Heavy armor working as HEAVY armor

[(TLL)Sky_walker]

Ok, here is an idea (hopefully not too difficult to arrange) :
All very-light weapons should not inflict damage to heavily armored units.

Problem is that I cannot imagine how two Mguns are capable of legging the 100 ton mech in 40 seconds of substantial fire.
Yea, I know that it's a lot of time, but... The thing is that heavy armor should be capable of withstanding low energy weapons without a problem. All in all it's suppose to be heavy, bulky, strong armor.

People who played Company of Heroes know what I'm talking about - out there even light tank projectiles bounced off the Tiger armor - and they were far heavier than what MGun fires. This apples to historic references too, where russian or US tanks projectiles simply bounced-off the tank armor without inflicting any damage.
Tiger weight was 56.9 to 63 tons, so something near Heavy Mech, it had armor 100-120mm thick, while the HE projectiles bouncing were over 70mm caliber. (yea, I know that possibly none of the mechs have 120 mm thick armor, but it's still far more resistant than the Tiger armor was)

So unless the MWLL Mgun fires hot plasma - I cannot figure out how this gun could possibly destroy the Atlas just by shooting for long enough at it's torso. The same could possibly apply to AC2/RAC2 because of their low caliber.

Similar thing could apply to the SPL or SBL - where heat would be dispersed on larger volume of heavy armor than it does in light units, inflicting no damage.

Now... what for you may ask? The first and most important reason is to add bit more realism to the game.
The second is that I shouldn't have to worry in my Mad Cat 2 about BA firing it's small laser, or some random Raven shooting at me from 600meters at full speed. It's IHMO bit silly - not only the assaults are slow as snails but also they have to watch every single target around, which shouldn't really happen unless enemy have large-caliber guns. I somehow cannot imagine a Tank being shot by random APC machine guns. (oh, and... yea - this should apply to Huit and Demolisher too).

[~SJ~ Xarg Talasko]

The machine guns are probably all machine gun banks, but I do kinda have to agree that BA laser and mgun rounds probably should do a bit less damage against heavy/assault units. While this would force a BA player to buy an extra weapon, like the ac2 or mppc to be effective if he loses his ride, gone too far it could rob the game of some variety, heading into a much stricter r-p-s scenario.

[Killer-Bee]

...
So unless the MWLL Mgun fires hot plasma - I cannot figure out how this gun could possibly destroy the Atlas just by shooting for long enough at it's torso. The same could possibly apply to AC2/RAC2 because of their low caliber.
...
Now... what for you may ask? The first and most important reason is to add bit more realism to the game.
...

since your argument is entirely founded on that you want more realism i just have to add the following not even going into gameplay reasons for which several pop into my head too:
your statment may apply to the second worldware and handheld weapons for only a small part of all the weapons there were even back then. but there are actually a couple of rifle/armor examples even from back then where the rifle would have penetrated. and even today there are still several weapons that are used by infantry that can penetrate even the much more advanced armors of modern tanks. and it moreso doesnt really matter which weapon fires but a lot more on which ammo is used.
but since we are talking about vehicle mounted weapons and not infantry this should shed some light on the topic for you:

gun for a plane (!) even that was developed around 1972 (!) that can easily shred any armor to pieces. in a matter of split seconds:

here the plane its mounted on:

and heres a madcat model of mwll (mwll wiki reference):


as you can see. even the guns size is comparable.
and its just one example of many.
if you dont believe it just type the name in google.
EDIT: one of the many videos you see the gun firing and see what it hits: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_4O3dqsQck&feature=related
and keep in mind this gun is mounted on a PLANE not a ground unit.

now you may say there always would have been advances in armor too. well as long as theres projectile weapons and armor against them theres always some research going on that allows the penetration of that armor too.
even more so if you really would want more "realism" it would even be worse than it is now because ap rounds wouldnt aim for taking of armor point after armor point but rather penetrating exactly at the point of impact and wreaking havoc in the vulnerable systems behind it in a matter of split seconds. seeing the projectile guns from today mguns should be made a lot more effective if you really would want more realism

and just so no one can state that mech mguns are only small calibre weapons totally different of vulcans or something like that a quote of the mwll forum that states "MG is a basic classification for a large number of similar weapons manufactured by every house of the Inner Sphere and every Clan. Including "Vulcan" rotary MG's and single barrel squad support weapons.".
readable here: http://www.mechlivinglegends.net/forum/index.php/topic,6427.msg87050.html#msg87050

[(TLL)Siilk]

Ok, here is an idea (hopefully not too difficult to arrange) :
All very-light weapons should not inflict damage to heavily armored units.
...

 Generally, I like the idea, but it's quite delicate issue actually. If you strip the ability to hurt mechs with everything they got away from BAs, they became quite useless. Some heavier weapons, like Manpack LtGauss, should be added to BA arsenal, so that they could present a threat for mechs again. That way Bearclaw MG and SBL would became weapons for purely BA to BA combat.

 As for mech/vehicle mounted MGs, ACs and small lasers, they are quite weak as it is, so further nerfing wouldn't really change anything. The only exception here is RAC2, which is a little overpowered imo, and could do a little less damage to mechs.

[~SJ~ Blhurr]

It's really hard for me to take a position on this because as much as I hate the fact that a BA is basically immune to me when I'm in a 2gauss vulture and can plink away in what is effectively absolute safety I don't want to stray too far from the combined arms theme.
 
The part of the equation that is really hard to balance is this one;  if a BA can take out an assault or heavy in relative safety if they catch one alone (not hard to do on less populated servers) then shouldn't it cost them more to do so?  Something is wrong if a BA can spend 3k to net 80k without much risk to themselves.  Every other asset has to invest and risk something substantial when they enter the battlefield.  BA by virtue of their size alone make them the hardest to hit targets and they gain that advantage at no cost to themselves not to mention their maneuverability at close range.
 
Ultimately, this is the problem with combined arms in that it is a RPS situation somewhere in equation.  If you are missing the rock on your team then the scissors are going to own you. 

[Pentence]

It's really hard for me to take a position on this because as much as I hate the fact that a BA is basically immune to me when I'm in a 2gauss vulture and can plink away in what is effectively absolute safety I don't want to stray too far from the combined arms theme.
 
The part of the equation that is really hard to balance is this one;  if a BA can take out an assault or heavy in relative safety if they catch one alone (not hard to do on less populated servers) then shouldn't it cost them more to do so?  Something is wrong if a BA can spend 3k to net 80k without much risk to themselves.  Every other asset has to invest and risk something substantial when they enter the battlefield.  BA by virtue of their size alone make them the hardest to hit targets and they gain that advantage at no cost to themselves not to mention their maneuverability at close range.
 
Ultimately, this is the problem with combined arms in that it is a RPS situation somewhere in equation.  If you are missing the rock on your team then the scissors are going to own you.

I agree here and im an avid BA player. However in this situation the best way to "win" this no win scenario is to simply run away get to freindlies. Only a realy good BA pilot will be able to take you down AS you run away and with friendlies in the vicinity ( i have done it a few times but the risk is then HUGE to me). So run to a safer place a BA cant keep up with you unless you move like a snail or turn alot.



To the OPs post i tend to agree with what has already been stated here by bee ,tons of MG are high powered items wit hspecial reounds designed specificaly for antiarmor messures.

[CalenLoki]

I agree with OP. A little more R-P-S wouldn't hurt, especially if it apply mainly to secondary or specialistic weapons.

@Killer-Bee - BT/MWLL Mgun can't be GAU-8. It doesn't have 2,3m barrel length, more like 1m. RAC-2 (or maybe even RAC-5) is MW equivalent of GAU-8.

"seeing the projectile guns from today mguns should be made a lot more effective if you really would want more realism "

Not only Mguns, but most weapons should kill in few shots. But it wouldn't be fun. So because all weapons have a lot less armour-piercing capability than IRL, MGs shouldn't an exception.
/@

About BA - their main anti-armour weapons should be claw and c-8, supported by small radar signature. not shooting.

I don't know how OP would want to implement his idea in game, but I have my own:
Each bulled damage is reduced by some percent (based on weapon) of current armour.
So if you have weapon that deal 100 damage, with reduction of 1%, than:
-against unarmoured target it will deal full damage (100)
-against something with 5000 armour it will deal half damage (100-1%*5000=50)
-against something with 10000+ armour it wont deal any damage.

Quick sheet to show how could it work with more weapons against various armours. Weapon statistics aren't same as those in MWLL.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AhQJbOpYrclpdFFmVUhwYldVMHA4S0d1MmRRXzh2cFE&hl=en

[(TLL)Sky_walker]

seeing the projectile guns from today mguns should be made a lot more effective if you really would want more realism "

Not only Mguns, but most weapons should kill in few shots.

Well, actually - random soldier with proper missile launcher or C4 payload should be able to cripple heaviest tank in single shot. Mech? 2 shots I say.
But the BattleTech armors seems to be able to withstand much much more damage comparing to weapon weight, so even more: The Mgun shouldn't be able to inflict any damage to heavy armors.

Generally, I like the idea, but it's quite delicate issue actually. If you strip the ability to hurt mechs with everything they got away from BAs, they became quite useless. Some heavier weapons, like Manpack LtGauss, should be added to BA arsenal, so that they could present a threat for mechs again. That way Bearclaw MG and SBL would became weapons for purely BA to BA combat.

The Manpack PPC would for sure be a weapon to strike the Mechs, I also thought about SRMs, but that's up for discussion. BAC should also be able to penetrate armor because it's used at very very very close range - when projectile speed is still extremely high.

Still - the change would affect only heaviest units - so BAs would still be very useful for any lighter mechs, Long Toms, and so on.


Killer-Bee - This was a nice point! Only... the size isn't as small as you try to show. It's more like:

So... 3 BA standing one on another - the Mad Cat Mgun is kinda smaller
Also note that at range it can penetrate barely 40mm of armor (up to 70) and that when it was created in the age where single small bomb could wipe out even heaviest tank, so nothing like MechWarrior times. For me Mechwarrior could be compared more to WW2 than '80s. More like 1 attack run of anti-tank bomber hardly destroys 1 tank, than 1 attack run easily destroys 5 tanks standing close

[7.[WD]Ragor]

@Killer-Bee:

This is the GAU-8: (BTW: The Gau-8 was designed first, then they looked for weapon platform to built around -> just attached wings -> A-10)



IMO a bit bigger than the MGs in BTU. 

Referring to Sarna the AC-2 is 30mm (IMO 20mm) the MG is classic cal.50 (12,7mm).

Keep in mind the 30mm shells of the GAU-8 are really special, 30mm is not equal to another 30mm.

And I share the OP's idea that MG should deal no damage at all vs heavy armour, MG is just anti infantry and AA, nothing else.
But still fine to 'blind' the target with bullest bouncing off the cockpit...
(I even would welcome when AC-2 and AC-5 could deal no damage to center torso and legs. But thats just me...)

@CalenLoki: Great job you did!

[Flyingdebris]

Well technically, if we are gonna be logical about this, while it should certainly be possible for BA to take down mechs by tearing open maintenance hatches and sticking plastic explosives all over, it would make more sense to have their missile launchers be a mainstay weapon for taking down larger opponents.  You don't see soldiers charging tanks with satchels when they have javelin or TOW missiles available.

I agree on part of having certain weapons having different levels of effectiveness vs different armors.

MGs should tear up aircraft armor and light vehicles, against anything heavier though it should feel like the pitter patter of rain. However aside from from the really light weapons, most weapons in BT are multiton terrors so I think that any further damage resistance from heavy armor should be minimal or nonexistent.

[(TLL)Sky_walker]

Referring to Sarna the AC-2 is 30mm (IMO 20mm) the MG is classic cal.50 (12,7mm).

(I even would welcome when AC-2 and AC-5 could deal no damage to center torso and legs. But thats just me...)

Wow... it's this way?   And I thought that MGun is 30mm... ok... this changes things by quite a bit.
Perhaps no damage for MG, AC-2 and perhaps AC-5 not doing damage to CT and L?

There are few ways this can be solved but if MGun is only 12.5mm than I have no idea how it even deals damage to medium armor, lol!
And if it does than... the 125kg metal slug fired from Gauss should fly through light mech like a butter! (this was just a joke, and I know that it cannot be balanced this way, but just proves the point why light weapons shouldn't deal any damage to heaviest armors)

[edit:]

I agree on part of having certain weapons having different levels of effectiveness vs different armors.

But they do now. Just check the changelog of 0.2.0. My point is that there should be a point of weapon energy below which it doesn't inflict any damage.

[Killer-Bee]

@Killer-Bee - BT/MWLL Mgun can't be GAU-8. It doesn't have 2,3m barrel length, more like 1m. RAC-2 (or maybe even RAC-5) is MW equivalent of GAU-8.
...
Not only Mguns, but most weapons should kill in few shots. But it wouldn't be fun. So because all weapons have a lot less armour-piercing capability than IRL, MGs shouldn't an exception.
...

didnt say anything against that. see it the same way. it just wouldnt be fun if every mech dies from the first hit. but i think mguns definitely arent overpowered and fit nicely into the current gameplay. also i dont think there should be any kind of unit that is invincible to some weapons fire for a lot of reasons. were to draw the line. i would hate to see tried and true battletech mechanics become pushed away and replaced by some c&c style gameplay were infantry gets shot by tank shells in the face and just keeps walking.
also i dont know how it would make any sense that the armor of a catapult should get damaged by a weapon while a atlas just never gets hit by it. it just doesnt make sense no matter how u put it. altho there are different armor types in BT its still the same type of protection on both vehicles. that it has less armor is already presented by the fact that it has actually LESS ARMOR.

and to everyone that tried to tell me some facts about the weapon i showed pics off. i know them already and i know those pics. just believe me. thanks for repeating.
and to everyone that tries to make a point about the sizes dont matching up. This was just ONE example. also i didnt try to make it look smaller etc i just showed pics. still comparing the size of cockpit/pilots it is as i said "COMPARABLE". that is not an exact meassurement! and it really doesnt matter if it is 2 or 1 m as it is just one example for a weapon that is able to penetrate armor. i didnt say that the madcat scifi mg is the a-10 vulcan!
and even if it is something different on the madcat model thats in mwll its still called mgun. therefore i might quote this again found in the knowledge db of this forum and hopefully be done with the replies to the size problem that somehow got stuck in some minds: "MG is a basic classification for a large number of similar weapons manufactured by every house of the Inner Sphere and every Clan. Including "Vulcan" rotary MG's and single barrel squad support weapons."
and might i quote myself again too. with weapons its really not as much a gun thing as a ammunition thing that decides which target its effective to. in real life. replacing battletech rules with 20ths century real life weapon stats that some people think they know of really isnt a whise way to go for a mechwarrior game in my opinion.
also for all ppl that think that mguns should not make damage to ANY part of a mech (armor/cockpit/weapon intakes/...) and that it should just feel like a warm rain. plz remember that those are vehicle mounted weapons that fall under the mgun category (also vulcans) you talk about and not a pistol fired by some kid.

and for the guys that are too sure about their numbers. there are a lot of mguns in the BT universe that are 20mm. also less also more mm. plz check battletech wiki or anything else. might i repeat yet again. in BT when a mgun is mounted on a mech it doesnt stand for the handheld infantry mguns you know of today. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_gun

[Aposiopesis]

My opinion, trying to get a decent mix of balance and functionality:

AC2s range from I think it's supposed to be 25-35mm, or there about. In terms of firepower, they're the closest thing to a single barrel version of the GAU-8. I'm not opposed to it doing damage to heavy armor, but only in the tiniest little pecking amounts. Imo, though, AC2s should be the king against light armor (due to range and rate of fire, despite lower damage than the AC5).

AC5s are a more medium sized round, probably sized from 35-60mm (I'm guesstimating from memory here). In any case, this is a pretty damned sizable round. Trying to orient things towards CBT, a medium laser and an AC5 both do 5 damage over the course of a round. Thus you could argue that an AC5 should do similar damage vs heavy armor as a medium laser over the course of the medium lasers firing and recharge time. As such, vs heavy armor, the quad AC5 partyvan would do no more damage over a given amount of time vs heavy armor than the 4 medium laser harasser (albeit with longer range). On the other hand, AC5s should be superior vs light armor, making them the ultimate point defense against aircraft.

The MG is really your standard old .50 cal/12.5mm; the way it's configured in MWLL, you could argue it being one of these:



7.62mm/30 cal minigun. I don't see where this should do significant damage vs heavy armor, but dangerous against light armor close in. (I'd prefer to see the MG with like a 300m optimum range with a slow but steady dropoff after that [limiting its max practical range to about 800-1000m, albeit in very pecking amounts vs light armor at that range])

[7.[WD]Ragor]

@Killer-Bee: BTW: A machine gun with 20mm is no machine gun anymore, its a cannon. And a Gatling is no machinegun at all.
Don't start 'its written at Sarna/its BTU-canon'. Not everything there is logic or right...

And to the penetration factor: But you are able to destroy/damage a tank with a machinegun?!? Never ever...

Anyway, we'll see what will happen. The devs gonna fix it in some way, we all have to be patient and then we'll see.

Sorry, I won't start to argue with you, the past has prooved that our discussions never lead to anything. 

[Killer-Bee]

@Killer-Bee: BTW: A machine gun with 20mm is no machine gun anymore, its a cannon. And a Gatling is no machinegun at all.
And to the penetration factor: But you are able to destroy/damage a tank with machinegun?!? Never ever...

Anyway, we'll see what will happen. The devs gonna fix it in some way, we all have to be patient and then we'll see.

Sorry, I won't start to argue with you, the past has prooved that our discussion never lead to anything. 

what you define as a canon in over 1000 years from now will be seen. and also your even wrong today as per definition. just type it into google but since it doesnt make a difference for this anyways might i still quote this from the knowledge database on this here forum yet again:
"MG is a basic classification for a large number of similar weapons manufactured by every house of the Inner Sphere and every Clan. Including "Vulcan" rotary MG's and single barrel squad support weapons."
and to state the obvious. The vulcan machinegun as its called = gatling machinegun. plz refer to google again if you dont believe me.
and as already established you can even penetrate "heavy" armor with todays machineguns. very much so. yes! so im sure it would be possible in a fictional place in the distant future. (random fact. there are also ammo/infantry rifle combos that can shoot thru a tank at quite a distance without problems)
furthermore. as said already yet again. its not so much a gun thing as a ammo thing.

anyways argueing really doesnt seem to lead to anything but still im allowed to state facts to your opinons.