Autocannon-2's

[StoneRhino]

Yeah, the acs lose out on a lot because of the rate of fire =1 shot per turn. Their "advantage" is low heat, and assuming that the rpg rules were correct, then weapons were capable of firing more often then allowed in standard play. An energy weapon based design is not likely to go crazy firing their weapons twice a turn very often, but a low heat ac design would want to fire twice or more per round.

Heck, if this was allowed there would be a whole new line of mechs opened up that are both Ac based and have additional cooling. Right now there really are those that are missile based, those that are energy based, and those that are gauss rifle based. There really isn't that many designs outside of those with ac20s that are ac based. Acs are more support for the other weapons that have higher heat costs. The ultras and racs help, but the loss of range hurts the smaller autocannons significantly. The additional weight of the ultras hurt the lighter classes significantly further putting them into supporting roles. Few designs really have anything to offer as far as acs go other then the kraken.

A change to the rules to allow at least the lower classes to fire twice would be nice. I also agree that the optional rule of allowing acs to fire twice per round does help, even if the chances of jamming increase to a point to make the ultras look safe.

[White_Knight]

Fill them with precision ammo, harass light mechs at range...

[FedComGirl]

I really don't understand why people keep trying to make energy weapons and autocannons equal weight. Autocannons are heavy because they have to contain the multiple explosions that propels the projectiles. If they weren't heavy enough to withstand that they'd blow up. Not a good thing.

Energy weapons aren't physically as heavy but they also have to rely on additional devices (heat sinks and insulators) to keep them from melting. Melting isn't a good thing. Those additional devices bring up the total weight of the energy weapons. If energy weapons were made heavy enough to withstand the heat they produced they'd be as heavy or heavier than they are with the added heat sinks. Either way the weight between AC/s and energy weapons is already comparable. The advantage energy weapons have over AC/s is ammo. That is countered a little by a possible need for power amplifiers.

Double heat sinks do lighten the weight but only if the can be mounted. There's also lighter AC/s so that isn't much of an advantage. Energy weapons real advantage over AC/s is that modern "rated" engines come with free heat sinks. With Fuel Cell Engines that 1 heat sink isn't much but the 5-10 that come with fission and fusion engines is really hard to overcome, especially if they're double heat sinks. However, that doesn't mean AC's don't still have some advantages. 

They can double the rate of fire, doubling their damage. They have different ammo types to use against different targets. They can divide their fire between two targets, and they don't have an armor type specifically designed to counter them. They also cost a lot less. Another advantage they should have but don't is that they should do more damage against infantry. They fire multiple rounds. They should hit more troopers.

All that being said, AC/s are still good effective weapons, even the AC/2. Especially if you're a cash strapped unit using a low tech vehicles/mechs. For the same weight as an ER Large Laser, heat sinks, and power amplifier, you can have 2 AC/2s, a targeting computer, 2 tons of ammo, and CASE.

[Breetai]

In the end, the Mauler without the ac2s isn't a Mauler and just not as fun of a design.

True, but when you consider that each pair of AC2s weigh the same as a single Light Gauss for the same range and twice the damage...  :D

[ANS Kamas P81]

True, but I get the AC2-equipped Daboku loooong before you get LGRs.  Still...that's a neat idea.  Makes me wonder...

[Martius]

Hehe- but LGRs cannot pick apart fast moving targets with precision ammo.

I saw a single Mauler pillboxing half a century of hovertanks. I lost 2 Saracens- the AC2s slowing them down or immobilizing them and then they got finished off with the LRMs.

[ANS Kamas P81]

True, but it can hit out further with those LGRs and a LOT harder.  It took some cramming to fit, but darn if it doesn't kind of work in this horribly overheated way.  Well...leave one ERLL off...

[Martius]

Hitting a hovertank at long range is not easy. That -2 from precision ammo helps a lot.

[StoneRhino]

I have kicked around all sorts of versions of the Mauler, including the LGR design. I think what it comes down to is really what do you think makes the design? Personally, I think the AC2s, some kind of missiles, and a pair of energy weapons make the Mauler. Clearly for me the ac2s are the center of the design that makes it something different then any other design, lose that and you have some random custom design. For other people it might just be a matter of long range weapons of each weapon type, nothing more, hence the LGR variant. It is similar to the KingCrab where it is a matter of having twin 20s, anything else can be changed, but it needs twin 20s to be a King Crab.

[Redman]

...
Energy weapons aren't physically as heavy but they also have to rely on additional devices (heat sinks and insulators) to keep them from melting. Melting isn't a good thing. Those additional devices bring up the total weight of the energy weapons. If energy weapons were made heavy enough to withstand the heat they produced they'd be as heavy or heavier than they are with the added heat sinks. Either way the weight between AC/s and energy weapons is already comparable. The advantage energy weapons have over AC/s is ammo. That is countered a little by a possible need for power amplifiers.
...

Even if you factor in heat sinks and necessary ammunition then at least for mechs energy weapons usually turn out to be no heavier than the equivalent ACs. For instance in 3025-play  if you compare an AC10 with two tons of ammunition with a standard PPC you'll see that together with enough heat sinks to keep them heat neutral at the bottom line both weigh 17 tons. Even if we say that the higher range of the PPC is offset by the ACs lack of minimum range you still have to deal with the fact that the AC needs ammo that can a) run out and b) blow up. Furthermore the 10 SHS needed for the PPC have the flexibility to be used for other weapons (bracketing fire!) whereas the AC10 only contributes 3 SHS. The same also applies in later eras for instance with the LPPC vers. both the LAC5 and AC5, the UAC5 against he ERLL and so on. Throw in the free heat sinks from the engine and it gets even worse. As a consequence only few types really shine on their own (mostly class 20 ones and the LBX-AC10).

The only area where ACs seem to have a tangible advantage are combat vehicles because these need no heat sinks for ballistic and missile weapons.

...
They can double the rate of fire, doubling their damage. They have different ammo types to use against different targets. They can divide their fire between two targets, and they don't have an armor type specifically designed to counter them. They also cost a lot less. Another advantage they should have but don't is that they should do more damage against infantry. They fire multiple rounds. They should hit more troopers.
...

With the exception of special munitions all these rules are pure optional. And the reason they were introduced in Maximum Tech in the first place was because people wouldn't stop complaining about how inferior ACs were under standard rules. So hardly a convincing argument for ACs. Still I agree that some of the special munitions are kinda neat especially flak and precision ammo.

Considering the cost issue ACs aren't cheaper either. An AC10 costs 200,000 c-bills as does a PPC. A LBX10 vs. a ERPPC is 400,000 vs. 300,000. Factor in the cost for ammunition and the logistical tail and it becomes really ugly. Heat sinks with their costs of 2,000 (SHS) / 6,000 (SHS) arent that much of an issue either either. And lets not forget that a single unlucky crit into an ammo bin may cost you your entire mech.

As for the effect on infantry the issue of what they should to is irrelevant as long as the rules say otherwise. Unless of course if you implement house rules which is cool by me.

...
All that being said, AC/s are still good effective weapons, even the AC/2. Especially if you're a cash strapped unit using a low tech vehicles/mechs. For the same weight as an ER Large Laser, heat sinks, and power amplifier, you can have 2 AC/2s, a targeting computer, 2 tons of ammo, and CASE.
...

As i mentioned above if you are really cash strapped it is better to avoid ammunition carrying mechs. Even if AC2-ammo might be comparatively cheap replacing half your mech because of an ammo crit is not.

[massey]

ACs are the tubby girl at the dance.  They are significantly overweight and no one wants to dance with them if there is a lighter option available.  The boys all want to play with energy weapons.

Except for the AC-20, because damn, look at those cannons.

[Death by Zeus]

I think that part of the argument posits that energy weapons are more expensive than guns.  I suppose it would follow then that ammo expenditure is less expensive than energy weapon maintenance? 

[Lyran Archer]

ACs are the tubby girl at the dance.  They are significantly overweight and no one wants to dance with them if there is a lighter option available.  The boys all want to play with energy weapons.

Not so. Post-3062, precision ammo makes ACs very, very desirable as it gives a -2 against target movement mods. Against VTOLs and fast movers like light 'Mechs, it makes ACs act like pulse lasers. I actually like ACs with precision ammo as I use them against fast movers.   

[evilauthor]

ACs are the tubby girl at the dance.  They are significantly overweight and no one wants to dance with them if there is a lighter option available.  The boys all want to play with energy weapons.

Except for the AC-20, because damn, look at those cannons.

Well it helps that the AC/20 is the only AC that has a better than 1:1 damage/tonnage ratio. Even the AC/10 doesn't have that even though it's pretty close.

Not so. Post-3062, precision ammo makes ACs very, very desirable as it gives a -2 against target movement mods. Against VTOLs and fast movers like light 'Mechs, it makes ACs act like pulse lasers. I actually like ACs with precision ammo as I use them against fast movers.   

There's still the "halve the ammo per ton" issue. I'm not sure even the AC/2 is worth taking even with Precision ammo because of the picayune amount of damage it does. The AC/5? Maybe. Sure, you can HIT the guy now, but can you actually HURT them in any meaningful way before they kill you or you run out of ammo?

Now Precision would be fantastic for the AC/10 and AC/20, but then you're running into ammo issues. Most existing designs that use these weapons don't carry enough ammo to use Precision without quickly running out of ammo. They're typically given 15 to 20 shots, which Precision ammo reduces to 6 (5 rounds per ton halved gets reduced to 2 rounds per ton) to 10 shots; most players consider that inadequate for your typical tabletop battle.

[Redman]

...
There's still the "halve the ammo per ton" issue. I'm not sure even the AC/2 is worth taking even with Precision ammo because of the picayune amount of damage it does. The AC/5? Maybe. Sure, you can HIT the guy now, but can you actually HURT them in any meaningful way before they kill you or you run out of ammo?
...

Actually i think that precision ammo works better for the AC2 than any other type of AC. Even at half ammo you still have 22 shots which is enough for most battles. On the other side you now have an excellent weapon to take out those pesky fast hover tanks and VTOLs at insane ranges since hitting and critting them is usually more important than actually breaching their armour. The other AC types otoh hand will indeed run into ammo problems. Especially the class 20 versions get the shaft because their 5 shots per ton are rounded town to two.

[blackjack]

Never had any hate for the AC2. I have usd the Vulcan several times over the years & have had it do right by me. The Jagermech ..... well I will swap the AC5's out before the AC2's. When playing floating crits I have  had better more memorable crits happen with AC2's more than any other weapon.

[pensiveswetness]

here's another thing to think about: What if the GM does something funky like make the environment a danger. Lets say that your planet that your on, has a hostile environment, full of really bad gases that don't react well to beam weapons or propellant-based munitions (like missiles or, oddly enough precision rounds LOL). suddenly that low flame (or reduced flame since any ignition occurs safely inside the barrel of the weapon in question) but otherwise poor damage weapon might be useful.

but yeah, everyone else arguments are valid. The AC/2 will never be a match for a PPC. no arguement there, but sometimes you roll a AWS-8Q.... sometimes you roll a VL-2T...

[evilauthor]

here's another thing to think about: What if the GM does something funky like make the environment a danger. Lets say that your planet that your on, has a hostile environment, full of really bad gases that don't react well to beam weapons or propellant-based munitions (like missiles or, oddly enough precision rounds LOL). suddenly that low flame (or reduced flame since any ignition occurs safely inside the barrel of the weapon in question) but otherwise poor damage weapon might be useful.

Then why would any Dropship captain in their right mind would want to land on such a planet.

And why would anyone settle such a planet? Such an atmosphere would be far too toxic to breath.

The only kind of planet I can think of that would be like that would be one with a hyper-oxygenated atmosphere. You know, the kind that would set things like rocks and steel on fire with a spark. Without some extremely burn resistant plants on the surface to replenish the oxygen, random fires started by lightning strikes would have long since reduced the oxygen content of the planet to non-hazardous levels.

Same goes for other gasses like methane or what not. If the stuff is so ready as to spark on fire at the slightest provocation, natural events would have long since depleted the stuff unless there was something actively putting it back in the air.

[Greywind]

There are rules for poisonous atmosphere. Sometimes the resources or the strategic position of the system makes putting a unit on it viable.

[guardiandashi]

Grey death legion trilogy price of glory
they were fighting over control of inhabited domes on a a cold toxic planet, I want to say kinda like titan in our solar system basically you get a cockpit breach and you are dead within seconds

[Lyran Archer]

Then why would any Dropship captain in their right mind would want to land on such a planet.

And why would anyone settle such a planet? Such an atmosphere would be far too toxic to breath.

Moons without atmosphere or poisonous/uninhabitable planets may have secret military installations, important mining facilities, spaceports, sealed environment colonies, or other juicey targets to fight over.

BattleMechs have fought in zero atmosphere and other dangerous conditions.   

[StoneRhino]

If one has to reach for the box of obscure, highly unlikely possibilities, then your point is not really going to be valid. We could also say that you are going to play on a planet that is extremely dusty and is going to negate your energy weapons' damage significantly. It would have to be rather significant to reduce a ppc to that of the damage of an ac2.

Precision ammo is nice, but you need to customize existing designs to make any real use for 10s and 20s. 5s and 2s will work, most likely you can swap the ammo out. But, as someone already mentioned, even if they act like pulse lasers, how much damage are you really doing? A mauler could go from "likely to hit with ac2s" to "extremely likely to hit with ac2s", but that is a mere 8 points of damage. Even if using floating crits, which is nice, what are your chances of actually getting? Even still, what are the chances that you are going to ko the unit instead of busting a small laser that was extremely unlikely to ever come into play?

Is the tonnage put into ac2s going to yield enough of a chance of getting a knock out crit to offset the potential firepower gain if the tonnage was put into other types of weapons? If the answer is "yes", then by all means go with the 2s. If the answer is "50/50" then by all means rock what you like and no one can criticize. If the answer is, "well, maybe if the moon aligns with jupiter and the cat rolls over 5 times in the hallway as jack eats the last of the cheetos" then your selection is far from optimal and comes down to nothing but preference.

While I myself never went with what units that were designed to get the most munch out of the tonnage, sub-par weapons remain sub-par weapons in spite of preference. I won't argue that ac2s should not be used, or that anyone design a unit around ac2s to try and show that they can be a real threat, but I won't argue that they are on part with energy weapons for the tonnage.

I really like the Mauler. I really like the Kraken. I like trying to find something that is underused and trying to show someone that it can still be a valid choice, regardless of it being sub-optimal. I just wish that at some point the Devs will make certain things tourney legal level rules instead of optional. There really is the possibility of doing so without breaking the game. As it is, ACs have to great of a drawback in comparison to energy weapons. I can't stand davion, but I would like to see the existing weapon types given more of a distinction instead of it just having another name and slightly different stats. Stats that once the game has started make no true difference.

I would really like to see something along the lines of what we see in mechwarrior games when it comes to weapon cycles. The greater the damage the weapon does, the longer it takes to fire again. Smaller weapons can fire sooner then their larger counter-parts. It could make lower tech games a bit more deadly, which I feel is needed since playing rock'em sock'em robots can get old real fast. More high tech weapons would not be fired twice per turn by the player simply due to the higher levels of heat, which even with double heatsinks could be a serious pain.

An AC2 and 5 could fire twice a turn, much like the rpg rules. A 20 would not be ready to fire again before the end of the turn, but a 10 might. Add a +1 to hit for the second shot and the heat and the lighter cannons could become better though unlikely to truly match their energy based counterparts. Ac using mechs would still be balanced by the heat which can easily threaten to blow them up from the inside. Energy weapons would still have that advantage of being more accurate then a twice fired AC2 or 5, as well as hitting the same location instead of having to roll another location for the second round that hits. An ultra cannon could have the chance to jam(which lets face it should be the problem instead of burning out, right RACs?) increased for each burst. While 4 shots would be a significant change, the heat doubled and the risked increased by 50% in addition to the inaccuracy gain. To add even more to consider is the increased rate of fire's need for ammo. More ammo means greater risks of crits and heat related problems.

[MadCapellan]

Precision ammo is nice, but you need to customize existing designs to make any real use for 10s and 20s. 5s and 2s will work, most likely you can swap the ammo out. But, as someone already mentioned, even if they act like pulse lasers, how much damage are you really doing? A mauler could go from "likely to hit with ac2s" to "extremely likely to hit with ac2s", but that is a mere 8 points of damage. Even if using floating crits, which is nice, what are your chances of actually getting? Even still, what are the chances that you are going to ko the unit instead of busting a small laser that was extremely unlikely to ever come into play?

All true, if your only mounting the weapon on 'Mechs and only shooting at 'Mechs. I think the conclusion all the supporters of the AC/2 have come to is that it's not for 'Mech v. Mech combat, however, and is best either on tanks or towed by infantry firing at whatever, or on a unit that is trying to swat down hovercraft, light aircraft and VTOLs.

[YingJanshi]

I will say I've come to respect the lowly AC/2. Last time I played against a JagerMech, I got headcapped by the stupid things. Was playing a Lance on Lance battle. He kept the J at long-range and just kept plinking away at me. Every time he would fire at my command 'Mech (which was a Orion by the way) he kept hitting the head. It did take away but he finally killed my Orion. I even made him switch over to use my dice (not that I suspected anything funny, but come on, that kind of luck has to stop sometime!). He still kept rolling head hits. (Traitors.)
I don't fear a JagerMech, but I do respect it.

[Dave Talley]

yep
many moons ago in a rpg setting, my archer took a single range 24 AC2 hit in the back
TAC
BOOM!
crater

[Sandslice]

Grey death legion trilogy price of glory
they were fighting over control of inhabited domes on a a cold toxic planet, I want to say kinda like titan in our solar system basically you get a cockpit breach and you are dead within seconds

Slight correction: Marik regular forces, posing as the Gray Death Legion, were genociding people in those inhabited domes; there was no fight for control.  That was a setup caused by Precentor Rachan and Lord Garth of Irian, which would give Lord Garth the lostech 'Mechs in the Helm Castle Brian, and Rachan time to either claim or destroy the library core.

Not that there were many people in the Sirius system to begin with, since the world's domes had been falling into lostech by that point.

Anyhoo... AC/2s are interesting to me; I'm someone who still wants to see ballistic weapons be useful, and the AC/2 is surprising.  Not too bad on the weight, plenty of reach in intro, and two can easily share an ammo-ton.

Many custom 'Mechs calibrate their armour protection to take X number of big weapon hits before going internal; even little scratches from the AC/2 can disrupt that, or do golden BB shots.  Also, it's compact, making it less likely to eat a crit than its bulkier cousins.

It doesn't improve all that well; both the Ultra and LB-X versions trade away crit space for a bit of extra range (and quite a bit of extra cost.)  The LAC and RAC versions trade away range.  And as for that Light Gauss thing... it's a Gauss, which means that it can explode, and is easier to explode than compact AC/2 ammo.

For those who care about campaigns: while the AC/2 is admittedly a bit harder to acquire than most other introtech weapons (CDC, compare CCC for PPC and missiles,) it's cheap at 75k cbills and 1k per ammo-ton.  Even precision only raises your ammo bill to 6k per ton, which is what you'd pay for regular AC/10 bins - and you get more shots.

But how do you use an AC/2 well?  If you're facing things that aren't 'Mechs, just shoot.  If you happen to be facing 'Mechs, just shooting will also work; they're nice opening weapons despite their low damage.  Scratch their armour early, then watch their surprise as bigger weapons defeat the armour unexpectedly.  Just watch the short range, and back them up with something beefier like some lasers, or heavier autocannons, or other units.  :)

[Weirdguy]

Judging by how decent the AC-2 is in the game Mechwarrior Online, I honestly think they should add more mechs that have that weapon by default.  The Mauler/Daboku, the Vulcan, ect.

I am not sure, but are there any 3025 or 2750 light mechs that had the AC-2?

[Sandslice]

Judging by how decent the AC-2 is in the game Mechwarrior Online, I honestly think they should add more mechs that have that weapon by default.  The Mauler/Daboku, the Vulcan, ect.

I am not sure, but are there any 3025 or 2750 light mechs that had the AC-2?

Only the Jackrabbit JKR-8T, 2764, at 25 tons.  AC/2 and SSRM-2 - mainly fielded by the Amaris faction.  A Large Laser refit was used by the RWR; and the WoB, for some reason, have a new upgrade with LAC/5 and ERML.  The Nexus is also considered a Jackrabbit variant, but is a pure infighter with ML, 2 MPL, 2 SL.

Most older AC/2 'Mechs are medium, 40 and 45 tons; one Dragon and two Jagermech variants also mount it.

It's fairly commonly seen on heavy tanks, ranging from the Vedette-AC/2 to the Partisan's set of five.  The Warrior H-7 VTOL is also noted for using it.

Only one classic aero mounts it: the Shilone.

[SCC]

If you really want good AC's my advice is to break out the Rifle(Cannon)'s and ignore the reduced damage rule

[Greywind]

It's fairly commonly seen on heavy tanks, ranging from the Vedette-AC/2 to the Partisan's set of five.

Partisan is known for 4 AC/5. The AC/2 variant was an experiment. I wouldn't really expect a lot of those to be running around.