Register Register

Author Topic: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)  (Read 9904 times)

Cowdragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2774
  • PM me for Ft. Collins CO battletech games
Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« on: 23 July 2011, 09:51:21 »
they just really aren't that great to be honest. Oh I use them now and then, but they are freaking heavy, have very limited ammo, ammo blows up, damage sucks on small caliber, range sucks on larger, overall they can be beaten by everything else out there. Soooo....


Here's how I would fix them (after borrowing heavily from what others have suggested)

1) rename them. AC/2 = Light AC, AC/5 = Medium AC, AC/10 = Heavy AC, AC/20 = Assault AC (this goes for Light, Ultra, LB-X, and Rotary variants as well)

2) Up the damage output of the smaller calibers while deepening the ammo bins of the larger calibers. Light AC deals 4 pts, Medium AC 8, Heavy AC deals 12 (making it a freaking headcapper finally), and Assault AC gets 8 rounds per ton (making it actually worth using Ultra or specialty ammo).

3) everything else stays the same. This makes it possible to keep all old designs the exact same as they are now, but making them somewhat useful. Ranges stay the same. Heat stays the same. They don't become the weapon you just gotta have!!! But they become a weapon you might use (other than for flavor which I admit they have already in plenty)

Thoughts? Too powerful? the numbers can be easily tweaked and nudged. But I really think it's a step in the right direction. I for one am tired of looking at an AC/5 and thinking... "well it seems like a cool idea... but it seriously sucks!"

On wings of steel, Come I, Pillars of flame
Mark me, Fury bright as suns, Foes fear
The star back road, I hunt, Blood geld payment
Shan't be, The ravens throne, Blod Orn
- vidar (thank you vidar!!!)
Pie or Spehs and Tanks also BA

Cowdragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2774
  • PM me for Ft. Collins CO battletech games
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #1 on: 23 July 2011, 18:31:25 »
because seriously... the first thing I did (and still do most times) when I roll for a random mech and it has say an AC/5 is trade it our for a LL or LPL or PPC or LPPC or anything! But I sure as hell don't keep the AC.


On wings of steel, Come I, Pillars of flame
Mark me, Fury bright as suns, Foes fear
The star back road, I hunt, Blood geld payment
Shan't be, The ravens throne, Blod Orn
- vidar (thank you vidar!!!)
Pie or Spehs and Tanks also BA

greatsarcasmo

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5344
  • I taste so good...
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #2 on: 23 July 2011, 19:13:50 »
I think with intro tech it makes ACs to powerful. After 3060s? a bit powerful but not horribly un-balancing.

Cowdragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2774
  • PM me for Ft. Collins CO battletech games
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #3 on: 23 July 2011, 19:32:07 »
I think with intro tech it makes ACs to powerful. After 3060s? a bit powerful but not horribly un-balancing.

honestly wondering... do you really think this makes say a Rifleman or Jagermech too powerful? I don't want it over powered. I want it to make them something competitive and useful for something more than just "oh well, I'll keep the AC until I can afford a real weapon".

On wings of steel, Come I, Pillars of flame
Mark me, Fury bright as suns, Foes fear
The star back road, I hunt, Blood geld payment
Shan't be, The ravens throne, Blod Orn
- vidar (thank you vidar!!!)
Pie or Spehs and Tanks also BA

greatsarcasmo

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5344
  • I taste so good...
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #4 on: 23 July 2011, 19:58:59 »
honestly wondering... do you really think this makes say a Rifleman or Jagermech too powerful? I don't want it over powered. I want it to make them something competitive and useful for something more than just "oh well, I'll keep the AC until I can afford a real weapon".
The -3N is now doing a maximum of 32 pts a turn (w/o MLs) vs. 26, which is what, like 23% more damage? Not an insubstantial increase for no detriment in heat, ammo or weight over canon cannons.
The JM is now 24 per turn vs. 14 an increase of 70% at, again, no detriment to heat, ammo or mass.
The AC/2 goes from plinker to, well, almost respectable and the AC/10 goes to best (almost?) weapon of the game as a headcapper, decent range and low heat.
I think the AC/20 is the least effected of these with a 33% decrease of "shot" weight.

Cowdragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2774
  • PM me for Ft. Collins CO battletech games
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #5 on: 23 July 2011, 20:07:05 »
The -3N is now doing a maximum of 32 pts a turn (w/o MLs) vs. 26, which is what, like 23% more damage? Not an insubstantial increase for no detriment in heat, ammo or weight over canon cannons.
The JM is now 24 per turn vs. 14 an increase of 70% at, again, no detriment to heat, ammo or mass.
The AC/2 goes from plinker to, well, almost respectable and the AC/10 goes to best (almost?) weapon of the game as a headcapper, decent range and low heat.
I think the AC/20 is the least effected of these with a 33% decrease of "shot" weight.

ok. But it seems that the AC's needed a buff. So not increasing heat or ammo or mass isn't a problem. In fact it needs to be done without changing weight or size so as not to mess up previous designs. But if it is too powerful then what would you recommend? Other than just leaving them alone of course, lol.

On wings of steel, Come I, Pillars of flame
Mark me, Fury bright as suns, Foes fear
The star back road, I hunt, Blood geld payment
Shan't be, The ravens throne, Blod Orn
- vidar (thank you vidar!!!)
Pie or Spehs and Tanks also BA

greatsarcasmo

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5344
  • I taste so good...
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #6 on: 23 July 2011, 20:14:38 »
ok. But it seems that the AC's needed a buff. So not increasing heat or ammo or mass isn't a problem. In fact it needs to be done without changing weight or size so as not to mess up previous designs. But if it is too powerful then what would you recommend? Other than just leaving them alone of course, lol.
Not much. The rapid fire rules, maybe. The new ammo types can help as well.  Otherwise standard A/Cs are being "relegated to the trash heap of history" by the advancement of technology.

Sabelkatten

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3224
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #7 on: 23 July 2011, 20:42:36 »
4 damage for the AC/2 is a bit on the high side, but not terribly overpowered. But 8 damage for the /5 or 12 for the /10 is way out there!

I mean, it's no longer about making them "good weapons", it's about making them "the only thing you mount after you have to start adding heat sinks"!

7 damage for the AC/5 is on the high side already (much better damage/weight than the PPC, but limited by ammo).

12 damage for the AC10? That makes it ~25% better than the PPC - after accounting for ammo! 11 damage is quite good enough, making it a headcapper against any mech that skimps on head armor (8 instead of 9) and punching through 10-point armor layers.

Brother Jim

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 481
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #8 on: 23 July 2011, 21:01:27 »
For a minimal change, how about all A/C's include 1 ton of ammo in the weight of the gun and the A/C-20 gets either 6 or 8 shots per ton. And the A/C-2 drops to 40.

Cowdragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2774
  • PM me for Ft. Collins CO battletech games
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #9 on: 23 July 2011, 21:03:44 »
ok, so the damage is too high. That's what I was afraid of. But I'm not just trying to fix standard AC's. I'm trying to fix all AC's. They either have a damage output far too low for the weight/space investment AND the larger ones especially have obnoxious numbers of shots in their ammo bins. Especially the 20 class AC's. Fire an Ultra 20 at double rate and you only get 2.5 rounds of fire? That's just stupid really. Or worse... use specialty ammo on a 20 class and how many rounds do you get per ton? 2? WTF? I mean as a house rule I've always tried to even it out a bit and say the first ton gives ya 2 but the second gives ya 3 (as it's rounded) but still. Seriously? If you bump the shots per ton to some kind of even number you at least fix this. I'd like to see 8 shots to make it more worth while, but 6 shots would be fine as well.

So how about the damage?

Light AC = 3 pts, possibly dropping shots per ton to 40
Medium AC = 6 pts
Heavy AC = 12 pts, but ammo bins get adjusted to 8 shots per ton to somewhat offset this boost
Assault AC = 20 pts and 6 shots per ton to still try and make things as balanced as possible? (although to stick with the theme you could argue that the assault AC could actually raise the damage to 24 and drop the ammo per ton to 4 for more even numbers and to match the current proposed theme of each larger AC doubling what the last one can do)

I still say this should go across the board with every kind of AC to make them all more appealing. Keep the heat the same and crits and weight as well. Not looking to retroactively change the weapons physical stats. Don't need to make things obsolete. Looking to make them more appealing to use by changing how they perform.

Or does anyone else even think that AC's need some love? It's all I'm trying to do. Just love the AC's... but it's so hard.

On wings of steel, Come I, Pillars of flame
Mark me, Fury bright as suns, Foes fear
The star back road, I hunt, Blood geld payment
Shan't be, The ravens throne, Blod Orn
- vidar (thank you vidar!!!)
Pie or Spehs and Tanks also BA

Cowdragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2774
  • PM me for Ft. Collins CO battletech games
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #10 on: 23 July 2011, 21:05:18 »
For a minimal change, how about all A/C's include 1 ton of ammo in the weight of the gun and the A/C-20 gets either 6 or 8 shots per ton. And the A/C-2 drops to 40.

That wouldn't be a bad option at all Jim. I like it! But there really is a part of me that wants to up the damage of the smaller caliber AC's as well. But I do find myself really liking your proposal.

On wings of steel, Come I, Pillars of flame
Mark me, Fury bright as suns, Foes fear
The star back road, I hunt, Blood geld payment
Shan't be, The ravens throne, Blod Orn
- vidar (thank you vidar!!!)
Pie or Spehs and Tanks also BA

Brother Jim

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 481
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #11 on: 23 July 2011, 21:20:23 »
I personnally would completely rewrite the A/c's, but trying to keep the changes as small as possible.

And yes, my rewrite would change damage.

OK, you convinced me the 20 should have 8 shots.

And I just realized that just adding a ton of extra ammo as part of the gun requires rewriting all the mech and vehicle sheets with those weapons and recalculating all their BV's.

Maybe it would be better (or just easier) to invent new, improved A/C's with the stats you want.

Cowdragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2774
  • PM me for Ft. Collins CO battletech games
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #12 on: 23 July 2011, 21:31:48 »
I personnally would completely rewrite the A/c's, but trying to keep the changes as small as possible.

And yes, my rewrite would change damage.

OK, you convinced me the 20 should have 8 shots.

And I just realized that just adding a ton of extra ammo as part of the gun requires rewriting all the mech and vehicle sheets with those weapons and recalculating all their BV's.

Maybe it would be better (or just easier) to invent new, improved A/C's with the stats you want.

Well, while I could see the advantage to a complete rewrite, it's what I'm trying to avoid. Primarily because I would like to go into a SW campaign sometimes, roll a random mech, get something with an AC and not facepalm. Don't get me wrong, the flavor of so many of those mech is amazing! Some of my faovrite mechs are Clints, Riflemen, Jagermechs, Dragons... but seriously. They suck with those AC's. Get into newer tech and it's even worse. Far to much weight, too many crits, too few shots to invest into a pretty crappy weapons platform. Even the 20 classes are teh suxorz. Don't get me wrong, I design with them occasionally, but I would like to want to seriously consider them as viable options. Not just say, "I really want dakka. So what can I pair my AC with to make it actually work?"


I liked your integral ammo idea though. It's super simple. Makes some mechs like the Rifleman much more playable, and you really don't need to change anything about the original design. Chalk it up to "manufacturing flaws" with the extra ton of ammo being useful and still dangerous in the CT. Otherwise you go from having 10 shots per gun to having 30.

On wings of steel, Come I, Pillars of flame
Mark me, Fury bright as suns, Foes fear
The star back road, I hunt, Blood geld payment
Shan't be, The ravens throne, Blod Orn
- vidar (thank you vidar!!!)
Pie or Spehs and Tanks also BA

Cowdragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2774
  • PM me for Ft. Collins CO battletech games
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #13 on: 23 July 2011, 21:33:43 »
on a side note, it leaves AC/2 boats super-splodey! LOL. Normally you can run 2 AC/2's off of one ton of ammo... even the ultra if you are careful. This gives you energy weapon level endurance, lol. However adjusting the shots per ton down to 40, or 38 much more viable. :)

On wings of steel, Come I, Pillars of flame
Mark me, Fury bright as suns, Foes fear
The star back road, I hunt, Blood geld payment
Shan't be, The ravens throne, Blod Orn
- vidar (thank you vidar!!!)
Pie or Spehs and Tanks also BA

Sabelkatten

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3224
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #14 on: 23 July 2011, 21:53:02 »
This is what I did to balance the 3025 weapons against each other:
Quote
Weapon    Heat    To Hit    Damage    Min. RNG    Short RNG    Med. RNG    Long RNG    Ammo/ton    Weight    Criticals    Notes
Machine Gun    0    -2    2    0    1    2    3    200    0.5    1    2d6 infantery damage with +2 TN penalty.
Flamer    3    -2    2    0    1    2    3    -    1    1    Causes 2 additional heat to target.
4d6 infantery damage with +2 TN penalty.
Small Laser    1    0    3    0    1-2    3    4    -    0.5    1    
Medium Laser    3    0    5    0    1-3    4-6    7-9    -    1    1    
Large Laser    7    0    8    0    1-5    6-10    11-15    -    5    2    
PPC    10    0    10    3    1-6    7-12    13-18    -    7    3    
Autocannon/2    0    0    3    0    1-8    9-16    17-24    50    6    1    -2 TN bonus against flying targets
Autocannon/5    0    0    6    0    1-6    7-12    13-18    20    8    4    -2 TN bonus against flying targets
Autocannon/10    3    0    11    0    1-5    6-10    11-15    10    12    7    
Autocannon/20    7    0    21    0    1-3    4-6    7-9    5    14    10    
SRM2    2    0    2x2(2)    0    1-4    5-8    9-12    60    1    1    
SRM4    3    0    4x2(2)    0    1-4    5-8    9-12    30    2    1    
SRM6    4    0    6x2(2)    0    1-4    5-8    9-12    20    3    2    
LRM5    2    0    5x1(5)    6    1-7    8-14    15-21    24    2    1    
LRM10    2    0    10x1(5)    6    1-7    8-14    15-21    12    5    2    
LRM15    3    0    15x1(5)    6    1-7    8-14    15-21    8    7    3    
LRM20    3    0    20x1(5)    6    1-7    8-14    15-21    6    10    5

This weapon table is designed to account for the disadvantages of ammo and "built in" heat sinks, but it's still far from perfect. I'm considering changing the way AI weapons work for one.

There are a few more things:

Quote
Notes:
MGs and Flamers have a -2 bonus to hitting, unless the gunner choses to try for increased infantery damage in which case the bonus is negated.

Heat-effect damage (flamers and inferno SRMs) is treated as normal damage when applied to units that don´t track heat.

Special Ammo:
Liquid-fuel SRMs: 1/5th normal ammo, 3 damage per missile.
Added to make all the single SRM2s more competetive.
Hyperveloctity AC rounds: Avialable for AC/2s and AC/5s. 1/2 normal ammo, add 1 hex to each range band (AC/2 range 9/18/27, AC/5 range 7/14/21).
Added to make over-ammo´d light AC designs more competetive.

The table also doesn't really work very well with advanced tech. The big problem is DHS - it's pretty much hopeless to balance weapons against each other when you can use SHS or DHS!

Cowdragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2774
  • PM me for Ft. Collins CO battletech games
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #15 on: 23 July 2011, 23:19:45 »
well from what I can make of that chart (it's kind of out of alignment, but not your fault) I like your changes.

I would just really like to see some playable changes made to the AC's... all of them! They need some serious love.

On wings of steel, Come I, Pillars of flame
Mark me, Fury bright as suns, Foes fear
The star back road, I hunt, Blood geld payment
Shan't be, The ravens throne, Blod Orn
- vidar (thank you vidar!!!)
Pie or Spehs and Tanks also BA

LastChanceCav

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1988
  • Don't worry, we've got a refit for that ...
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #16 on: 24 July 2011, 15:53:36 »
I don't think the new stats would be unbalancing unless you ignored the impact on BV. Using the HMPro BV calculator and your proposed stats the new BVs for the light, medium and heavy are (weapon/ammo-old version):

Light 74/9-37

Medium 113/14-70

Heavy 178/22-123

Why not keep the progression going and make the assault AC do 16 damage and shoot 12 hexes?
Assault 189/24-178

Cheers,
LCC
Last Chance Engineering - Bespoke Battlemechs for the refined gentleman.

Cowdragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2774
  • PM me for Ft. Collins CO battletech games
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #17 on: 24 July 2011, 16:11:36 »
I don't think the new stats would be unbalancing unless you ignored the impact on BV. Using the HMPro BV calculator and your proposed stats the new BVs for the light, medium and heavy are (weapon/ammo-old version):

Light 74/9-37

Medium 113/14-70

Heavy 178/22-123

Why not keep the progression going and make the assault AC do 16 damage and shoot 12 hexes?
Assault 189/24-178

Cheers,
LCC

Yeah, BV would need to be changed a little. Wondering though how you came up with 16 damage for the assault?

By my proposal progression would double the damage of each previous AC.

Light = 3
Medium = 6
Heavy = 12
Assault = 24? <--- this one I am struggling with. 24 is definitely too high. So I could see it dropping to 18 and still being a super effective weapon. Especially with more ammo in each bin. 16 still makes it a giant threat, and heavier hitter than a Gauss (which gives it a niche) I just don't see the progression is all. Sorry :(

On wings of steel, Come I, Pillars of flame
Mark me, Fury bright as suns, Foes fear
The star back road, I hunt, Blood geld payment
Shan't be, The ravens throne, Blod Orn
- vidar (thank you vidar!!!)
Pie or Spehs and Tanks also BA

Cowdragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2774
  • PM me for Ft. Collins CO battletech games
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #18 on: 24 July 2011, 16:14:35 »
also, making a rule that the integral "free" ton of ammo cannot be shared with other AC's, but only used by the AC it is attached to.

On wings of steel, Come I, Pillars of flame
Mark me, Fury bright as suns, Foes fear
The star back road, I hunt, Blood geld payment
Shan't be, The ravens throne, Blod Orn
- vidar (thank you vidar!!!)
Pie or Spehs and Tanks also BA

Feign

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 555
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #19 on: 25 July 2011, 02:12:14 »
I really like the idea of the damage progression being 3, 6, 12, 18, with a slight range increase on the Assault size.  I also like the idea of the integral ton of ammo, but lowering the shots per ton on the first three sizes somewhat.

The big draw for the AC20 is that a single hit by it merits a PSR to keep standing.  Perhaps for the new damage values have a special rule as follows:
"Due to the sudden, sharp, tightly grouped and physically massive impact of an autocannon hit, it has more knockdown power than its damage would indicate.  If a mech takes damage from any autocannon fire in the turn, add 5 unallocated damage to the total only for purposes of requiring a piloting skill roll (this effect does not stack with multiple autocannon hits)."  This rule would apply to all autocannons using Standard or Cluster Ammo.  Using specialty autocannon ammo that would normally reduce bin sizes will instead remove the 'impact' effect.

This would justify the Light and Medium sizes losing quite a bit of ammo to compensate, but less from the Heavy and no loss from the Assault.  I'm thinking the progression would be something like 20, 12, 8, and 5 respectively.

Sound flavorful enough?
All that is born dies,
All that is planned fails,
All that is built crumbles,
But memories continue on,
And that is beautiful.

Cowdragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2774
  • PM me for Ft. Collins CO battletech games
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #20 on: 26 July 2011, 02:08:27 »
I really like the idea of the damage progression being 3, 6, 12, 18, with a slight range increase on the Assault size.  I also like the idea of the integral ton of ammo, but lowering the shots per ton on the first three sizes somewhat.

The big draw for the AC20 is that a single hit by it merits a PSR to keep standing.  Perhaps for the new damage values have a special rule as follows:
"Due to the sudden, sharp, tightly grouped and physically massive impact of an autocannon hit, it has more knockdown power than its damage would indicate.  If a mech takes damage from any autocannon fire in the turn, add 5 unallocated damage to the total only for purposes of requiring a piloting skill roll (this effect does not stack with multiple autocannon hits)."  This rule would apply to all autocannons using Standard or Cluster Ammo.  Using specialty autocannon ammo that would normally reduce bin sizes will instead remove the 'impact' effect.

This would justify the Light and Medium sizes losing quite a bit of ammo to compensate, but less from the Heavy and no loss from the Assault.  I'm thinking the progression would be something like 20, 12, 8, and 5 respectively.

Sound flavorful enough?

I like the impact effect a lot actually. Seems like it might be making it too complicated in some aspects though. As much as I like the perfect progression of damage... it's also about playability. So the 20 damage may have to stay to keep the majority of people happy.

I like the idea of reducing ammo bins on the AC/2 for sure. But for the AC/20 it definitely needs at least 6 shots per ton. I would go even numbers on all AC ammo types to be honest. Makes it easier when you are putting those special ammunition to good use.

The biggest trick to get positive changes to the AC's here is simplicity I think. Nobody wants to undo decades of TRO's and stuff like that. So what we really want is a couple quick and simple and fair fixes to make the AC's a better choice.

On wings of steel, Come I, Pillars of flame
Mark me, Fury bright as suns, Foes fear
The star back road, I hunt, Blood geld payment
Shan't be, The ravens throne, Blod Orn
- vidar (thank you vidar!!!)
Pie or Spehs and Tanks also BA

Feign

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 555
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #21 on: 26 July 2011, 04:42:30 »
I like the impact effect a lot actually. Seems like it might be making it too complicated in some aspects though. As much as I like the perfect progression of damage... it's also about playability. So the 20 damage may have to stay to keep the majority of people happy.
True, the only other things that hit the 20 damage to a single location limit are HPPC+Capacitor, Thunderbolt LRMs and HGRs...  And none of those were in production before the beginning of the WoB Jihad...  There just seems to be a certain symmatry to 3, 6, 12, 18...
Perhaps a more curved progression, 4, 6, 12, 20?

I like the idea of reducing ammo bins on the AC/2 for sure. But for the AC/20 it definitely needs at least 6 shots per ton. I would go even numbers on all AC ammo types to be honest. Makes it easier when you are putting those special ammunition to good use.
Ah, guess I didn't put enough emphasis on it before that specialty ammo wouldn't reduce the number of shots per ton, but would instead just remove the impact effect.  Perhaps a better ammo spread would be 20, 14, 10, 6?

The biggest trick to get positive changes to the AC's here is simplicity I think. Nobody wants to undo decades of TRO's and stuff like that. So what we really want is a couple quick and simple and fair fixes to make the AC's a better choice.
I get what you're saying, perhaps the ammo bin tweaks you talked about, adjusting the damage a bit, giving the ton of integrated ammo, and making "Impact Ammunition" a specialty ammo load...
All that is born dies,
All that is planned fails,
All that is built crumbles,
But memories continue on,
And that is beautiful.

Hptm. Streiger

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 476
  • damn proud father
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #22 on: 27 July 2011, 11:35:55 »
idea:
little bit to complex to be really workable...

  • A AC is a rapid fire weapon
  • has different calibres - different ammunition weight

a AC 20 for example could be the devasting wk2 crusier (or 360mm Sturmmoerser) gun firing only one gigantic projectile, or it could be similar to the 120mm Rheinmetall firing a volley of 8 grenades

depending on this you could handle a AC in general as cluster weapon, but you can't switch the mode in battle

so a AC 5 could be do still 5 damage to a single hitzone, or firing 2 shots a 2 damage point with increased range(1 hex more medium range, 2 hex more long range, and using the minimum range of the smaller calibre) but you have to roll on cluster hits so you loose a really high ammount of dammage

same with AC 10 and AC 20 (firing 1/2 shots with damage 10, 2/4 shots with damage 5, 4/8 shots with damage of 2)

I know you will loose always some damage when using the 2 damage calibre but you get on the other hand a really long range weapon
Armut schafft Demut,
Demut schafft Fleiß,
Fleiß schafft Reichtum,
Reichtum schafft Übermut,
Übermut schafft Krieg,
Krieg schafft Armut.


dublinmarley

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #23 on: 28 August 2011, 21:44:51 »
Alright, I personally think they are just fine in both heat, weight and damage.  Even the ammo does not bother me but what does bother me is the cost compared to lasers and ppc.
ac/2  75,000
ac/5  140,000
ac/10 200,000
ac/20 300,000
llaser 100,000
ppc 200,000
Now my basic problem is the design of an autocannon has to be way easier to produce than say a laser or ppc.  Either reduce the cost of the AC or triple the cost of the energy weapons.  Personally I think all tech over 3025 needs to be at least double or tripled but that is another arguement.  I view the AC as a cost effective easy to produce weapon over energy weapons which is why they are still around but fasa for some reason didnt include a cost reasoning in the game for them.  Personally playing 3025 era games, I love the ac/2 because I tend to play games with few dominate terrain fetures.  On a side note, why does it seem that every battle takes place in cities or mountains?  Doesnt anyone travel cross country through farmland which surrounds all those cities they are invading?  Give me a fire support lance with blackjacks and jagers to pink away for the hole punchers.  I think by increasing costs of the energy weapons would lead to mech designs with AC being fesable.  By increasing the ppc by 3x, a awsome would cost 1.2 million more cbills alone.  Sure most people just mix and match without reguard for costs but I view the game from an economic standpoint of the nation states and merc companies.  Wouldnt you rather have a few more ac welding mechs instead of a few high cost energy hogs?  It gets even worse when you are looking at production numbers in the 50 to 100s.  100 awsomes with new costs would cost more than 120 million more cbills which could be used to outfit a battalion of light mechs.  Just my opinion.  It would make the AC have a reason to be around still and make energy dominate mechs more specialized for longer term campaigns.  Its nice not running out of ammo or firing on 12 everytime because you dont worry about running out of ammo if you have the heat to spare.

Sandslice

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 861
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #24 on: 29 August 2011, 04:56:59 »
True, the only other things that hit the 20 damage to a single location limit are HPPC+Capacitor, Thunderbolt LRMs and HGRs...  And none of those were in production before the beginning of the WoB Jihad...  There just seems to be a certain symmatry to 3, 6, 12, 18...
Perhaps a more curved progression, 4, 6, 12, 20?
Ah, guess I didn't put enough emphasis on it before that specialty ammo wouldn't reduce the number of shots per ton, but would instead just remove the impact effect.  Perhaps a better ammo spread would be 20, 14, 10, 6?
We could base it on keeping the same ammo-explosion damage* across different "calibers."
If we based an ammo explosion on (for example) 108 damage for the 3/6/12/18 progression, you'd get ammo spreads of 36/18/9/6 - you get a slight nerf on the other cannons, and the buff for assault cannons from 5 to 6.
For the 4/6/12/20 damage spread, we'd want to use a 120-damage explosion basis for 30/20/10/6 ammo.

(*And yes, I do think the SRMs should be changed to a 96-damage standard for 48/24/16, but that's another matter.)

Cowdragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2774
  • PM me for Ft. Collins CO battletech games
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #25 on: 29 August 2011, 05:27:59 »
I personally love the idea of standardized ammo for the AC's (and SRM's as well) haha. But seriously, it makes more sense.

On wings of steel, Come I, Pillars of flame
Mark me, Fury bright as suns, Foes fear
The star back road, I hunt, Blood geld payment
Shan't be, The ravens throne, Blod Orn
- vidar (thank you vidar!!!)
Pie or Spehs and Tanks also BA

Hptm. Streiger

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 476
  • damn proud father
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #26 on: 29 August 2011, 08:55:31 »
Alright, I personally think they are just fine in both heat, weight and damage.  Even the ammo does not bother me but what does bother me is the cost compared to lasers and ppc.
sounds good, because it is not only the costs for the weapon, you need ammunition too,
and techs for reloading
and you need additional place on drop ships for containers of ammunition. so an energy boat would always be the better idea...  :(

i think the only time when a ACs was better than a energy weapon was MechWarrior 2 where you could deplete your ammunition storage within seconds, with devastating effects
Armut schafft Demut,
Demut schafft Fleiß,
Fleiß schafft Reichtum,
Reichtum schafft Übermut,
Übermut schafft Krieg,
Krieg schafft Armut.


dublinmarley

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #27 on: 30 August 2011, 01:33:55 »
sounds good, because it is not only the costs for the weapon, you need ammunition too,
and techs for reloading
and you need additional place on drop ships for containers of ammunition. so an energy boat would always be the better idea...  :(

i think the only time when a ACs was better than a energy weapon was MechWarrior 2 where you could deplete your ammunition storage within seconds, with devastating effects

I am aware of the ammo and tech loading problem.  You need to look at it from a cost basis for the nation state who produces the mechs though.  With energy weapons costs 3x or 4x more than current costs.  What nation state would min max designs without any consideration for cost when they could produce 10% to 20% more mechs with substandard AC weapons.  Trying to fix the game mechanics like damage, heat, space etc will be more than likely impossible due to all the source material already produced but changing the cost of the item would be an easy fix to explain why mechs with AC 5's exist instead of a LL or PPC instead.  Increasing the cost of energy weapons also makes LRM and SRM launchers more viable as well.  When min maxing for mech design and campaign planning, I generally go for a high energy number of weapons due to lack of ammo management.  When I first started playing way back in the day, my friend and I were confused as hell by some of the mech designs.  Sure the AC is inferior generally to energy weapons but by massively increasing costs of energy weapons it allows a reason for the AC to be produced and used in the game due to economics of mech production.

Cowdragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2774
  • PM me for Ft. Collins CO battletech games
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #28 on: 30 August 2011, 14:30:19 »
Except that AC's are extremely advanced weapons as well. With moving parts. With ammunition needs as well. Adjusting the price doesn't address logistics and it also completely ignores how most people play - based upon BV and weight.

To fix AC's you can't adjust weight or crits taken as this would ruin years of TRO's and canon. By adjusting damage, heat, ammo bins, even ranges, the AC's can be kept playable and fun beyond what they are now which pretty much gets reduced to roleplaying reasons to have them... or flavor. For instance I love designing mechs with UAC/5's even though they suck. They suck so bad it's nmot even funny. I would love to use UAC/2's but they are even worse. Would be great for flavor though! But I'm never killing anything with a mech that has a UAC/2 as a main gun.... which is too bad really. The gun seems like fun. But I actually like to win.

On wings of steel, Come I, Pillars of flame
Mark me, Fury bright as suns, Foes fear
The star back road, I hunt, Blood geld payment
Shan't be, The ravens throne, Blod Orn
- vidar (thank you vidar!!!)
Pie or Spehs and Tanks also BA

Hptm. Streiger

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 476
  • damn proud father
Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
« Reply #29 on: 30 August 2011, 14:45:48 »
I would love to use UAC/2's but they are even worse. Would be great for flavor though! But I'm never killing anything with a mech that has a UAC/2 as a main gun.... which is too bad really. The gun seems like fun. But I actually like to win.

You have to fight in space, the UAC/2 or even the LB-2X is a killing weapon in vacuum
Armut schafft Demut,
Demut schafft Fleiß,
Fleiß schafft Reichtum,
Reichtum schafft Übermut,
Übermut schafft Krieg,
Krieg schafft Armut.


 

Register