Author Topic: Autocannon-2's  (Read 26213 times)

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13204
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #60 on: 03 March 2013, 05:39:18 »
Honestly it's a shame there wasn't a canon all-AC2 Rifleman in 3025 play.  Shedding the tonnage of those guns gave you so much for that 'Mech, and the extra range over the AC5 made it shine in my opinion.  It's only going to plink, but it's going to plink very well and from waaaaaay over there.
Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen,
Tod und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!
Fühlt nicht durch dich Jadefalke Todesschmerzen,
So bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr!

Dave Talley

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3600
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #61 on: 03 March 2013, 07:08:55 »
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.

and the Clint that has 2, fairly useful in MM at least
Resident Smartass since 1998
“Toe jam in training”

Because while the other Great Houses of the Star League thought they were playing chess, House Cameron was playing Paradox-Billiards-Vostroyan-Roulette-Fourth Dimensional-Hypercube-Chess-Strip Poker the entire time.
JA Baker

Redman

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 434
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #62 on: 03 March 2013, 07:12:47 »
...
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.

This idea has been brought up several times now but i am not quite sure whether this is really to way i would go to give ACs some boost. It simply messes up with way to many established designs which would either run into heat problems due to insufficient heat sinks or don't have enough ammo to really make use of these rules. Furthermore an UAC10 that can fire 4 times is simply to much for my liking. 

Instead i would suggest to adjust the the damage values of established AC types. A set of house rules that i want to put to the test sometime soon would increase potential damage per ton to 120 and revise the damage values for all ACs as follows:

ACs, UACs, LBX-ACs and HVACs

   2 → 4       (30 shots per ton)
   5 → 7       (17 shots per ton)
   10 → 11   (11 shots perton)

RACs and light LACs

   LAC 2 → LAC 3    (40 shots per ton)
   LAC 5 → LAC 6    (20 shots per ton)
   RAC 2 → RAC 3   (30 shots per ton)
   RAC 5 → RAC 5   (24 shots per ton)

Also remove any minimum ranges and perhaps use the direct/glancing blow optional rule and i think ACs would be highly competitive with energy weapons without overshadowing them. Another possibility to give at least the newer AC-types some boost is to allow them to use standard weight specialty ammunitions. At least that would finally explain why so many AA units use UACs when LBX-ACs would be so much more better (e.g. several marks of the Jagermech or the Partisan).


Honestly it's a shame there wasn't a canon all-AC2 Rifleman in 3025 play.  Shedding the tonnage of those guns gave you so much for that 'Mech, and the extra range over the AC5 made it shine in my opinion.  It's only going to plink, but it's going to plink very well and from waaaaaay over there.

That's why i made one for my AU as a regular Marik variant.  Add flak ammo and every ASF around will hate you with a passion. 8)
As players, we see units in a completely different light to how they would be viewed in universe: they're not just playing pieces that fight to destruction to achieve victory at any cost in this evening's game session, but instead men and women that represent years of training and investment, and living to fight another day can be viewed more important than a Pyrrhic victory.  -- sillybrit

The Succession Wars are fought over water, ancient machines, and spare parts factories. Control of these elements will lead to final victory and the domination of known space. -- BattleTech Boxed Set, 2nd Edition

MadCapellan

  • Furibunda Scriptorem
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12181
  • Just a little piglet serving the Capellan State!
    • Check out the anime I've seen & reviewed!
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #63 on: 03 March 2013, 07:15:32 »
Honestly it's a shame there wasn't a canon all-AC2 Rifleman in 3025 play.  Shedding the tonnage of those guns gave you so much for that 'Mech, and the extra range over the AC5 made it shine in my opinion.  It's only going to plink, but it's going to plink very well and from waaaaaay over there.

Blasphemy!  The RFL-3N's weapons configuration is a thing of sheer beauty! The 'Mech exists to melt the enemy's face and then melt its pilot, in that order.  Don't decrease its firepower!

Martius

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1849
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #64 on: 03 March 2013, 07:26:08 »
I am not sure, but are there any 3025 or 2750 light mechs that had the AC-2?

COM-1C.  O0

6/9, medium Laser and AC 2.

Would love to drive that one in MWO.

Sandslice

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 961
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #65 on: 03 March 2013, 11:15:50 »
and the Clint that has 2, fairly useful in MM at least
Clint is 40 tons.  :)

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4070
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #66 on: 03 March 2013, 13:16:38 »
Can't say I'm a huge fan of the AC/2 unless it is on a Tank.
The conflict is pure - The truth devised - The future secured - The enemy designed
Maj. Isaac "Litany" Van Houten, Lone Wolves, The Former 66th "Litany Against Fear" Company

massey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2445
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #67 on: 03 March 2013, 15:04:06 »
If you want to balance them, drop the weight.  Replace AC 2 and AC 5 with the weight and crits of the Light AC 2 and 5.  The AC 10 could use a 2 ton drop as well.

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4070
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #68 on: 03 March 2013, 15:09:03 »
Nah, just bump the 2 to 3 and the 5 to 7.  Then change the ammo to 34 and 15.  That way, you have a small laser with long reach and an autocannon that is almost equivalent to a large laser.  Plus, not a lot of designs in the lower class can take a 3 or 7 point hit to the back.  Heck, even the larger class can't.

EDIT:  This also gives them more diversity in damage compared to the LRM and SRM cluster damage values while not diminishing the value of other weapons.  AND, it doesn't create any construction changes to the canon variants, just fluff changes.  Even when you look at the more modern ballistics like Rotary AC's and Ultra AC's, both Clan and Inner Sphere, after these changes it does nothing to break the game.  IMO, it creates more incentive to make use of these ballistics.

Look at the JagerMech after you do this.  It can now force a PSR with only its ballistics (if they all hit).
« Last Edit: 03 March 2013, 15:17:26 by Fear Factory »
The conflict is pure - The truth devised - The future secured - The enemy designed
Maj. Isaac "Litany" Van Houten, Lone Wolves, The Former 66th "Litany Against Fear" Company

Hotwire

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • ARC-2R/WHM-6L FrankenMech "The Ogre"
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #69 on: 03 March 2013, 15:38:30 »
For ACs I always house ruled the damage up to 5, 5 up to 10 and 10 up to 15. Balance didn't seem to be a problem.
3025 Forever!

massey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2445
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #70 on: 03 March 2013, 15:46:54 »
Nah, just bump the 2 to 3 and the 5 to 7.  Then change the ammo to 34 and 15.  That way, you have a small laser with long reach and an autocannon that is almost equivalent to a large laser.  Plus, not a lot of designs in the lower class can take a 3 or 7 point hit to the back.  Heck, even the larger class can't.

EDIT:  This also gives them more diversity in damage compared to the LRM and SRM cluster damage values while not diminishing the value of other weapons.  AND, it doesn't create any construction changes to the canon variants, just fluff changes.  Even when you look at the more modern ballistics like Rotary AC's and Ultra AC's, both Clan and Inner Sphere, after these changes it does nothing to break the game.  IMO, it creates more incentive to make use of these ballistics.

Look at the JagerMech after you do this.  It can now force a PSR with only its ballistics (if they all hit).

Yes, but then the name "AC 2" doesn't make sense. :)

Kitsune413

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5324
  • Diamond Khanate Sakhan
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #71 on: 03 March 2013, 15:59:51 »
AC-2's are really annoying against Mechs. Even in 3025. Because of their ranges if you have a mobile mech you can stay out of range and constantly hit the opposing player.

Also they make Aerospace fighters face plant into the ground and explode.
Every man lives by exchanging - Adam Smith

theothersarah

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 781
  • Girls just wanna have fun
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #72 on: 03 March 2013, 16:02:56 »
Magic Bullet AC/2 ammo:

When you declare an attack with an AC/2 firing Magic Bullet ammo, pick -2 or +2. If it hits, this number is applied to the damage location table roll (minimum 2, maximum 12.)

I'm not actually serious, but a 1/6 chance of hitting the head or causing a critical (user's choice) would be scary.

SteelRaven

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9526
  • Fight for something or Die for nothing
    • The Steel-Raven at DeviantArt
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #73 on: 03 March 2013, 19:47:45 »
I'm surprised to see the AC/2 to get this much love to be honest but I guess it's just a question of how much you value range over damage.

I'm a knife fighter myself so I rather use the tonnage for Med Lasers or SRMs if not a PPC but I can see why the other guy may want a AC2; to stay the hell a way from me >:D 
Battletech Art and Commissions
http://steel-raven.deviantart.com

CloaknDagger

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3791
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #74 on: 03 March 2013, 20:45:17 »
Man, 5 heat in the SHS era was nothing to get excited over either, but we just didn't have the thing then.

Heck, the LPPC and 5 SHS weigh the same as an empty AC/5. Even on an ICE vehicle, where you'll add 0.3 tons as a power converter, you still come out 0.5 tons on top.

Poor AC/5...

And yes, forgot about the Field Guns.

To be fair, if you try to fire the LPPC within 3 hexes, it can explode. The AC5 just would get a small penalty.

Sandslice

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 961
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #75 on: 03 March 2013, 20:53:41 »
To be fair, if you try to fire the LPPC within 3 hexes, it can explode. The AC5 just would get a small penalty.
Only if you disable the inhibitor, which is an Advanced rule.  :)

CloaknDagger

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3791
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #76 on: 03 March 2013, 20:56:00 »
Only if you disable the inhibitor, which is an Advanced rule.  :)

If you aren't, then it can't fire at all.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13258
  • I said don't look!
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #77 on: 03 March 2013, 21:13:14 »
If you aren't, then it can't fire at all.

Uh huh?  You can fire a PPC at point blank range.  It is at the same +3 to hit as the AC-5.  So I'm not sure what you are trying to say?

And I've still not seen a solution that actually truly works as well as the ones I've adopted.  Some searching around should find my views on the matter, I've stated them often enough by now.

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13204
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #78 on: 03 March 2013, 22:13:56 »
If you aren't, then it can't fire at all.
Minimum range simply means you start stacking +1 THMs per hex, it has nothing to do with 'can't fire at this range'
Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen,
Tod und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!
Fühlt nicht durch dich Jadefalke Todesschmerzen,
So bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr!

CloaknDagger

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3791
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #79 on: 03 March 2013, 22:17:35 »
Minimum range simply means you start stacking +1 THMs per hex, it has nothing to do with 'can't fire at this range'

I guess, but it doesn't seem right to do that with a weapon that can explode firing at close range, whether the rules say you can or not.

Marwynn

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3984
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #80 on: 03 March 2013, 22:26:27 »
To be fair, if you try to fire the LPPC within 3 hexes, it can explode. The AC5 just would get a small penalty.

I guess it's been cleared up, but under standard rules the LPPC can't explode. They both get the same penalties.

It'd be cool if they made those the standard rules for PPCs though. Because honestly, if I was firing at Long Range (at +4) and I was firing at Medium Range (at +2) I'll gladly fire at point-blank range if it's just a +3. If it's a +3 and/or a chance to blow the gun up... it'd make life more interesting and introduce an actual penalty.


StoneRhino

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2269
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #81 on: 04 March 2013, 05:27:02 »
If you want to balance them, drop the weight.  Replace AC 2 and AC 5 with the weight and crits of the Light AC 2 and 5.  The AC 10 could use a 2 ton drop as well.

That wouldn't be bad. I could really go for something as simple as that since it always seemed that it would make sense that the LAC would just be the 3050+ version of the standard cannons. How weapon tonnage never seemed to drop kinda bothered me about the most heavy and under used weapons in the game for their damage output.

Of course x-pulse should have been allowed under tourney rules, just another maxtech item that should have gone L2 with TW.

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #82 on: 04 March 2013, 05:43:18 »
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).

To use bracketing fire /you have to spend tonnage/crits on more weapons. That makes the energy weapons heavier and usable only part of the time. The AC/10 though keeps firing. The big advantage is that the PPC gets 10 tons free.  The AC/10 only gets 3 tons. That's 7 tons is what allows you to be able to bracket fire.

Quote
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.

AC/s really shine on combat vehicle, and even more so on support vehicles. There are no free heat sinks on support engines so energy weapons really end up using up a lot of weight. 


Quote
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.

I don't see AC/s as inferior so while it's true the rules are optional, their existence does balance out some of energy weapons advantages, if they're used.

Quote
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.

It's still a factor. The PPC heat sinks cost 14,000-24,000 times as much as an AC/10 and a ton of ammo. While the costs of additional ammo will eventually cancel out that difference you don't have to pay that right away. True, ammo explosions are a bad thing but so is having your mech shut down do to heat. and unless your mech has a big engine, each heat sink hit will increase the chances of that happening.

 
Quote
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.

True. That's why I said they didn't have that advantage. :)

Quote
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.


That's presuming you can afford all those extra heat sinks. That also presumes that you're going to lose your ammo to a critical hit. You can still lose your mech because it over heated do to lost heat sinks. Granted it'd take longer but it can still happen.


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

 O0

For ACs I always house ruled the damage up to 5, 5 up to 10 and 10 up to 15. Balance didn't seem to be a problem.

Interesting.

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8380
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #83 on: 04 March 2013, 05:59:10 »
AC/s really shine on combat vehicle, and even more so on support vehicles. There are no free heat sinks on support engines so energy weapons really end up using up a lot of weight.
After using free Heat Sinks (If any) Ballast weapons are better then Energy, true, but you're ignoring MISSILE weapons

House Davie Merc

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1220
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #84 on: 04 March 2013, 09:12:10 »
In 3025 era games on paper the AC/2 seems like a waste .

When it's properly used in a combined arms environment it's advantages
become more apparent .

If you combine it's long short range of 8 with a fast chassis you get something
that can get where it needs to to disable hovers and VTOLs as well as force a
PSR on aircraft .

A Vulcan or the double AC/2 Clint are cheap enough BV wise that you can usually
afford to improve their gunnery .

In an introtech environment with combined arms units they are often your best weapon
against units that otherwise  you couldn't hit at all.

Now the AC/5 -given the choice I would replace it on just about everything it's on .

A MAD that switches the AC/5 for an AC/2 ,puts the ammo with the AC, adds a hs, and adds
a ton of armor would be great .

guardiandashi

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4826
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #85 on: 04 March 2013, 10:04:27 »
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.
correction
the fight for control of the domes by the grey death was "off camera" before the novel starts, but greyson "remembers" a few blurbs about it including one of his pilots dieing because of a minor cockpit breach.

the on screen action is yes rachan and marik framing the GDL and using demolition nukes (if I remember right) to blow the domes and then hunt down most of the survivors as if the GDL were attempting to "cover up their actions"

Sandslice

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 961
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #86 on: 04 March 2013, 11:21:06 »
correction
the fight for control of the domes by the grey death was "off camera" before the novel starts, but greyson "remembers" a few blurbs about it including one of his pilots dieing because of a minor cockpit breach.

the on screen action is yes rachan and marik framing the GDL and using demolition nukes (if I remember right) to blow the domes and then hunt down most of the survivors as if the GDL were attempting to "cover up their actions"
I must have missed that, or else it's been THAT long since I've read the old trilogy.

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #87 on: 04 March 2013, 19:23:17 »
After using free Heat Sinks (If any) Ballast weapons are better then Energy, true, but you're ignoring MISSILE weapons

They're good on vehicles too. However, they're more dangerous in ammo explosions than AC/s. They also have equipment and armor especially designed to counter them, rendering them less effective.

evilauthor

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2709
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #88 on: 04 March 2013, 19:55:27 »
They're good on vehicles too. However, they're more dangerous in ammo explosions than AC/s. They also have equipment and armor especially designed to counter them, rendering them less effective.

How are they more dangerous? Anything past 20 or 30 damage in an internal explosion is pretty much an instakill of the mech carrying ammo (or at least instant destruction of a side torso if you're using CASE). That's like 2 or 3 shots for most weapons regardless if their missile launchers or ACs. The lighter ACs have less damage per shot, but they have lots more shots to burn through per ton too and are thus more likely to have that much damage left or more when the ammo bin gets critted.

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8380
Re: Autocannon-2's
« Reply #89 on: 04 March 2013, 22:44:30 »
And due to the fact that Missiles use the cluster hits table and the light weight you're likely to have more then one launcher, burning through ammo faster