Am I reading this right: SCC ammo massive compared to NAC?

[gomiville]

The light SCC, which does 2 capital damage per shot, has two rounds per ton.  That's 4 capital damage per ton of ammo.

The NAC/10, which does 10 capital damage per shot, has five rounds per ton.  That's 50 capital damage per ton of ammo.

Is that right?

[Jellico]

A NAC 10 is 5/1 per ton.
A Light SCC is 2 per ton.

5/1 tons is 5 tons
1/2 tons is 0.5 tons.

[cray]

A NAC 10 is 5/1 per ton.
A Light SCC is 2 per ton.

5/1 tons is 5 tons
1/2 tons is 0.5 tons.

No, 5/1 means "5 shots per 1 ton," since the column headers (pg 408 TacOps) says "Ammo (per Ton)". This is consistent with prior publications like AT2 and BS, which peg NAC/10 ammo as 0.2 tons per shot.

Meanwhile, yes, a light SCC gets 2 shots per ton, a medium 1 shot per ton, and a heavy SCC gets 1 shot per 2 tons.

Subcapital weapons are more primitive weapon systems that Capital weapons. For Subcapital canons versus NACs, SCCs need more propellant for a given effect - analogous to black powder versus smokeless powder.

[gomiville]

But that doesn't make any sense.  In that case, a NAC/10 has 1/5 ammo/ton, or 0.2 rounds per ton, while a NAC/20 has 2/5 ammo/ton, or 0.4 rounds per ton.  The ammunition gets lighter with increasing weapon size?!

If, however, the NAC/10 is 5/1 ammo/ton, or 5 rounds per ton, and the NAC/20 is 5/2 ammo/ton, or 2.5 rounds per ton, the ammunition is getting heavier with increasing weapon size.  That seems a bit more intuitive.

But if that second progression is the case, and therefore the fraction is 5/1 ammo/ton, then sub-capital cannon ammo is much, much less efficient than full capital cannon ammo.

EDIT: Ah, thanks Cray.  Makes sense.  Kinda sucks for the sub-capital systems, but makes sense.

[cray]

But that doesn't make any sense.  In that case, a NAC/10 has 1/5 ammo/ton, or 0.2 rounds per ton, while a NAC/20 has 2/5 ammo/ton, or 0.4 rounds per ton.  The ammunition gets lighter with increasing weapon size?!

Per pg408 TacOps...

A NAC/10 gets 5 shots per 1 ton: 0.2 tons per shot.
A NAC/20 gets 5 shots per 2 tons: 0.4 tons per shot.
A NAC/25 gets 5 shots per 3 tons: 0.6 tons per shot.
A NAC/30 gets 5 shots per 4 tons: 0.8 tons per shot.
A NAC/35 gets 1 shot per ton: 1 ton per shot.
A NAC/40 gets 5 shots per 6 tons: 1.2 tons per shot.

That's identical to AT2R and BattleSpace, which uses the right side notation (0.2 tons/shot, 0.4 tons/shot), but there were apparently complaints about that notation.

[gomiville]

Per pg408 TacOps...

A NAC/10 gets 5 shots per 1 ton: 0.2 tons per shot.
A NAC/20 gets 5 shots per 2 tons: 0.4 tons per shot.
A NAC/25 gets 5 shots per 3 tons: 0.6 tons per shot.
A NAC/30 gets 5 shots per 4 tons: 0.8 tons per shot.
A NAC/35 gets 1 shot per ton: 1 ton per shot.
A NAC/40 gets 5 shots per 6 tons: 1.2 tons per shot.

That's identical to AT2R and BattleSpace, which uses the right side notation (0.2 tons/shot, 0.4 tons/shot), but there were apparently complaints about that notation.

The old way worked for me, especially as a decimal (more intuitive to my brain), but I can see the point.  Everything else is listed as "shots per ton," like an AC/5 getting 20 shots/ton.  Reversing that for naval weaponry, to "tons per shot," can be confusing if you're expecting it all to be the same.  However, switching it to "shots per ton" ends up with these weird fractions (5 shots per 3 tons), which to me, is more confusing than the old method.

6/1 of one, 0.5 of a dozen of the other.

[Fireangel]

Subcapital weapons are more primitive weapon systems that Capital weapons. For Subcapital canons versus NACs, SCCs need more propellant for a given effect - analogous to black powder versus smokeless powder.

That's a great analogy; given that NACs basically use nuclear explosions to propel the projectiles, SCCs might be the ultimate expression of standard propellant technology.

The fact that SCCs are cannons and not autocannons also carries weight here.