BA very differently.  I for one hate how 4 one ton BA suits get a +1 innate modifier to be hit, but a 500kg buggy car doesn't.  BA and infantry are the wierd things here, NOT the LRC that does 0 damage unless you are lucky.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 11 July 2021, 04:52:49
The LRC is less consistent with the rest of the rules than the infantry/BA rules are.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 11 July 2021, 05:49:19
Consider that the structure of BA isn't sufficient to be even damageable on the Total Warfare scale.  That was the criteria I gave.  While a car's is.  It's not that BA structure doesn't exist, it's just not enough to be shot off separate from armor nor provide shock resistance to the pilot that the structure of the car does.

The point remains that the BA's structure, even while not taking damage itself, is strong enough to carry 3 times the armor of a car the same weight.


Quote
Possibly, even probably, like a Urbanmech "Imp", but I didn't make up the fluff.  Of course, until everyone's computers are updated to indicate what the Arbiter is or one is forced to against it, then it would be proper scary.  And of course, if you're in a technical, it is quite perfectly dangerous.

As I noted above, not MY fluff.  I didn't design it, and it was designed to be a corporate security mech, not a frontline mech.  Heck, it's even less designed around being a frontline mech than a Rifleman.

It doesn't take a warbook to scan an approaching enemy. As it had spread half way across the IS by 3068 and was a popular seller, it won't take long for its capabilities to become known.

The Arbiter SecurityMech was specifically designed to defend New St. Andrews against raiders and pirates. As such it's made for the Militia to provide planetary security, not corporate security. As such its really more of a MilitiaMech than a SecurityMech.

https://www.sarna.net/wiki/SecurityMech_Treaty_of_2613


Quote
If it has notable structure, where is it?  I gave the definition I was using, but you say it is there.  Meanwhile, Mr BA is getting pulped by Rifle Cannon because there isn't the structure to support the armor in such a way as to deflect the round as easily as that car does.

I don't know where it is but I know it's there and takes up mass. I also know that mass supports more armor than that of a car the same weight. The max amount of armor increases by 4 with every weigh class. PAL2, L6, M10, H14, A18. A small support vehicles armor starts a 4 and only goes up 1 point per ton. The car also has locations so that armor gets spread around to provide protection. That's why I said, even if you include the IS, the total damage needed to kill a 1.5 ton Car is at best 3 points. To kill the same weight BA you need up to 15 points.  It can survive a hit from a PPC. There wouldn't be anything left of the car. Every armor and structure point would be gone. That's a huge amount of protection compared to the Car. So a car with a lower quality armor surviving a LRC hit with no damage when the BA takes 3 points doesn't make sense. Nor does it make sense that other BAR10 units take reduced damage from Rifles, meaning the LRC does 0 damage to them.



Quote
You certainly were treating it like it was, at least I think you were.  Some of the language was a little muddied.

Still, all we know is that Car has IS that can be shot, BA doesn't.  BA takes full damage from Rifle Cannons, while the Car may not.  Sure seems like the structure is the critical detail here when everything else is the same.

There you go confusing what I am saying about what is as opposed to what some would wish it to be.  Please learn the difference.

Whether or not the BA has IS points of not doesn't really matter. In fact it'd make things even more complicated. Let's give the BA 5 points of IS. That's what a Small Support Vehicle would have with a turret. A 2 ton Car maxes out the armor with 6 points. The BA's Torso would still have to have at least 16 points of armor to protect the wearer from a Clan ERPPC. That's almost 3x the total amount of armor the Car has, and that's only the Torso. There's still the Arms and Legs of the BA to protect.

So this 2 ton BA has about 3 tons worth of Armor and at 25kg per point the math works out. At least for a Clan BA using standard armor. 40 points per ton. 18 points torso, 10 per leg, 6 per arm. The IS BA would have to use advanced standard armor at 40kg per point with a total weight of 1.6 tons. But let's ignore that for now.

So now our 2 ton BA has more than 6 times the protection of a 2 ton car and almost as much armor protection as a 20 ton bug mech. So we can clearly see that BA armor is already more advanced than regular BAR10 armor. Even the IS version weighs far less per point than that used on other BAR10 units at 63kg per point. But you can't build a 2 ton IS BA with max armor.

Armor 1600kg (40kg x 40 points)
Chassis 550kg

We're already over 150kg and we have gotten to anything else yet. Like Weapons. It also makes me really want to know, why they Clans aren't using this armor on their Mechs, Armor, and Fighters.
It also doesn't answer why Rifles do full damage against them.

Now remember when I suggested BA should have a BAR7 or less? If we look at SV armor weights the best protection 25kg will get is BAR4 Tech E and F at 23kg and 21kg. Tech D and BAR5 Tech F are also close at 26kg but if we allow it, IS BA 40kg armor = BAR5 Tech C armor.  So going by weight they best BAR BA could have is BAR5. Since 5 is less than 7 Rifles are free to do full damage against BA. That BA don't have IS points could be pointed at as the reason BA can't have BAR8 plus armor. And since SV do have IS points they're free to use BAR8+ armor and receive -3 damage from Rifle Cannons.

There's also evidence of this happening in AToW where PAL and Light BA take more damage than heavier ones. Why not just extend that to all BA? It's not like anything else will be effected. BA don't have internals to bother with penetrating critical hits so its just full damage. It would also eliminate one of the oddities, that being RCs doing full damage to BA but not other units. That'd just leave the LRC doing 0 which is easily solved by reducing the damage to a minimum of 1. After all of .5 rounds up for infantry weapons, why not a vehicle weapon?



Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 11 July 2021, 06:10:37

 :thumbsup:

For some reason I'm thinking of old Chevy Nova. It laughs off hit after hit from a LRC but gets kicked in the rear by a very annoyed BA trooper and blows up.



Realistically, the damage these weapons perform should be rated according to what they do to modern armor and everything else getting bonus damage, at best.  At worst, their damage rating is set to the appropriate point and left to stand or fall as it is.

Realistically, damage should be consistent in the universe. If a slow  impact does damage, and a fast impact does more damage, a medium impact should do damage that in between slow and fast.


On the point of BA, objecting to BA taking damage from a light rifle is like objecting the BA is destroyed by 3 inferno hits, while the 1.5 ton vehicle can shrug of a dozen infernos or LRC hits most of the time unless the inferno or LRC is lucky.  BA armor is not like vehicle armor, and weapons interact with BA very differently.  I for one hate how 4 one ton BA suits get a +1 innate modifier to be hit, but a 500kg buggy car doesn't.  BA and infantry are the wierd things here, NOT the LRC that does 0 damage unless you are lucky.

Um...no. While the Inferno doesn't remove armor points, it can cause internal damage with every missile that hits. So the 1.5 ton vehicle is just as dead. I do agree that the +1 for some small targets and not others is weird though.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 11 July 2021, 06:13:10
The point remains that the BA's structure, even while not taking damage itself, is strong enough to carry 3 times the armor of a car the same weight.
So? It does not mean that they are equally supported.


Quote
The Arbiter SecurityMech was specifically designed to defend New St. Andrews against raiders and pirates. As such it's made for the Militia to provide planetary security, not corporate security.
It is cannon fodder, it is meant to absorb the enemy projectiles so that other real 'Mechs can win the fight.


Quote
I don't know where it is but I know it's there and takes up mass. I also know that mass supports more armor than that of a car the same weight. The max amount of armor increases by 4 with every weigh class. PAL2, L6, M10, H14, A18. A small support vehicles armor starts a 4 and only goes up 1 point per ton. The car also has locations so that armor gets spread around to provide protection. That's why I said, even if you include the IS, the total damage needed to kill a 1.5 ton Car is at best 3 points. To kill the same weight BA you need up to 15 points.  It can survive a hit from a PPC. There wouldn't be anything left of the car. Every armor and structure point would be gone. That's a huge amount of protection compared to the Car. So a car with a lower quality armor surviving a LRC hit with no damage when the BA takes 3 points doesn't make sense. Nor does it make sense that other BAR10 units take reduced damage from Rifles, meaning the LRC does 0 damage to them.
Since when does a PPC work in the same way as a Rifle Cannon?


Quote
Whether or not the BA has IS points of not doesn't really matter. In fact it'd make things even more complicated. Let's give the BA 5 points of IS. That's what a Small Support Vehicle would have with a turret. A 2 ton Car maxes out the armor with 6 points. The BA's Torso would still have to have at least 16 points of armor to protect the wearer from a Clan ERPPC. That's almost 3x the total amount of armor the Car has, and that's only the Torso. There's still the Arms and Legs of the BA to protect.
Quote
A rather see small vehicles use the single line of armor points.


Quote
So now our 2 ton BA has more than 6 times the protection of a 2 ton car and almost as much armor protection as a 20 ton bug mech. So we can clearly see that BA armor is already more advanced than regular BAR10 armor.
But yet does not give them the same amount of protection..

Quote
It also makes me really want to know, why they Clans aren't using this armor on their Mechs, Armor, and Fighters.
Because sometimes BT does modify armor weight on based upon size, we see this with Warships and Dropships, and BA are just lucky enough to be abstracted into having lighter armor.


Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Cannonshop on 11 July 2021, 06:28:20
Arbitrary (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/arbitrary)
[ ahr-bi-trer-ee ]adjective
1.subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion:
an arbitrary decision
.

2.decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.

3.having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical:
an arbitrary government.

4.based on whim or personal preference, without reason or pattern; random:
This is an unusual encyclopedia, arranged by topics in a more or less arbitrary order.

5.Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned a specific value:
an arbitrary constant.

Relevance?

The rules being discussed, wrt the Rifle Cannons, are Arbitrary rules in no small part due to this being a fantasy setting that does not have to be internally consistent, nor consistent with reality.  The values and exceptions are applied at the whim of the Developers with only a specific end-state mattering.

This ain't "Fire, Fusion and Steel" my friends.  The rules applied to the LRC/rifle cannons as a whole are completely based on no systems whatsoever, which makes arguing them pointless.  It was tossed in to 'look cool and fill  space' in the book, that's all it is, all it does.  There was no interest in internal consistency with the rest of the system beyond "Make it suck more than an autocannon" and (Later) "Well, we need to give it some kind of function so we'll make it super-good against battlearmor for no apparent reason".

everything else? all this discussion? it's just been competing rationalizations.  How many threads locked so far, boys and girls? 
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 11 July 2021, 06:37:14
So? It does not mean that they are equally supported.

No they're not equally supported. The BA can support far more armor.

Quote
It is cannon fodder, it is meant to absorb the enemy projectiles so that other real 'Mechs can win the fight.

What other mechs?


Quote
Since when does a PPC work in the same way as a Rifle Cannon?

They function the same against BAR7 and lower armor. So at least since Rifles were introduced. And this part is just about how much armor protection BA have compared to SSVs. With the only except of the LRC the Car dies and the BA lives. And the only difference is the car has BAR8+ armor so the car is now immune? I can see no extra penetrating critical hits against Tech D armors but 0 damage? Nope. Sorry it doesn't work.


Quote
But yet does not give them the same amount of protection..
Because sometimes BT does modify armor weight on based upon size, we see this with Warships and Dropships, and BA are just lucky enough to be abstracted into having lighter armor.

Um...nope. How many points of armor goes up as the weight of the unit goes up. How much each size can hold and the weight per point clearly listed in the Battle Armor Protection Table, TM page 169. The weight per point doesn't change with the size of the BA.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 11 July 2021, 06:45:38
Metallurgy matters enough that I think going from 2 AP to 5 AP would take your from TL B to TL C at least.  TL D is a whole other increase in capability on that score.

That touches an interesting "feature" of BT: the almost complete lack of evolutionary tech development (going on a tangent here, but it has some relevance for RCs). As soon as a piece of technology leaves "primitive" status, it is basically fixed forever. From 2471, when the WSP-1A appeared, there was no incremental improvement on fusion engines (and therefore ICEs, neither), armor, internal structure, lasers, MGs, cockpits, heatsinks, sensors...
Of course there were revolutionary developments like Endosteel IS, XL engines, DHS, ER and pulse lasers etc. But none of those were simply slight improvements of existing tech, but always changes in design paradigms, and they all came with drawbacks - they take more crits, generate more heat, are heavier or shorter ranged or more susceptible to damage etc. There never was a fusion engine that was just a half ton lighter or could hide an additional heatsink, no AC/5 that could just reach out for an additional hex, no SRM6 ammo at 16 instead 15 shots per ton.
When new improvements to basic technologies like chemistry or metallurgy were found, they were almost always used for new items, always never to improve existing ones. New, lighter alloys with better heat dissipation were used for the LB-X, but nobody had the idea to apply those alloys to make standard ACs a bit lighter. New propellants were used for HV ACs to reach out for up to 50% more range compared to standard ACs, but nobody used them to make RC ammo a bit lighter or use this knowledge of chemistry to make ammunition more stable against heat spikes .
Before someone explains this by Holy Shroud and the destruction of the 1st and 2nd SW, all this was already true during the heyday of the SL.
Of course all this is necessary to have a board game that remains manageable without depending on a computer. But BT is not only a board game, it is also presented as a "future history". And for that historical narrative, technology jumping forward only in such distinct steps doesn't improve suspension of disbelief.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 11 July 2021, 07:22:14
Arbitrary (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/arbitrary)
<snip>
The rules being discussed, wrt the Rifle Cannons, are Arbitrary rules in no small part due to this being a fantasy setting that does not have to be internally consistent, nor consistent with reality.  The values and exceptions are applied at the whim of the Developers with only a specific end-state mattering.

This ain't "Fire, Fusion and Steel" my friends.  The rules applied to the LRC/rifle cannons as a whole are completely based on no systems whatsoever, which makes arguing them pointless.  It was tossed in to 'look cool and fill  space' in the book, that's all it is, all it does.  There was no interest in internal consistency with the rest of the system beyond "Make it suck more than an autocannon" and (Later) "Well, we need to give it some kind of function so we'll make it super-good against battlearmor for no apparent reason".

everything else? all this discussion? it's just been competing rationalizations.  How many threads locked so far, boys and girls?

While I largely agree with you, I would like to politely dissent on two points.
"a fantasy setting that does not have to be internally consistent" & "There was no interest in internal consistency": While true that it does not have to be, internal consistency improves suspension of disbelief, and as many different discussions here on the forums show, there are many people who care about that suspension (for just two examples of such discussions, see Alaric's characterizations by different authors, fracturing -or lack thereof- of large states due to loss of HPG communication). At least for me personally, too many contradictions and inconsistencies will finally lead to give up on a franchise and vote with my wallet. I've never heard anyone say "I will not buy this product, it is too consistent" (apologies to Monty Python), so depending on how many potential customers like me are out there, maybe there should be some interest in internal consistency.

"it's just been competing rationalizations" It's that, but not "just" that. I think the discussion serves to highlight where the internal inconsistencies are, and this being the Fan Rules forum, may help each of us in designing our own respective house rules that better fit our personal tastes of consistency. At least for me it does.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Cannonshop on 11 July 2021, 07:38:29
While I largely agree with you, I would like to politely dissent on two points.
"a fantasy setting that does not have to be internally consistent" & "There was no interest in internal consistency": While true that it does not have to be, internal consistency improves suspension of disbelief, and as many different discussions here on the forums show, there are many people who care about that suspension (for just two examples of such discussions, see Alaric's characterizations by different authors, fracturing -or lack thereof- of large states due to loss of HPG communication). At least for me personally, too many contradictions and inconsistencies will finally lead to give up on a franchise and vote with my wallet. I've never heard anyone say "I will not buy this product, it is too consistent" (apologies to Monty Python), so depending on how many potential customers like me are out there, maybe there should be some interest in internal consistency.

"it's just been competing rationalizations" It's that, but not "just" that. I think the discussion serves to highlight where the internal inconsistencies are, and this being the Fan Rules forum, may help each of us in designing our own respective house rules that better fit our personal tastes of consistency. At least for me it does.

You make an excellent point.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 11 July 2021, 07:53:49
Relevance?

The rules being discussed, wrt the Rifle Cannons, are Arbitrary rules in no small part due to this being a fantasy setting that does not have to be internally consistent, nor consistent with reality.  The values and exceptions are applied at the whim of the Developers with only a specific end-state mattering.

This ain't "Fire, Fusion and Steel" my friends.  The rules applied to the LRC/rifle cannons as a whole are completely based on no systems whatsoever, which makes arguing them pointless.  It was tossed in to 'look cool and fill  space' in the book, that's all it is, all it does.  There was no interest in internal consistency with the rest of the system beyond "Make it suck more than an autocannon" and (Later) "Well, we need to give it some kind of function so we'll make it super-good against battlearmor for no apparent reason".

everything else? all this discussion? it's just been competing rationalizations.  How many threads locked so far, boys and girls?


That doesn't mean an arbitrary decision is correct. They can be wrong. Also any setting needs to be internally consistent or the suspension of disbelief gets broken.

Yes, Rifle Cannons were tossed in because they're cool and rules arbitrarily made for them. A damage reduction because Rifle Cannons are old and outdated bends the suspension of disbelief but doesn't break it. Some older weapons (infantry) do less damage because they're old. Some modern vehicle weapons do less damage at range. So the suspension of disbelief is intact. Except, for the Light Rifle Cannon. The 0 damage breaks the suspension of disbelief. The universe no longer works. That is a problem that should be fixed.

That Rifle Cannons do more damage to Battle Armor than other units with the same BAR level, or even 2 levels, less breaks suspension of disbelief. That is a problem that should be fixed.

That Rifle Cannons are inferior to Autocannons is not a problem. That Rifle Cannons remained as commonly available as Autocannons through the Star League era, and rare through the First Succession War without reason breaks suspension of disbelief. Especially, the Light Rifle Cannon which does 0 damage. That is a problem that needs to be fixed.

Most of these problems trace straight back to the Light Rifle Cannon doing 0 damage. Fix that, and a little explanation here and there and the suspension of disbelief is restored.

So if the -3 damage what changed to -3 to a minimum of 1 (LRC). The LRC would still be more powerful than an Auto-Rifle. It does 1 point of damage at 12 hexes compared to 1 at 6 hexes. They'd also be a popular low tech, low cost option for poor militias and mercs which would explain why they remained common for so long. Of course, availability will change depending on the region but generally, they're not hard to find. Suspension of Disbelief is restored.

Doing full damage, would only increase the believability of the inferior Rifle Cannons remaining common for so long. Giving Rifles alternative ammo would also increase that believability. So would giving them an ability that Autocannons lack but as long as all Rifles do some damage their continued availability remains believable. Suspension of disbelief restored.

The reduced availability during the First Succession War and virtual extinction after, is easily explained by NBC weapons, Ortillery, and all production shifting to autocannons.  A lot of production switch over like IndustrialMechs, so switching production of RC for ACs makes sense. Production is rapidly shrinking so make the best product possible.  Suspension of Disbelief is restored.

That leaves Rifle Cannons virtually extinct until someone finds some remote planet making them and that kicks off interest in them again.  Suspension of Disbelief is restored.

That just leaves Battle Armor wonkiness. Changing their BAR to 7 or less fixes that. Now they do full damage without breaking anything. They're more consistent with AToW. There's no more why does this weapon do more damage when this weapon doesn't. It's straight damage because it's under the Rifle's BAR damage reduction. (No reduction would also fix that.) It doesn't effect any other weapon but it does make them more consistent with the rest of the universe. The Suspension of Disbelief is Restored.

Two tiny changes that don't impact anything else, along with a little explanation fixes these problems.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 11 July 2021, 08:05:22
That touches an interesting "feature" of BT: the almost complete lack of evolutionary tech development (going on a tangent here, but it has some relevance for RCs). As soon as a piece of technology leaves "primitive" status, it is basically fixed forever. From 2471, when the WSP-1A appeared, there was no incremental improvement on fusion engines (and therefore ICEs, neither), armor, internal structure, lasers, MGs, cockpits, heatsinks, sensors...

You missed Primitive Mechs becoming Standard Mechs. There's also Modular Weapons which led to OMNI Technology. So there have been some improvements over the years.

As for the rest, I would go with costs. Non-standard parts complicate a units repairs and maintenance. Deviating from industry standards would complicate things so much more. However, we do have the Fractional Accounting Rule so we can do weird things.


 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 11 July 2021, 08:21:54
Just to be clear, the temporary thread lock here was due to conflation with the other thread.  Once that was realized, the thread was unlocked.

Seriously, though, this kind of discourse is why I like this forum!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 11 July 2021, 12:59:30
You missed Primitive Mechs becoming Standard Mechs. There's also Modular Weapons which led to OMNI Technology. So there have been some improvements over the years.
Somewhat agree on Primitive mechs, but they are still combinations of either primitive or standard parts which are in themselves fixed and don't develop any further.
Modular Weapons refers to the quirk, right? Again, agreed on that, but then once Omni tech is defined with the intro of the Coyotl, arrested development sets in, again. A 'mech either is an Omni or not. There is no gradual improvement, frex by first only omnified arms and light weapons and then gradually expanding to more body sections and heavier weapons. Omnis were never improved to allow hand actuator combined with large bore arm weapons, for another example. Even the ability to mechanize BA infantry was there from the get-go, before Elementals even existed.

Quote
As for the rest, I would go with costs. Non-standard parts complicate a units repairs and maintenance. Deviating from industry standards would complicate things so much more. However, we do have the Fractional Accounting Rule so we can do weird things.


Maintaining adherence to industry standards for several centuries, over thousands of planets and designs, hundreds of manufacturers, a dozen realms, some of them deadly enemies for long periods? Compared to that standards comitee the WoB must have been a rest home bingo evening  >:D
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Cannonshop on 11 July 2021, 13:15:21
Somewhat agree on Primitive mechs, but they are still combinations of either primitive or standard parts which are in themselves fixed and don't develop any further.
Modular Weapons refers to the quirk, right? Again, agreed on that, but then once Omni tech is defined with the intro of the Coyotl, arrested development sets in, again. A 'mech either is an Omni or not. There is no gradual improvement, frex by first only omnified arms and light weapons and then gradually expanding to more body sections and heavier weapons. Omnis were never improved to allow hand actuator combined with large bore arm weapons, for another example. Even the ability to mechanize BA infantry was there from the get-go, before Elementals even existed.

Maintaining adherence to industry standards for several centuries, over thousands of planets and designs, hundreds of manufacturers, a dozen realms, some of them deadly enemies for long periods? Compared to that standards comitee the WoB must have been a rest home bingo evening  >:D

well, there IS the influence of the "Mother Doctrine" and possibly limits on what information went out with the original colonies, including false or misleading information to stunt growth or turn it toward specific directions...
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 11 July 2021, 13:23:54
No they're not equally supported. The BA can support far more armor.
Mounting armor does not equal supporting armor.

Quote
What other mechs?
Are you going to claim that their battlefield only had cannon fodder on one side?

Quote
They function the same against BAR7 and lower armor.
Not good enough, you might as well demand that Blueshield works against RC.

Quote
The weight per point doesn't change with the size of the BA.
I did not make that claim. Mechs and CV are standard scale for the game. But BA have a low enough average size that they get lower weight armor points. A similar principle can also be seen with WarShips and Dropships which have to use heavier armor points the larger they become.   
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 11 July 2021, 13:50:49
Just to be clear, the temporary thread lock here was due to conflation with the other thread.  Once that was realized, the thread was unlocked.

Seriously, though, this kind of discourse is why I like this forum!  :thumbsup:

It is good to be able to discuss things.  :thumbsup:



Somewhat agree on Primitive mechs, but they are still combinations of either primitive or standard parts which are in themselves fixed and don't develop any further.
Modular Weapons refers to the quirk, right? Again, agreed on that, but then once Omni tech is defined with the intro of the Coyotl, arrested development sets in, again. A 'mech either is an Omni or not. There is no gradual improvement, frex by first only omnified arms and light weapons and then gradually expanding to more body sections and heavier weapons. Omnis were never improved to allow hand actuator combined with large bore arm weapons, for another example. Even the ability to mechanize BA infantry was there from the get-go, before Elementals even existed.


Sort of. There were some kind of mechs we don't have any info on. Then Primitives Mechs, then standard mechs. There's some compatibility, mostly armor and structure but not Standard is an improvement. After that we have Tripods, LAMs, Modular, Superheavy Industrial Tripods, OMNIs, Superheavy biped and quads, QuadVees. So there's a lot of improvement.
Yes, Modular is a Quirk. We have that quirk because the fluff for one mech being modular and easier to repair is what led to OMNIs. It is the step between standard and omni. 

None of that includes the wide variety of cockpits, structure types, armor types, engine types, and all kinds of other additions. So there have been lots of improvements.


Quote
Maintaining adherence to industry standards for several centuries, over thousands of planets and designs, hundreds of manufacturers, a dozen realms, some of them deadly enemies for long periods? Compared to that standards comitee the WoB must have been a rest home bingo evening  >:D

I"m not saying that there shouldn't be odd things as there is fluff that talks about some items being bigger smaller lighter heavier better worse than others. Quirks do allow us to do some of them but not all. It would be nice but cost is a factor. It might be okay to deviate from industry standard on your planet since your factory is right there. If the factory is on the other side of the IS its not going to help you. Waiting months for parts may not be an option. And if the factory is gone, you've got a big problem as other parts simply won't work. Parts that are more standardized are easier to replace.

It also costs a lot of money to retool a factory. It might be okay to make tiny changes sometimes. Mostly if they can be done without too much down time. If the changes are too many or too massive ones are going to have to wait.

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 11 July 2021, 14:02:22
The point remains that the BA's structure, even while not taking damage itself, is strong enough to carry 3 times the armor of a car the same weight.

Is it really that strong when the armor falls off from a Light Rifle Cannon hit and it doesn't on that car?  Supporting more, does not necessarily mean it supports it better.  We already see this in the difference between Combat vehicles and Battlemechs.  It is a concept of "quantity vs quality".  In this case, the BA is going for the "quantity", while the Car somehow has the "quality".

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.

It doesn't take a warbook to scan an approaching enemy. As it had spread half way across the IS by 3068 and was a popular seller, it won't take long for its capabilities to become known.

The Arbiter SecurityMech was specifically designed to defend New St. Andrews against raiders and pirates. As such it's made for the Militia to provide planetary security, not corporate security. As such its really more of a MilitiaMech than a SecurityMech.

https://www.sarna.net/wiki/SecurityMech_Treaty_of_2613

It takes a warbook to scan the enemy and identify it at certain ranges.  Remember how the Mad Cat got its name?

And even though it was showing up on some planets in the western two Houses' control, they were far more common in the western Periphery.  Nor does that mean it became part of the universal warbook at the same time.  I'm pretty sure that the first time people saw the Hatchetman, their warbooks went nuts.

And considering it came out in TRO: Corporations and units are using it "as a cheap security mech", it's not too far out to just call it a Security Mech.

I don't know where it is but I know it's there and takes up mass. I also know that mass supports more armor than that of a car the same weight. The max amount of armor increases by 4 with every weigh class. PAL2, L6, M10, H14, A18. A small support vehicles armor starts a 4 and only goes up 1 point per ton. The car also has locations so that armor gets spread around to provide protection. That's why I said, even if you include the IS, the total damage needed to kill a 1.5 ton Car is at best 3 points. To kill the same weight BA you need up to 15 points.  It can survive a hit from a PPC. There wouldn't be anything left of the car. Every armor and structure point would be gone. That's a huge amount of protection compared to the Car. So a car with a lower quality armor surviving a LRC hit with no damage when the BA takes 3 points doesn't make sense. Nor does it make sense that other BAR10 units take reduced damage from Rifles, meaning the LRC does 0 damage to them.

You can have BA be the same weight and not be able to take the Small Laser any more than that Car.  It would be very heavy on electronics and guns, but it is possible.

Now remember when I suggested BA should have a BAR7 or less? If we look at SV armor weights the best protection 25kg will get is BAR4 Tech E and F at 23kg and 21kg. Tech D and BAR5 Tech F are also close at 26kg but if we allow it, IS BA 40kg armor = BAR5 Tech C armor.  So going by weight they best BAR BA could have is BAR5. Since 5 is less than 7 Rifles are free to do full damage against BA. That BA don't have IS points could be pointed at as the reason BA can't have BAR8 plus armor. And since SV do have IS points they're free to use BAR8+ armor and receive -3 damage from Rifle Cannons.

The biggest problem with this is that it is not factually supported at all.  We both know that it is BAR10.  That has been part of your biggest complaint.

There's also evidence of this happening in AToW where PAL and Light BA take more damage than heavier ones. Why not just extend that to all BA? It's not like anything else will be effected. BA don't have internals to bother with penetrating critical hits so its just full damage. It would also eliminate one of the oddities, that being RCs doing full damage to BA but not other units. That'd just leave the LRC doing 0 which is easily solved by reducing the damage to a minimum of 1. After all of .5 rounds up for infantry weapons, why not a vehicle weapon?

Because ATOW operates on a different scale than Battletech does?  ATOW operates at a point where a single assault rifle makes a difference instead of just there as a spotter or bait.

For some reason I'm thinking of old Chevy Nova. It laughs off hit after hit from a LRC but gets kicked in the rear by a very annoyed BA trooper and blows up.

Not even a proper example.  A basic Chevy Nova has zero armor.  Its skin isn't even the same quality as its own structure.  A Chevy Nova with the skin of an Abrams being hit by a Lee's 37mm would be a closer analogy.

No they're not equally supported. The BA can support far more armor.

But it can't keep it on as easily when impacted by Rifle Cannons.  So something that is supposed to keep it on, isn't.  My theory is that it is due to how the support structure is configured, as it isn't enough to even keep the Infantryman from being hit while the car's can (if the hit is small enough).

That doesn't mean an arbitrary decision is correct. They can be wrong. Also any setting needs to be internally consistent or the suspension of disbelief gets broken.

Quite true.  Hence looking for opportunities to fix it.

Somewhat agree on Primitive mechs, but they are still combinations of either primitive or standard parts which are in themselves fixed and don't develop any further.
Modular Weapons refers to the quirk, right? Again, agreed on that, but then once Omni tech is defined with the intro of the Coyotl, arrested development sets in, again. A 'mech either is an Omni or not. There is no gradual improvement, frex by first only omnified arms and light weapons and then gradually expanding to more body sections and heavier weapons. Omnis were never improved to allow hand actuator combined with large bore arm weapons, for another example. Even the ability to mechanize BA infantry was there from the get-go, before Elementals even existed.

If anything, IIC Mechs should all have the Modular Weapons trait because they are still using the same weapons built for the Omnimechs.  They just lack the quick-change mounts that the Omnimechs have.  Still that's a conversation for another thread.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 11 July 2021, 14:07:40
A single Auto-rifle does make a difference compared to nothing, but it takes three of them to make two points of damage.  If you have three of them, you have to roll on the cluster hit table and only MAYBE get all them...
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 11 July 2021, 14:12:10
Mounting armor does not equal supporting armor.

If it can't support it, it can't mount it. It'd collapse.

Quote
Are you going to claim that their battlefield only had cannon fodder on one side?

New St. Andrews? They might have had some imported mechs but they didn't have the technical capability to make anything better than the Arbiter. Even the quality of their tanks is lower. 

Quote
Not good enough, you might as well demand that Blueshield works against RC.

Nope. Blueshield is specifically made to counter PPC fire. Standard armor is just general protection. Right now it's like saying a punch against standard armor from a Primitive Wasp does X damage but a punch from a Standard Wasp does Y damage. But if they both punch FF armor the Primitive Was does +3 damage.


Quote
I did not make that claim. Mechs and CV are standard scale for the game. But BA have a low enough average size that they get lower weight armor points. A similar principle can also be seen with WarShips and Dropships which have to use heavier armor points the larger they become.


You said.
Quote
But yet does not give them the same amount of protection..
Because sometimes BT does modify armor weight on based upon size, we see this with Warships and Dropships, and BA are just lucky enough to be abstracted into having lighter armor.

That sure sounds like the weight of BA armor is changing between sizes. It doesn't. Different types of armors have different weights but those weights are constant. They don't change depending on the BA's size. Clan Standard BA armor weights 25kg regardless of which weight class its mounted on. Same with all the other BA weights.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 11 July 2021, 14:37:27
If it can't support it, it can't mount it. It'd collapse.
Do you understand that supporting armor and mounting armor are two different things? These are two very different terms.

Quote
New St. Andrews? They might have had some imported mechs but they didn't have the technical capability to make anything better than the Arbiter. Even the quality of their tanks is lower. 
Like most planets they would have some imported units, but in their situation these weren't enough so they had to fill up their forces with cannon fodder.

Quote
Nope. Blueshield is specifically made to counter PPC fire.
So? If we are going to ignore that there are specific types of damage then we might as well ignore specific types of defenses, let us look forward to LBX cluster rounds being stopped by AMS.

Quote
You said.
[snip]
And you didn't understand it, so I have rephrased it. Now do you understand it?:
Mechs and CV are standard scale for the game. But BA have a low enough average size that they get lower weight armor points. A similar principle can also be seen with WarShips and Dropships which have to use heavier armor points the larger they become.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 11 July 2021, 15:05:38
Is it really that strong when the armor falls off from a Light Rifle Cannon hit and it doesn't on that car?  Supporting more, does not necessarily mean it supports it better.  We already see this in the difference between Combat vehicles and Battlemechs.  It is a concept of "quantity vs quality".  In this case, the BA is going for the "quantity", while the Car somehow has the "quality".

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.

Does the IS on the Car suddenly get weaker with BAR7 armor? No. It's the armor that gets weaker. Structure doesn't change. The armor does. So I don't believe that BA can have BAR10 armor. If they did, Rifles would have the same -3 damage reduction against them.

Seriously, it makes no sense to say that a Rifle Cannon Round isn't powerful enough to damage weaker armor and then turn around and say it does more damage to this unit with the better armor. All while saying more powerful weapons don't also do more damage.
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.
By giving BA a BAR5, they're below the BAR8 damage reduction for RCs. Then RCs hit BA just as hard as they would any other unit with BAR7or lower armor and the anomaly we have now wouldn't exist.


Quote
It takes a warbook to scan the enemy and identify it at certain ranges.  Remember how the Mad Cat got its name?

Nope. Scanners scan. Warbook identifies.


Quote
And even though it was showing up on some planets in the western two Houses' control, they were far more common in the Periphery.  Nor does that mean it became part of the universal warbook at the same time.  I'm pretty sure that the first time people saw the Hatchetman, their warbooks went nuts

It would show up in a warbook as "Unidentified. Does not match any known Mech."


Quote
And considering it came out in TRO: Corporations and units are using it "as a cheap security mech", it's not too far out to just call it a Security Mech.

I didn't say it wasn't a SecurityMech or that it could be used in that role. Even BattleMechs are used in a security role. What I said was that the Arbiter was intended for planetary militias. The difference is intent.


Quote
You can have BA be the same weight and not be able to take the Small Laser any more than that Car.  It would be very heavy on electronics and guns, but it is possible.

Sure we could lower the amount of armor the BA can carry. We can also reduce the armor on the car too. That doesn't change the fact that BA can carry more armor.


Quote
The biggest problem with this is that it is not factually supported at all.  We both know that it is BAR10.  That has been part of your biggest complaint.

Actually, it is. Canon doesn't support it but looking at the weights of armors and how BA take damage, the facts do support what I said. The BAR value of BA should not be 10 but 5.


Quote
Because ATOW operates on a different scale than Battletech does?  ATOW operates at a point where a single assault rifle makes a difference instead of just there as a spotter or bait.

Not that much different. The turns are twice as fast. That doesn't increase the number of times a PAL gets shot at. A single hit is still a single hit. Only in AToW the damage is 3 times greater. And to help my argument even more Battle Armor BAR levels go up to 18 in AToW and even then they still don't have a 10/10/10/10 Armor rating.

Quote
Not even a proper example.  A basic Chevy Nova has zero armor.  Its skin isn't even the same quality as its own structure.  A Chevy Nova with the skin of an Abrams being hit by a Lee's 37mm would be a closer analogy.

Um...no. The car has a lower BAR than the BA yet the BA is the one taking the damage. If the Nova has the armor of an Abrams, the BA has the armor of what? The Iowa?


Quote
But it can't keep it on as easily when impacted by Rifle Cannons.  So something that is supposed to keep it on, isn't.  My theory is that it is due to how the support structure is configured, as it isn't enough to even keep the Infantryman from being hit while the car's can (if the hit is small enough).

Then why doesn't the impact of other ballistic weapons do more damage?  If the BA chassis can't take a hit from a slow moving Rifle shell, how can it take a hit from an faster moving AC shell, or a really faster Gauss Rifle shell? And if the Chassis is strong enough then why don't Rifles do full damage against Mechs and Vehicles? 

The only explanation that makes sense is that BA do not have BAR10 armor.


Quote
Quite true.  Hence looking for opportunities to fix it.

Hence my suggestions.

Quote
If anything, IIC Mechs should all have the Modular Weapons trait because they are still using the same weapons built for the Omnimechs.  They just lack the quick-change mounts that the Omnimechs have.  Still that's a conversation for another thread.

How can they be using weapons meant for OMNIs when OMNIs weren't around then?

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 11 July 2021, 15:49:44
Does the IS on the Car suddenly get weaker with BAR7 armor? No. It's the armor that gets weaker. Structure doesn't change. The armor does. So I don't believe that BA can have BAR10 armor. If they did, Rifles would have the same -3 damage reduction against them.

BAR10 armor CAN resist the damage, but BAR7 cannot.  BA with BAR10 cannot resist the damage.  BA have no notable structure on the Total Warfare stage, but the car does.   No other standard has been found in the difference between the two, so the structure of the BA cannot hold the armor against a Rifle Cannon attack (leaving it at its full damage) while the car's structure does hold on to that armor.

In other words, it is not JUST the armor that resists the attack, but what supports the armor.  Battle Armor's structure just can't support BAR10 armor in resisting the Rifle Cannon's attack the way that Vehicles and Battlemechs can.

Seriously, it makes no sense to say that a Rifle Cannon Round isn't powerful enough to damage weaker armor and then turn around and say it does more damage to this unit with the better armor. All while saying more powerful weapons don't also do more damage.

Two points:
1)Aside from the Powers That Be, who said it should make sense, aside from my structure theory.  Battle Armor is apparently just squishier.

2) Again, you are using the wrong math.  Lack of resistance to one type of damage does not correlate to a damage bonus from other sources.  What you are proposing in concept every time you say that "while more powerful weapons don't also do more damage" is the equivalent of saying, "Normal-type Pokemon should take more Fire Damage because they don't have Water Resistance."  The concept is not supported in the rules no matter how many times you repeat it.

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.

Why should an AC/20 do 13 points of Damage when an HRC does 9?  When did BA get "Autocannon Resistance"?

By giving BA a BAR5, they're below the BAR8 damage reduction for RCs. Then RCs hit BA just as hard as they would any other unit with BAR7or lower armor and the anomaly we have now wouldn't exist.

BA armor is NOT BAR5, that has been your common complaint.  I don't know why you keep pushing this concept that you are using the opposite as your main complaint.

Nope. Scanners scan. Warbook identifies.

It would show up in a warbook as "Unidentified. Does not match any known Mech."

Correct, but the scanners that Mechs come with do not identify the weapons on the target, the Warbook does.  The scanners tell if it is a Mech, but not what it is constructed of.  The only scanner which has a chance of telling the difference between a Rifle Cannon and an Autocannon is the Mk1 eyeball and the computer attached to it, and the Arbiter's barrel is designed to confuse it.

I didn't say it wasn't a SecurityMech or that it could be used in that role. Even BattleMechs are used in a security role. What I said was that the Arbiter was intended for planetary militias. The difference is intent.

Either way, not intended for the frontline.

Sure we could lower the amount of armor the BA can carry. We can also reduce the armor on the car too. That doesn't change the fact that BA can carry more armor.

It's also a fact that the structure cannot hold on to that armor during a hit from a Rifle Cannon as well as a car with the same armor.  Still no theory from you on why that is, except you changing the rules.

Actually, it is. Canon doesn't support it but looking at the weights of armors and how BA take damage, the facts do support what I said. The BAR value of BA should not be 10 but 5.

If canon does not support it, then it isn't.  So either you are severely mistyping, or you forgot how "should" operates within a sentence.  You kept using "is" when you mean "should", just as you keep confusing my paragraphs between when I use "is" and when I use "should".

"Should" is an indicator of possibility or suggestion.  "Is" establishes what are the facts at present.

Facts at present are: Battle Armor IS BAR10.  Battle Armor IS not resistant to Rifle Cannon damage.

Suggestions present are: Battle Armor SHOULD be BAR5.  Battle Armor SHOULD be able to resist Rifle Cannons.  Rifle Cannons SHOULD not be resisted and their damage values SHOULD be adjusted to account for that.  Rifle Cannons SHOULD be doing less damage at longer range bands.

Do you understand the difference in language?  If so, please appreciate it when people do it to.

Not that much different. The turns are twice as fast. That doesn't increase the number of times a PAL gets shot at. A single hit is still a single hit. Only in AToW the damage is 3 times greater. And to help my argument even more Battle Armor BAR levels go up to 18 in AToW and even then they still don't have a 10/10/10/10 Armor rating.

The turns are twice as fast and the amount of damage is at a considerably different scale, as you noted, 3x more.

Um...no. The car has a lower BAR than the BA yet the BA is the one taking the damage. If the Nova has the armor of an Abrams, the BA has the armor of what? The Iowa?

No, I'm pointing out that a stock Chevy Nova has no armor at all.  It is a skin to keep the weather out and provide a pleasing shape.  That is why your analogy falls flat.

The closest we have to Standard Armor in the time of a Chevy Nova would be the armor on the Abrams.  And the BA would be trying to wear the same armor as the Abrams.

How can they be using weapons meant for OMNIs when OMNIs weren't around then?

Omnis have been around for the last 300 years (almost 200 years by the Clan Invasion) and their primary weapon platform.  Most of the clan-scale of equipment was developed just a few decades before, and a few IIC models were developed after the Coyotl.  Sheer inertia and basic replacement would have seen something built for a Summoner being installed on a Hunchback IIC instead.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 11 July 2021, 15:51:52
Do you understand that supporting armor and mounting armor are two different things? These are two very different terms.

Sure but you understand that you can't mount armor the chassis won't support? You can't put 18 points of armor on a Light BA because the chassis won't support it. You can't put 18 points of armor on any small support vehicle. You can put 18 points of armor on a 2 ton BA. You can't put 18 points of armor on a 4.999 ton vehicle.


Quote
Like most planets they would have some imported units, but in their situation these weren't enough so they had to fill up their forces with cannon fodder.

I don't think they'd refer to their friends and family as cannon fodder.


Quote
So? If we are going to ignore that there are specific types of damage then we might as well ignore specific types of defenses, let us look forward to LBX cluster rounds being stopped by AMS.
And you didn't understand it, so I have rephrased it. Now do you understand it?:

I'm not ignoring that we're talking about a hits from ballistic weapons having differing effects against the same BAR armor. That's part of the problem and I have hear no reasonable explanation for it. The chassis isn't strong enough, but it is strong enough  against a more powerful weapon? Well Blueshield, or this or that are all irrelevant.

It's simple. If the BA can't take a slow moving hit, a fast moving hit should be even worse. That's what we're told for Mechs and Vehicles.  So why does the Rifle do better against one and not the other. The damage should be the same because they have the same protection. If they don't then more powerful weapons should also do more damage.

Quote
Mechs and CV are standard scale for the game. But BA have a low enough average size that they get lower weight armor points. A similar principle can also be seen with WarShips and Dropships which have to use heavier armor points the larger they become.

Nope. Sorry. SVs can be just as small as BA and they don't get reduced armor weighs. BAR 10 Tech D armor is still going to weigh 63kg per point. It doesn't matter if its on a 150kg motorbike, a 100 ton mech, or a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier. It's still 63kg per point. To get a lighter armor, you either have to high tech or lower BAR value. BA is at a minimum higher tech. I believe it's also lower BAR. 

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 11 July 2021, 16:10:10
One quick point: AToW page 186 says the IS of a unit has a BAR rating equal to the armor on that section.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 11 July 2021, 16:38:07
Sure but you understand that you can't mount armor the chassis won't support? You can't put 18 points of armor on a Light BA because the chassis won't support it. You can't put 18 points of armor on any small support vehicle. You can put 18 points of armor on a 2 ton BA. You can't put 18 points of armor on a 4.999 ton vehicle.
It is clear that we can't agree here, for me those are two different words and they can't be used as if they are the same word.

Quote
I don't think they'd refer to their friends and family as cannon fodder.
And? They may use a nicer word but it is the truth.

Quote
I'm not ignoring that we're talking about a hits from ballistic weapons having differing effects against the same BAR armor. That's part of the problem and I have hear no reasonable explanation for it. The chassis isn't strong enough, but it is strong enough  against a more powerful weapon?
Not all ballistic weapons operate in the same way, it is a broad category. Within that category we have some specific weapons that can exploit the weaknesses of the BA unit type, these being the RC, Bearhunter and the King David. So quite consistent an issue with the battle armor unit type. We do not need to know the exact nature of the weaknesses but merely to admit they are there.

Quote
Well Blueshield, or this or that are all irrelevant.
It is to get everyone to realize that there are damage and unit specific counters and defenses in BT.

Quote
Nope. Sorry. SVs can be just as small as BA and they don't get reduced armor weighs.
That is because the SV scale confirm closer to the standard scale and TPTB didn't want to add additional complexity. 

Quote
BAR 10 Tech D armor is still going to weigh 63kg per point. It doesn't matter if its on a 150kg motorbike, a 100 ton mech, or a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier. It's still 63kg per point. To get a lighter armor, you either have to high tech or lower BAR value. BA is at a minimum higher tech. I believe it's also lower BAR.
Incorrect, a 1kt Spheroid DS gets 16 points of standard armor per ton, while a 100kt Spheroid DS only gets 6 points per ton.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 11 July 2021, 16:55:19
BAR10 armor CAN resist the damage, but BAR7 cannot.  BA with BAR10 cannot resist the damage.  BA have no notable structure on the Total Warfare stage, but the car does.   No other standard has been found in the difference between the two, so the structure of the BA cannot hold the armor against a Rifle Cannon attack (leaving it at its full damage) while the car's structure does hold on to that armor.

In other words, it is not JUST the armor that resists the attack, but what supports the armor.  Battle Armor's structure just can't support BAR10 armor in resisting the Rifle Cannon's attack.

If the BA's chassis can't support the BAR10 armor to withstand an attack from a Rifle Cannon, how can it support a hit from a more powerful Autocannon?

I keep asking and no one is telling.

Every excuse given, should also apply to something else but I'm told it doesn't because.


Quote
Two points:
1)Aside from the Powers That Be, who said it should make sense, aside from my structure theory.  Battle Armor is apparently just squishier.

Except your theory doesn't make sense. Again, if BA chassis isn't strong enough to fully defend against a RC hit, it cannot be strong enough to fully defend from a more power AC hit. So the damage should be upped all around.

If the armor is strong enough, then the RC's damage should also be reduced. If the RC's damage isn't reduced, then the damage shouldn't be reduced against other units.

Quote
2) Again, you are using the wrong math.  Lack of resistance to one type of damage does not correlate to a damage bonus from other sources.  What you are proposing in concept every time you say that "while more powerful weapons don't also do more damage" is the equivalent of saying, "Normal-type Pokemon should take more Fire Damage because they don't have Water Resistance."  The concept is not supported in the rules no matter how many times you repeat it.

Why the insistence on other damage types? Tell me why a ballistic hit from weapon A does less damage than weapon B on unit X but not on unit Y? I don't want any more run arounds or red herrings. You keep saying my math is wrong but I'm shown nothing to prove it. In fact, everything I'm being told tells me that I'm right and that there's a problem with the rules. And if there weren't a problem with the rules, we wouldn't be talking about how to fix them.


Quote
Why should an AC/20 do 13 points of Damage when an HRC does 9?  When did BA get "Autocannon Resistance"?

Again, if a BA can't fully defend against a hit from a RC than it cannot support a hit from a more powerful AC. If the BA can fully defend against the AC then the Rifles -3 should apply to BA as well.


Quote
BA armor is NOT BAR5, that has been your common complaint.  I don't know why you keep pushing this concept that you are using the opposite as your main complaint.

I know it isn't but it makes more sense than BA can't defend against RCs but can against more powerful weapons. And if this thread isn't about trying to fix these problems, why are we here?


Quote
Correct, but the scanners that Mechs come with do not identify the weapons on the target, the Warbook does.  The scanners tell if it is a Mech, but not what it is constructed of.  The only scanner which has a chance of telling the difference between a Rifle Cannon and an Autocannon is the Mk1 eyeball and the computer attached to it, and the Arbiter's barrel is designed to confuse it.

That isn't what TacOps page 187 and 188 says.

Quote
Either way, not intended for the frontline.

Except that's right were the Arbiter is put.


Quote
It's also a fact that the structure cannot hold on to that armor during a hit from a Rifle Cannon as well as a car with the same armor.  Still no theory from you on why that is, except you changing the rules.

In case it was missed, my theory is that the rules are wrong. If hey were wrong this thread wouldn't exist. My theory is backed up by how BA take full damage from Rifles, exactly like other units with armor BAR7 and lower. It's backed up by Armor weights. It's back up by some BA taking more damage in AToW. It's back up by BA having up to BAR18 in AToW.


Quote
If canon does not support it, then it isn't.  So either you are severely mistyping, or you forgot how "should" operates within a sentence.  You kept using "is" when you mean "should", just as you keep confusing my paragraphs between when I use "is" and when I use "should".

"Should" is an indicator of possibility or suggestion.  "Is" establishes what are the facts at present.

Canon says BAR10. If Canon made sense, there would not be a problem and we would not be here.

Should be BAR5 is a suggestion. It could be BAR 4. I was being generous with Tech F BAR5 as it's weight is actually greater than Standard Clan BA armor.


Quote
Facts at present are: Battle Armor IS BAR10.  Battle Armor IS not resistant to Rifle Cannon damage.

Suggestions present are: Battle Armor SHOULD be BAR5.  Battle Armor SHOULD be able to resist Rifle Cannons.  Rifle Cannons SHOULD not be resisted and their damage values SHOULD be adjusted to account for that.  Rifle Cannons SHOULD be doing less damage at longer range bands.

Do you understand the difference in language?  If so, please appreciate it when people do it to.

Why are you lecturing me about not doing something when I did?

BA should have BAR5
All RC should do damage against BAR10 armor.

Quote
The turns are twice as fast and the amount of damage is at a considerably different scale, as you noted, 3x more.

Damage is more not because the turns are faster but because BA can't take the hits.


Quote
No, I'm pointing out that a stock Chevy Nova has no armor at all.  It is a skin to keep the weather out and provide a pleasing shape.  That is why your analogy falls flat.

The closest we have to Standard Armor in the time of a Chevy Nova would be the armor on the Abrams.  And the BA would be trying to wear the same armor as the Abrams.

It's an analogy. It's not meant to be literal. The end result is the same. Car with weaker armor takes no damage while BA with superior armor does.

Quote
Omnis have been around for the last 300 years (almost 200 years by the Clan Invasion) and their primary weapon platform.  Most of the clan-scale of equipment was developed just a few decades before, and a few IIC models were developed after the Coyotl.  Sheer inertia and basic replacement would have seen something built for a Summoner being installed on a Hunchback IIC instead.

Still doesn't answer the question. How can a weapon be intended for a unit that isn't there?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 11 July 2021, 17:01:14
One quick point: AToW page 186 says the IS of a unit has a BAR rating equal to the armor on that section.

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/tactical-operations/answered-errata-rifle-cannon-ammunition-explosions/msg1604956/#msg1604956


Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 11 July 2021, 17:23:13
They never answered monbvol's response to that answer, which pointed out the wider reaching implications of it.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 11 July 2021, 17:34:16
It is clear that we can't agree here, for me those are two different words and they can't be used as if they are the same word.

Agree to disagree is good for me.  :thumbsup:


Quote
And? They may use a nicer word but it is the truth.

That they can be used as cannon fodder does not mean that they're intended to be cannon fodder.



Quote
Not all ballistic weapons operate in the same way, it is a broad category. Within that category we have some specific weapons that can exploit the weaknesses of the BA unit type, these being the RC, Bearhunter and the King David. So quite consistent an issue with the battle armor unit type. We do not need to know the exact nature of the weaknesses but merely to admit they are there.

There is a difference between general purpose and specific function. For this discussion propellent sends projectile at target.

I'm also having trouble finding where Bearhunters and Kind Davids so more damage against BA. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong spot but I'm not seeing it.


Quote
It is to get everyone to realize that there are damage and unit specific counters and defenses in BT.

That is true but not applicable here. RC's weren't made to be a counter to BA. (Even if they were, I'd still question the Light's 0 damage against other units.) And the theories I've been given for why the BA takes more damage from RCs but not other weapons doesn't add up.


Quote
That is because the SV scale confirm closer to the standard scale and TPTB didn't want to add additional complexity. 

More likely that they didn't think it through.


Quote
Incorrect, a 1kt Spheroid DS gets 16 points of standard armor per ton, while a 100kt Spheroid DS only gets 6 points per ton.

And what other unit does that happen to? Not one single class or weight of Support Vehicle. Not any weight Combat Vehicle. Not any weigh Mech. and so on and so on. This only happens with larger aerospace units. Essentially though they have their own types of armor. Why? I don't know but aerospace is another headache. Other units don't do that.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 11 July 2021, 17:35:21
They never answered monbvol's response to that answer, which pointed out the wider reaching implications of it.

True. Unfortunately, that's the best answer we have so far,
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 11 July 2021, 17:49:07
Also true, and hence the reason for this thread.  The inconsistencies in the system will never be fixed if we don't point them out.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery on 11 July 2021, 18:04:37
That they can be used as cannon fodder does not mean that they're intended to be cannon fodder.
Does it mount a RC, then it is cannon fodder.

Quote
I'm also having trouble finding where Bearhunters and Kind Davids so more damage against BA. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong spot but I'm not seeing it.
TO p.108
Now, it is clear that BA has unnamed weaknesses?

Quote
That is true but not applicable here. RC's weren't made to be a counter to BA.
That does not matter, even mine-clearance missiles can be used for multiple ends. The BA-RC combo is just one example of the damage and unit specific counters and defenses in BT.

Quote
More likely that they didn't think it through.
I would say that about the BAR system.

Quote
And what other unit does that happen to? Not one single class or weight of Support Vehicle. Not any weight Combat Vehicle. Not any weigh Mech. and so on and so on. This only happens with larger aerospace units. Essentially though they have their own types of armor. Why? I don't know but aerospace is another headache. Other units don't do that.
It is one way to handle armor weight over a class of units that have an extreme range of sizes. BA benefit from being on the other side of the scaling. 
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 11 July 2021, 18:10:44
*snip*
I would say that about the BAR system.
*snip*
I think it's more a matter of whoever did the thinking about the BAR system wasn't listened to by anyone else.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: TigerShark on 11 July 2021, 18:48:14
I think it's more a matter of whoever did the thinking about the BAR system wasn't listened to by anyone else.
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 11 July 2021, 18:56:48
It would certainly be a firmer base for those kinds of extensions than pure fiat!  :)
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 11 July 2021, 19:00:07

None of that includes the wide variety of cockpits, structure types, armor types, engine types, and all kinds of other additions. So there have been lots of improvements.
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>.

Just to use an every day example. My current laptop is superior in literally every way compared to the one I bought seven years ago - it's even cheaper, accounting for inflation, and the one I intend to buy next year will be equally superior in every regard to my current one. The old laptop isn't still manufactured alongside a revolutionary XL or Pulse or ER or Heavy laptop type that gives me twice the performance and four times the memory but occupies three times the space or needs a fusion plant to even boot. Just a laptop that gets incrementally a bit better with every generation.

Quote
I"m not saying that there shouldn't be odd things as there is fluff that talks about some items being bigger smaller lighter heavier better worse than others. Quirks do allow us to do some of them but not all. It would be nice but cost is a factor. It might be okay to deviate from industry standard on your planet since your factory is right there. If the factory is on the other side of the IS its not going to help you. Waiting months for parts may not be an option. And if the factory is gone, you've got a big problem as other parts simply won't work. Parts that are more standardized are easier to replace.

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.... :)

Quote
It also costs a lot of money to retool a factory. It might be okay to make tiny changes sometimes. Mostly if they can be done without too much down time. If the changes are too many or too massive ones are going to have to wait.
Right. And over several centuries, those little changes should add up. And in times of war, money has rarely restrained a government.

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.  :)


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 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.

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.


Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 11 July 2021, 19:24:10
I'm also having trouble finding where Bearhunters and Kind Davids so more damage against BA. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong spot but I'm not seeing it.


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).  ???
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 11 July 2021, 22:38:56
If the BA's chassis can't support the BAR10 armor to withstand an attack from a Rifle Cannon, how can it support a hit from a more powerful Autocannon?

I keep asking and no one is telling.

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.

Except your theory doesn't make sense. Again, if BA chassis isn't strong enough to fully defend against a RC hit, it cannot be strong enough to fully defend from a more power AC hit. So the damage should be upped all around.

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.

Why the insistence on other damage types? Tell me why a ballistic hit from weapon A does less damage than weapon B on unit X but not on unit Y? I don't want any more run arounds or red herrings. You keep saying my math is wrong but I'm shown nothing to prove it. In fact, everything I'm being told tells me that I'm right and that there's a problem with the rules. And if there weren't a problem with the rules, we wouldn't be talking about how to fix them.

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.

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

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.

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.

Again, if a BA can't fully defend against a hit from a RC than it cannot support a hit from a more powerful AC. If the BA can fully defend against the AC then the Rifles -3 should apply to BA as well.

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).

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.

I know it isn't but it makes more sense than BA can't defend against RCs but can against more powerful weapons. And if this thread isn't about trying to fix these problems, why are we here?

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.

That isn't what TacOps page 187 and 188 says.

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?

Except that's right were the Arbiter is put.

The frontline where?  By whom?

In case it was missed, my theory is that the rules are wrong. If hey were wrong this thread wouldn't exist. My theory is backed up by how BA take full damage from Rifles, exactly like other units with armor BAR7 and lower. It's backed up by Armor weights. It's back up by some BA taking more damage in AToW. It's back up by BA having up to BAR18 in AToW.

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

Should be BAR5 is a suggestion. It could be BAR 4. I was being generous with Tech F BAR5 as it's weight is actually greater than Standard Clan BA armor.

Why are you lecturing me about not doing something when I did?

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.

Damage is more not because the turns are faster but because BA can't take the hits.

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

It's an analogy. It's not meant to be literal. The end result is the same. Car with weaker armor takes no damage while BA with superior armor does.

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.

Still doesn't answer the question. How can a weapon be intended for a unit that isn't there?

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.

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.

In a way it reminds me of the Warmachine damage system.  You take the attacking model's POW or P+S of the attack, add 2D6 (along with any bonus dice), then subtract the target's Armor stat from it to get how much damage is done.

So:
(Attack POW) + 2D6 - (Target ARM) = Damage.

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

Realistically speaking, the only place that is a problem is the Heavy Rifle Cannon, I believe, and that's just its range over the AC/10.  The amount of bins one needs to include to make the HRC to match the AC/10 is pretty much double the crits.  It is lighter, but does one less damage and generates more heat.

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.

I'd be on board with this, somewhat.  One could even have the -3 cancellation ammo be available, but with even more tight bays.

c) getting the damage per ton of ammo more in line with other weapon types.

I'm going to say no to this one as it is one of the easy justifications for how much worse the Rifle Cannons are when compared to the Autocannons.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol on 11 July 2021, 22:59:12
They never answered monbvol's response to that answer, which pointed out the wider reaching implications of it.

They both have and haven't.

We've been explicitly told TW/TacOps>AToW and in the answer to my question about mine clearing missiles it was pretty explicitly stated that BA do not use the BAR system and the implication is neither do Combat Vehicles or Battlemechs at the TW/TacOps scale.

I think this does leave some potential implications at least in the realm of Support Vehicles(which Industrial Mechs are considered a member of with a few special case rules) but I rather doubt we'll ever get those resolved.

Where it may get more interesting that I don't think TPTB have really thought about is in the realms of Primitive/Retrotech Mechs, Franken Mechs, and Primitive/Retrotech ASFs.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: DevianID on 12 July 2021, 00:26:33
Quote
Um...no. While the Inferno doesn't remove armor points, it can cause internal damage with every missile that hits. So the 1.5 ton vehicle is just as dead. I do agree that the +1 for some small targets and not others is weird though.

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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB on 12 July 2021, 01:59:45
c) getting the damage per ton of ammo more in line with other weapon types
I'm going to say no to this one as it is one of the easy justifications for how much worse the Rifle Cannons are when compared to the Autocannons.

It's an easy justification, but it always leads to the question: why is a single pre space-age 111kg shell from an MRC so much worse than a single pre space-age 100kg shell from a Sniper? (6 damage vs. 20 damage at target hex + additional at surrounding hexes).
And on the other hand: why is a pre-space age MRC firing a 111kg shell at 15 hexes so much lighter than a 31st century Sniper Cannon firing a 100kg shell at 12 hexes? (5t vs. 15t)

I think it is much more elegant to put the weight where it belongs: on the weapon, not as additional ballast on the payload.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: DevianID on 12 July 2021, 02:39:41
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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph on 12 July 2021, 03:05:39
It's an easy justification, but it always leads to the question: why is a single pre space-age 111kg shell from an MRC so much worse than a single pre space-age 100kg shell from a Sniper? (6 damage vs. 20 damage at target hex + additional at surrounding hexes).
And on the other hand: why is a pre-space age MRC firing a 111kg shell at 15 hexes so much lighter than a 31st century Sniper Cannon firing a 100kg shell at 12 hexes? (5t vs. 15t)

I think it is much more elegant to put the weight where it belongs: on the weapon, not as additional ballast on the payload.

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).
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk on 12 July 2021, 04:10:38
They both have and haven't.

We've been explicitly told TW/TacOps>AToW and in the answer to my question about mine clearing missiles it was pretty explicitly stated that BA do not use the BAR system and the implication is neither do Combat Vehicles or Battlemechs at the TW/TacOps scale.

I think this does leave some potential implications at least in the realm of Support Vehicles(which Industrial Mechs are considered a member of with a few special case rules) but I rather doubt we'll ever get those resolved.

Where it may get more interesting that I don't think TPTB have really thought about is in the realms of Primitive/Retrotech Mechs, Franken Mechs, and Primitive/Retrotech ASFs.
The fact that Support Vehicles exist only reinforces my belief the right hand never talked to the left hand among TPTB.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 12 July 2021, 05:27:52
Does it mount a RC, then it is cannon fodder.
TO p.108
Now, it is clear that BA has unnamed weaknesses?

Do cannon fodder get the best equipment that can be obtained?

Thank you
No. It still doesn't explain why BA are weaker against RC than they are against ACs or GRs, etc. If they're too weak to withstand an attack from a RC, how can they be strong enough to withstand an attack by a more powerful weapon? And the whole reason for the RC's -3 is that they're not powerful enough.

Please note that the BA Bearhunter does 3 points of damage against all units, unless you want to use optional rules. Then it might do more against other BA. Even if those rules are included the Bearhunter won't kill an Assault BA with max armor. It might strip all the armor away but the BA survives to shoot back. The Car is dead with one shot from a Bearhunter because it can't support the armor needed. Yet some how, that same Car can take a hit from a LRC without any damage. I'm sorry but that does not make sense.

Quote
That does not matter, even mine-clearance missiles can be used for multiple ends. The BA-RC combo is just one example of the damage and unit specific counters and defenses in BT.

Again, Sorry but that makes no sense. 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.

Quote
I would say that about the BAR system.

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.

Quote
It is one way to handle armor weight over a class of units that have an extreme range of sizes. BA benefit from being on the other side of the scaling.

Maybe but it doesn't solve any of the problems and even makes things worse. However, we do have weights for various armors. If we go by those, giving BA a BAR5 then we do solve a problem. We don't need any long convoluted explanations that end in, "Because". It's simply the armor isn't good enough so everything does full damage. And it doesn't change game play or fluff or anything. Nothing changes except removing some weirdness.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech 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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech 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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk 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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech on 12 July 2021, 08:08:01
They both have and haven't.


Confusing.  :(
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech 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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech 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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB 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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB 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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery 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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: monbvol 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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk 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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech 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.

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery 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.

Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daemion 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?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech 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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk 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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: RifleMech 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. 
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: CVB 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?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daemion 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?
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Maingunnery 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. 
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Charistoph 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.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Daryk 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...
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: ActionButler on 12 July 2021, 19:56:42
Locked for review.

Yes, again.
Title: Re: Rifle Cannon Math
Post by: Bedwyr 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.