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".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 -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.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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.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...
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...
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...We could base it on keeping the same ammo-explosion damage* across different "calibers."
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?
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,
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 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
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.
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...
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.
I honestly wasn't aware that was a rule. Where is it? Gotta use more of them :)
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.
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
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.
Game RulesI'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...
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.
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
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.
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.
The "AP ammo as standard" idea is an intriguing one, but then we'd have to deal with ammo running out twice as quick...
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.
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
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
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...
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.
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.
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
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
UAC Single Double
--- ------ ------
2 1x2 1x2 + 1x1
5 1x5 2x3
10 1x10 2x8
20 1x20 2x15
UAC Single Double
--- ------ ------
2 1x2 1x2 + 1x1
5 1x5 1x5 + 1x3
10 1x10 1x10 + 1x5
20 1x20 1x20 + 1x10
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why do AC's suck?
I agree, most ACs are still inferior even in 3025 play
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Nobody's lectured you on why shouldn't use it. Netzilla even told you why you should use it!
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.
[copper]
Ok folks... getting a little heated in here. Let's take it down a notch, OK?
/ [copper]
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.
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".
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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-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.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.
Really like the idea with less reduced damage when shoting through woods and walls... O0
4) AC/10. I HATE the AC/10. Too heavy. Crappy range. Not enough shots per ton. Too many crits. etc.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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. ;)
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.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.
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." :'(
In both those cases switching to PPCs also: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.
- 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.
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.I would do it every 4th turn with that setup. Otehr than that point conceded.
The only place it fails is a jumping fight at close range where the AC Clint comes out ahead.
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 ACsThe 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.
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.
I miss those rules. :(
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)
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.
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.
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.
Their total ammo was reduced to 45 shots for balance purposes.
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
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'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
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.