Author Topic: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?  (Read 25497 times)

RedDevilCG

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 168
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #30 on: 11 December 2011, 20:11:09 »
I always thought of it as the mount on the arm has a fine motor-screw to adjust for long distance fire.  Sort of like 20 revolutions of the screw adjusts about 1 degree of elevation or side to side.  The weapon isn't actually aimed by the arm, or by bending the torso backwards and forwards; it is just mounted there.

Heavier weapons meant for close range, have courser motor-screws that adjust rapidly; like 1 revolution adjusts for 1 degree, but these same motors don't have fine enough control for tiny adjustments needed for extreme range fire.

For long range weapons, when a target gets in closer, the pilot can no longer rely on the weapons built in auto-targetting range of motion, as the motor is to slow to track, but now has to swing the arm around, or tilt his torso in awkward ways to track his target, so it gets harder to hit.

Imagine that you had a gun attached to your chest, and you had to fire it at 60m against a target moving 55km/h, just by bending and twisting at the hips stiff-robot style ;D



Lasers don't suffer as much from this, as they don't fire shells affected by gravity, and don't have to lead the target as much.  I dunno.  And BTW I think the IS PPCs do have a minimum range.
« Last Edit: 11 December 2011, 20:18:21 by RedDevilCG »

willydstyle

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2099
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #31 on: 11 December 2011, 20:34:24 »
It's not just mass, but how it is distributed.  Everything has a moment of inertia, which represents how hard it is to turn, or to stop turning once you start it.

For swinging a rod by it's end (simplified model for a cannon barrel) the formula is I=(mL^2)/3  Or one third the mass times the square of the length.  So the force needed to affect it's rotation is half if you cut the mass in half, but quadrupled if you double the barrel length.  Or doing both and you get something that has twice the moment of inertia.

This is entirely correct, and is an excellent reason why barrel length could well be a factor, even on a mech such as the WVR that has a "rifle mount" for it's AC.

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8392
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #32 on: 11 December 2011, 20:42:35 »
maybe the on-mount sensor suck, I mean cybernetics in BT tend towards to lower end

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25796
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #33 on: 11 December 2011, 21:33:38 »
This is entirely correct, and is an excellent reason why barrel length could well be a factor, even on a mech such as the WVR that has a "rifle mount" for it's AC.

And this, of course, becomes a problem when it comes to mechs with short barreled ACs in their torsos, like the Mauler.

I blame BT's inconsistant artwork.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Blacksheep

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 517
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #34 on: 13 December 2011, 06:36:56 »
Because BT physics were built around developing a beer & pretzels game...probably heavier on the beer side.  In reality, the heavier the gun the more a minimum range makes sense, but alas, not in BT.  Similarly, for another example, heavy machine guns have a shorter range (if that was even possible for an MG in BT)...again, no basis in reality.  Frankly, IMHO, there is no reason for this and many of us have expressed these gripes repeatedly over the years.  You just have to let it go.

Tree

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Also Known As ~ "l3lackhorse"
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #35 on: 13 December 2011, 12:33:15 »
Because BT physics were built around developing a beer & pretzels game...probably heavier on the beer side.  In reality, the heavier the gun the more a minimum range makes sense, but alas, not in BT.  Similarly, for another example, heavy machine guns have a shorter range (if that was even possible for an MG in BT)...again, no basis in reality.  Frankly, IMHO, there is no reason for this and many of us have expressed these gripes repeatedly over the years.  You just have to let it go.

I have to agree with Blacksheep.  I and others I have played with, have debated these things for many years.  Until the "Head Honchos" decide to change the rules... ain't gonna happen, "Game" balance and all that.   That's why there are all those nifty "house rules".  O0
"Arrogance and Stupidity, all in one package... How efficient of you!" ~ Londo Mollari, Centauri Ambassador to EarthForce Commander.

There is only one way to occupy territory... "Boots on the Ground!!"


Wildonion

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 741
  • I'm just a few onions short of a patch.
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #36 on: 13 December 2011, 13:53:26 »
I always thought of it as the mount on the arm has a fine motor-screw to adjust for long distance fire.  Sort of like 20 revolutions of the screw adjusts about 1 degree of elevation or side to side.  The weapon isn't actually aimed by the arm, or by bending the torso backwards and forwards; it is just mounted there.

Heavier weapons meant for close range, have courser motor-screws that adjust rapidly; like 1 revolution adjusts for 1 degree, but these same motors don't have fine enough control for tiny adjustments needed for extreme range fire.

For long range weapons, when a target gets in closer, the pilot can no longer rely on the weapons built in auto-targetting range of motion, as the motor is to slow to track, but now has to swing the arm around, or tilt his torso in awkward ways to track his target, so it gets harder to hit.

Imagine that you had a gun attached to your chest, and you had to fire it at 60m against a target moving 55km/h, just by bending and twisting at the hips stiff-robot style ;D

Lasers don't suffer as much from this, as they don't fire shells affected by gravity, and don't have to lead the target as much.  I dunno.  And BTW I think the IS PPCs do have a minimum range.

Oh, I like that explanation! +1

majesticmoose

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 486
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #37 on: 13 December 2011, 15:21:58 »
Oh, I like that explanation! +1

Plus, now with light AC's and HV AC's you get the other side of that, where large caliber AC's have longer ranges w/minimums, and smaller calibers that have shorter ranges and less or no minimums.

The system is now very contextual, since there are large numbers of AC's to compare to. 

Still, I'd jsut say it has to do with the mounting and designed operational range.

Lonesome Crow

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #38 on: 13 December 2011, 16:07:47 »
I like Intro tech in part for minimum ranges because it strikes me as more interesting, so Rule of Cool reduces my need for reasonable expanation, but for what it's worth...

The main fluff problem I've had with autocannon is the weird relationship between mass, power and range.  I like absurdism, so I picture the AC/5 and AC/2 weighing so much for their performance because they're equipped with massive flywheels to stabilise them. :D  AC/20 are easier to aim despite being much more massive because you don't have to fight a gyro, and also because only part of that mass has to be aimed anyway- like lasers vs. PPC.  (Lighter AC can't split crits, but a class 20 can.) 

Wrayth

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 469
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #39 on: 13 December 2011, 20:31:51 »
The more I think about the barrel length arument, the more weight I think it holds.  It also explains something that had always bothered me: the severely limited range of AC20's.  Basically, let's assume the long barrels on AC2's and AC5's really do make them unwieldy and hard to track targets up close with.  That allows us to make that supposition that the limiting factor on the range of AC10's and AC20's is the length of the barrel; in effect, the AC20 has a short or snub-nosed barrel which limits its effective range.  This short barrel also explains why they don't get the minimum range penalty; they're like the carbine version of real life rifles.  You see the same thing with the "light" versions of the AC5 and AC2 - reduced range and the removal of the minimum range penalty.

To me, this all seems to hang together quite nicely, but it begs the question: why didn't they just build a longer barrel onto the AC20 to allow it to hit further out?  Simple: weight.  At 14 tons, the short-barrelled AC20 is already beastly and hard to cram into a mech, and adding a longer barrel would add significant weight and crit space, making it that much harder to fit.  As a result, any further weight would make it impractical (if not impossible) to mount them on any mobile platform short of a dropship.

In any case, given how well this all seems to fit together, the "longer barrels are unwieldy" explanation now makes perfect sense to me.
"If brute force isn't working, you obviously aren't using enough of it."

stoicfaux

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 502
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #40 on: 14 December 2011, 00:49:46 »
In any case, given how well this all seems to fit together, the "longer barrels are unwieldy" explanation now makes perfect sense to me.

Looks at Wrayth.  Looks at the Hermes II HER-2S.  How exactly does that long barrel theory apply to the Hermes' torso mounted autocannon...?




willydstyle

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2099
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #41 on: 14 December 2011, 01:41:01 »
The way most mechs are drawn, torso mounted weapons look like they don't really have any sort of aiming mechanisms at all.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25796
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #42 on: 14 December 2011, 14:43:52 »
Sure they do- the mech's waist.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

RedDevilCG

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 168
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #43 on: 14 December 2011, 14:51:37 »
Yeah, barrel length is all over the place.  I still like the explanation of trade-offs:

-That light ACs track very slowly, but very precisely to hit far targets. 
-Heavy ACs track very quickly (to smash NOW anything that gets too close), but not very precisely so can't hit far targets.

Blacksheep

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 517
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #44 on: 14 December 2011, 17:24:46 »
In that case, I will take my AC sight tuning spork and adjust my AC/20 to fire in the AC/5 range bracket accepting that modest three hex minimum range penalty O0  Works for me ;)

RedDevilCG

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 168
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #45 on: 14 December 2011, 19:10:40 »
Sounds good to me too!  Super Gauss!

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8392
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #46 on: 14 December 2011, 23:54:50 »
Pity you can't just fit it with 2 turning mechanism for no min range

stoicfaux

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 502
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #47 on: 15 December 2011, 00:40:19 »
Sure they do- the mech's waist.

Jenner.  Hoplite.  War Dog.  Mechs that don't have waists.   :P


willydstyle

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2099
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #48 on: 15 December 2011, 00:41:19 »
Not to mention that a mech's waist doesn't seem like it can rotate fast enough to track a moving target.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25796
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #49 on: 15 December 2011, 02:27:55 »
That's why mechs have hips, knees, and ankles. :P
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Nahuris

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2103
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #50 on: 19 December 2011, 03:02:45 »
Actually, what I've always wondered most about AC's is this..... why can I walk my AC fire across 2 hexes, but I can't walk it across 2 torso locations?

Nahuris
"A friend will calm you down when you are angry, but a BEST friend will skip along beside you with a baseball bat singing "someone's gonna get it."

"If we are ever in a situation, where I am the voice of reason, we are in a very bad situation."

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13279
  • I said don't look!
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #51 on: 19 December 2011, 10:19:00 »
The game rules certainly do seem to contradict the fluff that ACs fire bursts up until that splitting fire rule.

Lafeel

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 333
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #52 on: 21 December 2011, 11:35:40 »
Wouldn't it also be possible that certain ac rounds, just like certain missiles, need the time, and therefore distance, to arm?

stoicfaux

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 502
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #53 on: 22 December 2011, 01:25:38 »
Wouldn't it also be possible that certain ac rounds, just like certain missiles, need the time, and therefore distance, to arm?

Because AC rounds have been described as using "kinetic penetrators" don't have arming mechanisms. 

There's also the small problem that autocannons that use the same ammo have differing minimum ranges.  Ex:  AC-5 - three hex minimum range versus the Ultra-5's two hex minimum range yet both use the same ammo.  The RAC-2 has no minimum range yet all other AC/2 class weapons use the same ammo.


A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #54 on: 22 December 2011, 11:18:07 »
There's also the small problem that autocannons that use the same ammo have differing minimum ranges.  Ex:  AC-5 - three hex minimum range versus the Ultra-5's two hex minimum range yet both use the same ammo.  The RAC-2 has no minimum range yet all other AC/2 class weapons use the same ammo.

Actually, ammo for different autocannons is different even if they're notionally of the same "class" (i.e., have the same damage value). AC/5, UAC/5 and RAC/5 shells are not interchangeable.

And while I'm at it, as per TechManual fluff "most autocannons deliver their damage by firing high-speed streams of high-explosive, armor-defeating shells through one or more barrels" (p. 207, "Autocannon" intro section, emphasis mine). No mention of kinetic penetrators being the default -- in fact, wouldn't that be more the particular hat of Gauss weaponry?

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25796
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #55 on: 22 December 2011, 13:45:06 »
It depended on who was writing the description.  But AC rounds were typically described as being explosive.

Also, Light ACs use the same ammo as standard ACs of the same size.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #56 on: 22 December 2011, 19:07:43 »
Also, Light ACs use the same ammo as standard ACs of the same size.

I'm actually not so convinced. Sure, light ACs get the same selection of special ammo types as standard autocannons, and a ton costs the same number of C-bills...but the table on TM p. 345 still gives the "standard" ammo types for each different Tech Ratings (C for standard, D for light), suggesting that they actually are distinct. I mean, if LACs simply chambered standard AC rounds, surely Tech Rating C would apply to both?

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25796
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #57 on: 22 December 2011, 19:24:39 »
No idea.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5852
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #58 on: 27 December 2011, 16:16:55 »
Actually, what I've always wondered most about AC's is this..... why can I walk my AC fire across 2 hexes, but I can't walk it across 2 torso locations?

Nahuris

I actually think this has a lot to do with this:

The game rules certainly do seem to contradict the fluff that ACs fire bursts up until that splitting fire rule.

Don't forget the ranges that these same weapons get when tacked onto an Aerospace craft, and the flight times which suggest "Ludicrous Speed!!!" as the velocity at which they travel.

Projectiles in BT, in order to get the kilometers space ranges in the 10 or less (most obviously less) seconds one can expect it to fire and still hit the target on time, are moving at insane speeds that modern ballistic engineers only dream about.

BT Missiles aren't armed while in the tubes. They arm themselves in flight. I imagine that inside the first 6 hexes, they've only been in the air the smallest fraction of a second.

How does this apply to ACs? Have you notice how they group their damage? It's all or nothing with an AC. At least with Missiles, you get partial cluster sizes. With ACs, it's full damage for a group, or it's a miss.

While I'm one to laud the accuracies inherent in a futuristic weapon tied to a futuristic targeting system, ACs do have the high recoil to deal with. The larger class ACs have massive recoil to handle for the shear power they're pumping out inside a second or two. It's all they can do to keep the AC on a large target, let alone expect it to have all its shells slam home on a specific area on that target.

I'm one that follows the idea that if you don't group the shells or the shot well enough, the armor, or the defensive stance of the Mech combined with the armor, deflects the shots 'harmlessly'. If you spread your shots across multiple locations, you just got a miss. In game terms you don't get to roll for location and color in armor or internal structure boxes.

If the AC, and the Mech itself, are fighting the recoil of the weapon, then it seems like a true hit is next to impossible. But, it happens with some regularity. Why? Because I think there's more to the ammunition ACs use than is told to us.

I posit that BT ballistic munitions are smart rounds, that home in on a designated target via controlled spin or fin stabilization, or whatever. If a weapon groups its shots well enough, they'll all home in and do the damage, otherwise, they spread out too far and do nothing more than 'scratch and burn the paint'.

The lighter Autocannon classes are dealing with the same recoil. Sure, they're not trying for massive groupings, but they are trying for range, and to get that range, the rounds have to pour out the barrel at a greater velocity. Some limitations could also  be attributed to the size of the rounds, as well. But, that extra fraction of a second is all that is needed to keep the spread from homing in successfully.

The longer I play, the more I try to mentally visualize what's actually happening, the more I come to believe it's not any one thing that allows for a certain aspect to happen. It usually ends up being a combination of factors which may or may not overlap with other game aspects.



It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

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

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

Stolenbjorn

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 89
  • Knight of the Internet
Re: Why do Autocannon have a minimum range?
« Reply #59 on: 11 January 2012, 17:45:37 »
Nice thread, I love AC-discussions. I have nothing of value to add, I allways pretended AC's were more like auto firing recoilless rifles, where the ac/20 was more like a short range-thick HEAT-warhead, whereas the ac/2 and 5 were thinner calibered HEAT-warheads with rockets that fired making the warhead rotate, and the rotation was slow and inaccurate at close range.

I allways wondered why AC's were treated so poorly in basic battletech. It seems to me (after playing some hours of megamek), that ammo really isn't worth the effort, and that there's no reason to mount AC\s (missiles do have something for them, so the risk of ammo explotion is somewhat mended).

I once made a marauder with 2 x ac10's and one large laser in the center torso, too bad it would never work in combat, i love the look and thought of shell-casings dancing to the ground   :-\

So I resort to houserules as well; I let AC-slugs penentrate, and have bigger chanse of crits; that outweighs all the things they're having against themselves  :D

Only sad thing is that I love MegaMek, and I don't bother trying to work my houserules into the system, don't know enough computer-stuff to do that. But I do try to put all optional rules into laser-hate-mode, and mark on anything that improves ac's  :)

 

Register