BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat

BattleTech Player Boards => Fan Designs and Rules => Topic started by: Cowdragon on 23 July 2011, 04:51:21

Title: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 23 July 2011, 04:51:21
they just really aren't that great to be honest. Oh I use them now and then, but they are freaking heavy, have very limited ammo, ammo blows up, damage sucks on small caliber, range sucks on larger, overall they can be beaten by everything else out there. Soooo....


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

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

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

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

Thoughts? Too powerful? the numbers can be easily tweaked and nudged. But I really think it's a step in the right direction. I for one am tired of looking at an AC/5 and thinking... "well it seems like a cool idea... but it seriously sucks!"
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 23 July 2011, 13:31:25
because seriously... the first thing I did (and still do most times) when I roll for a random mech and it has say an AC/5 is trade it our for a LL or LPL or PPC or LPPC or anything! But I sure as hell don't keep the AC.

Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: greatsarcasmo on 23 July 2011, 14:13:50
I think with intro tech it makes ACs to powerful. After 3060s? a bit powerful but not horribly un-balancing.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 23 July 2011, 14:32:07
I think with intro tech it makes ACs to powerful. After 3060s? a bit powerful but not horribly un-balancing.

honestly wondering... do you really think this makes say a Rifleman or Jagermech too powerful? I don't want it over powered. I want it to make them something competitive and useful for something more than just "oh well, I'll keep the AC until I can afford a real weapon".
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: greatsarcasmo on 23 July 2011, 14:58:59
honestly wondering... do you really think this makes say a Rifleman or Jagermech too powerful? I don't want it over powered. I want it to make them something competitive and useful for something more than just "oh well, I'll keep the AC until I can afford a real weapon".
The -3N is now doing a maximum of 32 pts a turn (w/o MLs) vs. 26, which is what, like 23% more damage? Not an insubstantial increase for no detriment in heat, ammo or weight over canon cannons.
The JM is now 24 per turn vs. 14 an increase of 70% at, again, no detriment to heat, ammo or mass.
The AC/2 goes from plinker to, well, almost respectable and the AC/10 goes to best (almost?) weapon of the game as a headcapper, decent range and low heat.
I think the AC/20 is the least effected of these with a 33% decrease of "shot" weight.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 23 July 2011, 15:07:05
The -3N is now doing a maximum of 32 pts a turn (w/o MLs) vs. 26, which is what, like 23% more damage? Not an insubstantial increase for no detriment in heat, ammo or weight over canon cannons.
The JM is now 24 per turn vs. 14 an increase of 70% at, again, no detriment to heat, ammo or mass.
The AC/2 goes from plinker to, well, almost respectable and the AC/10 goes to best (almost?) weapon of the game as a headcapper, decent range and low heat.
I think the AC/20 is the least effected of these with a 33% decrease of "shot" weight.

ok. But it seems that the AC's needed a buff. So not increasing heat or ammo or mass isn't a problem. In fact it needs to be done without changing weight or size so as not to mess up previous designs. But if it is too powerful then what would you recommend? Other than just leaving them alone of course, lol.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: greatsarcasmo on 23 July 2011, 15:14:38
ok. But it seems that the AC's needed a buff. So not increasing heat or ammo or mass isn't a problem. In fact it needs to be done without changing weight or size so as not to mess up previous designs. But if it is too powerful then what would you recommend? Other than just leaving them alone of course, lol.
Not much. The rapid fire rules, maybe. The new ammo types can help as well.  Otherwise standard A/Cs are being "relegated to the trash heap of history" by the advancement of technology.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Sabelkatten on 23 July 2011, 15:42:36
4 damage for the AC/2 is a bit on the high side, but not terribly overpowered. But 8 damage for the /5 or 12 for the /10 is way out there!

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

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

12 damage for the AC10? That makes it ~25% better than the PPC - after accounting for ammo! 11 damage is quite good enough, making it a headcapper against any mech that skimps on head armor (8 instead of 9) and punching through 10-point armor layers.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Brother Jim on 23 July 2011, 16:01:27
For a minimal change, how about all A/C's include 1 ton of ammo in the weight of the gun and the A/C-20 gets either 6 or 8 shots per ton. And the A/C-2 drops to 40.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 23 July 2011, 16:03:44
ok, so the damage is too high. That's what I was afraid of. But I'm not just trying to fix standard AC's. I'm trying to fix all AC's. They either have a damage output far too low for the weight/space investment AND the larger ones especially have obnoxious numbers of shots in their ammo bins. Especially the 20 class AC's. Fire an Ultra 20 at double rate and you only get 2.5 rounds of fire? That's just stupid really. Or worse... use specialty ammo on a 20 class and how many rounds do you get per ton? 2? WTF? I mean as a house rule I've always tried to even it out a bit and say the first ton gives ya 2 but the second gives ya 3 (as it's rounded) but still. Seriously? If you bump the shots per ton to some kind of even number you at least fix this. I'd like to see 8 shots to make it more worth while, but 6 shots would be fine as well.

So how about the damage?

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

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

Or does anyone else even think that AC's need some love? It's all I'm trying to do. Just love the AC's... but it's so hard.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 23 July 2011, 16:05:18
For a minimal change, how about all A/C's include 1 ton of ammo in the weight of the gun and the A/C-20 gets either 6 or 8 shots per ton. And the A/C-2 drops to 40.

That wouldn't be a bad option at all Jim. I like it! But there really is a part of me that wants to up the damage of the smaller caliber AC's as well. But I do find myself really liking your proposal.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Brother Jim on 23 July 2011, 16:20:23
I personnally would completely rewrite the A/c's, but trying to keep the changes as small as possible.

And yes, my rewrite would change damage.

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

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

Maybe it would be better (or just easier) to invent new, improved A/C's with the stats you want.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 23 July 2011, 16:31:48
I personnally would completely rewrite the A/c's, but trying to keep the changes as small as possible.

And yes, my rewrite would change damage.

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

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

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

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


I liked your integral ammo idea though. It's super simple. Makes some mechs like the Rifleman much more playable, and you really don't need to change anything about the original design. Chalk it up to "manufacturing flaws" with the extra ton of ammo being useful and still dangerous in the CT. Otherwise you go from having 10 shots per gun to having 30.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 23 July 2011, 16:33:43
on a side note, it leaves AC/2 boats super-splodey! LOL. Normally you can run 2 AC/2's off of one ton of ammo... even the ultra if you are careful. This gives you energy weapon level endurance, lol. However adjusting the shots per ton down to 40, or 38 much more viable. :)
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Sabelkatten on 23 July 2011, 16:53:02
This is what I did to balance the 3025 weapons against each other:
Quote
Weapon    Heat    To Hit    Damage    Min. RNG    Short RNG    Med. RNG    Long RNG    Ammo/ton    Weight    Criticals    Notes
Machine Gun    0    -2    2    0    1    2    3    200    0.5    1    2d6 infantery damage with +2 TN penalty.
Flamer    3    -2    2    0    1    2    3    -    1    1    Causes 2 additional heat to target.
4d6 infantery damage with +2 TN penalty.
Small Laser    1    0    3    0    1-2    3    4    -    0.5    1    
Medium Laser    3    0    5    0    1-3    4-6    7-9    -    1    1    
Large Laser    7    0    8    0    1-5    6-10    11-15    -    5    2    
PPC    10    0    10    3    1-6    7-12    13-18    -    7    3    
Autocannon/2    0    0    3    0    1-8    9-16    17-24    50    6    1    -2 TN bonus against flying targets
Autocannon/5    0    0    6    0    1-6    7-12    13-18    20    8    4    -2 TN bonus against flying targets
Autocannon/10    3    0    11    0    1-5    6-10    11-15    10    12    7    
Autocannon/20    7    0    21    0    1-3    4-6    7-9    5    14    10    
SRM2    2    0    2x2(2)    0    1-4    5-8    9-12    60    1    1    
SRM4    3    0    4x2(2)    0    1-4    5-8    9-12    30    2    1    
SRM6    4    0    6x2(2)    0    1-4    5-8    9-12    20    3    2    
LRM5    2    0    5x1(5)    6    1-7    8-14    15-21    24    2    1    
LRM10    2    0    10x1(5)    6    1-7    8-14    15-21    12    5    2    
LRM15    3    0    15x1(5)    6    1-7    8-14    15-21    8    7    3    
LRM20    3    0    20x1(5)    6    1-7    8-14    15-21    6    10    5

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

There are a few more things:

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

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

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

The table also doesn't really work very well with advanced tech. The big problem is DHS - it's pretty much hopeless to balance weapons against each other when you can use SHS or DHS!
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 23 July 2011, 18:19:45
well from what I can make of that chart (it's kind of out of alignment, but not your fault) I like your changes.

I would just really like to see some playable changes made to the AC's... all of them! They need some serious love.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: LastChanceCav on 24 July 2011, 10:53:36
I don't think the new stats would be unbalancing unless you ignored the impact on BV. Using the HMPro BV calculator (http://www.heavymetalpro.com/bv_calc.htm) and your proposed stats the new BVs for the light, medium and heavy are (weapon/ammo-old version):

Light 74/9-37

Medium 113/14-70

Heavy 178/22-123

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

Cheers,
LCC
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 24 July 2011, 11:11:36
I don't think the new stats would be unbalancing unless you ignored the impact on BV. Using the HMPro BV calculator (http://www.heavymetalpro.com/bv_calc.htm) and your proposed stats the new BVs for the light, medium and heavy are (weapon/ammo-old version):

Light 74/9-37

Medium 113/14-70

Heavy 178/22-123

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

Cheers,
LCC

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

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

Light = 3
Medium = 6
Heavy = 12
Assault = 24? <--- this one I am struggling with. 24 is definitely too high. So I could see it dropping to 18 and still being a super effective weapon. Especially with more ammo in each bin. 16 still makes it a giant threat, and heavier hitter than a Gauss (which gives it a niche) I just don't see the progression is all. Sorry :(
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 24 July 2011, 11:14:35
also, making a rule that the integral "free" ton of ammo cannot be shared with other AC's, but only used by the AC it is attached to.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Feign on 24 July 2011, 21:12:14
I really like the idea of the damage progression being 3, 6, 12, 18, with a slight range increase on the Assault size.  I also like the idea of the integral ton of ammo, but lowering the shots per ton on the first three sizes somewhat.

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

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

Sound flavorful enough?
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 25 July 2011, 21:08:27
I really like the idea of the damage progression being 3, 6, 12, 18, with a slight range increase on the Assault size.  I also like the idea of the integral ton of ammo, but lowering the shots per ton on the first three sizes somewhat.

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

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

Sound flavorful enough?

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

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

The biggest trick to get positive changes to the AC's here is simplicity I think. Nobody wants to undo decades of TRO's and stuff like that. So what we really want is a couple quick and simple and fair fixes to make the AC's a better choice.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Feign on 25 July 2011, 23:42:30
I like the impact effect a lot actually. Seems like it might be making it too complicated in some aspects though. As much as I like the perfect progression of damage... it's also about playability. So the 20 damage may have to stay to keep the majority of people happy.
True, the only other things that hit the 20 damage to a single location limit are HPPC+Capacitor, Thunderbolt LRMs and HGRs...  And none of those were in production before the beginning of the WoB Jihad...  There just seems to be a certain symmatry to 3, 6, 12, 18...
Perhaps a more curved progression, 4, 6, 12, 20?

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

The biggest trick to get positive changes to the AC's here is simplicity I think. Nobody wants to undo decades of TRO's and stuff like that. So what we really want is a couple quick and simple and fair fixes to make the AC's a better choice.
I get what you're saying, perhaps the ammo bin tweaks you talked about, adjusting the damage a bit, giving the ton of integrated ammo, and making "Impact Ammunition" a specialty ammo load...
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Hptm. Streiger on 27 July 2011, 06:35:55
idea:
little bit to complex to be really workable...


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

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

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

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

I know you will loose always some damage when using the 2 damage calibre but you get on the other hand a really long range weapon
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: dublinmarley on 28 August 2011, 16:44:51
Alright, I personally think they are just fine in both heat, weight and damage.  Even the ammo does not bother me but what does bother me is the cost compared to lasers and ppc.
ac/2  75,000
ac/5  140,000
ac/10 200,000
ac/20 300,000
llaser 100,000
ppc 200,000
Now my basic problem is the design of an autocannon has to be way easier to produce than say a laser or ppc.  Either reduce the cost of the AC or triple the cost of the energy weapons.  Personally I think all tech over 3025 needs to be at least double or tripled but that is another arguement.  I view the AC as a cost effective easy to produce weapon over energy weapons which is why they are still around but fasa for some reason didnt include a cost reasoning in the game for them.  Personally playing 3025 era games, I love the ac/2 because I tend to play games with few dominate terrain fetures.  On a side note, why does it seem that every battle takes place in cities or mountains?  Doesnt anyone travel cross country through farmland which surrounds all those cities they are invading?  Give me a fire support lance with blackjacks and jagers to pink away for the hole punchers.  I think by increasing costs of the energy weapons would lead to mech designs with AC being fesable.  By increasing the ppc by 3x, a awsome would cost 1.2 million more cbills alone.  Sure most people just mix and match without reguard for costs but I view the game from an economic standpoint of the nation states and merc companies.  Wouldnt you rather have a few more ac welding mechs instead of a few high cost energy hogs?  It gets even worse when you are looking at production numbers in the 50 to 100s.  100 awsomes with new costs would cost more than 120 million more cbills which could be used to outfit a battalion of light mechs.  Just my opinion.  It would make the AC have a reason to be around still and make energy dominate mechs more specialized for longer term campaigns.  Its nice not running out of ammo or firing on 12 everytime because you dont worry about running out of ammo if you have the heat to spare.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Sandslice on 28 August 2011, 23:56:59
True, the only other things that hit the 20 damage to a single location limit are HPPC+Capacitor, Thunderbolt LRMs and HGRs...  And none of those were in production before the beginning of the WoB Jihad...  There just seems to be a certain symmatry to 3, 6, 12, 18...
Perhaps a more curved progression, 4, 6, 12, 20?
Ah, guess I didn't put enough emphasis on it before that specialty ammo wouldn't reduce the number of shots per ton, but would instead just remove the impact effect.  Perhaps a better ammo spread would be 20, 14, 10, 6?
We could base it on keeping the same ammo-explosion damage* across different "calibers."
If we based an ammo explosion on (for example) 108 damage for the 3/6/12/18 progression, you'd get ammo spreads of 36/18/9/6 - you get a slight nerf on the other cannons, and the buff for assault cannons from 5 to 6.
For the 4/6/12/20 damage spread, we'd want to use a 120-damage explosion basis for 30/20/10/6 ammo.

(*And yes, I do think the SRMs should be changed to a 96-damage standard for 48/24/16, but that's another matter.)
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 29 August 2011, 00:27:59
I personally love the idea of standardized ammo for the AC's (and SRM's as well) haha. But seriously, it makes more sense.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Hptm. Streiger on 29 August 2011, 03:55:31
Alright, I personally think they are just fine in both heat, weight and damage.  Even the ammo does not bother me but what does bother me is the cost compared to lasers and ppc.
sounds good, because it is not only the costs for the weapon, you need ammunition too,
and techs for reloading
and you need additional place on drop ships for containers of ammunition. so an energy boat would always be the better idea...  :(

i think the only time when a ACs was better than a energy weapon was MechWarrior 2 where you could deplete your ammunition storage within seconds, with devastating effects
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: dublinmarley on 29 August 2011, 20:33:55
sounds good, because it is not only the costs for the weapon, you need ammunition too,
and techs for reloading
and you need additional place on drop ships for containers of ammunition. so an energy boat would always be the better idea...  :(

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

I am aware of the ammo and tech loading problem.  You need to look at it from a cost basis for the nation state who produces the mechs though.  With energy weapons costs 3x or 4x more than current costs.  What nation state would min max designs without any consideration for cost when they could produce 10% to 20% more mechs with substandard AC weapons.  Trying to fix the game mechanics like damage, heat, space etc will be more than likely impossible due to all the source material already produced but changing the cost of the item would be an easy fix to explain why mechs with AC 5's exist instead of a LL or PPC instead.  Increasing the cost of energy weapons also makes LRM and SRM launchers more viable as well.  When min maxing for mech design and campaign planning, I generally go for a high energy number of weapons due to lack of ammo management.  When I first started playing way back in the day, my friend and I were confused as hell by some of the mech designs.  Sure the AC is inferior generally to energy weapons but by massively increasing costs of energy weapons it allows a reason for the AC to be produced and used in the game due to economics of mech production.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 30 August 2011, 09:30:19
Except that AC's are extremely advanced weapons as well. With moving parts. With ammunition needs as well. Adjusting the price doesn't address logistics and it also completely ignores how most people play - based upon BV and weight.

To fix AC's you can't adjust weight or crits taken as this would ruin years of TRO's and canon. By adjusting damage, heat, ammo bins, even ranges, the AC's can be kept playable and fun beyond what they are now which pretty much gets reduced to roleplaying reasons to have them... or flavor. For instance I love designing mechs with UAC/5's even though they suck. They suck so bad it's nmot even funny. I would love to use UAC/2's but they are even worse. Would be great for flavor though! But I'm never killing anything with a mech that has a UAC/2 as a main gun.... which is too bad really. The gun seems like fun. But I actually like to win.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Hptm. Streiger on 30 August 2011, 09:45:48
I would love to use UAC/2's but they are even worse. Would be great for flavor though! But I'm never killing anything with a mech that has a UAC/2 as a main gun.... which is too bad really. The gun seems like fun. But I actually like to win.

You have to fight in space, the UAC/2 or even the LB-2X is a killing weapon in vacuum
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Sami Jumppanen on 03 September 2011, 10:39:27
You have to fight in space, the UAC/2 or even the LB-2X is a killing weapon in vacuum

Against flying targets LB-2X is OK. Specialy against those that need to take a piloting check every turn they took damage. Otherwise all ACs have their uses if special ammo is aviable.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 03 September 2011, 13:14:57
You have to fight in space, the UAC/2 or even the LB-2X is a killing weapon in vacuum

I honestly wasn't aware that was a rule. Where is it? Gotta use more of them :)

Against flying targets LB-2X is OK. Specialy against those that need to take a piloting check every turn they took damage. Otherwise all ACs have their uses if special ammo is aviable.

Yes, specialty ammo is alright. But because of the way ammo bins round (especially the stupid AC/20 and its 2 rounds per ton) it's not worth it. That's why I'm hoping to get enough people involved in fixing them so the developers actually do something about it :)
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Gryphon on 03 September 2011, 14:02:51
Don't change the weapon, change the ammo. Nothing else needs to be adjusted, neither rules nor weapons, and you can just something like the following:

HEX Ammo, increases damage by X amount (either percentage or actual damage, I would go +1/+2-3/+4/+5), can't be used in Ultra/Rotary/LB-X etc, but there is no other real limitation, just add an increased BV cost per ammo ton. This is supposed to reflect an in universe change to make the weapons more effective, not an out of universe attempt to balance them, such as decreased BV, decreased tech level, eased maintenance,eased repair requirements, or some similar thing.

Really, I would just prefer the universal AC unit, with dial a yield ratings that are closer to the current ACs and/or improved depending on your wants. I have seen the idea somewhere though...that B-Tech/Clancy cross over maybe?

Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 03 September 2011, 15:54:34
I just don't think specialty ammos are the answer personally. Especially since only the crappiest of AC's can even use them. Add to that the UAC's tendency to jam and everything is all out of whack. The weapons are actually ok in Aerotech, no jamming, averaged out greater damage. Cool. Still heavy as hell though. I still prefer energy weapons for efficiency. There should be an actual advantage to taking an AC. The fix should be retroactive and out of Universe to reflect all eras of play in my opinion.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: A. Lurker on 03 September 2011, 16:59:48
Well, my default "autocannon fix" suggestion is to make them capable of indirect fire. That might not necessarily be limited to them alone -- pretty much any non-energy weapon should in principle be able to take advantage of the old concept that what goes up must eventually come down again somewhere --, but it's a start...

Alternatively or in addition, and this might be a bit of a stretch, maybe one could just declare "standard" autocannon rounds (whether for standard autocannons, LB-X, ultras or rotaries) to be "armor-piercing" by default. No special ammo required, no to-hit penalty or halving of shots, just hit and you might score a TAC (at a suitable penalty to the roll, of course). If you want to be extra nice to the lighter autocannons, make the roll modifier constant -- say, a -2 as per tandem-charge SRMs throughout -- rather than caliber-dependent as canon AP shot does it...

Of course, the latter might end up making them a little too good, especially if you apply it to RACs. It's only a recent idea that I haven't actually playtested.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: greatsarcasmo on 03 September 2011, 17:16:09
Well, my default "autocannon fix" suggestion is to make them capable of indirect fire. That might not necessarily be limited to them alone -- pretty much any non-energy weapon should in principle be able to take advantage of the old concept that what goes up must eventually come down again somewhere --, but it's a start...
During WW2, American Tankers were given charts and such to be able to use their guns as field artillery. IIRC, they had to have slight earthen ramparts made to assist them in getting them to the correct angle, but...
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Feign on 03 September 2011, 19:36:07
Alternatively or in addition, and this might be a bit of a stretch, maybe one could just declare "standard" autocannon rounds (whether for standard autocannons, LB-X, ultras or rotaries) to be "armor-piercing" by default. No special ammo required, no to-hit penalty or halving of shots, just hit and you might score a TAC (at a suitable penalty to the roll, of course). If you want to be extra nice to the lighter autocannons, make the roll modifier constant -- say, a -2 as per tandem-charge SRMs throughout -- rather than caliber-dependent as canon AP shot does it...
I still like my idea of a moderate boost to the amount of "damage" only for the purposes of the target's PSR with respect to remaining standing after taking 20 or more damage...  Then make this the default ammo for all ACs, with AP and Precision ammo replacing that ability rather than increasing ammo mass.

Also, the proliferation of specialty armors that deal with missile and energy weapons can help bring autocannons back into usefulness.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Hptm. Streiger on 05 September 2011, 02:31:56
I honestly wasn't aware that was a rule. Where is it? Gotta use more of them :)

I have not played a similar game with TW-rules, but in the rule books before you have to roll for hull breach with every hit, no matter the damage the hit inflicted. And a hullbreach would destroy the hitzone. LB-2X cluster is sweet for vacuum.

To the topic, what about using RoF for Autocannons, a
AC2 has a RoF of 4
AC5 has a RoF of 3
AC10 has a RoF of 2
you can spend your RoF for
but you would spend a additional shot per RoF - Factor (means a AC2 would loose 4 shots per round)
should work together with Ultra or LBX cannons
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Zombyra on 05 September 2011, 23:13:39
I've never really thought that changing the damage curve on the things was going to be a good fix?  And once you get the lbx/ultra/roatry i'm fine to just go with whatever.  Back in the good old 3025 days, though, i think only a couple tweaks to the ac5 and ac2 need to be house rules.
I don't need the autocannons to be preferred weapons, i just want to be a little happier with them!

The ac20 is fine, peeps seem to fear it often enough i'm pretty happy with it.
The ac10 is a solid weapon, not preferred, perhaps, but i don't feel like it's a handicap.
The ac5 has--imho--one overwhelming problem.  This weapon should not have a minimum range.  And now, i'm basicly happy with it until 3050.
The ac2 also needs to not have a minimum range.  And, there's no call for this weapon to generate the 1 heat--it's just silly.  I'm not as happy as with the ac5, but i can live with it.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 08 September 2011, 04:55:17
I've never really thought that changing the damage curve on the things was going to be a good fix?  And once you get the lbx/ultra/roatry i'm fine to just go with whatever.  Back in the good old 3025 days, though, i think only a couple tweaks to the ac5 and ac2 need to be house rules.
I don't need the autocannons to be preferred weapons, i just want to be a little happier with them!

The ac20 is fine, peeps seem to fear it often enough i'm pretty happy with it.
The ac10 is a solid weapon, not preferred, perhaps, but i don't feel like it's a handicap.
The ac5 has--imho--one overwhelming problem.  This weapon should not have a minimum range.  And now, i'm basicly happy with it until 3050.
The ac2 also needs to not have a minimum range.  And, there's no call for this weapon to generate the 1 heat--it's just silly.  I'm not as happy as with the ac5, but i can live with it.

Not bad ideas, but as I said earlier, the way the AC/20 ammo bins are as -s, you get seriously jacked trying to take any specialty ammo. So I still say bump it up to 6 rounds base for any of the 20's. Also, get rid of the stupid "cluster" hits with the ultra AC's and the jamming rule. Both so stupid it's not even funny. Just do like it's done in Aerotech. Double heat and ammunition useage, average out the damage.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: imperator on 09 September 2011, 04:31:15
Why don't you just add a BV for the Specialty Ammo and don't halve the Ammo? Or Assume specialty Ammo is usually loaded and add 50% to the regular ammo capacity?
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Hptm. Streiger on 09 September 2011, 07:06:44
even with special ammunition the lighter AC wont work adequate sorry but a AP rounds are really silly:
no automatic crit,
and a +1 to hit,
not even a comparison to the armor the bullet have to penetrate?
 no thanks

like the flechette rounds however

..,. got a idea, thanks to Cowdragons SLC (pardon Long Range Laser)
why try to increase the AC lets make energy weapons worser:

all laser damage is decreased by 50%, because it is really easy to protect yourself vs a beam of light -use a mirror  ;D
PPCs deal only 75% damage
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 09 September 2011, 09:42:29
LOL, never thought of that approach.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Blackjack Jones on 12 September 2011, 12:01:25
Ok, here's a real simple idea.

Really a lot of the problem with the smaller AC's is they really don't have an effect in the Anti-Mech role,
while they do have utility in other areas (AAA, motive crit seeking on vees, Long Range Anti-PBI with flechette, etc).
So let's add an effect directly targeting 'Mechs.

Remembering back to some discussions on the old forums on ways to address flashbulbs being too good in the DHS era,
there was a suggestion that energy weapons should create less knockback on figuring PSR's. The idea was shot down
a bit for game balance (and the physics of it), but let's take the idea and flip it.

The rule change: Each standard/precision/AP salvo of slugs adds the equivalent when calculating PSR's, of an additional two points of damage  in single shot mode
or per shot in Ultra mode. Rotary Autocannons add the equivalent of one point of damage per salvo when calculating PSR's, at all firing speeds.


Where does that get us?

AC/2, LAC/2, LB 2-X: Would still take 5 of them (instead of 10) to force a PSR. Still, the pressure adds up on some designs, like the Mauler or a pair of Pikes.

Ultra/2: Would still take 2 1/2 of them on Ultra to force a PSR, but it would be able to add pressure.

RAC/2: Going full bore, one would be just short of being able to force a PSR. Becomes an eight ton pressure weapon instead of an inefficient SRM alternative.

AC/5, LAC/5, LB 5-X: Would take 3 to force a PSR instead of 4. A pair with a LL would make a knockdown combo.

Ultra/5: Still would need a pair on Ultra to force a Knockdown, but one UAC/5 plus an LL could make a good combo.

RAC/5: By itself, PSR chances don't change at a given firing speed, but it can help at lower fire rates with additional weapons.

AC/10, LB 10-X: Add a Large Laser and we've got a knockdown.

Ultra/10: Not much help in Ultra mode, but as with above, a Large Laser and a single tap would be a knockdown check.

AC/20, LB 20-X, Ultra/20: The extra knockdown points don't do anything in these cases normally, but with Hardened and Ferro-Lamellor armors on the field,
it can help make up the difference for the lost damage.

Looking at some canon units:

-The JM6-S JagerMech,and -4R and -5D Enforcer, would now be capable of generating a PSR at range.
-The -3N Rifleman would be able to force a PSR at range with the AC's and one LL, instead of having to fire both LL's. The -5M model can force a PSR check separately with each arm.
-The ON1-K Orion can generate a PSR at range with the statistical average 9 missiles of the LRM-15 hitting, instead of needing needing a better than average roll on the cluster hits table.
-The RAC/2 Variants of the Templar and Pike become downright scary, being able to generate well over twice what is needed for a PSR check, or give three 'Mechs close to
PSR levels of damage.
-Way at the other end of tech, the Standard Bane can generate a PSR easily instead of having all the UAC/2's hit perfectly in Ultra mode, and can actually force a second PSR
check on a separate target if everything hits perfectly.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Sandslice on 14 September 2011, 17:58:44


Looking at some cannon units:

-The JM6-S JagerMech,and -4R and -5D Enforcer, would now be capable of generating a PSR at range.
-The -3N Rifleman would be able to force a PSR at range with the AC's and one LL, instead of having to fire both LL's. The -5M model can force a PSR check separately with each arm.
-The ON1-K Orion can generate a PSR at range with the statistical average 9 missiles of the LRM-15 hitting, instead of needing needing a better than average roll on the cluster hits table.
-The RAC/2 Variants of the Templar and Pike become downright scary, being able to generate well over twice what is needed for a PSR check, or give three 'Mechs close to
PSR levels of damage.
-Way at the other end of tech, the Standard Bane can generate a PSR easily instead of having all the UAC/2's hit perfectly in Ultra mode, and can actually force a second PSR
check on a separate target if everything hits perfectly.

Can't resist... but this would improve the canon cannon 'Mechs with non-canon cannon rules, without changing the canon cannons into non-canon cannons.  I like.  :D
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Blackjack Jones on 15 September 2011, 01:13:40
Can't resist... but this would improve the canon cannon 'Mechs with non-canon cannon rules, without changing the canon cannons into non-canon cannons.  I like.  :D

Yeah I could lie and say I was trying to be clever, but I was on a roll when I typed it the first time, quickly followed by a ton of edits. Looks like I missed one.  :(
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 15 September 2011, 01:22:28
I do actually like this idea. Making AC's into knockdown weapons is a cool alternative to adjusting other more standard things like damage.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Legion on 19 September 2011, 09:31:31
I've been giving specialty ammo for free, without the penalty of half the rounds per ton.  This doesn't change much stats and mechanics wise, but gives AC's the flavour of their special abilities while giving those few extra tons back to the weapon comparison to make it more desirable.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 19 September 2011, 13:04:40
I've been giving specialty ammo for free, without the penalty of half the rounds per ton.  This doesn't change much stats and mechanics wise, but gives AC's the flavour of their special abilities while giving those few extra tons back to the weapon comparison to make it more desirable.

That still leaves out Ultra and LBX AC's, but it's a very nice start :)
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Red Pins on 19 September 2011, 21:30:08
Guys, really lke some of these ideas, especially the knockdown idea.  I'm sorry to hijack this discussion, but what do you think of these?  They're for my AU project.

Improved Autocannon (I-AC)

   Despite the heat efficiency of Autocannons, advances in heatsinks and energy weapons have diminished their presence on the battlefield.  Developed by House Davion’s NAIS but unavailable in heavier calibers and outranged by energy weapons without the risks of ammo explosions, Light-ACs have come to represent a stopgap measure in Autocannon development.
   Looking for weapons systems adaptable to modern warfare, the Civil Government has successfully combined the 21st century Metalstorm system with the modern Autocannon, providing compact, heat efficient weapons capable of flexibility unmatched by current designs.
   I-ACs take advantage of several centuries of development in ballistic weapons to provide cutting edge weight- and damage ratios; the Metalstorm concept, used in large caliber grenade launchers before being abandoned by 2050, takes advantage of these developments to provide a credible threat to larger opponents, or provide those larger opponents with the means to eliminate Light units with ease.

Game Rules
   I-ACs offer a single barrel with limited ammunition to the designer.  Small calibers offer longer range and are favored by large units with limited mobility, while lighter units carry heavier calibers to threaten their targets with tandem-charge armor-piercing rounds able to cripple larger opponents with a single shot.

              Heat     Dam              Range     Ammo    Wt        Space          Tech
Weapon          Std(Aero)      Std (Aero)       M/S/M/L (Aero)    (barrel)  (tons)   M  E  CV  SV  F  SC  DS Rating
I-AC/2                 0*(0*)              2(2)            4/8/16/24 (Long) 12      3       1   2    1   1   1   1    1      F
I-AC/5                  1(0)                5(5)         3/6/12/18 (Medium) 5       4       1   3    1   2   1   1    1      F
I-AC/10                2(2)              10(10)          5/10/15 (Medium)  3       6       1   4    1   4   1   1    1      F
I-AC/20                4(4)              20(20)             3/6/9 (Short)      1       7       2    -    1   8   1   1    1      F
* - See Notes

Notes:
·   I-ACs are able to use special- and mixed ammo, in any order and any type (barring caseless); these include Armor-Piercing, Flechette, Precision, Cluster, Flak, Tracer,
·   Because I-ACs are able to use multiple special ammunition types, players must record the type of ammo in order of firing
·   I-ACs may fire in bursts.  Players must specify the number of rounds fired a Turn before the weapon is fired.
·   Heat is cumulative with each shell fired.  I-AC/2s do not generate heat for single shots; for each multiple of 3 rounds fired, one heat is generated.
·   Damage is allocated by shell, in order of rounds fired, following the rules for specialty ammo.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Feign on 23 September 2011, 08:54:27
Game Rules
   I-ACs offer a single barrel with limited ammunition to the designer.  Small calibers offer longer range and are favored by large units with limited mobility, while lighter units carry heavier calibers to threaten their targets with tandem-charge armor-piercing rounds able to cripple larger opponents with a single shot.

                 Heat         Dam              Range             Ammo      Wt                Space              Tech
Weapon          Std(Aero)    Std (Aero)      M/S/M /L  (Aero)   (barrel)  (tons)   M   E   CV  SV  F  SC  DS   Rating
I-AC/2           0*(0*)         2(2)         4/8/16/24 (Long)    12       3        1   2   1   1   1  1   1       F
I-AC/5           1(0)           5(5)         3/6/12/18 (Medium)  5        4        1   3   1   2   1  1   1       F
I-AC/10          2(2)          10(10)          5/10/15 (Medium)  3        6        1   4   1   4   1  1   1       F
I-AC/20          4(4)          20(20)          3/6 /9  (Short)   1        7        2   -   1   8   1  1   1       F
* - See Notes


Notes:
·   I-ACs are able to use special- and mixed ammo, in any order and any type (barring caseless); these include Armor-Piercing, Flechette, Precision, Cluster, Flak, Tracer,
·   Because I-ACs are able to use multiple special ammunition types, players must record the type of ammo in order of firing
·   I-ACs may fire in bursts.  Players must specify the number of rounds fired a Turn before the weapon is fired.
·   Heat is cumulative with each shell fired.  I-AC/2s do not generate heat for single shots; for each multiple of 3 rounds fired, one heat is generated.
·   Damage is allocated by shell, in order of rounds fired, following the rules for specialty ammo.
I've fixed your table for you, though they seem to be amazingly compact, low-heat, and moderately lightweight rotary ACs with no upper limit on how much they can fire in a turn and the full array of special ammo at the expense of having a much lower ammo capacity... 

If this is an extension from the Metal Storm idea, perhaps clarify that each canon can only have one "Barrel" of ammunition...  Also, don't mess around with specialty ammo in these, it leads to over-complication in a hurry.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Red Pins on 23 September 2011, 11:59:47
I've fixed your table for you, though they seem to be amazingly compact, low-heat, and moderately lightweight rotary ACs with no upper limit on how much they can fire in a turn and the full array of special ammo at the expense of having a much lower ammo capacity... 

If this is an extension from the Metal Storm idea, perhaps clarify that each canon can only have one "Barrel" of ammunition...  Also, don't mess around with specialty ammo in these, it leads to over-complication in a hurry.

...The damn table is fine in Word, it just gets skewed when I copy it over.  But thanks.  And yup, one barrel of ammo only.  I think specifying only ONE type of ammo, standard or specialty per barrel, sounds like a good idea.

Bt have you SEEN their demonstration movies?  Holy crap!   :o
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Stormforge on 08 April 2012, 00:56:59
Didn't want to start a new topic since this thread already existed, but I personally have been thinking about doing this in my home games to make AC's more appealing. Pretty much just up their damage to the nearest 5, as in 5, 10, 15, 20.

Weapon  Heat  DMG     Range       Tons  Crit  Ammo
AC-2(5)      1       5     4/8/16/24       6       1      45
AC-5(10)    1      10    3/6/12/18       8       4      20
AC-10(15)  3      15       5/10/15      12      7      10
AC-20         7      20        3/6/9         14     10      5     No Change

Like this the AC-5 would pretty much match the PPC. (3025 era I usually swap out the AC-5s for PPCs anyway) Slightly heavier with less need for heat sinks, but it does have the chance for the ammo to explode, which the PPC does not have to worry about. The AC-10 would become a shorter ranged Gauss Rifle, also 2 Large Laser is 16 damage split in 2, maybe a little more weight for heat sinks, but again no exploding ammo. As for more advanced cannons I think I would use this model also with the exception of the RACs which could stay at 2 and 5 damage.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Sockmonkey on 09 April 2012, 00:04:07
The simplest way to improve them would be to give them a bonus on the chances of getting a crit.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Suralin on 09 April 2012, 06:41:37
Can't resist... but this would improve the canon cannon 'Mechs with non-canon cannon rules, without changing the canon cannons into non-canon cannons.  I like.  :D

Approved.  O0
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Garydee on 09 April 2012, 14:33:57
What I've used in my games for making AC weapons better is by manipulating some of the TacOp optional rules. I have it that due to the explosive nature of ACs they never suffer from glancing blows. Also, with direct blows they receive a +2 per MOS of 3 instead of +1. These rules seem to help ACs quite a bit without changing their base damage, weight, heat, etc..
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Urban Kufahl on 13 April 2012, 05:12:07
I was more interested for alternate ammo explosion :

- turn 0 : 1D6 warheads detonate (+10 heat)
- turn 1 : 2D6 warheads (+20 heat)
- turn 2 : 3D6 warheads (+30heat)
- etc.... unless you drop the ammo

AC/10 or 20 ammo are still enough powerfull to destroy your unit and the smaller calibers are less dangerous. Off course if you do not dump your burning MG ammo bin you quickly run into serious heat/damage troubles  >:D.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Hptm. Streiger on 17 April 2012, 04:19:43
I'm toying around with different RoFs...only the Ultra and Rotarys give me a hard time so only for Into Tech this time.

Result:
Cluster Roll for AC 2 -> 4 shots
Cluster Roll for AC 5 -> 2 shots
Cluster Roll for AC 10 -> 2 shots
Cluster Roll for MedLaser -> 2 shots
Cluster Roll for LightLaser  -> 2 shots
Cluster Roll for SRMs -> shots * 2
Cluster Roll for MachineGun -> 4 shots

You are able to spend half the shots for a additional -1 ToHitModifer

Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Nebfer on 20 April 2012, 14:23:45
Ok, here's a real simple idea.

Really a lot of the problem with the smaller AC's is they really don't have an effect in the Anti-Mech role,
while they do have utility in other areas (AAA, motive crit seeking on vees, Long Range Anti-PBI with flechette, etc).
So let's add an effect directly targeting 'Mechs.

Remembering back to some discussions on the old forums on ways to address flashbulbs being too good in the DHS era,
there was a suggestion that energy weapons should create less knockback on figuring PSR's. The idea was shot down
a bit for game balance (and the physics of it), but let's take the idea and flip it.

The rule change: Each standard/precision/AP salvo of slugs adds the equivalent when calculating PSR's, of an additional two points of damage  in single shot mode
or per shot in Ultra mode. Rotary Autocannons add the equivalent of one point of damage per salvo when calculating PSR's, at all firing speeds.


Where does that get us?

AC/2, LAC/2, LB 2-X: Would still take 5 of them (instead of 10) to force a PSR. Still, the pressure adds up on some designs, like the Mauler or a pair of Pikes.

Ultra/2: Would still take 2 1/2 of them on Ultra to force a PSR, but it would be able to add pressure.

RAC/2: Going full bore, one would be just short of being able to force a PSR. Becomes an eight ton pressure weapon instead of an inefficient SRM alternative.

AC/5, LAC/5, LB 5-X: Would take 3 to force a PSR instead of 4. A pair with a LL would make a knockdown combo.

Ultra/5: Still would need a pair on Ultra to force a Knockdown, but one UAC/5 plus an LL could make a good combo.

RAC/5: By itself, PSR chances don't change at a given firing speed, but it can help at lower fire rates with additional weapons.

AC/10, LB 10-X: Add a Large Laser and we've got a knockdown.

Ultra/10: Not much help in Ultra mode, but as with above, a Large Laser and a single tap would be a knockdown check.

AC/20, LB 20-X, Ultra/20: The extra knockdown points don't do anything in these cases normally, but with Hardened and Ferro-Lamellor armors on the field,
it can help make up the difference for the lost damage.

Looking at some canon units:

-The JM6-S JagerMech,and -4R and -5D Enforcer, would now be capable of generating a PSR at range.
-The -3N Rifleman would be able to force a PSR at range with the AC's and one LL, instead of having to fire both LL's. The -5M model can force a PSR check separately with each arm.
-The ON1-K Orion can generate a PSR at range with the statistical average 9 missiles of the LRM-15 hitting, instead of needing needing a better than average roll on the cluster hits table.
-The RAC/2 Variants of the Templar and Pike become downright scary, being able to generate well over twice what is needed for a PSR check, or give three 'Mechs close to
PSR levels of damage.
-Way at the other end of tech, the Standard Bane can generate a PSR easily instead of having all the UAC/2's hit perfectly in Ultra mode, and can actually force a second PSR
check on a separate target if everything hits perfectly.

This is probably one of the better ways of making ACs more effective with out changing them at all.
And the effect only gets stronger when you use the expanded falling after taking 20+ damage rule in tac ops.

Though while primary intended for ACs I could see all ballistics using this (though Gauss Rifles don't need it as badly as AC do).
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 28 April 2012, 08:53:16
So "Fixing ACs" can be summed up into 2 ideas:

1) Change the stats so ACs are competitive with other weapons.

Pros: The ACs are now balanced with other weapons. And proves that tech in BT actually does advance.

Cons: You're essentially introducing new equipment, which doesn't help all the old ACs lying around.

2) Change the rules on how ACs are used.

Pros: You can use all the old equipment, and now have reasons to do so!

Cons: Rule changes are ALWAYS controversial. Fans will Complain.

My feelings on the subject matter? I'd go with changing the rules. Not any big changes, just ones small enough to balance ACs with new tech (and in the case of the lighter ACs, OLD tech). The AC/10 and /20 I think are just fine as is.

My favorite idea is the one that bumps the rate of fire at no penalty. Being able to double tap an AC/5 or quad tap an AC/2 at no penalty means those weapons how actually put out fairly significant firepower for their tonnage. The Ultras and RAC versions would of course get a similar power up with their canon penalties, although this may make the RAC too powerful.

Second favorite idea (which IMO should not be combined with the previous one) is to give ACs an automatic crit chance. You can even justify it in-universe as AP ammo having been perfected and now everyone is using it, so starting in year 3xxx, all ACs now have a chance to crit, and none of the earlier rules and design decisions have been invalidated.

Lastly, I like the idea of having Improved ACs, but such weapons would be replacing the old weapons, which still renders all the old original ACs obsolete. This is something the devs have been chronically avoiding.

Edit: One more thing! If you really want to replace the old ACs with something better, take the old Rifle Cannons and fluff them as having new, updated ammo that removes the -3 damage penalty. That IMO would make them BETTER than the old ACs while not requiring the introduction of any new equipment.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Suralin on 28 April 2012, 10:21:26
Edit: One more thing! If you really want to replace the old ACs with something better, take the old Rifle Cannons and fluff them as having new, updated ammo that removes the -3 damage penalty. That IMO would make them BETTER than the old ACs while not requiring the introduction of any new equipment.

Sounds familiar. ;)

As for fixing the standard AC's, I'd add a rule change myself. Not sure what that would be -- the whole double-tap thing would make Ultras and RACs unbalanced, I think. The "AP ammo as standard" idea is an intriguing one, but then we'd have to deal with ammo running out twice as quick...

Maybe it could get -1 to hit when it hasn't been fired the previous turn? To represent the fact that recoil and barrel heating/shaking messes with subsequent shots.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 28 April 2012, 11:13:07
The "AP ammo as standard" idea is an intriguing one, but then we'd have to deal with ammo running out twice as quick...

Well if AP ammo was "perfected", then you wouldn't be losing any shots per ton by using it. IMO, losing shots/ton is one of the reasons it's only still "optional". If you didn't, AP would become the new standard.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: rlbell on 29 April 2012, 14:29:17
This is a specialty fix that I use in my games, and it is for a niche mech, so this is very much a YMMV:

I allow mechs with several AC to group them into 'bays' and use the SO bracket fire rules.  Sadly, only the OpFor mounts enough AC's to make this work, but they have enough of them that advancing across a spaceport tarmac allowed them to start firing at LOS range, and score the odd hit, after spending some time carefully aiming (the spaceport surface tracking system allowed the players to be spotted at more than 100 hexes), even though the OpFor has few pilots with better gunnery than 5.

For my players, the question is never "Will I take a hit?", but "How many plinks do I get, this time?". The 100t assault being ripped apart at extreme range (pilot passed out from the second plink to the head, shutting down the mech) by massed AC/2 fire has put the fear of God into them.  The upgraded OpFor mechs with 10 UAC/2's vice 8 AC/2's are worse, and within the limited range, the 10 LAC/5 version is an unholy terror.

I do not like AC's; unless, I can spam with them.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Nahuris on 04 May 2012, 11:11:44
I still like my idea of a moderate boost to the amount of "damage" only for the purposes of the target's PSR with respect to remaining standing after taking 20 or more damage...  Then make this the default ammo for all ACs, with AP and Precision ammo replacing that ability rather than increasing ammo mass.

Also, the proliferation of specialty armors that deal with missile and energy weapons can help bring autocannons back into usefulness.

After Mechwarrior 3 came out, with the increased chances of knocking things down with cannons, we experimented with the following:

Any AC hit generates a piloting roll, due to kinetic impact, with a +1 per additional AC hit ---- if the mech already qualifies for a pilotig roll due to damage, then each AC hit added a penalty of 1 to that roll.

Nahuris
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Nahuris on 04 May 2012, 11:15:01
even with special ammunition the lighter AC wont work adequate sorry but a AP rounds are really silly:
no automatic crit,
and a +1 to hit,
not even a comparison to the armor the bullet have to penetrate?
 no thanks

like the flechette rounds however

..,. got a idea, thanks to Cowdragons SLC (pardon Long Range Laser)
why try to increase the AC lets make energy weapons worser:

all laser damage is decreased by 50%, because it is really easy to protect yourself vs a beam of light -use a mirror  ;D
PPCs deal only 75% damage

Already happening --- I'm seeing more and more mechs with reflective armor on our table.

Nahuris
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Garydee on 04 May 2012, 19:33:43
After Mechwarrior 3 came out, with the increased chances of knocking things down with cannons, we experimented with the following:

Any AC hit generates a piloting roll, due to kinetic impact, with a +1 per additional AC hit ---- if the mech already qualifies for a pilotig roll due to damage, then each AC hit added a penalty of 1 to that roll.

Nahuris

I like that rule. It makes the mechs with four AC 2s like the Mauler and Rifleman worth taking.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 04 May 2012, 19:37:39
After Mechwarrior 3 came out, with the increased chances of knocking things down with cannons, we experimented with the following:

Any AC hit generates a piloting roll, due to kinetic impact, with a +1 per additional AC hit ---- if the mech already qualifies for a pilotig roll due to damage, then each AC hit added a penalty of 1 to that roll.

Nahuris

Hits from LB-X cluster rounds must be pure hell then...
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Nahuris on 05 May 2012, 00:11:30
Hits from LB-X cluster rounds must be pure hell then...

We count the burst from the weapon as one hit still --- so an LBX10 hitting with 7 fragments only has a +1 ---
But then again, we likened LBX shots to the pilot just turning off the recoil compensator and just letting the canon bounce around with recoil.... which is why it's fragmented into one point hits.

However, the LBX10 version of the Annihilator is a true beast in Mech3.... I won't fight one close in, as nearly every salvo knocks you on your back, and if they destroy a leg (which is the only thing they hit while you are down, as the legs point at them), you're done.

We did give Ultra's a +1 per burst, and we did this before the rotaries came out, so am not sure if it wouldn't be massively overpowered there.

Nahuris
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 21 May 2012, 01:42:42
sorry I've been away for so long. It took me a while to read through everything. A couple things though... 1) I would actually LIKE to see something like AP ammo be a standard. Even in the SW Era. But whatever, I'm weird.

As for easy fixes, I still think UAC's shouldn't jam. They should do 50% more damage. Use twice as much ammo to double tap. And all of the damage should hit the same location. No chance of second shot missing. But again, I'm weird. :P
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 21 May 2012, 02:08:05
sorry I've been away for so long. It took me a while to read through everything. A couple things though... 1) I would actually LIKE to see something like AP ammo be a standard. Even in the SW Era. But whatever, I'm weird.

As for easy fixes, I still think UAC's shouldn't jam. They should do 50% more damage. Use twice as much ammo to double tap. And all of the damage should hit the same location. No chance of second shot missing. But again, I'm weird. :P

I'm actually fine with clustering rules for UACs. My issue with UACs has been and always will be that stupid perma-jam rule. It turns an otherwise decent weapon into so much junk-waiting-to-happen.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 21 May 2012, 02:46:46
I'm actually fine with clustering rules for UACs. My issue with UACs has been and always will be that stupid perma-jam rule. It turns an otherwise decent weapon into so much junk-waiting-to-happen.

agreed. Perma jam sucks. I liked how the old Battlespace rules handled them. Now I find out that's even not used anymore. :(

the ranges are nice for the 2 and 5 though!
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: A. Lurker on 22 May 2012, 02:21:00
I'm actually fine with clustering rules for UACs. My issue with UACs has been and always will be that stupid perma-jam rule. It turns an otherwise decent weapon into so much junk-waiting-to-happen.

Mileage will vary. I actually find a jammed rotary autocannon much more annoying. Yeah, you can try to unjam it again...by turning yourself into essentially a sitting duck for that turn...with no guarantee that the attempt will even succeed...or that the gun won't simply jam again right away on the next attack. At least with the UAC I know where I stand once it quits.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Urban Kufahl on 22 May 2012, 07:43:13
As for easy fixes, I still think UAC's shouldn't jam. They should do 50% more damage. Use twice as much ammo to double tap. And all of the damage should hit the same location. No chance of second shot missing. But again, I'm weird. :P

No jam : yes or able to unjam at least
1.5 damage instead of twice : yes good idea (round up or down for the UAC/5 ?)
No spread damage : humm no (specialy for the UAC/20)
No secondary roll : humm maybe
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Netzilla on 22 May 2012, 10:18:49
As for easy fixes, I still think UAC's shouldn't jam.

I agree that permajam does make UACs pretty unattractive.  That's why I pretty much never double-tap when equipped with one; thus making their primary advantage useless to me.

Quote
They should do 50% more damage. Use twice as much ammo to double tap. And all of the damage should hit the same location. No chance of second shot missing. But again, I'm weird. :P

If you're going to go with 150% damage, I think you need to at least do it in 2 clusters; one at full damage and one at half or 2 at 75%.  Otherwise the UAC 10 gains too much headcapping power and the UAC 20 becomes insane. 

If you go the 2 at 75% route, you get:
Code: [Select]
UAC    Single    Double
---    ------    ------
 2      1x2      1x2 + 1x1
 5      1x5      2x3
10      1x10     2x8
20      1x20     2x15

If you go the one at full + one at half route, you get:

Code: [Select]
UAC    Single    Double
---    ------    ------
 2      1x2      1x2 + 1x1
 5      1x5      1x5 + 1x3
10      1x10     1x10 + 1x5
20      1x20     1x20 + 1x10

Personally, I think I prefer the latter as it seems cleaner.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 22 May 2012, 13:55:13
I wouldn't mind if the second shot from a UAC was simply determined with another targeting roll, perhaps at a penalty. You wouldn't be firing a double sized burst. You would be firing two completely separately aimed shots and the TN penalty for the second shot is because you're not being quite as careful aiming as with the first shot.

Looking back, the UAC-5 when it was first introduced was a really odd duck, especially since DHS was introduced with it. The advanced weapons were higher heat, but DHS took care of that. The LB-10X was just flat out BETTER than the AC-10 with no drawbacks than requiring 2 tons of ammo (which was needed anyway for simple endurance) so you could carry both solid shot and cluster.

So why was the UAC-5 which was already heavier, bulkier, and longer ranged than the vanilla AC-5 given that stupid jamming rule? For some "balance" that was nowhere else in evidence in the Star League weapon set? Being able to double fire without penalty would have allowed the autocannon to keep up with energy weapons in a DHS environment.

Instead, all the lighter ACs have been pretty much rendered obsolete and their replacements are either no better or have questionable utility.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: va_wanderer on 27 May 2012, 13:49:44
I'm honestly not for so much improving the AC's themselves, but the munitions.

Make improved AP and Precision munitions. These have the normal numbers of shots per tonnage, rather than halved. (marked IAP, IPR rounds) Available to light or standard autocannons.

Add improved standard munitions. These add +1/+2/+3/+4 to standard damage (AC/2-5-10-20) and if a firing result using these rounds will result in a jammed weapon, exploding weapon or UAC failure, roll 2d6. If the second roll does not indicate a jam/UAC failure, change the shot's result to a miss with no other consequences. . Mark as ISM ammo, and are available to light, standard, LB-X, UAC, HVAC, and rotary autocannons.

Add precision (standard) and armor-piercing (standard) to UAC, rotary, and HVAC use. These still have the normal half-ammo by tonnage penalty- meaning a precision-guided burst from a ammo-gulping rotary is going to be very rough indeed- and no reroll if a jam/UAC failure/HVAC boom happens.

You can then leave the stats for autocannons alone, simply by just adding a new tier of munitions. Problem solved.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Orin J. on 27 May 2012, 22:33:07
Make improved AP and Precision munitions. These have the normal numbers of shots per tonnage, rather than halved. (marked IAP, IPR rounds) Available to light or standard autocannons.

i like this, mainly because the half-ammo limitation for most specialty munitions has proved to be overkill as a balancing tool. there's just not nearly enough 'mechs able to afford spending a ton on a half-ton of ammo for their guns, so few situations crop up where picking those ammo types doesn't mean you're going to be running dry halfway through a fight. and noone's willing to risk that.

Quote
Add improved standard munitions. These add +1/+2/+3/+4 to standard damage (AC/2-5-10-20) and if a firing result using these rounds will result in a jammed weapon, exploding weapon or UAC failure, roll 2d6. If the second roll does not indicate a jam/UAC failure, change the shot's result to a miss with no other consequences. . Mark as ISM ammo, and are available to light, standard, LB-X, UAC, HVAC, and rotary autocannons.
 
i don't like the idea of an universal improved munition myself, mostly because the jamming/circuit failure isn't a result of the ammo itself but the gun pushing what it's capable of to achieve it's firing rate. there's also the fact that your idea turns the AC/10s into headcappers, which is a pretty big change to me.

an improved (production quality) HVAC Ammo with no more fouling rate would be nice though.
Quote
Add precision (standard) and armor-piercing (standard) to UAC, rotary, and HVAC use. These still have the normal half-ammo by tonnage penalty- meaning a precision-guided burst from a ammo-gulping rotary is going to be very rough indeed- and no reroll if a jam/UAC failure/HVAC boom happens.

yikes. as much as part of me likes the idea of hosing an area with specialty ammo, that would be far too big a buff to be fair in any way. an ultra 10-20 doubletapping on AP is going to tear 'mechs a excessively generous CASE venting and a RAC-5 with precision ammo is frightening to think about pulling on lights/hovers.

HVACs get their extra oomh by using a different propulsion mix, but i'd think that giving them AP and maybe some other types wouldn't be out of place- HV-Flak ammo sounds like it might be nice....
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 28 May 2012, 02:42:07
the biggest problem with the newer AC's is that they should be better, but the limitations put on them almost make them worse. A few exceptions like the LB-10X excluded. But even that thing is almost to heavy to bother with most times.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: va_wanderer on 28 May 2012, 12:14:48
i don't like the idea of an universal improved munition myself, mostly because the jamming/circuit failure isn't a result of the ammo itself but the gun pushing what it's capable of to achieve it's firing rate. there's also the fact that your idea turns the AC/10s into headcappers, which is a pretty big change to me.

Let's compare that to...oh, the Heavy PPC. No ammo explosions, superior range, superior damage, less tonnage. Better munitions also mean you push the gun less to accomplish the same effects-  and the excuse we need to put better stats in without redoing all the autocannons to begin with, which is a "can't do" here.

Quote
an improved (production quality) HVAC Ammo with no more fouling rate would be nice though.
yikes. as much as part of me likes the idea of hosing an area with specialty ammo, that would be far too big a buff to be fair in any way. an ultra 10-20 doubletapping on AP is going to tear 'mechs a excessively generous CASE venting and a RAC-5 with precision ammo is frightening to think about pulling on lights/hovers.

Of course, they have to hit with the AP bursts (with the usual +1 to hit, which we all remember and loathe from the MRM)...and one man's RAC + precision is another's pulse laser array + targeting computer. In addition, the Ultra/HVAC/Rotary ammo still has that 1/2 shot limitation- meaning an Ultra-20 is going to burn a TON OF AMMO PER SHOT firing them on double-tap, and RAC/5's are in much the same boat firing full salvos with only 10 rounds per ton. Sure, great performance....at immense ammo-devouring rates.

Quote
HVACs get their extra oomh by using a different propulsion mix, but i'd think that giving them AP and maybe some other types wouldn't be out of place- HV-Flak ammo sounds like it might be nice....

As it stands, most HVAC-mounted vehicles will explode before emptying their ammo bay. That screams "improve me!".
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 28 May 2012, 14:52:07
I would honestly use HVAC's if they didn't explode. Seriously, the ranges they have are amazing, and the smoke hex to the rear is a nice side effect. But they aren't great enough to warrant me blowing up when I roll a snake eyes.

AC's are fun and flavorful! But we need them improved to make them worth playing in a more optimized game. I think we are really getting at something in this thread. Too bad more people aren't getting involved in the discussion.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Orin J. on 28 May 2012, 20:21:40
Let's compare that to...oh, the Heavy PPC. No ammo explosions, superior range, superior damage, less tonnage.
five times the heat and a minimum range. i'm not saying an AC/10 is balanced against the HPPC, but you can't  make a 'mech capable of firing four HPPCs without heat problems like you can with AC/10s.

Quote
Better munitions also mean you push the gun less to accomplish the same effects-  and the excuse we need to put better stats in without redoing all the autocannons to begin with, which is a "can't do" here.
yeah, but a superammo that boosts damage while trying to cure every AC subtype's problems at once by adding even more rolls? i feel that particular idea is not suited.

Quote
As it stands, most HVAC-mounted vehicles will explode before emptying their ammo bay. That screams "improve me!".
an improved (production quality) HVAC Ammo with no more fouling rate would be nice though.
i've always thought of HVACs as unfinished technology that got shelved due to gauss rifles and would love to see them get a their ammo brought up to production quality (seriously, is there any nation willing to produce let along field a tank with a cannon that has any chance of exploding from normal use?) i just don't think their design makes them suited to every kind of specialty ammo.

maybe a periphery nation could do it, those things have to be easier to manufacture than gauss rifles......... :-\
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 29 May 2012, 00:51:47
five times the heat and a minimum range. i'm not saying an AC/10 is balanced against the HPPC, but you can't  make a 'mech capable of firing four HPPCs without heat problems like you can with AC/10s.

No, but now you have AMMO problems because you just spend 48 tons on a mid ranged weapon. You'll need at least 6 tons of ammo (15 rounds for each gun) for decent endurance, which pretty much uses up all your payload tonnage on a 100 ton assault.

Meanwhile a decently fast (or even average speed) medium with a single HPPC can snipe at you all day from beyond any range you can reply at.

You'd be better off with LB-10Xs instead of generic AC/10s. They have the same reach as the HPPC, are lighter than AC/10s, AND generate less heat than AC/10s. Of course you still have ammo issues where as the hypothetical medium doesn't, meaning you still have to conserve ammo in a long range sniping match while the other guy can fire whenever he's got line of sight and is in range.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 29 May 2012, 02:07:02
No, but now you have AMMO problems because you just spend 48 tons on a mid ranged weapon. You'll need at least 6 tons of ammo (15 rounds for each gun) for decent endurance, which pretty much uses up all your payload tonnage on a 100 ton assault.

Meanwhile a decently fast (or even average speed) medium with a single HPPC can snipe at you all day from beyond any range you can reply at.

You'd be better off with LB-10Xs instead of generic AC/10s. They have the same reach as the HPPC, are lighter than AC/10s, AND generate less heat than AC/10s. Of course you still have ammo issues where as the hypothetical medium doesn't, meaning you still have to conserve ammo in a long range sniping match while the other guy can fire whenever he's got line of sight and is in range.

agreed. This is the reason for this thread. AC's are inferior weapons. but I WANT to use them. I really do!
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 29 May 2012, 02:08:46
I really feel that simple is the better approach. Partly why I went with my original idea of upping damage and adjusting ammo bins a bit. It keeps the rolls the same without adding any extra. Very simple.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 29 May 2012, 08:25:44
Why do AC's suck? Because they don't do anything better than other weapon types. They do the same kind of direct damage as energy weapons, but with a far greater tonnage-per-damage ratio. This is offset somewhat by lower heat, but the price of lower heat is that greater tonnage, which is effectively like dedicated heat sinks that other weapons cannot use.

Compare missile weapons which have a better tonnage-per-damage ratio if not as good as energy weapons, and a heat output roughly somewhere between comparable ballistic and energy weapons. They would suck too, except the way they inflict damage is different; they do their damage in clusters, which even though it mitigates their average damage, gives them a crit seeking ability that was initially unique to them. And of course one class of missiles can do indirect fire. In short, missiles have a function on the battlefield.

So to fix AC's, you either need newer, BETTER ACs designed with a DHS environment in mind (yeah... not gonna happen), or you have to change the rules surrounding them (like proposed "AP now standard" or "increase RoF" rules) so that they have some utility on a battlefield, either through dealing damage competitive with similar scale energy weapons or through having some unique function that energy weapons and missiles can't perform.

I'm rather fond of the latter actually.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Orin J. on 29 May 2012, 09:35:07
Why do AC's suck?

because double heat sinks. before DHS the triad of weaons ran like this: you hand energy weapons that didn't need ammo and were light, but put out so much heat you had to limit your overall damage output to avoid problems, you had missile weapons which spread out their damage but were very specialist weapons and somewhat unreliable, and you had ballistic weapons which gave you a reliable low-heat damage source, but were very heavy.

when DHS came out, they explicitly changed the dynamic by making the main drawback of using energy weapons a very minor affair. autocannon's main advantage, which is you get a lot of firepower at its heat load is entirely useless when a 'mech can simply sink massive amounts of heat easily. it's not that the gun sucks, it's that the battlemech's advantages have shifted to not needing them. not really a whole lot you can do about it unless you want to make autocannons MUCH more powerful to compensate for 'mech design shifting towards high-heat designs.

and the kind of beefing that it would take to overcome the fact a 'mech is currently built more towards energy weapons and the natural fear everyone has of ammo cooking off is, in my personal opinion, so high that it would unbalance the weapons themselves in regards to vehicles and aircraft.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 29 May 2012, 09:44:38
actually, even before DHS they weren't that great. Most times I ripped out an AC/5 in favor of a PPC. Every once in a while I would use AC/2's because I prefer them. AC/10 are dreadful. AC/20's at least had their major damage niche that nothing else could come close to.

I love the ideas being tossed around.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Netzilla on 29 May 2012, 11:56:17
I agree, most ACs are still inferior even in 3025 play partly due to the Heat Sinks stored in the engine.  With just the 10 engine sinks, you can get a single PPC for 0 net heat, 7 tons and 3 spaces.  This gives you 10 damage out to 18 hexes.  For that same tonnage, you can only get an AC2 + 1 ton ammo.

Taking out the engine sinks, you need 10 heat sinks to make that PPC heat neutral.  So, it's 17 tons and 13 spaces.  That could get you:
* 2 AC2s + 5 tons ammo (17 tons, 7 spaces)
* 2 AC5s + 1 ton ammo (17 tons, 9 spaces)
* 1 AC10 + 4 tons ammo (17 tons, 11 spaces)
* 1 AC20 + 3 tons ammo (17 tons, 13 spaces)

The ACs all have limited ammo and explosion potential.  The 2 AC5s have same max damage and range but don't concentrate that damage the way the PPC does.  The AC10 has same damage and concentration but 3 hexes less range.  The AC20 does double the damage  at half the range. 

Unless you're short on space (which usually isn't a problem in 3025) the ACs still don't seem to compare well against energy weapons.  Now, back before there were internal engine heat sinks you had 10 less spaces to play with.  In that case, the overall spaces savings of 2 AC5s vs a single PPC + Heat Sinks kept things a little more balanced.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 29 May 2012, 12:32:58
I agree, most ACs are still inferior even in 3025 play

I second this. Even with pure 3025 tech, you're better off with energy weapons + heat sinks even after you used up all your engine sinks. Only the AC/20 is truly capable of doing something none of the other 3025 weapons were capable of. The AC/2 is the farthest reaching weapon in 3025, but does so little damage that most players don't consider it worth the 7 tons (gun + ammo) it takes up.

It's even worse for mechs designed to bracket fire. If you bracket fire, a PPC can share 10 heat sinks (free or not) with 3 medium lasers, the latter of which would cover the PPC's minimum range. The AC/5 and AC/2 each only have 1 heat sink they can share, and the only short range weapons that can cover their minimum ranges all generate more heat than that.

Really, if the original AC/5 had been two tons lighter, generated 3 heat, and had no changes otherwise, it'd at least a useful weapon for 3025. At the very least, it would make sense to carry a medium laser to cover this AC/5's minimum range.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 29 May 2012, 21:39:08


Really, if the original AC/5 had been two tons lighter, generated 3 heat, and had no changes otherwise, it'd at least a useful weapon for 3025. At the very least, it would make sense to carry a medium laser to cover this AC/5's minimum range.

yupper, and since we can't change the weapons physical stats, we can change things like mechanics, damage, range, ammunition loadout.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 29 May 2012, 23:32:12
yupper, and since we can't change the weapons physical stats, we can change things like mechanics, damage, range, ammunition loadout.

Hmm...

New (sorta) Ammo Type: CLUSTER ROUNDS FOR EVERYONE!

Break through in ammo manufacturing allows cluster ammunition to be made for all kinds of autocannon, not just the LBX series. For single shot ACs, cluster ammo behaves just like they do for LBX weapons. For ACs that fire multiples shots (Ultras, RACs), determine how many shots hit as normal and then treat each actual hit as a cluster hit of appropriate damage points.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 30 May 2012, 00:47:01
Hmm...

New (sorta) Ammo Type: CLUSTER ROUNDS FOR EVERYONE!

Break through in ammo manufacturing allows cluster ammunition to be made for all kinds of autocannon, not just the LBX series. For single shot ACs, cluster ammo behaves just like they do for LBX weapons. For ACs that fire multiples shots (Ultras, RACs), determine how many shots hit as normal and then treat each actual hit as a cluster hit of appropriate damage points.

HAHA! Funny.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: A. Lurker on 30 May 2012, 02:19:21
...actually, making cluster rounds available to standard and light autocannons at least doesn't sound like such a bad idea. They already have the most flexibility in terms of ammo selection, might as well throw cluster into the mix as well. And LB-X ACs would still have their superior range brackets over them.

I'd be more wary of allowing ultra and rotary ACs access to special munitions. In-universe, these guns are probably built to some pretty exacting specifications to make their performance even possible, which would complicate the use of alternate munitions right there; in-game, it opens up the can of worms that is mixing multiple ammo types in one burst. But some bright gearhead having a "hey, we've already got AP, precision, flechettes and whatnot working...what's so fundamentally different about cluster, again?" moment with regard to the standard and light models, that I could certainly see.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 30 May 2012, 05:38:46
I still think Ultras should be handled something like the following.

In Star League Era play, they can fire at double rate. Use 2 X ammo. Deal 1.5 X damage to either one or 2 locations (up for debate). Deal 2 X heat. Both "shots" hit if the attack roll is successful.

In Clan Invasion Era they would be considered experimental kind of. Working the way they are written now, as the Successor States were manufacturing inferior firing circuits.

Advance a few years, the circuit is duplicated properly and it goes back to the Star League Era play style.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: adamhowe on 30 May 2012, 05:47:47
I don't see a need to change classic Autocannons, I still like my classic AC/5.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: mutantmagnet on 30 May 2012, 07:25:43
Why?
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: adamhowe on 30 May 2012, 07:27:09
Why what?
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 30 May 2012, 08:19:04
Why what?

Why do you like a weapon that by any standard is a piece of crap?

Even in 3025, I can for the same tonnage come up with weapons or weapon combos that do the exact same thing the AC/5 does or better. And this is before you take the 10 free heat sinks into account. For example:

LRM-10 (5 tons) + Medium Laser (1 ton) + 2 heat sinks = 8 tons of equipment, 1 or 2 overheat (assuming bracket fire), 7.5 average damage beyond 5-6 hexes, and 5 damage from 1 to 4 or 5 hexes. Oh, and the minimum range penalty never drops below +2 because when it does, the laser takes over from the LRM-10 plus the option to alpha for extra damage at the cost of some heat if the situation warrants it.

In the DHS era, the AC/5 comes off looking even WORSE, so much so that even the people in universe are getting rid of them as fast as they can.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: adamhowe on 30 May 2012, 08:31:41
Why do you like a weapon that by any standard is a piece of crap?

Even in 3025, I can for the same tonnage come up with weapons or weapon combos that do the exact same thing the AC/5 does or better. And this is before you take the 10 free heat sinks into account. For example:

LRM-10 (5 tons) + Medium Laser (1 ton) + 2 heat sinks = 8 tons of equipment, 1 or 2 overheat (assuming bracket fire), 7.5 average damage beyond 5-6 hexes, and 5 damage from 1 to 4 or 5 hexes. Oh, and the minimum range penalty never drops below +2 because when it does, the laser takes over from the LRM-10 plus the option to alpha for extra damage at the cost of some heat if the situation warrants it.

In the DHS era, the AC/5 comes off looking even WORSE, so much so that even the people in universe are getting rid of them as fast as they can.

It is a piece of crap in your opinion, I do not play accountanttech.  I like the AC/5 for the range it has and it does decent damage.  My favorite mech in the game is the Dragon DRG-1N.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 30 May 2012, 08:43:40
It is a piece of crap in your opinion, I do not play accountanttech.  I like the AC/5 for the range it has and it does decent damage.  My favorite mech in the game is the Dragon DRG-1N.

The LRM-10 has better range and better damage. 2 LRM-5s do the same damage as the -10 but more spread out and free up an extra ton for another heat sink.

A PPC (you know, the thing the GRAND Dragon replaced the AC/5 with?) does double the damage for less tonnage in an identical range bracket. Even without DHS, the PPC frees up a couple spare tons for extra sinks for the Dragon's LRM-10. And since the PPC uses no ammo, you can fire it all day even on bad TNs and conserve LRM ammo for the good shots.

And of course in the DHS era, things like the Light PPC totally obsolete the vanilla AC/5.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: adamhowe on 30 May 2012, 08:46:49
The LRM-10 has better range and better damage. 2 LRM-5s do the same damage as the -10 but more spread out and free up an extra ton for another heat sink.

A PPC (you know, the thing the GRAND Dragon replaced the AC/5 with?) does double the damage for less tonnage in an identical range bracket. Even without DHS, the PPC frees up a couple spare tons for extra sinks for the Dragon's LRM-10. And since the PPC uses no ammo, you can fire it all day even on bad TNs and conserve LRM ammo for the good shots.

And of course in the DHS era, things like the Light PPC totally obsolete the vanilla AC/5.

Like I said, I don't play accountanttech.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Netzilla on 30 May 2012, 09:30:42
Recognizing the inefficiency of the AC is "accounttech"?  If you like the AC for fluff reasons, that's fine and no one should fault you for it.  Plus, you can state so with relying on terms that can be taken in a pejorative fashion. 

However, even without running the numbers yourself, those numbers have been offered by so many people that I don't think you can argue that the inefficiencies don't exist.  So, you can acknowledge those inefficiencies without "playing accounttech", even if they are a non-consideration for you personally.

I suppose the real counter-question would be, what is your opposition to people coming up with ways to compensate for the ACs' inefficiencies?
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: adamhowe on 30 May 2012, 09:33:34
Recognizing the inefficiency of the AC is "accounttech"?  If you like the AC for fluff reasons, that's fine and no one should fault you for it.  Plus, you can state so with relying on terms that can be taken in a pejorative fashion. 

However, even without running the numbers yourself, those numbers have been offered by so many people that I don't think you can argue that the inefficiencies don't exist.  So, you can acknowledge those inefficiencies without "playing accounttech", even if they are a non-consideration for you personally.

I suppose the real counter-question would be, what is your opposition to people coming up with ways to compensate for the ACs' inefficiencies?

Stating it is inefficient is not a problem, lecturing me on why I shouldn't use it at all is accountanttech.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Sabelkatten on 30 May 2012, 09:55:06
Stating it is inefficient is not a problem, lecturing me on why I shouldn't use it at all is accountanttech.
Nobody's lectured you on why shouldn't use it. Netzilla even told you why you should use it!

But everyone's told you why it's a crap weapon, wanting to know your reason to use it despite that. A logical question given that your opening post was this:

I don't see a need to change classic Autocannons, I still like my classic AC/5.
Which obviously questions the statement that ACs in general (and AC/5s in particular) suck, but doesn't give any reason for that.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Orin J. on 30 May 2012, 10:10:07
adamhowe's goal is obvious.

anyways, on a 'mech the value of an autocannon isn't how it performs solo, but how it performs in the weapons package of the 'mech as a whole. it's nice to say "PPC and the sinks to cover it" when you're looking at the abstract but you may not have the crits for it and you may not be able to count on your heat scale being left alone.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Charlie Tango on 30 May 2012, 10:39:03
 [copper]

Ok folks... getting a little heated in here.  Let's take it down a notch, OK?

/   [copper]
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 30 May 2012, 11:05:39
[copper]

Ok folks... getting a little heated in here.  Let's take it down a notch, OK?

/   [copper]

[snark]Well obviously we're never going to get any heat from the AC/5. [/snark]  ;)

Seriously though, the AC/5 is such a crap weapon that the people IN-universe recognize it as such because there's a glut of used ones on the Inner Sphere weapons market from everyone upgrading to something else.

IIRC, the only reason AC/5s were used so much prior to the Clan invasion was because there was a shortage of energy weapons (tech slide and all) and ACs were easier to make, so people had to use whatever was available.

Which doesn't mean I wouldn't upgrade to something better if I could. Like the LRM-10 which I ALSO consider a shit weapon, but it's only a shit weapon compared to the other LRM launchers since it's the most inefficient of the bunch. The AC/5 compares poorly to EVERYTHING. Even the AC/2 has more utility (longest reaching weapon in 3025, extremely high tonnage to crit ratio in post 3050).
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Netzilla on 30 May 2012, 11:25:31
anyways, on a 'mech the value of an autocannon isn't how it performs solo, but how it performs in the weapons package of the 'mech as a whole. it's nice to say "PPC and the sinks to cover it" when you're looking at the abstract but you may not have the crits for it and you may not be able to count on your heat scale being left alone.

Well, I did talk about crit space in my reply and did acknowledge it as something that can shift the AC back to being a viable alternative.  However, in current 3025 play (without DHS, Ferro or Endo), crit space isn't often an issue.  Post CI, crit space becomes more of an issue, but the other weakness of the vanilla ACs become even more pronounced, so the net result is that they end up being even worse off.

As to the heat scale, that's really a matter more for how close to the edge your design runs.  If you go a primarily AC load-out, then you can end up with a lot of leeway, even just using 10 engine-packed SHS.  Of course, I think the downsides out-weight that.  Besides that, most designs run pretty close to the edge on heat whether they rely on energy, missile or ballistic weapons.

A classic example is the Rifleman.  2 AC5s + 1 Ton ammo + 2 LL + 2 ML.  If you pull out the 2 AC5s you can put in a single PPC with enough HS to be able to fire the PPC + 1 LL for the same max damage as 2 AC5s + 1 LL at the same range but with better damage concentration and you can do it more than 10 times.  In close, you'll have enough HS to fire both LLs + 1 ML for 1 excess heat or 1 LL and both MLs and still have heat to spare.

I don't know of an AC-based design that can't be improved by switching it to an energy-based load-out.  Now, if energy weapons aren't available due to expense, rarity, etc, then it can probably still be improved by switching to missile weapons as evilauthor has pointed out.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: va_wanderer on 30 May 2012, 12:41:11
A classic example is the Rifleman.  2 AC5s + 1 Ton ammo + 2 LL + 2 ML.  If you pull out the 2 AC5s you can put in a single PPC with enough HS to be able to fire the PPC + 1 LL for the same max damage as 2 AC5s + 1 LL at the same range but with better damage concentration and you can do it more than 10 times.  In close, you'll have enough HS to fire both LLs + 1 ML for 1 excess heat or 1 LL and both MLs and still have heat to spare.

I don't know of an AC-based design that can't be improved by switching it to an energy-based load-out.  Now, if energy weapons aren't available due to expense, rarity, etc, then it can probably still be improved by switching to missile weapons as evilauthor has pointed out.

One that's designed to shoot aircraft or fast-moving targets, which ironically the Rifleman is a poster child for AA duty. Flak loaded AC's are the most accurate fighter-killers in the game along with LB-X and other cluster munition weapons. The sin in the eyes of most BT players is the AC's avenue of superiority is a very narrow one indeed, and one defined specifically by it's munition load- and that superior munitions require even more tonnage, something missile launchers seem to have missed out on for some odd reason.

Any "fixes" for the AC will have to march along that same road of what we're loading in the gun- which is where precision and AP rounds came in, but IMHO have been only the first steps in what should be better rounds for older guns to "keep up".
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Netzilla on 30 May 2012, 14:50:26
One that's designed to shoot aircraft or fast-moving targets, which ironically the Rifleman is a poster child for AA duty. Flak loaded AC's are the most accurate fighter-killers in the game along with LB-X and other cluster munition weapons. The sin in the eyes of most BT players is the AC's avenue of superiority is a very narrow one indeed, and one defined specifically by it's munition load- and that superior munitions require even more tonnage, something missile launchers seem to have missed out on for some odd reason.

Any "fixes" for the AC will have to march along that same road of what we're loading in the gun- which is where precision and AP rounds came in, but IMHO have been only the first steps in what should be better rounds for older guns to "keep up".

Well, for AC Flak, that assumes you're using TacOps (and I do like most of TacOps, including most of the specialty ammos).  However, most other specialty rounds having only half the ammo capacity hurts quite a bit.  Even if you fix that, designs either need several tons of ammo to handle a variety of situations (with the classic RFL-3N does not) or you risk showing up with the wrong type of ammo.  As you mention, the advantage of specialty AC ammo tends to apply in a fairly narrow set of circumstances and if you're caught out with the wrong ammo, you can end up really screwed.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: va_wanderer on 30 May 2012, 17:26:24
Well, for AC Flak, that assumes you're using TacOps (and I do like most of TacOps, including most of the specialty ammos).  However, most other specialty rounds having only half the ammo capacity hurts quite a bit.  Even if you fix that, designs either need several tons of ammo to handle a variety of situations (with the classic RFL-3N does not) or you risk showing up with the wrong type of ammo.  As you mention, the advantage of specialty AC ammo tends to apply in a fairly narrow set of circumstances and if you're caught out with the wrong ammo, you can end up really screwed.

And that most specialty ammo that has even a chance of broader application gets hosed by it's half-load penalty. But it's the road to making autocannons match up with other weapons. Give them improved tournament-legal munitions and you give the autocannon a fair shake.

(Being able to do half-ton allotments of AC ammo would also be pretty darn nice and minimally painful for the purposes of record sheets everywhere.)
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: mutantmagnet on 30 May 2012, 18:09:19
[snark]Well obviously we're never going to get any heat from the AC/5. [/snark]  ;)

Seriously though, the AC/5 is such a crap weapon that the people IN-universe recognize it as such because there's a glut of used ones on the Inner Sphere weapons market from everyone upgrading to something else.

IIRC, the only reason AC/5s were used so much prior to the Clan invasion was because there was a shortage of energy weapons (tech slide and all) and ACs were easier to make, so people had to use whatever was available.


Actually you are wrong. The AC 5 is so bad it is rarer than PPCs and LRMs in-spite of it having a lower or the same tech rating. The AC 5 has an availability rating that makes it rarer than all of the other 3025 ACs.


I don't know of an AC-based design that can't be improved by switching it to an energy-based load-out.  Now, if energy weapons aren't available due to expense, rarity, etc, then it can probably still be improved by switching to missile weapons as evilauthor has pointed out.

Trebuchet 7K has no peer for the damage profile it has with its movement rating, and it uses an AC 5. It's the only AC 5 design that isn't garbage.

As for other designs that use autocannons you would still be wrong. As deeply flawed as Autocannons are you can make a few designs that can't be outperformed with energy weapons. The number of useful designs are simply much lower.

The Devestator and Hammerhands are among the best uses of Autocannons.

The unofficial battletechnology Turbo Hunchback is the best mobile autocannon.

The Clint comes very close to being a 3025 precrusor to the Wraith but it simply lacks the ammo.


Speaking of which, one of my fixes for the AC 5 and 2 is to make them vastly more ammo efficient. The AC5 should get 30 shots per ton and the AC 2, 90 shots. The best part about this change is that record sheets in terms of BV or tonnage or crits don't need to change.
By making them more ammo efficient at the Starleague level we would fix a lot of problems as technology improves into the 3080s.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 30 May 2012, 20:15:27
Actually you are wrong. The AC 5 is so bad it is rarer than PPCs and LRMs in-spite of it having a lower or the same tech rating. The AC 5 has an availability rating that makes it rarer than all of the other 3025 ACs.

What? Seriously? As if the weapon weren't already gimped enough...

Quote
Trebuchet 7K has no peer for the damage profile it has with its movement rating, and it uses an AC 5. It's the only AC 5 design that isn't garbage.

How so?

*Googles Sarna Net Trebuchet*

Let's see... PPC, SRM-2, AC/5... I'm sorry. How is this loadout not garbage given that I can sub in an LRM-10 plus sinks for a better damage at range? You're going to have to explain this one.

Quote
As for other designs that use autocannons you would still be wrong. As deeply flawed as Autocannons are you can make a few designs that can't be outperformed with energy weapons. The number of useful designs are simply much lower.

The Devestator and Hammerhands are among the best uses of Autocannons.

They use AC/10s. Weren't we talking purely about AC/5s? The AC/10 I'll admit has some utility, even in the DHS era (although LB-10X would be better, at least before specialty munitions were introduced).

Quote
The unofficial battletechnology Turbo Hunchback is the best mobile autocannon.

Not listed on Sarna.net's Hunchback page, nor is their a separate page for it. What makes it the best?

Quote
The Clint comes very close to being a 3025 precrusor to the Wraith but it simply lacks the ammo.

1 AC/5 backed by two Medium Lasers? The 3025 Clint is arguably better off replacing the AC/5 with a PPC and extra Medium laser (and bracket firing of course). Of course then it would look sorta like a bigger, nastier Wolfhound.

Quote
Speaking of which, one of my fixes for the AC 5 and 2 is to make them vastly more ammo efficient. The AC5 should get 30 shots per ton and the AC 2, 90 shots. The best part about this change is that record sheets in terms of BV or tonnage or crits don't need to change.

That's great... except I've never heard anyone complain that these guns have too little ammo (unless we're talking about the 3025 Rifleman). The primary complaint is that they do TOO LITTLE damage for the tonnage they cost and have no other benefits that make them worth their weight. Doubling their ammo per ton does precisely zilch to help in that regard. That's why everyone here has been talking about ways to bump their damage or changing/inventing rules to make the lighter ACs more effective.

Quote
By making them more ammo efficient at the Starleague level we would fix a lot of problems as technology improves into the 3080s.

Problems like...

Overweight - doubling the ammo count does not fix the horrible damage to tonnage ratio that the lighter ACs have.

Doing too little damage per turn - this matters because the more damage you throw down range per turn, the faster you can kill your enemy. Conversely, the more damage the enemy throws at you, the faster he can kill you. It becomes a race and between two equally protected enemies, the guy who can sling more damage per turn is more likely to win. Lighter ACs are near automatically fail at this.

Too little heat - This doesn't look like a problem at first, but one of the main culprits for the Autocannon's heavy weight is that they don't generate much heat. They effectively have built in heat sink capacity that they cannot share with other weapons. Being able to share heat sinks is very important, especially when you're pairing long range weapons with minimum ranges (like the lighter ACs) with short range weapons that take over when enemies get inside those minimums. The problem is that all the short range weapons that would cover the lighter ACs' minimum range zones generate more heat than the ACs, which necessitates more heat sinks that the big heavy weapon isn't using, resulting in wasted tonnage compared to say, the PPC/3 Medium laser combo.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Orin J. on 31 May 2012, 00:01:51
i really wish people wouldn't uses the AC/5 to exaggerate their complaints about autocannon quality- it's the worst gun in the autocannon lineup, and it's got a massive pile of competing weapons. we know this. it is not indicative of the rest of the guns. it's the old crotchety senile grandma of the autocannon family, please stop mocking it.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 31 May 2012, 01:41:05
Here's the order of usefulness in my opinion. 1) AC/20 2) AC/2 3) AC/5 ............4) AC/10. I HATE the AC/10. Too heavy. Crappy range. Not enough shots per ton. Too many crits. etc.

Damage and 1/2 number of shots per ton for specialty ammo gimp these guns more than anything else. Range is also pretty horrible.

But yeah, quite frankly anymore, most times I will gladly replace an AC/5 with an AC/2. But then it becomes a plinking game. Not always very fun.

I also cannot leave here without saying that the 3025 Clint is one of my favorite mechs EVAR! Used to do all sorts of things instead of use that AC/5 on it though. Usually involving a PPC. Lately I have been running one in MegaMek that uses an AC/2 instead and it is so cool! Not so effective. Just fun! Now if that little popgun did a bit more damage we would be in business.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Hptm. Streiger on 31 May 2012, 02:02:15
The AC 10 bad?
Ok it depends on the design but really?

Take for example the Zeus... LRM 15, AC 5, Large Laser... a really successful variant of mine trade all these weapons for LRM 20 and AC 10 -> it deals at almost any range more damage
The Catapract...what do you wan't to mount as secondary armament?
The Hoplite with LRM 5 and AC 10 or the UrbanMech with AC 10 are bad - thats right.

I think how usefull a AC is depends on the additional armament. The AC 10 or AC 5 are the worst primary weapons. But they are acceptable secondary weapons.




Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: mutantmagnet on 31 May 2012, 02:30:03
i really wish people wouldn't uses the AC/5 to exaggerate their complaints about autocannon quality- it's the worst gun in the autocannon lineup, and it's got a massive pile of competing weapons. we know this. it is not indicative of the rest of the guns. it's the old crotchety senile grandma of the autocannon family, please stop mocking it.

We aren't mocking it for laughs. There's a bunch of weapons that stand out and irritate us because the game designers try to present so many other weapons as balanced but failed so hard with some obvious lemmings and we want it to be fixed. Whether it is AC 5, Large Pulses, MRMs or VSL Mediums there is going to be those special few that are scorned above all other weapons for their obvious lameness even though they could be tweaked to become more inline with everything else.

This community would need less moderators if there was better game design. (This last statement is snark/ a joke because it is absurdly false)

i really wish people wouldn't uses the AC/5 to exaggerate their complaints about autocannon quality- it's the worst gun in the autocannon lineup, and it's got a massive pile of competing weapons. we know this. it is not indicative of the rest of the guns. it's the old crotchety senile grandma of the autocannon family, please stop mocking it.

What? Seriously? As if the weapon weren't already gimped enough...

How so?

*Googles Sarna Net Trebuchet*

Let's see... PPC, SRM-2, AC/5... I'm sorry. How is this loadout not garbage given that I can sub in an LRM-10 plus sinks for a better damage at range? You're going to have to explain this one.

They use AC/10s. Weren't we talking purely about AC/5s? The AC/10 I'll admit has some utility, even in the DHS era (although LB-10X would be better, at least before specialty munitions were introduced).

Not listed on Sarna.net's Hunchback page, nor is their a separate page for it. What makes it the best?

1 AC/5 backed by two Medium Lasers? The 3025 Clint is arguably better off replacing the AC/5 with a PPC and extra Medium laser (and bracket firing of course). Of course then it would look sorta like a bigger, nastier Wolfhound.



Pumping out ~15 damage at long range while moving 5/8 isn't easy. The 7K has a good balance of heat management, and under reliance on ammo to make it the only credible AC 5 design compared to other weapon compositions that attempt to fill that damage output with that movement rating.

Netzilla made a blanket statement about all ACs which deserved a rebuttal.

The Turbo Hunchback upgrades the engine to 5/8 and takes out the mediums for a small laser. It's the most fun I've ever had with an AC 20.

I compared the Clint to the Wraith. You can't run without overheating with PPCs for many designs in that era. The Clint has heatsinks to spare after it jumps and fires its autocannon. You can't do what the Clint attempted to do with energy weapons. It still fails at what it tried to do but I see it was the closest thing to what a Level 1 tech Wraith would've been like when you consider the limitations of the technology at that level.


Quote
That's great... except I've never heard anyone complain that these guns have too little ammo (unless we're talking about the 3025 Rifleman). The primary complaint is that they do TOO LITTLE damage for the tonnage they cost and have no other benefits that make them worth their weight. Doubling their ammo per ton does precisely zilch to help in that regard. That's why everyone here has been talking about ways to bump their damage or changing/inventing rules to make the lighter ACs more effective.

Problems like...

Overweight - doubling the ammo count does not fix the horrible damage to tonnage ratio that the lighter ACs have.

Doing too little damage per turn - this matters because the more damage you throw down range per turn, the faster you can kill your enemy. Conversely, the more damage the enemy throws at you, the faster he can kill you. It becomes a race and between two equally protected enemies, the guy who can sling more damage per turn is more likely to win. Lighter ACs are near automatically fail at this.

Too little heat - This doesn't look like a problem at first, but one of the main culprits for the Autocannon's heavy weight is that they don't generate much heat. They effectively have built in heat sink capacity that they cannot share with other weapons. Being able to share heat sinks is very important, especially when you're pairing long range weapons with minimum ranges (like the lighter ACs) with short range weapons that take over when enemies get inside those minimums. The problem is that all the short range weapons that would cover the lighter ACs' minimum range zones generate more heat than the ACs, which necessitates more heat sinks that the big heavy weapon isn't using, resulting in wasted tonnage compared to say, the PPC/3 Medium laser combo.


*shrugs*

The major problem with trying to get ACs fixed are record sheets. Very few people want to do the recalculations caused by tweaking damage, range, etc which are the most popular and simplest requests for change. I doubt anyone who wants to do these changes are collecting a paycheck for the game which makes these types of suggestions a non-starter.

That's half the reason why I approach AC or ballistic weapons with various suggestions for changes like

-Have energy weapons that aren't small or micro overheat if you aren't heat neutral at the end of your turn
-have ACs walk fire across targets dividing their damage (rounded up) but getting better targeting numbers with each division
-have ballistics simply go through woods and walls without penalty and even capable of hitting
-ballistics cause knockdown damage (my lamest suggestion)
-ballistics roll for new targets in their line of attack if they miss the previous target (my craziest)

The other half, relates to how you and I think on the same wavelength that ballistics in general are deeply flawed because at a fundamental level they don't have unique attributes like energy weapons or missiles as a weapon class.


Improved ammo is just another in a long list of suggestions I made over the years. But it is a bandaid only for AC 5s and 2s instead of the ballistics class.

It works because part of the problem for all ammo consuming weapons is how they must allocate weight to get an adequate amount of firing capacity.

At the 3025 level it doesn't help as much but it doesn't hinder existing or customs designs either.
At the post invasion level the benefits become more obvious.
You have to spend less tonnage on RACs.
Specialty ammo efficiency has been improved by 100%.
Designs that try to mount multiple AC 2s and 5s aren't starved for ammo.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Hptm. Streiger on 31 May 2012, 03:54:44
-Have energy weapons that aren't small or micro overheat if you aren't heat neutral at the end of your turn
-have ACs walk fire across targets dividing their damage (rounded up) but getting better targeting numbers with each division
-have ballistics simply go through woods and walls without penalty and even capable of hitting

This wouldn't have a impact on BV so a good idea. Drawback it increased the necessary micromanagement to run a round.
Really like the idea with less reduced damage when shoting through woods and walls... O0
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Sabelkatten on 31 May 2012, 04:43:20
This wouldn't have a impact on BV so a good idea. Drawback it increased the necessary micromanagement to run a round.
Really like the idea with less reduced damage when shoting through woods and walls... O0
Actually, all those things (except, possibly, depending on how it's implemented the second) should increase BV. Weapon advantages/limitations other than range and damage are part of BV - it's just that the official system is badly designed and usually doesn't assign a realistic number to them.

To put it simply, improving ACs in any way should increase the BV. Because, you know, it would be an improvement!
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: va_wanderer on 31 May 2012, 09:31:17
4) AC/10. I HATE the AC/10. Too heavy. Crappy range. Not enough shots per ton. Too many crits. etc.

It's notable that the only straight-up-better-in-all-things LB-X autocannon is...the LB-10X.  Smaller, lighter, better range, less heat AND it gets the wonders of cluster munitions without any specialty ammo "penalty".

All the other ones are at least modestly bulkier (though except for the IS -20X this usually isn't a huge problem), but apparently the /10 was the one they could really do better with in every way....oh, and then they made a heat-up version of the AC/10 and called it "Plasma Rifle". :P
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Terrion on 31 May 2012, 09:48:55
Pumping out ~15 damage at long range while moving 5/8 isn't easy. The 7K has a good balance of heat management, and under reliance on ammo to make it the only credible AC 5 design compared to other weapon compositions that attempt to fill that damage output with that movement rating.


The Trbuchet -5N already averages 19 damage at range, albeit with a shortage of ammo. The Griffin beats the -7k as well, and does it with more armor and a better movement profile to boot.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Nahuris on 31 May 2012, 10:31:26
i like this, mainly because the half-ammo limitation for most specialty munitions has proved to be overkill as a balancing tool. there's just not nearly enough 'mechs able to afford spending a ton on a half-ton of ammo for their guns, so few situations crop up where picking those ammo types doesn't mean you're going to be running dry halfway through a fight. and noone's willing to risk that.
 
i don't like the idea of an universal improved munition myself, mostly because the jamming/circuit failure isn't a result of the ammo itself but the gun pushing what it's capable of to achieve it's firing rate. there's also the fact that your idea turns the AC/10s into headcappers, which is a pretty big change to me.

an improved (production quality) HVAC Ammo with no more fouling rate would be nice though.
yikes. as much as part of me likes the idea of hosing an area with specialty ammo, that would be far too big a buff to be fair in any way. an ultra 10-20 doubletapping on AP is going to tear 'mechs a excessively generous CASE venting and a RAC-5 with precision ammo is frightening to think about pulling on lights/hovers.

HVACs get their extra oomh by using a different propulsion mix, but i'd think that giving them AP and maybe some other types wouldn't be out of place- HV-Flak ammo sounds like it might be nice....

The AC/10 has always been a potential headcapper, same as the PPC.... heads only have 9 points of armor... meaning that any hit that does 10 or more gets a crit roll.......
I've killed more people with cockpit hits than I ever have by using weapons that do 12 or more and just blowing the head off.

Nahuris
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: A. Lurker on 31 May 2012, 10:34:17
I've killed more people with cockpit hits than I ever have by using weapons that do 12 or more and just blowing the head off.

Considering that every headcap automatically includes a cockpit hit but not every cockpit hit results from a headcap, that's kind of an easy claim to make. ;)
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Nahuris on 31 May 2012, 11:08:30
i really wish people wouldn't uses the AC/5 to exaggerate their complaints about autocannon quality- it's the worst gun in the autocannon lineup, and it's got a massive pile of competing weapons. we know this. it is not indicative of the rest of the guns. it's the old crotchety senile grandma of the autocannon family, please stop mocking it.

My issue with AC's as a whole is that all of them are gimped in such a way, as to keep the AC/5 relevant with the rest.
We know that the AC/5 is outdated ... that's cool, every mech that comes with one has a variant that yanks it, so you can avoid the waste, and still play canon units only games. However, any new AC's or ammor, or anything else that might, even by accident, improve AC's is automatically heavily penalized to make sure that it is never better than the lowly AC/5.

Now that we have Light PPC's.... especially with double heat sinks, there is no reason to bother with the AC/5 at all......
We have new beam weapons, we have ELRM's.... but when it comes to balllistics..... TPTB seem to have the attitude that we should either like it, or learn to like it.....

Don't get me wrong, I like autocannons, but I also recognize that they do nothing that other weapons do not do better

Nahuris
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Nahuris on 31 May 2012, 11:17:33
Considering that every headcap automatically includes a cockpit hit but not every cockpit hit results from a headcap, that's kind of an easy claim to make. ;)

Yeah....
However, I've done a lot more hits with PPC's, AC/10's, or even paired medium lasers that have resulted in a cockpit hit, without totally destroying the head... than I have totally destroyed the head with Gauss, HPPC's or AC/20's.
I tend to not like clan combat as much, so have even less results from CERPPC's.

Nahuris
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 31 May 2012, 11:56:53
The AC/10 has always been a potential headcapper, same as the PPC.... heads only have 9 points of armor... meaning that any hit that does 10 or more gets a crit roll.......
I've killed more people with cockpit hits than I ever have by using weapons that do 12 or more and just blowing the head off.

Nahuris

Ah yes thanks. I was wondering why I thought 12 ton weapon that does 10 points of damage was acceptable while an 8 ton weapon that did only 5 was not. I was beginning to think it was pure psych value of doing a two digit number damage over a single digit, but you pretty much laid my concerns there to rest.

Hmm... how about a back handed way to "fix" Autocannons... by doing nothing to the Autocannon, but introduce new technologies that neuter the other weapon types?

Reflec armor is perfected and becomes the new standard. This outright halves the damage from all energy weapon attacks, but is neither extra vulnerable nor extra resistant to other damage types.

Imrpoved AMS does everything AMS does but better. And with more ammo.

A Blue Shield variant that deflects (ie, gives targeting penalties) Gauss fire... and possibly PPC fire too.

But Autocannon? Except for the heaviest, Autocannons weren't considered a big threat, so new technology that works against them specifically. But with the other weapons neutered by newer technology, everyone starts packing Autocannons again...


Oooh, idea!

One of the complaints I've had about ACs is how they don't "share" heat sink capacity, making them grossly overweight for their damage. But what if someone designed a new AC with heat sinks integrated into them? NOT because the ACs actually need additional heat dissipation ability, but because their nice long barrels make for a lovely place to put heat radiators? Would ACs look better if they provided NEGATIVE net heat build up?

Radiator Fins - Coolant lines that run the exterior length of ballistic weapon barrels, these lines use this extensive surface area to aid in dissipating excess heat from a mech. Radiator Fins are an aftermarket addition that can be fitted to any ballistic weapon

Radiator Fins take up 1 ton and 1 crit and must be placed in the same location as the weapon they are attached to. During combat, Radiator Fins adds to the mech's overall heat sink capacity; the added heat sink capacity is equal to the attached weapon's crits. An AC/5 with Radiator Fins would provide -4 heat for only 1 ton and 1 crit spent. When the ballistic weapon is fired, it still generates heat as normal, but this does not disrupt the operation of the Radiator Fins.

If a weapon with attached Radiator Fins suffers a critical hit, that weapon's Radiator Fins ceases provide any cooling benefits in addition to the weapon becoming unusable. OTOH, if the Radiator Fin crit is hit but the weapon is not, the Radiator Fins will still stop providing any benefits, but the weapon it is attached to will continue the function.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Terrion on 31 May 2012, 12:33:50
Hmm... how about a back handed way to "fix" Autocannons... by doing nothing to the Autocannon, but introduce new technologies that neuter the other weapon types?

Reflec armor is perfected and becomes the new standard. This outright halves the damage from all energy weapon attacks, but is neither extra vulnerable nor extra resistant to other damage types.

Imrpoved AMS does everything AMS does but better. And with more ammo.

A Blue Shield variant that deflects (ie, gives targeting penalties) Gauss fire... and possibly PPC fire too.

Trying to fix 4 weapons by "neutering" 11 seems backwards. The mere fact that you have to nerf essentially everything else to bring autocannons in line suggests to me that it's the ACs that should be fixed. (AMS actually could use an improvement IMO, but that's a result of it's own questionable merits rather than missile/AC balance.)

RE Ultras: they always semm to fluffed as infighting weapons, but the rules don't really support that in any particular way. What about a bonus to the cluster table at medium/short range? It would make sense in-universe (less distance = lower spread). MCould apply it to LB cluster rounds as well, if you think those need improving.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Netzilla on 31 May 2012, 15:15:00
Netzilla made a blanket statement about all ACs which deserved a rebuttal.

I don't know of an AC-based design that can't be improved by switching it to an energy-based load-out.  Now, if energy weapons aren't available due to expense, rarity, etc, then it can probably still be improved by switching to missile weapons as evilauthor has pointed out.

First off by AC-based, I mean that the AC is part of its primary armament, not a backup or secondary weapon.  Secondly, I stated that 'I didn't know of...'  I don't claim to know of every design that exists.  Of the ones you mentioned, the Treb 7K and Devestator I was unfamiliar with and while I've heard of the Turbo Hunchback I don't have the stats for it.

Now, taking each of your counter-examples in turn:

The Treb 7K:  I would argue that the AC5 is actually a secondary weapon, the primary being the PPC.  However, that can be debated as the design has just enough heat sinks to be able to fire both the PPC and AC5 at a standstil for no net heat.  Overall, the design produces 2 excess heat on an alpha.  If I yank out the AC5 and ammo, it's hard to come up with an energy-based design that still maintains the exact same heat curve.  I can switch to a LL to get +3 damage at ranges 0-15 for a cost of -5 damage at ranges 16-18 and +2 excess heat (total of 4 on an alpha).  Combined with the lack of an ammo bomb and being able to make more than 20 shots, it seems like a better than even trade to me.  Another option is go trade in the AC5+Ammo for an LRM10 + 2 Ammo + 2 Heat Sinks.  You lose damage in the 4-6 range but gain at the 7+ as well as being able to hit all the way out to 21.  Your alpha produces 1 more heat than the 7K's alpha and your max damage (with a lucky cluster roll) has the chance to cause a knockdown which the 7K can't do at any range.  Of course, if you really want to cheese the missile design, use 2 LRM5s + 1 ammo + 4 heat sinks.  Now you alpha for only 1 extra heat, which is less than the alpha of the 1K.

The Devastator: I assume you mean the 1D.  As it stands, it alphas for 34 heat with 15 heat sinks, for an excess of 19.  I can yank out the 2 AC10s plus ammo and put in 2 PPCs and 14 heat sinks.  It now alphas for 48 heat with 29 sinks, for an excess of 19.  It does less damage at 1-3 but can reach ranges 16-18 as well as the advantages of longer short and medium ranges.

The Hammerhands: I assume you mean the 3D.  This one alphas for 16 heat vs 13 sinks, for an excess of 3.  Once again, yanking out the ACs and ammo gets me 2 PPCs and 14 heat sinks.  This is an alpha of 30 heat vs 27 sinks, for an excess of 3.  Basically, it's the same analysis as the Devastator, above.

The Clint: The 3T's alpha is 7 heat vs 10 sinks.  Yank the AC5, ammo and 1 ML and replace with a PPC + 3 sinks and you end up with 13 heat vs 13 sinks.  You gain +5 damage at ranges 10-18, have a better chance to hit for the same damage at ranges 6-9, and lose 5 damage at ranges 1-3.  Again, no ammo bomb and unlimited shots.  Seems like a good trade to me.

Ultimately, what is better can be debatable based on what you value in a design (aesthetics vs fluff vs raw performance), what tactics you prefer (long range sniping, short range brawling, hit-and-fade, etc) and if you're talking campaign play or not (cost and rarity vs ammo expenses and shortages).  The alternative designs I give above do all lose out on close-range brawling ability but perform better as long range snipers, which tends to be my own preferred tactic.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: mutantmagnet on 31 May 2012, 18:08:14
The Trbuchet -5N already averages 19 damage at range, albeit with a shortage of ammo. The Griffin beats the -7k as well, and does it with more armor and a better movement profile to boot.

The Griffin  generates more net-heat which lowers its DPS significantly. The addition of jumpjets and superior armor is a virtue of it being in a heavier chassis that offers an additional 1.5 tons and the sacrifices it makes by not having short ranged weapons.

The 5N as noted lacks longevity at range. It does have better short range offense but that's the trade you make with many designs.



The Devastator: I assume you mean the 1D.  As it stands, it alphas for 34 heat with 15 heat sinks, for an excess of 19.  I can yank out the 2 AC10s plus ammo and put in 2 PPCs and 14 heat sinks.  It now alphas for 48 heat with 29 sinks, for an excess of 19.  It does less damage at 1-3 but can reach ranges 16-18 as well as the advantages of longer short and medium ranges.

The Hammerhands: I assume you mean the 3D.  This one alphas for 16 heat vs 13 sinks, for an excess of 3.  Once again, yanking out the ACs and ammo gets me 2 PPCs and 14 heat sinks.  This is an alpha of 30 heat vs 27 sinks, for an excess of 3.  Basically, it's the same analysis as the Devastator, above.

The Clint: The 3T's alpha is 7 heat vs 10 sinks.  Yank the AC5, ammo and 1 ML and replace with a PPC + 3 sinks and you end up with 13 heat vs 13 sinks.  You gain +5 damage at ranges 10-18, have a better chance to hit for the same damage at ranges 6-9, and lose 5 damage at ranges 1-3.  Again, no ammo bomb and unlimited shots.  Seems like a good trade to me.


I misremembered the design. I was thinking of the Pillager 1N and not the Devastator 1D.


Your hammerhand varient sacrafices short range damage for long range. It's a wash.


You overlooked what I was comparing the Clint to. You can't jump and shoot a large laser let alone a PPC with 3025 mechs unless you like to risk shut down rolls. Regardless I also said the Clint was a poor attempt at being a Wraith. I like it for what it tries to do but I wasn't putting it in the same league as the other autocannon mechs I mentioned.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Alexander Knight on 31 May 2012, 18:23:58
You overlooked what I was comparing the Clint to. You can't jump and shoot a large laser let alone a PPC with 3025 mechs unless you like to risk shut down rolls. Regardless I also said the Clint was a poor attempt at being a Wraith. I like it for what it tries to do but I wasn't putting it in the same league as the other autocannon mechs I mentioned.

I'll remember that when using my VND-1R or PNT-9R.  Or the WVR-6M.  Or the PXH, or the Grasshopper.  Or the TDR-5SE.....
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 31 May 2012, 18:35:55
The Griffin  generates more net-heat which lowers its DPS significantly. The addition of jumpjets and superior armor is a virtue of it being in a heavier chassis that offers an additional 1.5 tons and the sacrifices it makes by not having short ranged weapons.

I'll note this is a problem only if the Griffin decides to stand and slug it out instead of doing such things as jumping behind cover to cool off. DPS only matters when mechs are actually shooting at each other. If line of sight gets broken on a regular basis like when the Griffin overheats, then DPS for both is exactly zero. The only DPS that really matters is when the two mechs have line of sight on each other.

Of course, jumping makes targeting more difficult for both sides, but the energy armed Griffin doesn't really care about wasting ammo now.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 31 May 2012, 18:45:32
It's notable that the only straight-up-better-in-all-things LB-X autocannon is...the LB-10X.  Smaller, lighter, better range, less heat AND it gets the wonders of cluster munitions without any specialty ammo "penalty".

All the other ones are at least modestly bulkier (though except for the IS -20X this usually isn't a huge problem), but apparently the /10 was the one they could really do better with in every way....oh, and then they made a heat-up version of the AC/10 and called it "Plasma Rifle". :P

really good points on that. Why can they do better with that one and not the rest of the LB/Ultra seriies? Why, when they had the chance to make Light AC's better... didn't they? I mean, that could have been one really cool way the Inner Sphere had a slight edge on the Clans! Lighter-standard AC's that could use all the cool ammunition that the clans didn't have access to. Instead, we got smaller and lighter piles of crap. Oh sure, the minimum ranges are gone... but what happened at the other end? "Oh. Prison rules buddy. You brought an AC to a Laser/Missile/PPC fight. Bight the pillow."  :'(
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Sabelkatten on 01 June 2012, 03:19:14
I misremembered the design. I was thinking of the Pillager 1N and not the Devastator 1D.


Your hammerhand varient sacrafices short range damage for long range. It's a wash.

In both those cases switching to PPCs also:

- Reduce/remove the risk of ammo explosions.

- Increase endurance.

- Increase staying power by better crit packing.

- Reduce vulnerability to external heat effects and engine crits.

You overlooked what I was comparing the Clint to. You can't jump and shoot a large laser let alone a PPC with 3025 mechs unless you like to risk shut down rolls. Regardless I also said the Clint was a poor attempt at being a Wraith. I like it for what it tries to do but I wasn't putting it in the same league as the other autocannon mechs I mentioned.
With 13 SHS the PPC Clint would only have to drop its PPC every 3rd turn when jumping, which still gives it a better average damage than the standard Clint's AC. If it stays on the ground most of the time it could fire every turn for twice the damage.

The only place it fails is a jumping fight at close range where the AC Clint comes out ahead.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Hptm. Streiger on 01 June 2012, 04:22:16
really good points on that. Why can they do better with that one and not the rest of the LB/Ultra seriies? Why, when they had the chance to make Light AC's better... didn't they? I mean, that could have been one really cool way the Inner Sphere had a slight edge on the Clans! Lighter-standard AC's that could use all the cool ammunition that the clans didn't have access to. Instead, we got smaller and lighter piles of crap. Oh sure, the minimum ranges are gone... but what happened at the other end? "Oh. Prison rules buddy. You brought an AC to a Laser/Missile/PPC fight. Bight the pillow."  :'(

The Axeman 4D? with its 4 LAC 5 linked to a target computer is a average capable light mech bruiser - but thats it. Seldom saw a usefull design with Light ACs

However when ever i see some designs with AC 5 class cannons i start to wonder if the AC had once different rules.
The Shadow Hawk has toy guns only
The CTF-3D is a real curious one... a Ultra 5 instead of a PPC and because of the additional weight a XL-Fusion? I don't get it -> for normal TT it wont work.
Considering other rule sets where the RoF is used the conversation however seems to be useable
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: mutantmagnet on 01 June 2012, 06:34:54
In both those cases switching to PPCs also:

- Reduce/remove the risk of ammo explosions.

- Increase endurance.

- Increase staying power by better crit packing.

- Reduce vulnerability to external heat effects and engine crits.
One can move around the ammo in the first place and minimize the risk the explosions chance which is the primary reason you want to critpack when you can.

An energy weapon design is going to have serious issues with external heat as well since the number of usable weapons without overheating will limit you.

In this case the PPC version is still going to be better since it has reached that tonnage where it can carry enough heatsinks to absorb external heat which just highlights a complaint I've had when people say Autocannons run cooler when in reality they are just as susceptible to effects of overheating when you look at all the circumstances. This is partly why I thought of that idea that energy weapons needed to overheat if the mech wasn't heat neutral.


Engine crits are definitely a bigger threat for the AC Hammerhand because with the crit packing of the PPC version there is much less chance a crit will carry through from the side and once one side torso is removed the weapons on that side aren't usable.

Keep in mind the Pillager uses twin AC 20s so PPCs don't cover the same type of space control. You have to use medium laser spam.

Quote
With 13 SHS the PPC Clint would only have to drop its PPC every 3rd turn when jumping, which still gives it a better average damage than the standard Clint's AC. If it stays on the ground most of the time it could fire every turn for twice the damage.

The only place it fails is a jumping fight at close range where the AC Clint comes out ahead.
I would do it every 4th turn with that setup. Otehr than that point conceded.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: CloaknDagger on 01 June 2012, 07:32:02
What about this:

Autocannons can fire as many times in a turn as you want. Every second shot and above gets a stacking targeting modifier from the previous shots. 

AC20, +4
AC10, +3
AC5, +2
AC2, +1

UACs don't get the firing modifier until the SECOND shot.

I think this is self-balancing. Accuracy puts hard limits on damage, Ammo consumption puts hard limits on how much you can fire/oh god your entire mech is explosive! Accuracy modifiers make targeting computers useful. Heat makes heat sinks important and bracketing possible.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 02 June 2012, 13:55:23
soooo what makes things useful?

Range, damage, ammunition efficiency, heat efficiency, accuracy, unique abilities (like flak etc).

what if we did something like; a standard AC deals its standard damage plus heat damage equal to the heat it inflicts on the firer? Would this be overpowered? Understandable if "yes". However it gives us a simple baseline to work from. What if, instead of dealing heat damage, they did as some have already suggested, and added impact. Or the ability to knock over opponents? Cool verses mechs and VTOLs, but not very effective against a tank. Definitely good against ASFs. Again. Too powerful? Not enough? What if it was kept even simpler? What if damage was increased across the board? There isn't enough return on the weight used until you get to the 20 Class. On that note, does the 20 Class even need improvement? Personally I say "yes". At least ammunition-wise. More specifically, shots per ton. But am I wrong?
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Charlie Tango on 02 June 2012, 14:52:22

Aw, just upgrade everything to Gauss Cannons  (http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=2963)and it will all be fine...   ;D
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Sandslice on 02 June 2012, 19:05:29
The Axeman 4D? with its 4 LAC 5 linked to a target computer is a average capable light mech bruiser - but thats it. Seldom saw a usefull design with Light ACs

However when ever i see some designs with AC 5 class cannons i start to wonder if the AC had once different rules.
The Solaris VII boxed set had different rules (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/%27Mech_Duel_Rules) for duelling.  In short, a turn was 2,5 seconds instead of 10, which led to several changes.  Among these were greatly increased heat for all weapons (4x, in fact,) and recharge time (http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/6776-a-different-way-to-handle-acs/page__st__80__p__199548#entry199548) on weapons.  The heat scale also compensated for the massive heat spikes.

What made the ACs competitive in S7 was the reload advantage.  The AC/2 could fire every Solaris turn vs. the every third turn of the ER Large Laser - a definite advantage, especially given the ammo bin on the AC.  The AC/5 was twice as fast as the PPC, making the two quite competitive.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 02 June 2012, 22:07:04
The Solaris VII boxed set had different rules (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/%27Mech_Duel_Rules) for duelling.  In short, a turn was 2,5 seconds instead of 10, which led to several changes.  Among these were greatly increased heat for all weapons (4x, in fact,) and recharge time (http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/6776-a-different-way-to-handle-acs/page__st__80__p__199548#entry199548) on weapons.  The heat scale also compensated for the massive heat spikes.

What made the ACs competitive in S7 was the reload advantage.  The AC/2 could fire every Solaris turn vs. the every third turn of the ER Large Laser - a definite advantage, especially given the ammo bin on the AC.  The AC/5 was twice as fast as the PPC, making the two quite competitive.

I miss those rules. :(
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 02 June 2012, 22:18:07
I miss those rules. :(

The Solaris 7 rules are IMO the BEST way to fix Autocannons. By implementing some version of the S7's rate of fire rules (like saying weapon X can make Y number of independent attacks per turn in standard play), the standard lighter ACs become very competitive with energy weapons.

At the very least, if Rate of Fire is not made a standard rule, they should be made an optional one.

Also IMO, the S7 rules probably more closely model what actual mech combat like in-universe. What would be a heat neutral design under standard play would be a heat hog under S7 rules, which would probably require radical rethinking of mech designs and load outs on what makes a good mech. Which is probably why they're not even an optional rule.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: va_wanderer on 03 June 2012, 05:09:05
You could "fix" AC's by giving them the equivalent ROF to their Solaris VII rules, and a fire penalty for each shot past the first one (say, +1). Of course, then you'd have to be fair and give that ROF option to everything else that earned it, too. A lot of weapons end up a lot less derpy- even the Charger with it's rack of small lasers!
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Sabelkatten on 03 June 2012, 08:58:35
The problem with the old S7 rules compared to the standard CBT rules (a problem that also exists with AT2 and BF2) is that you're using the same design rules but, essentially, different equipment.

That is, for practical purposes, an AC/5 under S7 rules isn't the same weapon as a standard CBT AC/5!

Of course if you're planning to rework the entire weapon list and changing things completely that's no problem... ::)

But I'm still voting for limited changes to damage, heat and range (plus ammo/ton in some cases). (http://privat.bahnhof.se/wb503046//cbt.html#22)
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 03 June 2012, 10:58:47
The problem with the old S7 rules compared to the standard CBT rules (a problem that also exists with AT2 and BF2) is that you're using the same design rules but, essentially, different equipment.

That is, for practical purposes, an AC/5 under S7 rules isn't the same weapon as a standard CBT AC/5!

Of course if you're planning to rework the entire weapon list and changing things completely that's no problem... ::)

But I'm still voting for limited changes to damage, heat and range (plus ammo/ton in some cases). (http://privat.bahnhof.se/wb503046//cbt.html#22)

At a minimum, you'd be adding one more column to all the weapon stats: a Rate of Fire stat that tells you how often you can use your weapon. Everything else are changes to the combat rules which don't show up on mech or weapon stats.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: mutantmagnet on 03 June 2012, 11:55:11
The minimum would be more involved than that. There already exists a Tacops rule that allows you to fire multiple times but you can jam. Under Solaris you can't jam and the underlying reason for that is the sequence of events.

In S7 turns are 2.5 seconds. In TW turns are ten seconds. To reflect what Solaris did you would have to create and insert multiple attack sequences in the movement phase.

Simply tally up the total number of units for all players and divide by four and round up. That is the number of units that can be moved before you fire a weapon with a certain speed.

After 25% of all units have been moved you can fire Speed 1 weapons and apply damage and heat effects immediately.
After 50% of units have moved you can fire Speed 1 and 2 weapons.
After 75% of units you can choose to use Speed 1 and 3 weapons.
After all units have moved Speed 1, 2 and 4 weapons can be used.

Speed 1
AC2, Machine gun, AMS

Speed 2
Flamer, Medium Laser, SMall laser,small pulse laser,AC 5, AC 10, UAC 5, LBX 10, NArc, SRM 2-6, Streak 2


Speed 3
Large laser, Medium pulse laser, AC 20, Gauss Rifle,LRM 5-20

Speed 4
ER Large laser, ER PPC, PPC, Large pulse laser

Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 03 June 2012, 13:51:21
Yeah, ballistic weapons look like they have alot more utility when they can fire twice as fast as energy weapons over a 10 second period but STILL generate less heat. But their damage over time is now on par with energy weapons on a per tonnage basis. The Mauler with is quad mounted AC/2s? Very very scary.

The only problem I see is that if you still use TW's 10 second rounds, Speed 3 weapons do not splice cleanly into them. Speed 1 weapons can shoot 4 times a round. Speed 2 weapons can fire twice. Speed 4 weapons fire once. But Speed 3 weapons would have to alternate firing twice and once between rounds to properly represent their rate of fire which is going to increase book keeping. If you use a Speed 3 weapon, everyone needs some means of remembering whether or not they double tapped their Speed 3 weapon last round after doing a bunch of other dice rolls, movement actions, and so on.

Edit: If I were to implement a Rate of Fire system with standard 10 second rounds, I'd likely do away with Speed 3 as a category and move the weapons in there to either Speed 2 or Speed 4 as seems appropriate. Most of the heavy hitters like the Gauss and AC/20 can be moved to Speed 4, but the Medium Pulse Laser would be moved to Speed 2; it's already gimped enough without being slower firing too!

I'd also add a Rate of Fire to each weapon. The RoF would be a number representing how many times per 10 second round a weapon can be fired. It would effectively flip the values of S7's Speed ratings. It also would avoid using any partial values that would require extra book keeping like what I said about Speed 3 weapons.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Sandslice on 03 June 2012, 14:04:00
The minimum would be more involved than that. There already exists a Tacops rule that allows you to fire multiple times but you can jam. Under Solaris you can't jam and the underlying reason for that is the sequence of events.

In S7 turns are 2.5 seconds. In TW turns are ten seconds. To reflect what Solaris did you would have to create and insert multiple attack sequences in the movement phase.

To reflect what Solaris did, you'd also insert "partial movement" phases, each 1/4 of the actual movement, between the attack sequences; at that point, however, you're pretty much playing Solaris rules.

Adding S7's rates of fire (at least at the fast speeds) is easy enough for TW's "all of this movement and attacking occurs some time throughout the 10-second turn, and is being abstracted to a move then attack timing for ease of play."  In other words, it's possible for TW to incorporate the idea that jumping 'Mechs are shooting (and being shot at) while airborne, rather than landing first; but the latter is easier to play.  :)

@evilauthor: I'd just say that the 7,5s / 3 turn weapons are 10s / 4 turn weapons.  Given what those weapons are, it doesn't seem to be a problem for them.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 03 June 2012, 14:10:45
Hey, Mutantmagnet, I'm going to make a Design Challenge in the Mech design thread with the assumption that S7 rules are in full effect. Rather than retyping everything, I'm just going to quote your post on the S7 rules in full.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: mutantmagnet on 03 June 2012, 16:18:59
It wouldn't be hard to keep track of S3 weapons. All you need to do is use a check box and pencil or erasable ink.

@Sandslice S3 shouldn't be lumped in with S4. Even if you don't use the checkbox you still are giving certain weapons an advantage in performing damage and generating various effects before S4.

You are right about the quarter speeds and I ignored it for three reasons:

1. Faster weapons will have better targeting modifiers because units haven't fully spent their movement points as intended. This skews weapon balance in a ridiculous and unwanted fashion.

2. You already know the obvious reason that it will dramatically slow down the game. Even megamek would be intolerable with this, I would guess.

3. Solaris was movement was built with arena in mind. A normal btech map is four times the size of a solaris map when you convert it. There seems to be a lot less benefit to bringing in this level of nuance.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 03 June 2012, 17:01:04
It wouldn't be hard to keep track of S3 weapons. All you need to do is use a check box and pencil or erasable ink.

Hmm... might work. It may have to go something like this though:

During Fire Declaration Phase
Box Checked - single attack can be declared only.
Box Unchecked - double attacks are allowed to be declared.

During Fire Resolution Phase
Box Checked - Erase Check
Box Unchecked - Check box only when resolving the second attack.

If followed rigorously, this SHOULD avoid any confusion about whether a weapon is allowed two attacks for a given turn or not. But I still don't like it. While I'd trust a computer program to adhere to these rules, would you trust players to do so in a pencil and paper game?
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: va_wanderer on 03 June 2012, 18:24:38
I honestly wouldn't have problems with a weapon having a ROF of 4,2,or 1- and effectively folding Solaris VII "3" into ROF 1. You'd just have to give all rotary/UAC guns special rules.

However, it'd add a level of complexity that might bog things down completely. Which is a problem with S7 rules, even if they give a big hand to ballistic (and missile) weaponry.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 03 June 2012, 19:02:18
I honestly wouldn't have problems with a weapon having a ROF of 4,2,or 1- and effectively folding Solaris VII "3" into ROF 1. You'd just have to give all rotary/UAC guns special rules.

However, it'd add a level of complexity that might bog things down completely. Which is a problem with S7 rules, even if they give a big hand to ballistic (and missile) weaponry.

The thing is that if you implement RoF in standard 10 second turns, the simplest thing to do would be simply have them make multiple attacks as if you had more than one of those weapons. In game play, what's the difference between a single Medium Laser that shoots twice during one turn, and TWO Medium Lasers that each only fire ONCE during one turn? AFAICT, there'd be no difference at all until the double shooting Medium laser takes a crit.

If a weapon can fire more per turn, just resolve each attack separately as if they were different weapons; it need not be any more complicated than that. And it's not like there's any shortage of mechs with lots of little weapons anyway.

Okay, sure, there'd be a difference in mech construction, but construction is not game play.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: ialdabaoth on 12 June 2012, 22:47:26
The thing is that if you implement RoF in standard 10 second turns, the simplest thing to do would be simply have them make multiple attacks as if you had more than one of those weapons. In game play, what's the difference between a single Medium Laser that shoots twice during one turn, and TWO Medium Lasers that each only fire ONCE during one turn? AFAICT, there'd be no difference at all until the double shooting Medium laser takes a crit.

If a weapon can fire more per turn, just resolve each attack separately as if they were different weapons; it need not be any more complicated than that. And it's not like there's any shortage of mechs with lots of little weapons anyway.

Okay, sure, there'd be a difference in mech construction, but construction is not game play.

We've handled Ultra and Rotary AC in exactly this way, and it works great. Incidentally, just having every shot past the first jam on a to-hit  roll of '2' is almost identical, statistically, to the RAW jam probabilities.

If I were going to fix autocannon, I'd use the following rules:

-"Light" autocannon are renamed "Snub Autocannon", since that's what they really are.
-AC/2 are renamed "Light Autocannon"; AC/5 are renamed "Medium Autocannon" (or just "Autocannon"); AC/10 are renamed "Heavy Autocannon"; AC/20 are renamed "Assault Autocannon". In-character names referring to game-mechanic numbers make my teeth itch.

- All Autocannon use caseless ammo (double listed ammunition per ton), and can be unjammed following Rotary AC rules..

- HV Autocannon have a maximum RoF of 1.
- Standard, Snub and LB-X Autocannon have a maximum RoF of 2.
- Ultra Autocannon have a maximum RoF of 3.
- Rotary Autocannon have a maximum RoF of 6.

The first shot per turn is made as normal; subsequent shots jam on a to-hit roll of '2'.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Sandslice on 12 June 2012, 23:38:00
I always figured that the numbers "in world" stood for some weapon property.  Using old real-world weapons for reference, the German 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 is an 88mm caliber combat vehicle cannon, model number 36, of barrel length 56x its caliber.

The British Ordnance QF 6 Pounder 7cwt is a quick firing (ie, it ejects the shell casing on its own) artillery that fires roughly 6 pound ammunition and has a total gun and barrel weight of 7 long hundredweights, or 355kg.

The AC/x number could refer to a Star League standard caliber, or to the weight of ammo fired per burst (if only AC/2s had 50 shots per ammo-ton instead of the strange 45...)
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: mutantmagnet on 13 June 2012, 02:12:15
Their total ammo was reduced to 45 shots for balance purposes.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: A. Lurker on 13 June 2012, 02:21:58
Their total ammo was reduced to 45 shots for balance purposes.

Because of course an AC/2 with 50 shots to the ton instead of only 45 would be a complete and utter game-breaker, yes. ;)

Really, it's one of those silly decisions from the early days...much like giving the SRM 6 only 90 missiles to the ton because 100 isn't evenly divisible by 6 and 96 / 6 doesn't end in a neat 5 or 0.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 13 June 2012, 08:37:42
I always figured that the numbers "in world" stood for some weapon property.  Using old real-world weapons for reference, the German 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 is an 88mm caliber combat vehicle cannon, model number 36, of barrel length 56x its caliber.

The British Ordnance QF 6 Pounder 7cwt is a quick firing (ie, it ejects the shell casing on its own) artillery that fires roughly 6 pound ammunition and has a total gun and barrel weight of 7 long hundredweights, or 355kg.

The AC/x number could refer to a Star League standard caliber, or to the weight of ammo fired per burst

If the fluff didn't totally contradict it, AC ammo could have been like missile ammo in that all ACs would use the same ammo. There would literally be 100 bullets in a one ton bin and the number on an Autocannon would refer to how many bullets were being used in a single burst.

OTOH, I understand that back in the day when the TRO3025 fluff was being written, it hadn't been clarified yet whether ACs were burst shooters or used semi-auto (one bullet per turn). Hence we have calibers all over the place.

Heck, I still think of LB-X ACs as semi-auto weapons, which hugely explains why burst firing standard ACs can't use LBX ammo.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: AWAD on 14 June 2012, 17:14:12
What about this:

Autocannons can fire as many times in a turn as you want. Every second shot and above gets a stacking targeting modifier from the previous shots. 

AC20, +4
AC10, +3
AC5, +2
AC2, +1

UACs don't get the firing modifier until the SECOND shot.

I think this is self-balancing. Accuracy puts hard limits on damage, Ammo consumption puts hard limits on how much you can fire/oh god your entire mech is explosive! Accuracy modifiers make targeting computers useful. Heat makes heat sinks important and bracketing possible.

I used something similar to that for years, like once the TRO2750 or clans came out.   Most players were good with it. You hit it on the head, you still generate heat and then you blow through ammo something fierce. I hated the roll of an 8, loss less than 50% to hit with two shots so I made Ultra to fire more often. Seemed to be pretty balanced. Until the guy with a 1 gunnery and 4 AC/2 Ultra just rip you apart from across the battlefield.

3. Following Fire for Direct Fire Ballistic Weapons
The following weapons may be fired more than once in a standard BattleTech Round. Following fire does have to be declared at the begining of the round.  All shots must be made at the same target.  Heat must be added up for every shot took at the end of the round.
            Weapons                    1 Shot    2 Shot    3 Shot    4 Shot    5 Shot    6 Shot    7 Shot    8 Shot                               
 AC/2                                          0             +1           +2           +3              -              -              -              -
 AC/5                                          0             +2           +4             -               -              -       -      -
 AC/10                                        0             +3       -       -       -         -       -        -
 AC/20                                        0             +5            -        -         -         -        -      -
 AC/ 2 Ultra                               0              +1           +1           +2            +2          +3            +3           +4
 AC/5  Ultra                               0              +1           +2           +3            +4      -      -      -
 LB Autocannons cannot switch ammo between shots
 LB-10X                                      0              +3            -       -       -      -      -      -
 LB-20X                                      0              +5        -       -       -      -      -      -
 MG                                             0               0             +2          +2             -             -               -               -
 Gauss Rifle                                0               -        -       -       -      -      -      -

AWAD- Real Mean Drive Locusts
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: AWAD on 14 June 2012, 17:17:10
No matter how many years, how many sites, how many forums, there is still an attempt to fix the poor autocannon. Love it.

But one non-combat way I did it in campaigns is I gave laser weapons a huge maintenance multiplier. So no ammo but lots of loving work to keep the crystals aligned and capacitors cleaned.


AWAD- Real Men Avoid the AC 20 and laugh at the AC2
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Nebfer on 02 August 2012, 22:27:19
Well something I have been mulling over, some of these have been seen before...

50-60% more ammo per ton
MG ammo is cut in half
AC-2-  80 shots
AC-5-  32 shots
AC-10- 16 shots
AC-20-  8 shots

Lt Gauss  24 shots
Gauss     12 shots
Hvy Gauss  6 shots
SB Gauss  12 shots

HAG-20 9 shots
HAG-30 6 shots
HAG-40 4 shots

AP Gauss 60 shots
Mag Shot 80 shots

HVAC-2  60 shots
HVAC-5  24 shots
HVAC-10 12 shots

LMG 100 shots
MG  100 shots
HMG  50 shots

PAC-2 60 shots
PAC-4 30 shots
PAC-8 15 shots

For the PSR on 20+ damage, ballistic weapons have a +2 to this effect per ballistic weapon (I.e. a AC-2 would count as having done 4 damage, an AC-20 22 damage).
Silver bullet Gauss is now a true LBX Gauss rifle, capable of switching between regular and "cluster" rounds
AP and precision AC ammo reduce ammo count to original AC ammo values (Ie. 45, 20, 10 and 5 respectively)
Ultra Auto cannons can now be unjammed as per RACs, though for added flavor early models will still "brake" when they jam. So LBXs from 3025 to 3060 will still brake, from 3061 on word they don't, if unsure if it's an older model or not role 1D6 on a role of 3+ it's the older model in 3060, in 3065 4+, 3070 5+ & 3075 6+


How much dose this improve them?
Well I doubt it improves them significantly but I was aiming of not changing much in the way of rules...
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 03 August 2012, 01:18:53
I'm still down with the retroactive renaming to "Light AC" "Medium AC" "Heavy AC" and "Assault AC" :)

the 2-20 naming is weird. I've seen decent reasons for it... but in-game? Hmmm
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Suralin on 03 August 2012, 01:26:45
I'm still down with the retroactive renaming to "Light AC" "Medium AC" "Heavy AC" and "Assault AC" :)

the 2-20 naming is weird. I've seen decent reasons for it... but in-game? Hmmm

That only really works if the canon Light ACs are ignored, tho.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: evilauthor on 03 August 2012, 01:52:10
the 2-20 naming is weird. I've seen decent reasons for it... but in-game? Hmmm

Now that I think about it, those numbers are actually based on the percentage of a ton used with every "shot" an AC fires. There's 100 damage in a ton of AC ammo, so an AC-20 uses 20 percent of that ton every time a trigger is pulled.

Of course, the AC/2 is gimped slightly in that it has 45 "shots" per ton instead of 50...
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: ialdabaoth on 03 August 2012, 02:26:47
That only really works if the canon Light ACs are ignored, tho.

Or renamed to "Snub Light AC" and "Snub AC"

Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Notsonoble on 10 August 2012, 19:44:38
I saw a lot of request for changes to ammunition instead of actually changing the stats for ACs themselves so but not quite what I think would work:

All "standard" A/C ammo has the current effect of Armor Piercing Ammo. AP's ammo modifiers for crits are changed to AC 20 = +1, AC 10 = 0, AC 5 = -1,  AC 2 = -2.

The only thing is this makes the RAC 5 freaking sick.
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Gryphon on 10 August 2012, 19:56:22
Perhaps Rotary ACs use lower pressure ammunition to keep heat and recoil down, so they don't generate the same penetration chances?
Title: Re: Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)
Post by: Cowdragon on 10 August 2012, 21:51:19
also, part of the problem I'm seeing with suggestions to fix the AC's involve way too many new and complicated rules. The fix should be simple and retroactive. As soon as large charts are needed it's too much.