Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)

[Suralin]

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.

[evilauthor]

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.

[rlbell]

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.

[Nahuris]

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

[Nahuris]

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

[Garydee]

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.

[evilauthor]

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...

[Nahuris]

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

[Cowdragon]

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

[evilauthor]

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.

[Cowdragon]

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!

[A. Lurker]

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.

[Urban Kufahl]

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

[Netzilla]

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.

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.

[evilauthor]

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.

[va_wanderer]

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.

[Orin J.]

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.

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.

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....

[Cowdragon]

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.

[va_wanderer]

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.

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.

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!".

[Cowdragon]

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.

[Orin J.]

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.

maybe a periphery nation could do it, those things have to be easier to manufacture than gauss rifles......... :-\

[evilauthor]

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.

[Cowdragon]

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!

[Cowdragon]

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.

[evilauthor]

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.

[Orin J.]

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.

[Cowdragon]

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.

[Netzilla]

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.

[evilauthor]

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.

[Cowdragon]

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.