Why don't more Mech games have Anit Tank or "Anit Mech" Rifles?

Why don't more Mech games have Anit Tank or "Anit Mech" Rifles?

Other urls found in this thread:

sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon/20
youtu.be/BwZ3a_Kie8w?t=39s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-62#Current_operators
youtube.com/watch?v=IvySSbDm0DM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14"/45_caliber_gun
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_15_inch_Mk_I_naval_gun
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_cm/45_Type_94_naval_gun
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_cm_SK_C/28_naval_gun
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Because then people would just use rifles instead of mechs to kill all the mechs.

Just base it on actual history, Introduce the Anit Tank Rifle as part of the base game and as you introduce new mechs phase them out for better patterns of AM guns.

The same reason that they stopped using them in WW2, they didn't work when you had a cannon instead.

If we're talking Mechwarrior and Battletech, you're looking at 75mm+ shells to punch holes in that armor reliably. Also remember that a lot of anti-tank rounds annihilate a crew compartment or an engine cover, your standard sci fi fusion powered mech doesn't really suffer from the same vulnerability.

Wasn't there an anime based off this concept?

Anti tank rifles haven't been used as tank killers since the Korean War, where they weren't exactly chewing through tanks like butter either.

>anit

It's anti, retard.

what that huge sniper rifle called

Why use a fuckhuge rifle when you could use a lmg sized belt fed rocket launcher?

t. Titanfall.

The rifle is usually replaced by some sort of energy weapon. 2142 was the only game off the top of my head that had an actual at rifle, and it was better than the missile launcher.

VOTOMS spinoff.

Armor Hunter Mellowlink.

an anti tank rifle

This is from Ukraine innit

I'm guessing PTRS-41

>100mm+ rifle
its called a cannon

Because they haven't even gotten around to using the more logical choice, RPGs.

??? that's 20mm at best idiot. 120mm is tank round size, which is gigantic.

because a 14.5-20mm rifle wont do shit to a mech you fucking retard, youd be looking at, AT LEAST, 50mm+ at which point its either a cannon or recoilless rifle

Keep in mind VOTOMS mecha are 3.5 meters on average.

Because there are very few mech games that allow you to play as an ordinary soldier.

If you can handwave a mech into viability, you can handwave compact AT munitions.

I thought they called them cannons because they use shells.

Wouldn't a solid 50mm projectile still just be called a rifle?

Guns fire bullets, cannons fire explosives. Cannons may or may not be rifled.

in your previous post is seemed like you were preferring to the picture.
But yes depending on mech size/armor you would need something very large.

I remember there was one in Lost Planet. I don't think you get to use it but it was hype as fuck.

If you're going to do the former, then doing the latter will make it pointless.

generally anything that fires rounds of 20mm or greater is called a cannon.

Sorry, i thought he was talking about fictional weapons. I was referring to games with mechs like
which tend to have bullshit levels of armor on the mechs, at which point infantry level weapons are just a nuisance.

Most much games do not have combined arms because if they did you run into the problem that mechs are basically retarded from a tactical and strategic standpoint

Dont get me wrong I love mechs and mech games but they do not make combat sense

Well mechs would still be the best against other mechs.

Look at how Titanfall did it; all players had an anti-Titan weapon in addition to their primary and secondary. This simply gave a group of skilled Pilots a chance against enemy Titans before they could call in their own.

A well-coordinated team of three or so Pilots could take down any Titan, but it wasn't easy.

Ah yes, it was nice how Pilots were well-equipped with three guns in Titanfall. You had your rifle/shotgun/whatever, your pistol, and your anti-Titan weapon.

Then Titanfall 2 comes along and you need to choose between an anti-Titan weapon and a pistol.

>choose between an anti-Titan weapon and a pistol
you mean an anti-pilot weapon and a high-powered anti-pilot weapon

Mech games exist because mechs are cool. Giving infantry weapons that can hurt mechs makes the mechs less cool. That goes against the whole point of mech games. Why would they do something like that?

because anti tank rifles became useless in 50s with better armor on tanks

What, were anti-titan weapons buffed against Pilots in 2?

Because the idea of a soldier with a big gun going head to head with a giant robot is also cool?

Well it works in a game like Titanfall, where one of the two teams will always have a mech before the other one.

If there weren't anti-mech weapons in Titanfall, whoever got the first mech would absolutely destroy the enemy team until they started getting their own Titans

This is the Rommel Anti-Mech tank.
It carries an AC-20, an LRM-5, and a small laser.
It also has 11.5 armor

And there were even variants that used a gauss cannon.

It's entire purpose was to be a cheep alternative to battlemechs that could be mass produced. Battlemechs can still carry more weapons and armor as well as better negotiate rough terrain, but if you have 10 of these to every one enemy mech, it still works out.

So to answer OP's question, yes there are anti-mech weapons in battletech, just not Rifles.

forgot image

Good ones do.

No one used sidearms in 1 anyways, so only faggot snipers are getting fucked.

>anit

hello, this is anit from tech support how may i help you?

>This is the Rommel Anti-Mech tank.
>It carries an AC-20, an LRM-5, and a small laser.
>It carries an AC-20
Pic related would be, maybe, a low level ac-10. That thing is a fucking bolo.

sorri bout dat, this is anit

>if dice ever did make a sequel, it would be utterly shit like battlefront or battlefield 1

RIP

>hello, are all of your systems nominal?

It's sad isn't it? All these great games which would be amazing with a simple graphical tuneup and re-release. Oh well.

>titans and mechs are token call-ins

Mechs are such a stupid concept - high profile, lots of vulnerable places to hit to instantly disable mobility, some even have heads which is even stupider. All these guns and rockets outside of mech just asking to be fired at and cause them to explode or at least make them unusable by mech. Few crews with ATGMs will fuck any mech up.

Well according to the BattleTech wiki the largest ac-20 is 185mm while the smallest in 150mm.

sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon/20

So imagine a tank with a 185mm cannon firing at every second.

>Future
>High tech everywhere
>Still have to manually aim weapons

>bt machine guns weigh 2000lbs, have a range of 90m
Battletech is not the best at fluff.

>anit
>twice
>capitalized the "A"

thats a minimum of 3 times you could've realised your typographical error

are you functionally retarded?

Well alot of it comes from having to balance the tabletop and being written in a time before they could look up how large scale weapon systems worked easily.

You left out the part where the 150mm is firing at 60 rpm.
So this
youtu.be/BwZ3a_Kie8w?t=39s
but larger and faster

It's because german tanks introduced skirts

*600 rpm, excuse me

>muh realism

Conventional guns are vastly outclassed by HEAT shaped charge warheads when it comes to penetrating armor

Even the A-10's 30mm BRRRRRRRRRRRT is fairly useless against current gen tanks unless the pilot gets lucky.

It's not supposed to kill tanks it carries GBU/Rocket Pods or ATGMs for that

>It's not supposed to kill tanks

Because devs don't bother with balance. An anti-mech gun is not something you should be able to carry or fire while on foot. It'd have to be transported on an armored car and be mounted to a support when firing.

>reading comprehension

Strafing runs on tank columns is the gau8's entire raison d'etre

>the gau-8 avenger is not supposed to kill tanks
no it is, its just that its become shit at its job

30mm have extremely lackluster penetration, its only like 93mm~ considering that mosts mbts have 400mm+ armor thats extremely bad and cant even kill a WW2 heavy tank frontaly

I agree that we don't need to be realistic all the time, but we always have retarded mechfags in every related board who think that mechs could beat tanks if they were real, and they need to be told that their vehicles (as imagined: 50ft bipedal war machines) are not realistic, and should just accept that they're soft sci-fi at best. Which is not to say that unrealistic things are bad, because realism is independent of the level of cool something is.

>mosts mbts have 400mm+ armor
>WW2 heavy tank frontaly
Its a good thing the a-10's were not fighting world war 2 soviet heavy tanks as they charged up the fulda gap head-on, huh? How well do you think a barrel would handle those rounds? Or the wheels and suspension? Or the optics? Or the engine deck, the rear armor, or hell, the entire top of the tank?

GAU-8 is no longer effective against modern MBTs, it was ment to kill eastern block tanks from the 80s T55s and T64s

You play War Thunder?

You realize that chobham and other wunderpanzer materials are only used on the turret, forward sides, and upper and lower glacis right? The entire lower chassis from the side and front is literally just rha.

>T62
>Relevant

Please don't mention meme games here

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-62#Current_operators
Very relevant, seeing that even the "new" t-80u/t-90s that the Russians can still manage to field are just t-72s with makeup and 5 tons of kontakt-5.

Ring of red

Not to mention all the not-MBTs that would be on the field like BTRs and BMPs which all have lighter armor, and support vehicles that have NO armor. The BRRRT can't really catastrophically kill a modern MBT, but it can fuck up all it's supporting units and probably fuck up the optics and other external gear which can result in a mission-kill (not as good as setting the crew and tank on fire, but you take what you can get). The A-10 also carries a bunch of missiles for targets the gun can't kill anyway, and those ATGMs are far more modern than the airframe.

The only reason the mavericks are used is because missiles are much cheaper to replace than pilots and airframes. Plus, giving ground-attack plane pilots a 30mm cannon and telling them "go wild" is going to put them in a very different mind-state than telling them that its hot trash and to not even bother. Better a pleasant surprise when it actually works, than a 25 year-old fitness science major who drank his way to a commission, making a valley's atmosphere spontaneously combust from du dust, after he got done spending half-an-hour doing 11 passes on the same piece of armor because he wants a gun kill.

>cannons fire explosives
so this is not a cannon?

>The only reason mavericks are used
Sorry, I meant to say used exclusively, rather than in addition with the 30mm.

It works as a general rule-of-thumb with modern weapons. If a round is large enough to carry an explosive filler it is considered a cannon. Obviously there are exceptions, you can see HE ammunition sizes all the way down to 12.7mm, but normally it doesn't appear until around 20mm.

>let's intentionally conflate archaic and modern usage to win an internet discussion!
Here's your (you), don't spend it all in one place.

Darker than Black season 2 had it.

there were 3 types of cannons, guns (or field guns) which fired big bullets, howitzers and mortars which relied on shells (hollow bullets filled with gunpowder and a fuse)

Field gunners aimed straight at a formation of men or tried to achieve a grazing shot where the roundshot would bounce off the ground and continue its deadly path, whereas howitzers and mortars shot at an angle.

Nowadays artillery forces use only howitzers and mortars are used by the infantry for support, the closest thing we have to a field gun are the guns mounted on tanks, even those however use shells filled with HE and/or incendiary mixes.

Also, canister shot exists. I don't know if it's actually used, but it exists.

>future
>high tech everywhere
>still have to sue weapons

everything will be automated, self driving cars is clearly military development

That would make rifles cannons too since explosive bullets exist and have existed since the 1890's...

>let's pretend ability equates to typical use
Just desparate for (you)s today, huh?

Honestly I'd say the field gun has survived on into the modern era as the machine-gun. The cannon (in the classical since, a direct line-of-sight firing weapon) shifted into a form emphasizing maneuverability, smaller rounds, and higher rate of fire as infantry formation began to become more and more loose. The cannon gave-way to the puckle gun, which gave-way to the gatling gun, which gave-way to the maxim gun, which finally branched into the many forms and functions of the machine-gun as we know it today.

I literally covered both ends of that statement in my spot.
>with modern weapons
>If a round is large enough to carry an explosive filler it is considered a cannon
>Obviously there are exceptions

Can I have one too while we are at it. Can't be fucked thinking of something to get your attention.

youtube.com/watch?v=IvySSbDm0DM

not him, but here (you) go

I'm not even the same user...

The explosive round difference is really old and doesn't even work in English half the time.

The vulcan for example is referred to as a gun by the airforce despite firing 20mm cannon rounds.

Hell every navy on earth doesn't even use the term cannon except the ones using the romance languages.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14"/45_caliber_gun
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_15_inch_Mk_I_naval_gun
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_cm/45_Type_94_naval_gun
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_cm_SK_C/28_naval_gun

There is literally no rule as to what is called a gun and what is called a cannon.

Its a very large exception considering the only reason they aren't used much is because of a weapon's ban signed in the 1890's by the then major powers.

Thank (You)

>no meaningful usage of the term in the way you describe it for almost 150 years
On top of your generally asinine argument about archaic terminology, the fact that they haven't been used in that long is because they're worthless on a package that small. With the minuscule amount of HE filler it would carry you would barely get any fragmentation from the round if you miss and just hitting the thing you were aiming at in the first place will shatter or deform the projectile enough to kill or maim your target. IF it were in fact a viable weapon, armies would use loopholes just like they ALWAYS have. (see pyrophoric DU ammunition, white phosphorus "flares," and thermobaric weapons in response to incendiary weapon bans.)

A cannon fires shells, a gun fires bullets. This shit is really not complicated.

>A cannon fires shells, a gun fires bullets. This shit is really not complicated.
So a shotgun is a cannon?

Both of you are retarded.

its under explored in most fiction

>A cannon fires shells, a gun fires bullets. This shit is really not complicated.

user I literally pointed out how militaries will refer to large armament that fire shells as guns.

Naval Guns
Self Propelled GUNS
Anti tank Guns.
Gunships

They don't give a flying fuck whether it fires shells, bullets, rods, or balls. Militaries will refer to the giant metal tubes that fire projectiles as guns or cannons whenever the fuck they want.

Hell the dictionary result you posted simply states that a cannon is just a type of heavy gun. Go take your autism medication and fuck off.

>"A shell is a payload-carrying projectile which, as opposed to shot, contains an explosive or other filling"
How the fuck are still not grasping the concept of a rule-of-thumb? I mean seriously, are actually being this fucking pedantic? Nobody refers to a 105mm tank gun or 25mm aircraft "gun" because cannons were classified historically, when these terms were necessary to create, as guns towed or otherwise mobile (M65 atomic cannon) firing projectiles on a straight, line-of-sight path, unless its too small to fire, or not commonly equipped with, an explosive SHELL(Browning .50 Caliber Machine Gun). Stationary or nautical weapons were ALWAYS guns, (74-gun third-rate ship of the line) A gun fires projectiles, a cannon is a unique class of gun with its own name because it important to differentiate the two. Same thing with "aircraft" and "helicopter."

17 star contribution to this thread, absolutely fantastic

>17 star contribution to this thread, absolutely fantastic
Thanks, glad you liked it.

Calling things cannon/guns is almost always circumstantial, and you should be able to adapt your terminology to the situation at hand.

>you should be able to adapt your terminology to the situation at hand
>fuck grammar
>fuck rules
>everyone should just string random shit together when we talk
>clarity is for suckers
Cannons are a type of gun.
An M3 tank gun, is a type of cannon, which is a gun.
A mag-lev, is a type of train, which is a vehicle.