Like I said, my average isn't your average. True but it also gives me the chance of doing more damage. Just like all the missiles beyond the minimum.
I'm still going to have to insist that the correct terms are used according to recognized definitions. And if you want to use solely minimum on the cluster hit chart that has to go both ways. I still call minimum an unfair metric because it undervalues the potential. I won't use maximum either because that overvalues the reality. 6 damage is the most likely result to be rolled on the 10 column.
Nope. Just bad dice karma. If I need low numbers I roll high. Even on computer games that have dice I get the opposite of what I need.
I don't care what Taharqa says and thus I will grant the option 1 RNG(the one coded by the MM team) in megamek does not work right. I prefer option 0. It is still a computer based RNG and still delivers somewhat wonky results but it is not as bad as option 1. But to roll consistently minimum without ever getting anything more on the cluster hit chart with physical dice, I can only conclude there is a physical defect to deliver that consistent of results.
To be fair though I will say all dice do have some degree of physical defect. None of mine are so biased that true average has become an unacceptable measure for comparison. I'd recommend tracking your physical dice results over several matches. If a tendency towards extreme results occurs it may be time for some new dice.
That's cool. I tend to gloss over exact numbers but I do keep costs in mind.
Ah. That's where the 2380 came from. Now we're comparing AC/s and SRMs? I agree infernos against infantry are deadly. They're nice to have if the tonnage is available. Although, TW did nerf other weapons against infantry.
Trading some damage, and ammo, for range can be good. Not every mech can trade in ammo or even heat sinks though.
To be fair we've spent so much time on side by side comparisons of the LRM-10 to AC-5 we really haven't talked about alternatives to the AC-20. I grant that 20 points of damage to one section is nice. The weight, critical slot, and short range have caused me to see a lot of mechs equipped with it out fought by opponents who are patient enough to use stand off tactics and are willing to invest time in clearing firing lanes in cluttered terrain to use said stand off tactics. The SRM-4 or SRM-6 though are such excellent partners with either the Gauss Rifle or AC-20 that given the chance I'll partner the two systems as tonnage allows. I'm trying to think of a mech I would not be able to swap a Gauss Rifle for an AC-20 that would also require a factory level refit. As far as anti-infantry capabilities I've always preferred Infernos and Flammers. The change in TW and the addition of Plasma Rifles was just the icing on the cake for my anti-infantry needs.
Gauss Rifles just become such easy replacements for AC-20s for me once they roll around because any niche they lose out on to AC-20s is easily made up for by the fact I've got a bit over twice the range. That range has been a huge advantage in my fights. Even in cluttered terrain.
Before it rolls around though I will consider what it is I want to do. On Solaris where combat is encouraged to be close and ferocious I might even consider keeping the AC-20. More often than not though I'll sacrifice concentrated damage, total damage, and the possibility to destroy a mech on any given shot for volume of fire and range.
While they have an advantage in to hit numbers unless you're using an LRM-15, or your dice, your doing as much damage as an AC/5 isn't a sure thing.
I'll take my chances for the extra versatility.
There's lots of reasons you could end up fighting one on one in battle. And while I'll admit LRMs have advantages I'd still side with the AC/5 over the LRM-10.
The only other condition that I can think of that might come up is the two combatants on the field are all that remains of either force. Any other condition is at best a technical variation of one of the other two I listed previously.
Mine clearance do 1/4 damage so you'd need a LRM-20 to do as much damage as an AC/5. That's 2 additional tons and only 6 shots. Unless used against infantry of course. Thunder LRMs do no damage to units already in the hex.
Mine Clearance really does work best with a 20 but having the ability to be more likely to put 1, 2, 4, or 8 damage on a target depending on target's armor type, target unit type, and hex occupied by specific target unit types is a fairly attractive option considering that is valid against mechs, most combat vehicles, infantry, and battle armor. Thunder though, the whole plan for Thunder is to lay it in hexes where your forces are not.
True, and like I've said that type of ammo isn't available in all eras.
Neither are the more useful AC ammunitions. Flak is very target specific. Tracer is fighting condition specific and frankly not even that good at it.
AC/s for the most part fire multiple rounds compared to the Tank and Rifle Cannons they evolved from. So they have to built stronger to handle the rapid recoil and loading, and for a couple, increased range. 30mm canons went from 6 hexes to 24 in range, .53 rounded to 1 to 2 points of damage. To do that the doubled their weight. Triple in the case of the 76.2mm. Compared to the AC/2 the AC/20 gets off really lite. 150mm cannon's don't quite double in weight. But that could be because they don't fire as far so they don't need to be built as heavy.
Since the only objective measure I have is the table top and construction rules that is the yardstick I use. Against such a yard stick I find them wanting.
Mine can have good days too which can be shocking but for the most part they're on the other side.
I call my box of dice the cursed dice for a reason. They still roll mostly 6s, 7s, and 8s, like they should, but seem to have fairly cruel senses of humor about when they will roll what.
