Author Topic: Rifle Cannon Revisioning  (Read 3723 times)

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1449
Rifle Cannon Revisioning
« on: 14 November 2019, 17:10:46 »

This is just a small part of a bigger theoretical project to expand (and in some cases modify) the weapon lists, as well as make certain weapons more competitive with each other, and in a few cases weed out certain options.


For the Rifle Cannon Revision, the goal was to make the weapon simple, reasonably competitive, and introtech-friendly.  The "new" Rifle Cannons do away with the -3 damage penalty against high BAR armor if it has regular ammo (if it's "primitive" ammo, like 21st or 22nd century, the damage malus still applies, but that's not something you'd see in an intro-tech game).


I started with the canonical 3 Rifle Cannons at first, the Light, Medium and Heavy versions.  The pattern here is that Rifle Cannons get more range and more damage as they get heavier, but become less efficient too (both in terms of excess heat and damage/ton).  So the Medium cannon is basically unchanged except for a bit extra ammo.  The Light Rifle got lighter and the heavy cannon got heavier.


I was just going to leave it at that, but I was looking a bit closer and I realized that I could fit an oversized rifle cannon at the heaviest end of the weapon scale in and have it fit snugly in the setting, with a weight class around that of your typical Gauss Rifle (since the Heavy was only around the weight of an AC5).  And then I looked at that and I thought "Well, one more couldn't hurt..."






Weapon    Damage    Range      Heat    Shots/ton     Tons      Crits
LRC         3     4/8/12         1      24            2          1
MRC         6     (1)5/10/15     2      12            5          2
HRC         9     (2)6/12/18     4       8            9          4
SHRC       12     (3)7/14/21     7       6           14         7
CRC        15     (4)8/16/24    11       5           20         11
LRC=Light Rifle Cannon
MRC=Medium Rifle Cannon
HRC=Heavy Rifle Cannon
SHRC=Superheavy Rifle Cannon
CRC=Colossal Rifle Cannon
Clan versions: Add +1/+2/+3 range to the small/medium/large range brackets, +1/+2/+3/+4/+5 damage for LRC/MRC/HRC/SHRC/CRC

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37342
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Rifle Cannon Revisioning
« Reply #1 on: 14 November 2019, 21:03:47 »
I might recommend taking a look at the Artillery Cannons.  The Long Tom Cannon compares more than favorably to your CRC, given it's an Area of Effect (AOE) weapon.

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1449
Re: Rifle Cannon Revisioning
« Reply #2 on: 14 November 2019, 22:18:12 »
I might recommend taking a look at the Artillery Cannons.  The Long Tom Cannon compares more than favorably to your CRC, given it's an Area of Effect (AOE) weapon.
It is, but it's also hotter, shorter ranged and a different damage type (explosive).  The CRC is not entirely intended to be a super practical weapon except for maybe Lyrans.  It's kind of to say "Yes, we COULD keep getting bigger, but it's just going to keep getting heavier till it's not worth it".

The LTC is good yes, so much so that our group isn't allowed to bring 'em anymore.  :-[

Hptm. Streiger

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 968
  • 3d artist, spread sheet warrior, KTF
Re: Rifle Cannon Revisioning
« Reply #3 on: 15 November 2019, 05:34:59 »
really should  start writing a program  :D
Code: [Select]
Weapon     BV    B/LF
CRC-15   285   9.7
SHRC-12  198   9.7
HRC-9    130   9.7
MRC-6     73  10.3
SRC-3     32   9.0

hm, looks ok so far, maybe drop some damage and heat for more ammunition per ton. while it would make them worse on the battlefield it would make them plausible and clearly not comparable to a AC. unless I had a mistake in reading comprehension and you wanted to keep the -3 against BAR10. 

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1449
Re: Rifle Cannon Revisioning
« Reply #4 on: 15 November 2019, 14:21:43 »
really should  start writing a program  :D
Code: [Select]
Weapon     BV    B/LF
CRC-15   285   9.7
SHRC-12  198   9.7
HRC-9    130   9.7
MRC-6     73  10.3
SRC-3     32   9.0

hm, looks ok so far, maybe drop some damage and heat for more ammunition per ton. while it would make them worse on the battlefield it would make them plausible and clearly not comparable to a AC. unless I had a mistake in reading comprehension and you wanted to keep the -3 against BAR10.
No, you read it correctly the first time.

Oh, the ACs are getting changed in the "bigger project" as well, but given recent history I believe I'm not at liberty to elaborate...

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37342
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Rifle Cannon Revisioning
« Reply #5 on: 15 November 2019, 19:57:48 »
Give it a couple of weeks, and ask a mod first before re-opening that particular topic...

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1449
Re: Rifle Cannon Revisioning
« Reply #6 on: 15 November 2019, 21:32:52 »
Give it a couple of weeks, and ask a mod first before re-opening that particular topic...
No thanks, I'm completely AC'd out...

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37342
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Rifle Cannon Revisioning
« Reply #7 on: 15 November 2019, 21:39:40 »
I'm sure you'll recover from that condition eventually (which is why the mods lock threads that get too contentious... everybody cools down (or warms back up) at some point).

Thunderbolt

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • ex scientia, ad astra
Re: Rifle Cannon Revisioning
« Reply #8 on: 04 January 2020, 01:54:02 »
I might recommend taking a look at the Artillery Cannons.  The Long Tom Cannon compares more than favorably to your CRC, given it's an Area of Effect (AOE) weapon.
very realistic on the face of things

that does presume that your larger bore cannons still maintain the same L-ratio of caliber & barrel length

a realistic interpretation of the canon AC rules is that
  • heavier ACs are harder for 'mechs to wield and bring to bear on fast-maneuvering 31st century targets
  • heavier & heavier ACs have proportionately shorter & shorter barrels, so that falling-prone 'mechs aren't carrying "spaghetti-like" 8-10m long barrels which would bend or snap the first time the 'mech spun around or fell down
If this were so, then whereas a "standard" AC/2 would have a sniper-rifle like L-ratio, a "standard" AC/20 would be more like a sawed-off... the actual overall physical length of both barrels would be similar (as long as the 'mech can mount), but the larger caliber canon thusly has a lower L-ratio (length to width) and so does not have the same accuracy

If this were so, then (perhaps) only tanks & artillery pieces could mount the heavier, longer-barreled, higher L-ratio'd heavy ACs...which would then behave as you are rightly expecting...from 21st century canons mounted on 21st century tanks & artillery pieces

But if you did (say) give an Abrams 120mm cannon to (say) an Autobot to run around with, the barrel would bend before they got off even their first round.  'Mechs are a dramatically different firing platform, which you (may?) have to take into account

Hptm. Streiger

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 968
  • 3d artist, spread sheet warrior, KTF
Re: Rifle Cannon Revisioning
« Reply #9 on: 04 January 2020, 02:57:30 »
Yep, that's correct although it depends on mount an size of that Mech.
A Victor for example in a mount without elbow could have quite a larger L rating. However the other option is to use multiple barrels and improved fed systems.
However now you need maybe 42 rounds instead of 2-3 to damage a plate of armor to count as AC20.

For example victor with 57mm Pontiac, or 185mm tank chem set. Victor scaled to 12-13m

Thunderbolt

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • ex scientia, ad astra
Re: Rifle Cannon Revisioning
« Reply #10 on: 04 January 2020, 05:06:58 »
Assuming your pilot is 1.8-2.0 m tall, the following overlay depicts an Abrams L55 main gun with a total tip-to-tail length of 6.6 - 7.0 m.

Looks like the you attached (the image of) a Rheinmetall Rh-120 L55 to the RA ?


« Last Edit: 04 January 2020, 14:56:24 by Thunderbolt »

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37342
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Rifle Cannon Revisioning
« Reply #11 on: 04 January 2020, 07:37:54 »
The overlay there looks to be a bit more than 5 times the height of the person...  ???

dgorsman

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1982
Re: Rifle Cannon Revisioning
« Reply #12 on: 04 January 2020, 07:56:50 »
"The shadow of a vector is only one of its components".  In other words, you can't just overlay a profile of one on an isometric of the other and compare lengths.
Think about it.  It's what we do.
- The Society

Thunder LRMs: the gift that keeps on giving.  They're the glitter of the BattleTech universe.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37342
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Rifle Cannon Revisioning
« Reply #13 on: 04 January 2020, 07:59:23 »
Then the overlay is about useless for illustrating a length difference...

Thunderbolt

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • ex scientia, ad astra
Re: Rifle Cannon Revisioning
« Reply #14 on: 04 January 2020, 08:30:33 »
wasn't trying for perspective, just to fit it all on, but already did correct the calculation, please view above  :)

Looks like a 3D rendering of an Abrams main gun was already attached to the RA ?

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37342
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Rifle Cannon Revisioning
« Reply #15 on: 04 January 2020, 09:04:23 »
That makes MUCH more sense, thanks!  :thumbsup:

Hptm. Streiger

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 968
  • 3d artist, spread sheet warrior, KTF
Re: Rifle Cannon Revisioning
« Reply #16 on: 04 January 2020, 11:12:12 »
The person is 2D so the comparison works
And yes the size comparison with the 120mm is correct (although the caliber is larger) gun had to be more massive for the larger caliber

The breach had to be placed in the shoulder, whole the Gattling with shorter barrels (still higher L ratio) can have the breech in the lower arm/elbow.

« Last Edit: 06 January 2020, 06:53:32 by Hptm. Streiger »

Thunderbolt

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • ex scientia, ad astra
Re: Rifle Cannon Revisioning
« Reply #17 on: 04 January 2020, 14:59:01 »

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37342
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Rifle Cannon Revisioning
« Reply #18 on: 04 January 2020, 15:00:48 »
Hmmm... it's showing up fine here...

 

Register