Author Topic: Looking to improve the MML  (Read 3642 times)

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3531
Looking to improve the MML
« on: 17 October 2021, 17:19:14 »
So the Multiple Missile Launchers are an interesting weapon system.  While it makes a decent shot at trying to emulate the Clan ATM, as far as Inner Sphere techs could replicate, it still feels anemic and falling short when compared to its long-range cousins.

So, I'm thinking of two ways to make them more desirable.  First is to allow the LRMs to fire off at double the rate.  It may be a little over the top, but allowing them to fire off a little more feels like it would be more attractive.  Basically they would have double the LRM tubes they do of their SRM tubes.  Could call them improved MMLs (iMML).  LRM ammo will be reduced by half of the regular MML by necessity.

For basic stats, I'm thinking of the following:
Code: [Select]
Launcher   Heat  Mass  Slots  LRM Ammo SRM Ammo
iMML-3       2    2.5    2      20       33     
iMML-5       3     5     3      12       20
iMML-7       4     6     4       8       14
iMML-9       5     9     5       6       11

An alternative to this is to allow them an "Ultra" setting, akin to Ultra ACs, where one can choose to double the rate of fire for LRMs, but risk jamming them in the same manner as Ultra ACs.  Jamming the LRM tubes will jam the SRM tubes, to its nature.  For sake of identity, let's call these Ultra Multiple Missile Launchers (UMML).  No need to change the ammo here, as it will just start the same and the pilot will determine the rate of expenditure.

Code: [Select]
Launcher   Heat  Mass  Slots
UMML-3       2    2.5    2
UMML-5       3     5     3
UMML-7       4     6     4
UMML-9       5     9     5

Final option would be to introduce Streak LRMs in to the mix, and then make the whole launcher.  They would lose Indirect Fire capabilities, and I'm not sure if their Minimum should be reduced or removed, as they would be patterned after Clan Streaks...  Streak shots don't change ammo, and the launchers don't change Critical Slots.  So I'm think the Streak MMLs (SMMLs) look like the following:

Code: [Select]
Launcher   Heat  Mass  Slots
SMML-3       2    3      2
SMML-5       3   4.5     3
SMML-7       4    6      4
SMML-9       5   7.5     5

Thoughts?  Ideas?  Preferences?  Suggestions?
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9096
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #1 on: 18 October 2021, 14:46:08 »
The trick about MMLs is that they're flexible and seemingly lower BV than expected. I tend to treat them as more of utility equipment than weapons.
Though in practice, this means i'd rather have just SRMs as SRMs in general tend to have more or better utility options than LRMs, and because in most games standard, Narc, Artemis or Semi-Guided options tend to be most used, followed by Infernos. No real need for MMLs to use these, and other good options like Tandem-Charge SRMs can be used with just standard SRMs just fine.


The problem with the iMML and UMML is that anything that doubles damage potential should have effect on battle value. Determining BV in these cases would be somewhat tricky as we don't know which missile type damage contributes more. However, while the BV issue can be sorted out, the biggest concern i have is that doubling the LRM count could cause these to be superior to SRMs and LRMs to the point of replacing both, which isn't necessarily good for the game. (Granted, having more and more systems isn't necessarily good either...)
Both systems do suffer from being rather arbitrary. Why do the mechanisms affect only the LRM side? Granted, this is more of a fluff issue than gameplay, where "it is about balance" trumps just about everything.
Interaction with Artemis IV is also something to be considered.


Now, the Streak version is actually interesting concept. There is slight issue in that the Inner Sphere hasn't figured out Streak system for LRMs but... well, in some sense, i guess this is more due to Streak LRMs being somewhat dubious in the first place rather than technical challenge by 32nd century.
In practice, these would have to be their separate weapon system though, as Streak system isn't an add-on like Artemis IV. And because Streak requires Streak-capable ammo (at least i'm pretty sure there's some fluff about that), specialty munitions would be no-go largely due to balance, throwing 9 Streak-Tandem-Charge SRMs would be just so evil. This could end up reducing these to "More Streak SRM tubes that can also fire Streak LRMs", so we'd be about where we began but with a new weapon...


In case it isn't clear: No, i'm not a fan of MMLs and i wouldn't miss them if they were removed from the game.  ;D

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13011
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #2 on: 18 October 2021, 18:58:39 »
I really hope we get a "MML type" launcher that handles all Short-Medium-Long-Extended Ranged Missiles come 3250 & all the different missiles are just alternate ammo options.
Consolidate them all into sizes that match the 4 AC sizes for common cluster roles  (2-5-10-20)
Call them the "VML - Variable Missile Launcher"

Clan tech is getting more common at that point so we can look into some slightly lighter launchers maybe along w/ built in electronics too allow for Artemis/Streak if those ammo types are chosen.

2-Rack = 1 Ton, 1 Crit, 2 Heat
5-Rack = 2.5 Tons, 2 Crits, 3 heat
10-Rack = 5 Tons, 3 Crits, 4 Heat
20-Rack = 10 Tons, 5 Crits, 6 Heat


3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3531
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #3 on: 19 October 2021, 02:03:25 »
The trick about MMLs is that they're flexible and seemingly lower BV than expected. I tend to treat them as more of utility equipment than weapons.
Though in practice, this means i'd rather have just SRMs as SRMs in general tend to have more or better utility options than LRMs, and because in most games standard, Narc, Artemis or Semi-Guided options tend to be most used, followed by Infernos. No real need for MMLs to use these, and other good options like Tandem-Charge SRMs can be used with just standard SRMs just fine.

Pretty much.  It's like take Smokes or Flares for LRMs (depending on the mission), and then your favored SRMs from there.  However, since this thread isn't about the viability of the system as a whole, I'll just leave it at that.

The problem with the iMML and UMML is that anything that doubles damage potential should have effect on battle value. Determining BV in these cases would be somewhat tricky as we don't know which missile type damage contributes more. However, while the BV issue can be sorted out, the biggest concern i have is that doubling the LRM count could cause these to be superior to SRMs and LRMs to the point of replacing both, which isn't necessarily good for the game. (Granted, having more and more systems isn't necessarily good either...)

So what would balance them out?  Do they need to be heavier, bulkier, what?

I tried to take the LRM launchers weight in mind when I planned out these weights.  The UMMLs were rather tricky because Ultra ACs don't add a whole lot in weight for their work, and I based it on that.

I hadn't worked on BV yet, because I'm still haunted by doing it by hand when it was first introduced in the 90's, and I'm not sure how far I'd want to go with it.

Both systems do suffer from being rather arbitrary. Why do the mechanisms affect only the LRM side? Granted, this is more of a fluff issue than gameplay, where "it is about balance" trumps just about everything.
Interaction with Artemis IV is also something to be considered.

For this, I would say that there would be few that would complain about the SRM side of the system.  Where the problem lies is that the long-range option is just weak for everything one would usually call upon LRMs for?  So this step would be to improve it and make it better.

Now, the Streak version is actually interesting concept. There is slight issue in that the Inner Sphere hasn't figured out Streak system for LRMs but... well, in some sense, i guess this is more due to Streak LRMs being somewhat dubious in the first place rather than technical challenge by 32nd century.

Good point.  The Inner Sphere has a strong desire to use the LRM more as a short artillery than the Clans do.  With only a couple of specific cases exempted, the Clans are about personal glory, so spotting for someone usually doesn't work for that.  So losing the indirect fire of the LRM isn't so much a problem for the Clans, but a considerable issue for the Spheroids.

In practice, these would have to be their separate weapon system though, as Streak system isn't an add-on like Artemis IV. And because Streak requires Streak-capable ammo (at least i'm pretty sure there's some fluff about that), specialty munitions would be no-go largely due to balance, throwing 9 Streak-Tandem-Charge SRMs would be just so evil. This could end up reducing these to "More Streak SRM tubes that can also fire Streak LRMs", so we'd be about where we began but with a new weapon...

Correct.  Both LR and SR would be requiring a Streak system in order to work, so that means solving the problem of the SLRM for the Inner Sphere.  Though, I would say that the idea of losing Indirect Fire for an LRM-20 would be a Bad Thing (from the Spheroid perspective), I'm not sure that losing it for an LRM-9 (or smaller) sounds that painful.

I really hope we get a "MML type" launcher that handles all Short-Medium-Long-Extended Ranged Missiles come 3250 & all the different missiles are just alternate ammo options.
Consolidate them all into sizes that match the 4 AC sizes for common cluster roles  (2-5-10-20)
Call them the "VML - Variable Missile Launcher"

Clan tech is getting more common at that point so we can look into some slightly lighter launchers maybe along w/ built in electronics too allow for Artemis/Streak if those ammo types are chosen.

2-Rack = 1 Ton, 1 Crit, 2 Heat
5-Rack = 2.5 Tons, 2 Crits, 3 heat
10-Rack = 5 Tons, 3 Crits, 4 Heat
20-Rack = 10 Tons, 5 Crits, 6 Heat

Yeah, these would probably be the 3rd or 4th generation of the MML.  That might work for 3250, but until then, I thought looking at the 2nd Generation MML might be more fruitful for now.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6952
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #4 on: 20 October 2021, 05:05:52 »
The MML3 is the most effective missile launcher you can mount on an IS mech unless you're short of crit spaces or just want as many LRMs as possible. And that's before the massive BV rebate MMLs get (IIRC about 40% off).

3xMML3 cause marginally less damage than 2xLRM5, weight (w/ ammo and DHS) 9.5 to 7 tons, and add some 2.5 MLs to you short-range power for free. And of course they're straight up monstrous on vehicles.

Now the larger MMLs aren't all that much to write home about in comparison, but the MML3 needs a nerf more than anything else.

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9096
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #5 on: 20 October 2021, 08:54:52 »
The MML3 is the most effective missile launcher you can mount on an IS mech unless you're short of crit spaces or just want as many LRMs as possible. And that's before the massive BV rebate MMLs get (IIRC about 40% off).
Don't think there's rebate, especially when we consider that MMLs can fire only one type of missile. At least i would assume they'd get priced as if they were the more expensive pure LRM or SRM option.
BVs, using given MML values and using HMP's calculator for LRM and SRMs, though old it seems to get most things it can calculate perfectly.
http://www.heavymetalpro.com/bv_calc.htm
Results:
MML-9 86, LRM-9 78, SRM-9 81.
MML-7 67, LRM-7 63, SRM-7 65.
MML-5 45, LRM-5 45, SRM-5 47.
MML-3 29, LRM-3 29, SRM-3 30.

Looking at this, MML-3 and MML-5 certainly seems to be efficient, but extremely marginally so. Bigger MMLs lose efficiency.
Also i can't help but wonder if any efficiency vanishes in practice due to MML bulk and weight though. While 3xMML-3 would be lighter than a LRM-10 (and 3 BV cheaper), they require triple the space. Advanced Inner Sphere 'Mechs tend to be very low on criticals.
On the other hand, 2xLRM-5 is equal cost to LRM-10 but lighter and easy to fit.

So what would balance them out?  Do they need to be heavier, bulkier, what?

I tried to take the LRM launchers weight in mind when I planned out these weights.  The UMMLs were rather tricky because Ultra ACs don't add a whole lot in weight for their work, and I based it on that.

I hadn't worked on BV yet, because I'm still haunted by doing it by hand when it was first introduced in the 90's, and I'm not sure how far I'd want to go with it.
Weight and heat don't usually impact weapon BV calculations at all, VSPLs being an exception. Well, MMLs too seem to be weird exception, so no entirely sure how their BV should be impacted.
Naively thinking, doubling LRM damage potential should boost their BV perhaps by 50% or even 100% (BV doesn't seem to care about average, only potential max, nor does it take into account potential failures like Ultra-ACs have). This wouldn't necessarily be an issue though in itself, as doubled-LRM counts would mean the launchers would be better LRM launchers with SRM capability thrown into mix.

I really don't know how to tweak MMLs to make their LRM side better or more attractive. If the weapon requires more weight or space, it makes standard launchers far more attractive option. If the weapon gets smaller and lighter, it becomes too good... or just even better "SRM launcher".

It did occur to me that MML-exclusive special ammo could be an option.
A couple of ways this could be done:
-LRM ammo that has some special feature at the expense of ammo per ton (half?), and can be only fired with MMLs. What this special feature would be is the question. Armor piercing LRM, combined Narc and Artemis LRM*, some kind of high-power LRM that has higher damage... Not sure about specific bonus. Just something exclusive to MML LRMs.

-"MML ammo", half amount per ton, has its own range brackets. Perhaps a mid-point between between SRMs and LRMs? With this, MMLs would be closer to emulating ATMs. But since SRMs are 2 damage and LRMs 1 damage, figuring out this "MML ammo" is difficult. Possibly 2 damage, 5 point clusters, range approximately 15 hexes, short minimum range.
(Quick note that ATM standard ammo is better than one might expect: see this thread.)

-Or your double-LRM MMLs could be made into a special ammo option: Not compatible with other special munitions or standard LRM launchers**, half ammo per ton, LRM damage and range brackets, fires 2x rated amount of LRMs per shot. Figure a cluster or to-hit penalty may be required, to keep these from being dominating option and to create "BV sink" so to speak, as there's no rules for ammo types having different BVs.

*Clarification here because how i see it isn't simple: one benefit at time only. Narcs do allow for spotter-less indirect fire, while Artemis doesn't work with indirect fire at all. This kind of ammo would still be useful, especially for a force that uses Narcs and has MML using 'Mechs with Artemis IV. Also, Artemis stops functioning if just fired through ECM field, while Narc benefit works as long as the homing pod target isn't under ECM. Perhaps too marginal benefit for its complexity, and relies on Narc or Artemis presence.

**Annoyingly arbitrary but i figure otherwise this doesn't actually benefit MMLs really.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #6 on: 20 October 2021, 16:16:50 »
The only easy improvement I can see it to allow it to fire both missiles at once.

The next easiest would be a Clan Tech versions. This could be done in two versions. The first using Improved Tech. I don't think it'd change the weight but SRMs would have added range.
The second improvement would be full ClanTech versions with lighter weight. I'd still round up though unless fractional accounting is used.

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3531
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #7 on: 20 October 2021, 19:32:13 »
Weight and heat don't usually impact weapon BV calculations at all, VSPLs being an exception. Well, MMLs too seem to be weird exception, so no entirely sure how their BV should be impacted.
Naively thinking, doubling LRM damage potential should boost their BV perhaps by 50% or even 100% (BV doesn't seem to care about average, only potential max, nor does it take into account potential failures like Ultra-ACs have). This wouldn't necessarily be an issue though in itself, as doubled-LRM counts would mean the launchers would be better LRM launchers with SRM capability thrown into mix.

Well, as I said, I hadn't touched BV, so I don't know why you're bringing it up. 

The reason increasing the LRM rate of fire is to make bringing it for LRM damage actually somewhat desirable.  Really, the only reason I'd bring an MML is that the Mech has no other long-ranged option, and the current MML's long-range capability falls in the "keeping them honest" category without sacrificing too much close-range firepower.

I really don't know how to tweak MMLs to make their LRM side better or more attractive. If the weapon requires more weight or space, it makes standard launchers far more attractive option. If the weapon gets smaller and lighter, it becomes too good... or just even better "SRM launcher".

Actually, I was asking on how to improve the balance of my suggestions more than the basic MML themselves.

-LRM ammo that has some special feature at the expense of ammo per ton (half?), and can be only fired with MMLs. What this special feature would be is the question. Armor piercing LRM, combined Narc and Artemis LRM*, some kind of high-power LRM that has higher damage... Not sure about specific bonus. Just something exclusive to MML LRMs.

*Clarification here because how i see it isn't simple: one benefit at time only. Narcs do allow for spotter-less indirect fire, while Artemis doesn't work with indirect fire at all. This kind of ammo would still be useful, especially for a force that uses Narcs and has MML using 'Mechs with Artemis IV. Also, Artemis stops functioning if just fired through ECM field, while Narc benefit works as long as the homing pod target isn't under ECM. Perhaps too marginal benefit for its complexity, and relies on Narc or Artemis presence.

That Narctemis* and AP ammo has potential, and it would definitely be something that the Inner Sphere market would desire.  I'd probably make the AP ammo still has a maximum cluster of 5s, but the last missile of the cluster provides the Crit Chance.  That way it would require the 9 in order to get 2 crit chances, but the first would do 4 damage to the location, and the second would do 3 damage and a Crit Chance (but that second group still requires all 9 to hit).

That being said, how would this just be an MML-exclusive just doesn't make sense in universe unless it was combined with a second generation MML akin to what I proposed above.

* "Narctemis just being the random word I made up for this combination.

-"MML ammo", half amount per ton, has its own range brackets. Perhaps a mid-point between between SRMs and LRMs? With this, MMLs would be closer to emulating ATMs. But since SRMs are 2 damage and LRMs 1 damage, figuring out this "MML ammo" is difficult. Possibly 2 damage, 5 point clusters, range approximately 15 hexes, short minimum range.
(Quick note that ATM standard ammo is better than one might expect: see this thread.)

We already have MRMs, and since they are basically unguided LRMs, I don't see how hard it would be to put them in aside from updating range software and having a really bad aim with those weak throws.

An alternative would be similar to how Mechwarrior Online handles the ATMs, namely that it would have one set range, but the damage per missile would be something like 2/1/1.  However, that would probably apply better to that Variable Missile Launcher suggested earlier.

-Or your double-LRM MMLs could be made into a special ammo option: Not compatible with other special munitions or standard LRM launchers**, half ammo per ton, LRM damage and range brackets, fires 2x rated amount of LRMs per shot. Figure a cluster or to-hit penalty may be required, to keep these from being dominating option and to create "BV sink" so to speak, as there's no rules for ammo types having different BVs.

At first I was going to toss this idea out the window, but as I think about it, in order to get the Ultras and RACs to work, they had to develop special ammo to run them.  In order to handle the higher transfer rate of LRMs to the launcher, it may be required to have them utilize special LRM ammo.  Having them have this "fast ammo" that would only work with the iMML or UMML would also justify why developing a Narctemis and AP ammo for it (restricted to standard MML launch speeds) would come about.

Adding a -2 to Cluster Roll for UMMLs in fast mode and iMMLs should work out I think, especially for this iteration.

The only easy improvement I can see it to allow it to fire both missiles at once.

Eh, unless you can change targets so one set of missiles at one target and the other set at another, this is a BAD idea.

The next easiest would be a Clan Tech versions. This could be done in two versions. The first using Improved Tech. I don't think it'd change the weight but SRMs would have added range.
The second improvement would be full ClanTech versions with lighter weight. I'd still round up though unless fractional accounting is used.

If I'm bringing Clan Tech in to the mix, why bother with making an MML, and just grab some ATMs instead?  They are far better MMLs, and have been available for far longer.

Using Improved Tech, though, might be a little better.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6952
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #8 on: 21 October 2021, 03:30:02 »
MML3 testbed:

Code: [Select]
x1

Mass: 50 tons
Tech Base: Inner Sphere
Chassis Config: Biped
Rules Level: Tournament Legal
Era: Clan Invasion
Tech Rating/Era Availability: E/X-X-E-A
Production Year: 3070
Cost: 4 257 500 C-Bills
Battle Value: 1 045

Chassis: Unknown Standard
Power Plant: Unknown 250 Fusion Engine
Walking Speed: 54,0 km/h
Maximum Speed: 86,4 km/h
Jump Jets: None
    Jump Capacity: 0 meters
Armor: Unknown Standard Armor
Armament:
    1  ER Large Laser
    5  MML-3s
Manufacturer: Unknown
    Primary Factory: Unknown
Communications System: Unknown
Targeting and Tracking System: Unknown

================================================================================
Equipment           Type                         Rating                   Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Standard                      83 points                5,00
Engine:             Fusion Engine                250                      12,50
    Walking MP: 5
    Running MP: 8
    Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks:         Double Heat Sink             12(24)                    2,00
    Heat Sink Locations: 1 LT, 1 RT
Gyro:               Standard                                               3,00
Cockpit:            Standard                                               3,00
    Actuators:      L: SH+UA+LA+H    R: SH+UA+LA+H
Armor:              Standard Armor               AV - 128                  8,00

                                                      Internal       Armor     
                                                      Structure      Factor     
                                                Head     3            9         
                                        Center Torso     16           18       
                                 Center Torso (rear)                  5         
                                           L/R Torso     12           17       
                                    L/R Torso (rear)                  4         
                                             L/R Arm     8            12       
                                             L/R Leg     12           15       

================================================================================
Equipment                                 Location    Heat    Critical    Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MML-3                                        CT        2         2         1,50
MML-3                                        RT        2         2         1,50
MML-3                                        LT        2         2         1,50
ER Large Laser                               RA        12        2         5,00
MML-3                                        RA        2         2         1,50
MML-3                                        LA        2         2         1,50
@MML-3 (LRM) (40)                            RT        -         1         1,00
@MML-3 (SRM) (33)                            RT        -         1         1,00
@MML-3 (LRM) (40)                            LT        -         1         1,00
@MML-3 (SRM) (33)                            LT        -         1         1,00
                                            Free Critical Slots: 25

BattleForce Statistics
MV      S (+0)  M (+2)  L (+4)  E (+6)   Wt.   Ov   Armor:      4    Points: 10
5          3       3       2       0      2     0   Structure:  4
Special Abilities: SRCH, ES, SEAL, SOA, IF 1

LRM/SSRM testbed with close to identical firepower (it can overheat for a bit extra). Less ammo options, 3 tons less armor, and higher BV:

Code: [Select]
x2

Mass: 50 tons
Tech Base: Inner Sphere
Chassis Config: Biped
Rules Level: Tournament Legal
Era: Clan Invasion
Tech Rating/Era Availability: E/X-X-D-A
Production Year: 3070
Cost: 4 104 500 C-Bills
Battle Value: 1 100

Chassis: Unknown Standard
Power Plant: Unknown 250 Fusion Engine
Walking Speed: 54,0 km/h
Maximum Speed: 86,4 km/h
Jump Jets: None
    Jump Capacity: 0 meters
Armor: Unknown Standard Armor
Armament:
    1  ER Large Laser
    3  LRM-5s
    5  Streak SRM-2s
Manufacturer: Unknown
    Primary Factory: Unknown
Communications System: Unknown
Targeting and Tracking System: Unknown

================================================================================
Equipment           Type                         Rating                   Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Standard                      83 points                5,00
Engine:             Fusion Engine                250                      12,50
    Walking MP: 5
    Running MP: 8
    Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks:         Double Heat Sink             10(20)                    0,00
Gyro:               Standard                                               3,00
Cockpit:            Standard                                               3,00
    Actuators:      L: SH+UA+LA+H    R: SH+UA+LA+H
Armor:              Standard Armor               AV -  80                  5,00

                                                      Internal       Armor     
                                                      Structure      Factor     
                                                Head     3            9         
                                        Center Torso     16           12       
                                 Center Torso (rear)                  3         
                                           L/R Torso     12           10       
                                    L/R Torso (rear)                  2         
                                             L/R Arm     8            7         
                                             L/R Leg     12           9         

================================================================================
Equipment                                 Location    Heat    Critical    Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LRM-5                                        CT        2         1         2,00
LRM-5                                        RT        2         1         2,00
Streak SRM-2                                 RT        2         1         1,50
LRM-5                                        LT        2         1         2,00
Streak SRM-2                                 LT        2         1         1,50
ER Large Laser                               RA        12        2         5,00
Streak SRM-2                                 RA        2         1         1,50
Streak SRM-2                                 LA        2         1         1,50
Streak SRM-2                                 LL        2         1         1,50
@Streak SRM-2 (50)                           HD        -         1         1,00
@LRM-5 (24)                                  CT        -         1         1,00
@LRM-5 (24)                                  LT        -         1         1,00
                                            Free Critical Slots: 34

BattleForce Statistics
MV      S (+0)  M (+2)  L (+4)  E (+6)   Wt.   Ov   Armor:      3    Points: 11
5          3       3       2       0      2     1   Structure:  4
Special Abilities: SRCH, ES, SEAL, SOA, IF 1

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #9 on: 21 October 2021, 18:41:10 »
Eh, unless you can change targets so one set of missiles at one target and the other set at another, this is a BAD idea.

If I'm bringing Clan Tech in to the mix, why bother with making an MML, and just grab some ATMs instead?  They are far better MMLs, and have been available for far longer.

Using Improved Tech, though, might be a little better.


Not really. For long range fire LRMs. For short range fire SRMs. At hexes 7-9 where their ranges overlap, fire both.
For a MML-3 that'd be up to 6 missiles hitting instead of 3.  It's a narrow advantage but it would help keep opponents out of that range. They'd either keep their distance or get up close where short range weapons can hit them.


Different ammo types.

The added range for the SRMs is nice.

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3531
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #10 on: 21 October 2021, 22:18:54 »
Not really. For long range fire LRMs. For short range fire SRMs. At hexes 7-9 where their ranges overlap, fire both.
For a MML-3 that'd be up to 6 missiles hitting instead of 3.  It's a narrow advantage but it would help keep opponents out of that range. They'd either keep their distance or get up close where short range weapons can hit them.

While the ranges overlap, their ability to hit in those ranges is vastly different.  Might as well as suggest that a Dervish and Crusader are fine at closer range since they can fire 24 and 42 missiles (respectively) at point blank range, or the lasers and LRMs of the original Catapult and Archer.

Different ammo types.

Maybe for the utility missiles like Smoke rounds, but for a damage set, the ATMs are largely superior.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #11 on: 22 October 2021, 01:51:39 »
While the ranges overlap, their ability to hit in those ranges is vastly different.  Might as well as suggest that a Dervish and Crusader are fine at closer range since they can fire 24 and 42 missiles (respectively) at point blank range, or the lasers and LRMs of the original Catapult and Archer.

Maybe for the utility missiles like Smoke rounds, but for a damage set, the ATMs are largely superior.

We're not talking about point blank range though. We're talking long range for SRMs and short range for LRMs. Ranges they'd be fired at any way. Why not allow an improved MML to fire both at that range? It wouldn't be different from firing separate LRM and SRM Launchers at the same target. However, firing LRMs at point blank range could be done by using Clan LRM Launchers or hot loading the IS LRM Launchers. Then both missile types could be fired at targets 1-9 hexes away.

True. That doesn't mean that all those missile types aren't of use though.


Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3531
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #12 on: 22 October 2021, 15:29:23 »
We're not talking about point blank range though. We're talking long range for SRMs and short range for LRMs. Ranges they'd be fired at any way. Why not allow an improved MML to fire both at that range? It wouldn't be different from firing separate LRM and SRM Launchers at the same target. However, firing LRMs at point blank range could be done by using Clan LRM Launchers or hot loading the IS LRM Launchers. Then both missile types could be fired at targets 1-9 hexes away.

I rarely fire at long range for a weapon.  Usually it's an impossible hit unless we're allowed better gunners or everybody stopped where they are.  There is a HUGE difference to hit with a +4 difference.  Even a +2 is significant.  And since you're just inverting the relationship as one gets closer, it is perfectly viable to talk about firing LRMs in an SRM's short range, i.e. point-blank.

So I reiterate, unless one can fire the same weapon at two targets, there isn't much of a point to firing both rounds at the same time as one will likely miss, even if one hits.  Though, in some ways, that's not much different than Ultra ACs...

True. That doesn't mean that all those missile types aren't of use though.

But why not just take a Clan LRM-5 and use the alt ammo in that?
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7154
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #13 on: 22 October 2021, 15:47:51 »
The easiest upgrade would be to allow the usage of Torpedoes.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3531
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #14 on: 22 October 2021, 19:37:45 »
The easiest upgrade would be to allow the usage of Torpedoes.

Considering that regular missile launchers can't, I don't see how that would work.  However it would be a great upgrade, and one that could be reversed to work with the the regular launchers.

Until then, an MTL seems a logical creation.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Adastra

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • ~(,, _`;;'>
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #15 on: 22 October 2021, 22:47:36 »
Yeah, I'm not really seeing MML-3s specifically as needing any buffs except to the extent that all missile weapons might need them. For a given amount of damage and heat they're equal to SRM-6s (the most efficient option in terms of heat), being more bulky in exchange for being able to fire LRMs as well. They're the best choice for a great deal of utility ammo, and as LRMs they have such small salvo sizes that they're basically long range crit-seekers.

The bigger MMLs are pretty mediocre and could stand to be better, though.

I don't think allowing MMLs to fire twice the number of LRMs would be a good idea. It basically flips them into being LRM launchers that can fire SRMs if you really need to, but you'd never actually want to be in that situation in the first place with how inefficient they are in that role. Using medium lasers as your backup weapon works just fine if you want your short range to be the secondary function. MMLs currently serve in almost the opposite role, a more short range-oriented weapon that still functions solidly at long range.



Also, quick analysis, 5 of your proposed iMML-3s would weigh 12.5 tons, produce 10 heat (so 5 tons of DHS), and probably require at least 5 tons of ammo (16 volleys of LRM would be 4 tons with 1-2 tons of SRM for 6-13 volleys backup).

By contrast, regular LRM-5s and medium lasers. 6 LRM-5s would be 12 tons, produce 12 heat (6 tons DHS) and require 4 tons of ammo for 16 volleys. 4 medium lasers would provide backup and deal similar damage to the SRMs the MMLs can throw.

So iMMLs I think would largely obsolete standard LRM launchers. They're actually slightly more efficient if tonnage needs to be used for heat sinks, while also not requiring backup weapons, saving even more weight (though requiring tonnage for SRM ammo eats into that, you don't need  that much).
« Last Edit: 22 October 2021, 23:04:29 by Adastra »

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3531
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #16 on: 23 October 2021, 02:41:32 »
I don't think allowing MMLs to fire twice the number of LRMs would be a good idea. It basically flips them into being LRM launchers that can fire SRMs if you really need to, but you'd never actually want to be in that situation in the first place with how inefficient they are in that role. Using medium lasers as your backup weapon works just fine if you want your short range to be the secondary function. MMLs currently serve in almost the opposite role, a more short range-oriented weapon that still functions solidly at long range.

Honestly, I don't think they work solidly at long range, at least damage-wise.  Utility-wise is a different story (i.e. Smoke, Flares, etc).  As I said earlier, they pretty much fit in to the "keeping them honest" type of long-range weapon rather than anything serious.

Most of the time, I'm not looking for crit-seeking with the long-range missiles unless I've got a LRM boat like an Archer or Catapult sitting in the background, as it usually takes getting in close to open up the holes to make crit-seeking worth it.

So iMMLs I think would largely obsolete standard LRM launchers. They're actually slightly more efficient if tonnage needs to be used for heat sinks, while also not requiring backup weapons, saving even more weight (though requiring tonnage for SRM ammo eats into that, you don't need  that much).

Interesting.  So maybe they are too efficient at this point...  What would you suggest to better balance them out.

Howabout the UMMLs?
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #17 on: 23 October 2021, 04:25:28 »
I rarely fire at long range for a weapon.  Usually it's an impossible hit unless we're allowed better gunners or everybody stopped where they are.  There is a HUGE difference to hit with a +4 difference.  Even a +2 is significant.  And since you're just inverting the relationship as one gets closer, it is perfectly viable to talk about firing LRMs in an SRM's short range, i.e. point-blank.

So I reiterate, unless one can fire the same weapon at two targets, there isn't much of a point to firing both rounds at the same time as one will likely miss, even if one hits.  Though, in some ways, that's not much different than Ultra ACs...

But why not just take a Clan LRM-5 and use the alt ammo in that?

That's a matter of preference though. And unless you're hot loading your LRMs or using a Clan launcher the 6 hex minimum ranges means that they won't be fired point blank. And even if the SRMs may not hit, there's still a chance that they will. Who wants to get hit with twice as many missiles? And with a Clan version, the LRMs have no minimum range so at hexes 9 and under you could be firing them both. It'd be like rapid-firing an AC, without the jamming.

That question makes me wonder why MMLs in the first place. A Clan LRM-5 and SRM-2 weigh just as much as the MML-3 and you won't loose both to a single hit. Maybe Clan MMLs would be more compact? That'd make it good for mechs low on space.





The easiest upgrade would be to allow the usage of Torpedoes.


How about allowing Multi-Purpose Missiles to be fired from Vehicle Scale Launchers? Then you wouldn't have to change the launcher. Just the ammo.


Yeah, I'm not really seeing MML-3s specifically as needing any buffs except to the extent that all missile weapons might need them. For a given amount of damage and heat they're equal to SRM-6s (the most efficient option in terms of heat), being more bulky in exchange for being able to fire LRMs as well. They're the best choice for a great deal of utility ammo, and as LRMs they have such small salvo sizes that they're basically long range crit-seekers.

The bigger MMLs are pretty mediocre and could stand to be better, though.

(snip)


I like the MML-3 and 5 do to their weight. The MML-7 and 9. I lean more towards regular LRMs and SRMs. As for heat, it is a concern for mechs and fighters. Not so much for vehicles.  And there's times, I'd rather have SRMs and infernos than a medium laser.

Adastra

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • ~(,, _`;;'>
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #18 on: 23 October 2021, 06:48:10 »
So, the way I see it, MMLs have the following characteristics:
-Effective across a very wide range
-Able to use a huge variety of ammo
-Significantly more powerful at close range than long range.
-Basically as efficient as SRM launchers (actually better than smaller SRM racks due to less heat and the same weight per missile), though much bulkier
-Somewhat less efficient than LRM racks (in regular rules, including DHS, MML-3s weigh 0.83 tons per missile fired, while LRM-5s weigh 0.6 tons per missile, though the 3 column on the cluster table is marginally better than 5)

The first two characteristics are basically inherent to the concept. The third and forth are ones that I, personally, believe MMLs should have, because SRM racks are pretty lackluster on mechs, and thus a more viable alternative would really not hurt balance (and the extra bulk is a pretty solid counterbalance). Plus the greater damage up close is actually surprisingly hard to get with most setups, so that's a neat niche. The last seems to be more significant than you'd like it to be, and I largely agree.

Easiest way I can think of is to just give MMLs a cluster hit mod when firing LRMs? Might only need a +1 or +2 (mathwise it would seem like each +1 to cluster roles gives you ~9% more damage). Fluff it as the fire control being more advanced to handle the wide variety of missile types, and being able to coordinate LRMs a bit better. That should make them more competitive with LRM racks without outshining them entirely.

To solve the issue of bigger MML racks being underwhelming, probably can just make them a bit lighter. Since the 7 and 9 columns have slightly worse average hits in comparison to 3s, I think shaving them down to 4 and 5.5 tons respectively should work out well.

quick breakdown of weights, including DHS:
MML-3: 2.5 tons, 0.83 tons per missile, 0.67 crits slots per missile (cluster efficiency: 66.7%)
MML-5: 4.5 tons, 0.9 tons per missile, 0.6 crits (cluster efficiency: (cluster efficiency: 63.6%)
MML-7 (default): 6.5 tons, 0.93 tons per missile, 0.57 crits (cluster efficiency: 63.6%)
MML-7 (revised): 6 tons, 0.86 tons per missile, 0.57 crits (cluster efficiency: 63.6%)
MML-9 (default): 8.5 tons, 0.94 tons per missile, 0.56 crits (cluster efficiency: 62.6%)
MML-9 (revised): 8 tons, 0.89 tons per missile, 0.56 crits (cluster efficiency: 62.6%)

As can be seen, revising the MMLs this way, the racks would be much more similar in efficiency. Bigger racks are more crit efficient, but the smaller ones do a touch more damage per ton.

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3531
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #19 on: 23 October 2021, 13:48:31 »
That's a matter of preference though. And unless you're hot loading your LRMs or using a Clan launcher the 6 hex minimum ranges means that they won't be fired point blank. And even if the SRMs may not hit, there's still a chance that they will. Who wants to get hit with twice as many missiles? And with a Clan version, the LRMs have no minimum range so at hexes 9 and under you could be firing them both. It'd be like rapid-firing an AC, without the jamming.

Tell me what is the difference between firing LRMs and SRMs at 3 hexes vs 7-9, other than the numbers being reversed?  Clan ranges are not involved in this because MMLs do not use Clan launchers or guidance packages.

That question makes me wonder why MMLs in the first place. A Clan LRM-5 and SRM-2 weigh just as much as the MML-3 and you won't loose both to a single hit. Maybe Clan MMLs would be more compact? That'd make it good for mechs low on space.

Again, with Clan tech you're looking at ATMs for the same general purpose.  Honestly, I doubt we'll be seeing Clan MMLs when they can just add new ammo packages to the ATMs which achieve similar purposes, as that is a much shorter development cycle.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7154
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #20 on: 23 October 2021, 14:59:53 »
Considering that regular missile launchers can't, I don't see how that would work.  However it would be a great upgrade, and one that could be reversed to work with the the regular launchers.
The funny thing is that Torpedoes were allowing in the earliest version of TW, but it was quickly errata away.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #21 on: 23 October 2021, 22:27:21 »
Tell me what is the difference between firing LRMs and SRMs at 3 hexes vs 7-9, other than the numbers being reversed?  Clan ranges are not involved in this because MMLs do not use Clan launchers or guidance packages.

Can't be answered. I wouldn't fire LRMs at 3 hexes do to their minimum range of 6. I'd only do so with hot loads, which I'd have to have ahead of time or use Clan weapons which you don't want me to do.


Quote
Again, with Clan tech you're looking at ATMs for the same general purpose.  Honestly, I doubt we'll be seeing Clan MMLs when they can just add new ammo packages to the ATMs which achieve similar purposes, as that is a much shorter development cycle.

True, they might do that. On the other hand separate LRM and SRM launchers put more missiles into the air, and give some redundancy in the case of damage.  LRMs also offer longer range and you can shoot at different targets. So I don't see ATM's completely replacing standard launchers.

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3531
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #22 on: 23 October 2021, 23:02:55 »
Can't be answered. I wouldn't fire LRMs at 3 hexes do to their minimum range of 6. I'd only do so with hot loads, which I'd have to have ahead of time or use Clan weapons which you don't want me to do.

Which is the same point about not using SRMs at LRM's Medium Range, which is why firing both at the same target doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

And the reason Clan tech isn't a consideration is because, at present, there are no Clan MMLs, so it is a rather pointless conjecture.  So it isn't ME who is saying to not use Clan tech, it is the lack of Clan tech in this paradigm which is saying to not use it.

True, they might do that. On the other hand separate LRM and SRM launchers put more missiles into the air, and give some redundancy in the case of damage.  LRMs also offer longer range and you can shoot at different targets. So I don't see ATM's completely replacing standard launchers.

What are you talking about?  ER ATMs have 180m greater firing range over LRMs.  Now the LRM's ability to damage is greater once they get in to range, at least until the Standards and HEs come in to range.  And unless you're carrying multiple LRMs, each missile launcher can only fire at one target.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #23 on: 25 October 2021, 01:23:28 »
Which is the same point about not using SRMs at LRM's Medium Range, which is why firing both at the same target doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

And the reason Clan tech isn't a consideration is because, at present, there are no Clan MMLs, so it is a rather pointless conjecture.  So it isn't ME who is saying to not use Clan tech, it is the lack of Clan tech in this paradigm which is saying to not use it.

What are you talking about?  ER ATMs have 180m greater firing range over LRMs.  Now the LRM's ability to damage is greater once they get in to range, at least until the Standards and HEs come in to range.  And unless you're carrying multiple LRMs, each missile launcher can only fire at one target.


SRMs can reach into LRM medium range though. The odds of hitting may not be high but it's better than trying to fire LRMs were aren't effective at all.

Yet this thread is about improving MMLs. One way to do that is to use Clan Tech.

That's only one ammo type for the ATM though. Just a quick look through TM, TO, and IO shows all LRMs but Dead Fire have a range of 21 hexes. (Did I miss one?) Dead Fire has a range of 15 so it ties or exceeds other ATM types. So LRMs can outrange ATMs. LRMs are also better up close than ER ATMs so there's that bit of fun too.
Ultimately there's trade offs to using each system.


Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3531
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #24 on: 25 October 2021, 12:25:14 »
SRMs can reach into LRM medium range though. The odds of hitting may not be high but it's better than trying to fire LRMs were aren't effective at all.

There is literally no difference when it is "odds of hitting may not be high" for one or the other.  It's not like the range affects the Cluster roll at all, and aside from the odds of hitting, the LRMs out of an MML are just as useless at 3 hexes as they are at 7+.

Yet this thread is about improving MMLs. One way to do that is to use Clan Tech.

The same tech which could be applied to the regular launchers, or go to ATMs instead.

That's only one ammo type for the ATM though. Just a quick look through TM, TO, and IO shows all LRMs but Dead Fire have a range of 21 hexes. (Did I miss one?) Dead Fire has a range of 15 so it ties or exceeds other ATM types. So LRMs can outrange ATMs. LRMs are also better up close than ER ATMs so there's that bit of fun too.
Ultimately there's trade offs to using each system.

That's like saying LRMs can outrange an AC/2, but it is just the LAC and RAC models that it outranges.  You said, "LRMs also offer longer range...", which ignores the ER missiles, which is part of the point of the ATM system.

ATMs can switch to a more damaging profile which LRMs cannot.  In fact, I can do more damage with an ATM-9 at close range than any LRM-20 (up to 27 vs the LRM-20's up to 20), even if the LRM-10 has a better chance at doing more at 21 hexes.  At a middling range it is also capable of doing almost the same amount of damage as the LRM-20.  And the ATM-9 is only the 3rd of the 4 rack sizes.

In fact, that is the whole point of the MML system is to provide one weapon to do the job of 2, using the LRM ammo at long range and the SRM ammo at short range.  The ATM family just does the damage side better by offering 3 range families instead of 2.  The ATM family only loses out by lacking the more diverse amount of utility ammo that the MML can access from the standard launcher bins.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7154
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #25 on: 25 October 2021, 14:26:46 »
Well an ER-type of ammo would be possible (fit within the BV) if the range bands were [10] 9/18/27.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #26 on: 26 October 2021, 02:07:00 »
There is literally no difference when it is "odds of hitting may not be high" for one or the other.  It's not like the range affects the Cluster roll at all, and aside from the odds of hitting, the LRMs out of an MML are just as useless at 3 hexes as they are at 7+.

At 7-13 the modifier is 0 as it's short range. At Minimum it'd be I believe from +4 to +7? I haven't tried to do it in a long time so I'm a little rusty. That's as bad or worse than trying to hit with SRMs at 7-9. I'd be less worried about LRMs at minimum range than SRMs at long.


Quote
The same tech which could be applied to the regular launchers, or go to ATMs instead.

ATM's have already been improved though.



Quote
That's like saying LRMs can outrange an AC/2, but it is just the LAC and RAC models that it outranges.  You said, "LRMs also offer longer range...", which ignores the ER missiles, which is part of the point of the ATM system.

The Clans wanted a versatile launcher and came up with missiles to fit. That doesn't mean that the ATM Launcher has a greater range than the LRM Launcher. Only a specific ammo type has a greater range. So with standard ammo LRMs do outrange ATMs. Nearly all LRM ammo types outrange standard ATMs. The only ATM type that LRMs don't outrange is the ER ATM. The only LRM type that doesn't outrange the other is the Dead-Fire which has the same range as, or exceeds, the other ATM types, including the IATMs.

Quote
ATMs can switch to a more damaging profile which LRMs cannot.  In fact, I can do more damage with an ATM-9 at close range than any LRM-20 (up to 27 vs the LRM-20's up to 20), even if the LRM-10 has a better chance at doing more at 21 hexes.  At a middling range it is also capable of doing almost the same amount of damage as the LRM-20.  And the ATM-9 is only the 3rd of the 4 rack sizes.

9 HE ATM rounds = 27 damage
15 Dead-Fire LRM Rounds = 30 damage
Both launchers are 3rd largest size. 
9 Dead-Fire SRM rounds = 27 damage.
Largest MML size.


Quote
In fact, that is the whole point of the MML system is to provide one weapon to do the job of 2, using the LRM ammo at long range and the SRM ammo at short range.  The ATM family just does the damage side better by offering 3 range families instead of 2.  The ATM family only loses out by lacking the more diverse amount of utility ammo that the MML can access from the standard launcher bins.

If going by max ranges of the different ammo types for LRMs and SRMs there's 4 range bands, 6/9/15/21. With all the different ammo types LRMs/MMLs/SRMs can do about everything that ATMs can do, and more, except fire beyond 21 hexes without going into extreme range. That further range is the ATM's advantage. That doesn't mean I'm going to trade in my LRMs and SRMs. If weight and space are available, I'd use both.



Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3531
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #27 on: 26 October 2021, 12:18:49 »
At 7-13 the modifier is 0 as it's short range. At Minimum it'd be I believe from +4 to +7? I haven't tried to do it in a long time so I'm a little rusty. That's as bad or worse than trying to hit with SRMs at 7-9. I'd be less worried about LRMs at minimum range than SRMs at long.

???  At 7 the modifier is 0 for LRMs, it is +2 from 8-14.  At range 3 it is +3 to +6 at 1.  For SRMs, it is +4 from 7-9.

As for being worried, it depends on which end you're on, firing or receiving.  On the receiving end, I would be less concerned about LRMs that deep, just as I would be about SRMs at 7+.  Which is why unless you can fire the weapon at 2 different targets it is stupid to have the launcher fire both sets of missiles at the same target.  The only reason to do so is if you have ammo to burn before it gets critted on the off chance that you might be rolling those boxcars to hit with them.  And that applies to either SRM or LRM.

ATM's have already been improved though.

Not even the point.  If I'm looking at going to Clan tech for a versatile missile launcher, I wouldn't be trying to invent a new system to use their SRMs and LRMs, I would just go straight to the ATM as it something I can just reverse-engineer or buy off of the foxy Sharks.

The Clans wanted a versatile launcher and came up with missiles to fit. That doesn't mean that the ATM Launcher has a greater range than the LRM Launcher. Only a specific ammo type has a greater range. So with standard ammo LRMs do outrange ATMs. Nearly all LRM ammo types outrange standard ATMs. The only ATM type that LRMs don't outrange is the ER ATM. The only LRM type that doesn't outrange the other is the Dead-Fire which has the same range as, or exceeds, the other ATM types, including the IATMs.

Which means that the ATM does have longer ranges than the LRM because of its ER missiles which are Standard equipment for the system, while Dead-Fires are limited to being Very Rare.

9 HE ATM rounds = 27 damage
15 Dead-Fire LRM Rounds = 30 damage
Both launchers are 3rd largest size. 
9 Dead-Fire SRM rounds = 27 damage.
Largest MML size.

And an attending loss in Cluster Roll to do so meaning that not all 9 or 15 will hit, ever, while the odds of all 9 HE hitting are much much higher (about a +5 difference when ECM isn't interfering).  At most you can expect 24 damage out of the DF LRMs, and 21 from the DF SRMs. 

And that's not even considering how much better the improved ATMs are, or what the minimum damage is likely to be.  With the DF LRMs, it may only be 2, and only 3 with the SRMs, meanwhile, the ERs will be doing 4 and the HEs will be doing 12 (again, outside of ECM).

If going by max ranges of the different ammo types for LRMs and SRMs there's 4 range bands, 6/9/15/21. With all the different ammo types LRMs/MMLs/SRMs can do about everything that ATMs can do, and more, except fire beyond 21 hexes without going into extreme range. That further range is the ATM's advantage. That doesn't mean I'm going to trade in my LRMs and SRMs. If weight and space are available, I'd use both.

So you contradict yourself in saying that the LRMs have longer range than the ATMs can do, as you can only do so by ignoring something that is part of their standard ammo options, while reaching out to try and get their damage to match by using Very Rare ISO equipment to match it it.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Adastra

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • ~(,, _`;;'>
Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Reply #28 on: 26 October 2021, 15:13:06 »
Dead-Fire missiles are really hampered by that -3 to the cluster roll, and the fact that having the roll modified to a 1 or less results in only a single missile hitting (on racks where the minimum number of hits is greater than 1 at least). As an example, an MML-3 firing DF LRMs will get identical cluster results to a rack of 2 (ie 1 hit for 2-7 and 2 hits on 8-12). And again, this effect is worse on bigger racks. SRMs gain a lot less from dead-fire, so I'm not sure if they're ever really a better choice.

This does mean that dead-fire LRMs are likely a worthwhile munition to consider on MMLs though, at least on the smaller ones. An MML-3 firing DF LRMs is equivalent to an SRM-2 rack with PPC/Thunderbolt-esque range. In terms of average damage they'll deal like 2.8 per hit, which sits nicely in between the 2 avg. damage of LRMs and the 4 avg of SRMs, while having range more like LRMs.

Spitballing, it would seem DF LRMs would be the best choice at ranges 18-15, 12-8, and 6-5 (again, assuming MML-3 racks), since those are the ones where they're as accurate as LRMs and still substantially more accurate than SRMs. SRMs might edge out DFs in that last bracket if you have a very easy target, but I think for most normal to-hit numbers the better accuracy of dead-fires would deal more damage. Against particularly evasive targets you might even be better off using them at range 4. Either way that's a very good set of ranges, at the cost of awful ammo efficiency (and worse crit-fishing compared to SRMs), might be a particularly good choice for MML-mechs that want to close in.
« Last Edit: 26 October 2021, 15:36:17 by Adastra »