Author Topic: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck  (Read 22417 times)

Demiurge

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • What matters is it catches mice
House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« on: 11 June 2017, 20:01:07 »
So I don't derail the Great Wyrm MOTW article with a rant about how unconscionably bad autocannons are in battletech, I thought I would put forward some homebrew rules to make these things viable.  Maybe not amazing, and certainly no match for the cheesy glory that is clan energy weaponry, but at least good enough that I am comfortable with them.

The reason I'm currently uncomfortable with autocannons is because they break my suspension of disbelief.  Under the current rules, autocannons are basically so bad that either their representation vs. other weapons is drastically uncharitable, or all the clans, great houses and minor powers have had a centuries-long lapse of sanity in continuing to field these things.

Here are my beefs with autocannons:


-Autocannons have poor damage per tonne of ammunition compared to missiles.  Once you account for missile scattering, autocannons pull slightly ahead of LRMs, but they are still squarely behind SRMs.  Streak SRMs, of course, clobber autocannons in terms of efficiency (and everything else that isn't an energy weapon)

This doesn't make any sense, either from a real-world engineering perspective or from a game balance perspective.  Compare the M456 105mm HEAT round from the mighty L7 tank cannon to an RPG-29, which is also 105mm.  The 105mm gun round is much faster, but also much smaller than the RPG-29.  On the other hand, high-velocity 105mm tank guns are way too heavy for infantry to carry around, but missile launchers are not.  So rocket propelled munitions are a trade-off; the ammunition is much bigger and heavier, but the launchers themselves are much lighter.  The reasons for this are fundamental to internal ballistics, and so unlikely to change in the future.  Battletech gets this halfway right, of course; the guns are heavier than the rocket launchers... but the ammo is effectively heavier too (less damage/tonne).  Why would anyone use these awful things?

-Autocannons have poor damage output relative to tonnage.

This doesn't make sense from an in-universe perspective.  Most battles in the BT universe are fought at the end of lightyears-long logistical trains, and attacking forces are constrained by what they can cram into their dropships.  Surely generals and engineers would try to economize on tonnage, and try to use only weapons that give the most zap for the least weight?  Surely, after centuries of warfare spread over nearly all the worlds that man has ever colonized, someone would have realized that autocannons completely suck and they should be using almost anything else instead?

-Autocannons are significantly less flexible than missiles.

This is a pure game balance perspective.  A rocket motor offers much more gradual acceleration than the barrel of a gun, so it makes sense that more sophisticated and delicate electronics could be stuffed into the nose of a missile than into the shell of an autocannon.  But if a weapon is basically bad, but still commonly fielded by almost everyone, I would reasonably expect it to do something cool on the side to balance out its lack of obvious merit.

-Autocannons do not meet the criteria of suckage

There are plenty of other weapon systems in Battletech that suck.  Bombast lasers, for example, are terrible.  But they are fluffed as the hobby-horse of a specific manufacturer that started marketing the things when their engineers threw up their hands because they couldn't turn the system into anything workable.  Bombast lasers are rare, basically a fluff curiosity that's just common enough to be worth having rules for.  Rocket launchers also suck, and are fairly common, but they are fluffed as cheap weapons that are fielded in numbers only by the most budget-conscious forces that can afford little better.  The Hunchback IIC is a bad mech, but it is designed such that it will occasionally perform outrageous acts of over-the-top heroism and carnage.  Given the culture that uses this design, it's pretty clear why it would stick around the TO&Es of the clans.

Autocannons are ubiquitous, their diverse and numerous users all having somehow failed to notice how bad they are.

So, in short, all autocannons underperform.  In general, 10s and 20s are usable while 2s and 5s are garbage.  LBXs are the exception, with 2s and 5s having a niche as AAA and long-range crit seekers.  LBXs have carved out a unique niche as vehicle killing weapons, AAA (although the big ones are a bit short ranged for that) and crit seekers.  Standard autocannons and ultras need more help, with small caliber standards and ultras needing the most help of all.

So with all that in mind, here are my optional autocannon rules.  They're intended to be used all at once, but obviously you can pick and  choose if you think that wiser.  They're also intended to keep existing designs legal and require minimal changes to the rules sheets.  Finally, they're intended to be as simple as possible so as not to slow down gameplay.  Obviously, the use of these rules will distort the battle value of any unit that has an autocannon.

Two-mode Fuse for Standard Rounds

Autocannon "standard" ammunition is actually a marvel of miniaturized fusing technology.  Variable-delay fusing existed in the mid 20th century, but the manufacturing technology that could transform crude, hand-adjusted fuses into induction-timed, proximity fused, mass produced munitions that were ubiquitous down to the lowly class-2 autocannons took a little more time.  Essentially, autocannons are a hybrid HEAT/light armor piercing warhead with an electronically programmed fuse that can attack targets in two different ways.

Autocannon shells contain a forward-facing proximity sensor that can trigger their shaped-charge anti-armor warheads a few fractions of a second before impact.  This gives optimal standoff and implosion geometry to get the most performance possible out of the warhead.  Autocannon shells also have a light armor piercing cap internally and an all-aspect delayed impact fuse.  If required, the proximity sensor can be switched off and the shells programmed to explode a few fractions of a second after they smash into something.  This mode is devastating to static structures like buildings and the internal structure of mechs, although it does a poor job of penetrating military-grade armor.

The standard mode is with the proximity fuse on, and in this mode all "standard" autocannon munitions (for ACs, LBX, RACs, UACs, etc) behave as normal.  In delayed-fuse mode, the autocannon will do double damage to all buildings and all internal structure except for reinforced-type internal structure.  In delayed-fuse mode the autocannon will do half damage to armor of all types except for armor with a BAR of less than 10, exclusive.  The player attacking with the autocannon must decide which shell fusing mode they are using when they make the attack (the electronic fuse is set in the autocannon, the shells aren't smart enough to determine what they're about to hit).

Specialty ammunition types do not have a delayed-fuse mode.

Increased Damage Against Battle Armor

Class-2 autocannons of all types do 4 damage against battle armor when firing standard ammunition, based on whatever rationale bearhunter ACs do bonus damage to BA.  Battle armor resists big hits well, but not lots of little hits that above some threshold.  Or something.  Class-5 autocannons of all types do 7 damage against battle armor while protomech autocannon-4s do 6 against BA.

This increased damage does not apply when firing any sort of specialty ammunition.

Increased Ammunition Per Tonne

All standard autocannons have 140 damage per tonne of ammunition, so that's 70 rounds for -2s, 70 rounds for -5s, et cetera.  Hyper-velocity autocannons are 80 damage per tonne of ammunition, so 40 for -2s, 4 for -20s, et cetera.  Caseless autocannons have 200 damage per tonne of ammo.  Protomech autocannons go up to a whopping 160 damage per tonne because (mutters something about superior clan technology, composite case designs, piezometric ceilings and efficiency) it would just be too hard to increase those by anything that isn't an integer since they pay per kilogram.

This situates autocannons between LRMs and SRMs for ammunition efficiency, enough that they wouldn't obviously be failing to pull their weight in centuries of campaigns' op-evals.

Optionally you can bump up gauss rifle ammo per tonne if you think gauss rifles should be inherently more ammo efficient than autocannons.  Also, optionally, you can have all ammunition bins perform as though they have CASE, all CASE bins perform as though they have CASE II, and have all CASE II bins, and CASE II also prevents pilot damage from ammo explosions.  The current ammo explosion rules penalize ammo weapons pretty heavily, and don't make very much sense.  Isolated ammunition storage was pretty much a solved problem in the 1970s with the M1 Abrams.  Why would things get so much worse in the 31st Century?

Autocannon Failures

Ultra autocannon jams, standard autocannons using rapid-fire mode rules, and ammunition-related mishaps in caseless and hyper velocity autocannons can be un-jammed per rotary autocannon rules.  Does it make any sense to you that a military would field weapons that have a 1/36 chance of bricking themselves as bread and butter for centuries?  It didn't make any sense to me either.  Caseless and hyper velocity are likewise so dangerously unreliable that they would obviously never leave the test stands, much less see limited production.  Also, I thought it made more sense to consolidate jamming/failure rules on the various flavors of autocannon rather than have several different, and more punitive ones.  The game gets slightly more streamlined, and an underperforming weapon category gets some love, win/win.

Ultra Autocannon Hyperburst

In the late 20th Century, Soviet small arms engineers began work on a radical type of infantry rifle that combined an internally recoiling barrel with an extremely fast cycling burst mechanism in order to fire bursts that did not have their dispersion affected by the rifle's recoil.  This work culminated in the AN-94 Abakan rifle, which saw limited issue into the early 21st Century.

Ultra Autocannons are that, but way bigger.  The Soviet AN-94 had a mixed reputation for mass-produce-ability and reliability, so it obviously took some time before engineers were confident enough to attempt to scale up their design.  Many a prototype ultra autocannon tore itself to pieces on the test range before the design was ready for mass production.

When firing in two-shot mode and at a single target (i.e. not using the multiple targets rules from TO), the to-hit roll is also a margin-of-success roll.  If the to-hit roll is greater than the target number by 2 for UAC-2s, 3 for UAC-5s, 4 for UAC-10 and 5 for UAC-20s, then skip the cluster hits roll, both shots strike the same location.  Roll for location normally.  If the to-hit roll is greater than the target number, but not by the margins listed above, the number of shots that hit and the locations where they hit are resolved normally.

Counter-Defilade Mode for LBX

If a unit is obscured by cover that is the same height as the unit being obscured (e.g. a battlemech is hiding behind cover 2 levels tall), and the unit obscured is immediately adjacent to the cover it is obscured from its attacker by, LBX cluster munitions may be used to attack it per LRM indirect fire rules if there is a spotter.  If the unit is obscured from its attacker by cover that is taller than the unit being obscured, or if it is hiding around a corner, then it cannot be attacked with LBX cluster munitions.  The proximity sensor fuse time gate is "smart" but it isn't brilliant.  Attempting to use the fuse settings to get the munition to detonate just behind a target when attacking it from the front is similarly out of the question.

LBX cluster munitions are essentially miniaturized, sensor-fused cluster bombs shot out of a cannon.  Again, they are nothing that an early 21st century commander would be unfamiliar with, but great strides in manufacturing technology allowed these advanced munitions to be mass-manufactured and distributed out of the barrels of cannons like so much candy out of a pinata.  Each cluster carrier has a proximity sensor that can be time-gated to ignore cover for a certain distance, and then go active once past a certain distance.

New Ammo Types

The standard autocannon's feed system is admirably omnivorous, being able to load, fire, and extract a number of non-standard ammunition types that the original designers could never have foreseen.  LBX autocannons use a high-low pressure system that prevents damage to the sophisticated electronics in the submunitions of their cluster shells, and as a result their ammunition is completely incompatible with standard autocannons, and vice versa.  Ultra autocannons use counter-rotating revolving cylinders that also reciprocate and fire binary ammunition that is wildly incompatible with anything exotic.  Ultra autocannons are fidgety enough with the ammunition carefully tailored for them, sticking anything strange in their feed systems is totally out of the question!  There was initial optimism at NAIS that rotary autocannons would prove compatible with a wide array of specialty munitions, but qualification trials have long since dashed that hope.  The specialty munitions simply were not made robust enough to survive the high speed of the feed systems in RACs.  Hyper-velocity autocannons and caseless autocannons have proven too rare to be worth furnishing with compatible, specialty ammunition although such ammunition could easily be developed if there were any demand for it.

But bog-standard autocannons proved able to accommodate several new ammunition types, even after the initial introduction of novel types in the late 31st century.

GLATGM ammo:  Taking a page from Soviet tank designs of the late 20th century, designers realized that firing a missile (specifically, a Gun Launched Anti-Tank Guided Missile) out of a gun might be useful.  Furthermore, the missile could be broken up into two parts that would be snap-assembled in the loading tray of the autocannon before being chambered in the gun (this is exactly how Russian gun-launched missiles work).  The designers also realized that only the AC-20 had a wide enough bore to accommodate a worthwhile missile.

GLATGM ammo is for standard AC-20s only.  GLATGM ammo is exactly the same as a thunderbolt-10 in terms of range and shots per ton, but it develops the same 7 heat as a standard AC-20 shot.  For campaign purposes, it should not be considered interchangeable with thunderbolt-10 ammunition; the missiles have been designed from the ground up to work in autocannon feed systems.

HESH ammo  HESH (High Explosive Squash Head) consists of a relatively thin-walled, insensitive explosive that deforms and flattens against the target.  Once it has spread out an achieved maximum contact area with the target, it detonates, creating a shock wave inside the target that can cause spall to rip off of the inside of the target's armor plate.  This effect can cause "scabbing" off of the inside of a target even if the HESH round doesn't penetrate.  HESH is also particularly devastating against walls.

HESH ammunition was largely abandoned in the early 21st century due to the proliferation of early composite armors.  However, the development of ultra-brissant, high-density explosives in later centuries made the concept viable once again.

HESH ammunition is for all standard and light autocannons.  HESH ammunition does 2 points less damage than normal, down to a minimum of 1.  HESH ammunition does double damage to buildings (so, 2, 6, 16, 36).  HESH ammunition has a +1 to-hit modifier.  HESH does half damage (round down) to battle armor and infantry.  If a HESH round hits an armored target, but does not remove all of the armor on hitting it, and the amount of armor remaining on the target is equal to or less than the amount of damage the HESH round inflicted, roll on the determining critical hits table with a -1 modifier.  If there are more points of armor remaining than the HESH round inflicted damage, there is no effect.  If the HESH round removes all the armor and damages the internal structure, critical hits are resolved normally.

...



Thoughts?
« Last Edit: 11 June 2017, 20:03:13 by Demiurge »

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6952
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #1 on: 12 June 2017, 03:52:42 »
I still think simple is best:

+1 damage to all ACs
No minimum range
AC/2s put out 0 heat
-2 flak bonus to all ACs

This is intended for introtech games, but works mostly OK for the rest. Precision ammo do get a bit OP, thought, and UACs still need unjamming rules like RACs.

Kharim

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 335
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #2 on: 12 June 2017, 04:56:56 »
Have You ever considered alternative ammuntion types? There are quite a few and they make AC's into real swiss knives. Put flak into AC2 become VTOL's nightmare. Load AC20 with precision rounds and become the god of death. Stationary target? Hope You have some AC20 AP rounds in your ammo bins.
Infantry harrasment? Make them flechettes rain and dont slip on the remaining goo.
Also AC's are both BV and CBill cheap.

lucho

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 782
  • say hello to my new friend!
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #3 on: 12 June 2017, 08:24:47 »
No changes to the rules are necessary; autocannons perform just fine when used correctly. For example, Kharim is spot on about alternative ammunition. Then there heat inducing weapons: autocannons chuckle at Plasma Rifles and infernos, while flashbulbs find themselves with a genuine dilemma.

Now, if you really want to make autocannons more attractive and discourage flashbulbs without major complications here is my proposal (extensively tested. It worked well in practice, although it never eliminated Flashman and Penetrator type flashbulbs  :-\ ): http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=25737.msg582197#msg582197
If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6952
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #4 on: 12 June 2017, 08:53:38 »
Problem is, the correct way to use ACs is "almost never". Yeah, precision ammo - if done right it can get a conventional AC up to the level of common energy weapons, barely. LB2 and LB10 for AA and anti-vehicle. If flak wasn't "advanced" for some insane reason the AC/2 would be useful in 3025.

As for heat effects? Come on, AC make that worse. Not only do you have to carry exploding ammo, you now have less heat sinks to handle the excess heat!

I can vouch for my alternative for the simple reason that when designing a mech it makes common ACs a viable choice. Previously PPC or AC/10 was a no-brainer: PPC for range and ammo independence, AC/10 for fluff? Now the alternative is "more damage" instead.

Frabby

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4242
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #5 on: 12 June 2017, 08:58:28 »
As a GM, you can handwave virtually any effect into special ammunitions. Autocannons are as versatile as your scenario makes them.

Oh, and for the record, I think the AC/2 is underrated. I like it.
Sarna.net BattleTechWiki Admin
Author of the BattleCorps stories Feather vs. Mountain, Rise and Shine, Proprietary, Trial of Faith & scenario Twins

RunandFindOut

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1331
  • Master of the LolCat Horde
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #6 on: 12 June 2017, 10:12:05 »
In general my answer where possible is just to adjust the weight and crits and boost ammo count per ton in some of them.  Take any autocannon reduce weight and crits by a third, rounding down if necessary.  That alone makes things more even along with making the alternative ammo 'standard' instead of advanced and the same count per ton as normal ammo.
One does not just walk into Detroit

She ignored the dragon, and Freddy Mercury who arrived to battle it with the Power of Rock.

Kharim

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 335
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #7 on: 12 June 2017, 10:35:57 »
Any time You mess with weight, damage, range, heat or ammo per ton, You mess up Battle Value's balance. One change can have a lot of unforseen consequences. For example- if you cut AC tonnage by third, how does Gauss Rifle look now? To heavy for the damage it does and to expensive in BV compared to AC10. Furthermore Light PPC becomes useless when compared with AC5, every LBX becomes useless because they now pay extra tonnage for ability to fire clusters. And what about Clan UAC's? Problems just keep stacking.                     

Autocannons are cheap, and they perform as a cheap weapon should. You get what you pay for- big, clumsy, explosive gun. Easy to maintain and feed. Hard to use in field of battle. Their usability changes over the eras, same with every other weapon. If you think AC's fare weak compared to missiles and energy, then I say why ever use IS Large Laser when I can do almost the same with Clan ER Medium?

You feel they are to weak? Use optional rapid fire autocannon rule from TacOps. Try alternative ammo. Use the AC equipped units properly, taking their battlefield role into consideration.

The only change I would ever consider is UAC unjamming. Which is actually an often used house rule as it offers the same usability as RACs have.

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #8 on: 12 June 2017, 17:53:19 »
Want to make autocannons look better? Take away double heat sinks. 

As Kharim explained, the advance of technology hasn't been kind to basic, rapidfire exploding shell-throwers.  Autocannons really only ever had one advantage over energy weapons and that was heat efficiency.  DHSs took that away, and it's gone forever barring the absence of those DHSs.

Also to Kharim's point: removing DHSs would have massive effects, far beyond making autocannons more attractive again.  You'd probably be better off just doing no lostech whatsoever (e.g. a Succession Wars game)

RunandFindOut

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1331
  • Master of the LolCat Horde
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #9 on: 12 June 2017, 22:20:46 »
Any time You mess with weight, damage, range, heat or ammo per ton, You mess up Battle Value's balance.
Well then I guess it's good I don't USE BV as a balance tool. The Gauss rifle remains useful simply by dint of being a low-heat long range heatcapper.  LightPPC hasn't even been invented yet in the eras I tend to play.  LBX doesn't matter because if it's a campaign where we're comfortable with altering the autocannons in such a manner I delete the LBX series entirely and just make cluster ammo an alternate ammo type.  Also what makes you think ultra autocannons suddenly have a huge weight disadvantage.  When I say autocannons get dropped in weight and crits I mean ALL autocannons.

Quote
Problems just keep stacking.
You assume those things are problems, mostly I find they either don't actually matter or are not actually problems from my point of view.                     

Quote
You feel they are to weak? Use optional rapid fire autocannon rule from TacOps. Try alternative ammo. Use the AC equipped units properly, taking their battlefield role into consideration.  The only change I would ever consider is UAC unjamming. Which is actually an often used house rule as it offers the same usability as RACs have.
Good for you meanwhile I'll continue doing what I and my friends have been doing for many years regardless of your opinion.  I already use alternate ammo and actually make it available in the succession wars and raise it's ammo per ton count back up to the same as ordinary ammo.  I've weighted in with the fix I judged to be most useful for the problem, don't like it that's no skin off my nose.
One does not just walk into Detroit

She ignored the dragon, and Freddy Mercury who arrived to battle it with the Power of Rock.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #10 on: 12 June 2017, 23:37:28 »
Personally, were I going to improve ACs, I would do it in two steps the first stage improvement would be to develop the ammo. I would develop all the special ammo types for LBX, Ultra and Rotary ACs. Then advance the ammo itself by coming up with new ammo types. Not sure I would use ones in the OP, but I would want to be at least equaling the utility of the missile launcher ammo types.

The second step would be to improve the weapons themselves. Two major things I would concentrate on here: Make everything that can jam be able to be unjammed much like RACs can be. Make ACs that easily explode (HVACs) be built with CASE-like construction that causes any such explosion to be vented safely away from the 'Mech/vehicle rather than into your ammo bins.

As far as other house rules go I would probably add a rule that makes it so when you are hit by a ballistic weapon you have an extra penalty to any resulting piloting skill rolls to avoid falling. This representing the kinetic impacts of the rounds shoving the 'Mech around.

Personally I have no intention of actually using house rules to that effect, but that is the direction I would take it. As it is, I am okay with weapons becoming obsolete, or at least subpar, because that is what the weight of history does to weapons. As we develop newer more effective weapons, older ones fall by the wayside, like swords and bows.

Snimm

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 992
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #11 on: 13 June 2017, 01:15:34 »
It's true that from a game mechanics perspective, it's hard to justify using autocannons.

However, as has been stated previously, they are cheap technology that don't require much expertise to repair and maintain, relative to, say, energy weapons or missile electronics.

The problem, of course, is that you don't see these issues if you aren't playing in a long-term roleplaying scenario where availability of supplies may be unreliable.  Remember that in the original 3025 world in which Battletech originated (and, I suppose, the Dark Age era), everything was supposed to be a slapped-together, use-what-you-have-at-hand mentality of warfare.  Obviously, that went away with the advent of the Clans and changed the balance of a lot of things.

I mostly play Battletech in the Against the Bot (AtB) campaign, and I am grateful to have at least a few autocannons to start out due to availability issues of the other categories of weapons during certain contracts.  But I think your typically casual gamer doesn't want to delve in that deeply.
Need help getting started with Against the Bot in MekHQ?  Click here to get yourself up and running!

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=41494.msg957784#msg957784

Hptm. Streiger

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 968
  • 3d artist, spread sheet warrior, KTF
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #12 on: 13 June 2017, 05:13:35 »
OK, the following will only consider the Intro Tech aspect. The reason is simple that I always though that the tonnage balance is possible in Intro. 60ton Mech = 60ton Mech

However the specific values for a AC make them only valuable as secondary armament - the AC5 on the MAD-3R full fills a role that can hardly be made better with a energy weapon - (that you could drop PPC and AC5 for 3 Large Laser + 8 heatsinks might be a different story - Flashman style)

So there are two options: 1st you drop the 10 free heat sink rule - only allow rating/25 heatsinks (8 for the CN9-A) the CN9-AL is still the better but the advantage is not that big anymore.

Second - you tweak the values - for example the average change from AC5 to PPC - would you do it with a AC5 that deal 8dmg and has 12 shots?
To add 2 points for the AC10 might be enough this will make it a tin can opener.
You can also modify the "ranges" to help the ACs- increase the short range for the price of a reduced medium range would also be a major buff for most guns.

Just to show it in a  chart:


as long as you take a weapon only everything is neat.
Consider Free Heatsinks and the energy weapons become much better - DHS becomes not that important in this scenario - but i consider to make some comparisons for example 4 large laser vs 2 ppc + ac5 just for fun.

Before you asked.... the Benchmark is based on a program based dice roller - that rolls how many shot (not hits) are necessary to bring a maximum armored mech of each tonnage down. the hit modifer is based on 4 + 1(walking) + target movement (generic per weight +1->+4) and range.
In the next step how many shots per range band are necessary - 0 when target is out of range
done several times to reduce the margin of error.
Destruction: both legs; CT; 3xengine crits; 2xgyrohits; pilot death

as you can see - Gauss is king - heavy damage, long range, almost no heat,
« Last Edit: 13 June 2017, 07:13:49 by Hptm. Streiger »

Nebfer

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1398
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #13 on: 13 June 2017, 13:49:17 »
As for me
For the purpose of calculating damage for a knock down role, ACs (well all ballistics really) have a +2 dmg, As such 5 AC-2s will equal 4 medium lasers for making that 20 dmg PSR (or a AC-10 and a large laser) rather than 10 AC-2s as is the case now.

In determining if they cause a Critical hit they gain a +1 to that role

AC-2s produce no heat, AC-10s 2, and AC-20s 5
LBXs all have a -1 heat (so yes LBX-5s = zero heat)
Lights also -1 (so yeas no heat from both systems)
Ultras UAC-2 zero heat in single shot, 1 in double shot
UAC-5 no change, UAC 10 & 20 are per regular ACs (3 and 5)
RAC-2 no heat in single shot, assumed to produced .5 heat per shot in rapid mode (6 shots produce 3 heat)
RAC-5 1 heat per shot, with a -1 heat (to a min of 1, 1 shot 1 heat, 2 shots 1 heat, 3 shots 2 heat, 6 shots 5 heat)

Specialty ammo is now factored as having 80% of the ammo per ton as regular ammo (AC-10 specialty ammo will have 8 shots vs 10 with regular, and not 5 like it is now) rounded down.

For jamming Ultras can now be unjamed like a RAC (though I view this as an upgrade, hey we fixed the issue, so IS UACs in the 3030-3065 era still perma jam).

Not a improvement per say but I do like the idea of Ultras and RACs making individual hit roles per shot (with a +1 modifier on that second shot, or every even round (I.e. RAC firing 2, 4 or 6 shots will generate +1, +2 & +3))

Red Pins

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3970
  • Inspiration+Creativity=Insanity
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #14 on: 17 June 2017, 01:19:04 »
I use the metalstorm method, single barrel with pre-packed, electronically-fired rounds.  Capable of using all ammo types, in preset order.  Capable of burst fire, up to the full number of rounds up the spout but with increasing difficulty aiming.  I don't have the files on the box anymore, but I think the AC/20 tube had 5 rounds for seven tons.  Tub and twenty rounds of AC/2 for 3-4 tons, I think.

Made fast plinkers with AC/2s quite obnoxious, not so bad for /20s, but too heavy for normal use when you could just buy the reloading gun and more than one ton of ammo.
...Visit the Legacy Cluster...
The New Clans:Volume One
Clan Devil Wasp * Clan Carnoraptor * Clan Frost Ape * Clan Surf Dragon * Clan Tundra Leopard
Work-in-progress; The Blake Threat File
Now with MORE GROGNARD!  ...I think I'm done.  I've played long enough to earn a pension, fer cryin' out loud!  IlClan and out in <REDACTED>!
TRO: 3176 Hegemony Refits - the 30-day wonder

Snimm

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 992
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #15 on: 24 June 2017, 18:47:11 »
Interesting.  So it's almost like a one shot weapon in the AC  class,  but it's one ton instead of one round of shot, and with a set order if you mix ammo types?
Need help getting started with Against the Bot in MekHQ?  Click here to get yourself up and running!

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=41494.msg957784#msg957784

Red Pins

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3970
  • Inspiration+Creativity=Insanity
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #16 on: 24 June 2017, 20:23:50 »
Kind of.  Originally, I Just made my best guess of the mass of just the barrel and a ton of ammo.  From there, I reasoned if LB-Autocannons could fire solid and pellet, there was no reason to restrict ammo type.  But you have to load and fire them in order.  For example, I designed a standard AC/20 tube; slug/slug/shot/slug/shot.  Fire a 3-round burst, and you roll two slug locations and THEN the number of pellets that hit, then the individual locations, just like a standard LB-20X.  The rules stay the same.

It was meant to allow light units like my AU's Extra-Light Mechs to use AC/2s or put a single tube of AC/20 on a Light backstabber.  You can see the action here, on you tube;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKlnMwuCZso

This was the last update for the i-ACs of my AU's 'Unique Technology' rules before my playtester moved to Edmonton;

Quote
Improved Autocannon (I-AC)
   Despite the heat efficiency of Autocannons, advances in heatsinks and energy weapons have diminished their presence on the battlefield.   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-to-damage ratios; the Metalstorm concept, used in large caliber grenade launchers before being abandoned by 2050, takes advantage of these developments to provide a rate of fire similar to Rotary Autocannons.

Game Rules
   I-ACs are useless after firing their pre-loaded ammo until the barrel is exchanged, but offer an increased rate of fire at a growing cost in accuracy.  I-AC/2 and /5s fire Bursts of six rounds per Turn, I-AC/10s fire Bursts of four, and I-AC/20s Bursts of two.

              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)            4/6/12/18 (Long)      45          3       1   2    1     1    1   1     1      F
I-AC/5                 0*(0*)              5(5)         3/5/10/15 (Medium)    20          4       1   3    1     2    1   1     1      F
I-AC/10                1(1)              10(10)        0/4/8/12 (Medium)     10          6       1   4    1     4    1   1     1      F
I-AC/20                3(3)              20(20)           0/3/6/9 (Short)          5          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 except Caseless.  Players must record the type of ammo in order of firing.
•   I-ACs may fire single rounds or in Bursts.  Players must specify the number of rounds to be fired before the weapon is fired.
•   Heat is cumulative with each shell fired.  I-AC/2s and /5s do not generate heat for single shots; for each multiple of 2 rounds fired, one heat is generated.
•   Damage is allocated by shell, in order of rounds fired, following the rules for specialty ammo.
•   I-ACs roll on the Cluster Hits table to determine the number of rounds that hit the target.
•   I-ACs may fire a single round or Bursts.  When firing a single Burst, I-ACs do not receive a to-hit penalty and roll on the Cluster Hits table normally.
•   I-ACs may fire up to four Bursts in a single Turn, but players must make a to-hit roll for each Burst with a cumulative to-hit penalty.  Each Burst after the first requires its own to-hit roll (with a cumulative +2 to-hit penalty) and Cluster Hit table roll.
Ex.  An I-AC/2 needs a 3 to hit.  Because the to-hit number is low, the owner decides to risk the maximum number of Bursts in an attempt to kill his target.  The first Burst, without a to-hit penalty, requires a 3 (3+0), which the Player makes easily.  Rolling on the Cluster Hits table, he sees five have hit the target.  Checking the list of ammunition, he sees that all are standard rounds, and rolls hit locations for all five before proceeding.
The second Burst suffers from the first cumulative penalty, requiring a 5 (3+0+2). Rolling on the Cluster Hits table, he finds that five more standard rounds have hit the target, and rolls hit locations for all five before proceeding.
The third Burst requires a 7 (3+0+2+2), which he makes narrowly.  Checking against the Cluster Hits table he finds 3 rounds hit the target and rolls locations for all three.
The fourth Burst brings him to his first specialty ammunition, a six-round Burst of Precision ammo.  (Note the added mass of the specialty ammo has no effect on the I-AC/2.)  The ammunition provides a –2 to-hit modifier, giving him a to-hit number of 7 (3+0+2+2+2-2) for the second time.  If the fourth Burst had been standard ammo, it would have been a 9 (3+0+2+2+2).
•   If a Burst contains mixed ammunition types each round must be individually rolled in the order of firing and a hit location determined before going on to the next Burst.

Note the mistakes made in their rules; a 'Burst' is always five rounds, and you don't 'roll on the Cluster Hits table normally', you roll per round, in order.  (It was a real pain in playtest with mixed ammo, which is why the 'standard' AC/20 tube was invented.  When we used a tube of mixed AC/2 we wrote on the back of the record sheet to keep specialty ammo a surprise.)
...Visit the Legacy Cluster...
The New Clans:Volume One
Clan Devil Wasp * Clan Carnoraptor * Clan Frost Ape * Clan Surf Dragon * Clan Tundra Leopard
Work-in-progress; The Blake Threat File
Now with MORE GROGNARD!  ...I think I'm done.  I've played long enough to earn a pension, fer cryin' out loud!  IlClan and out in <REDACTED>!
TRO: 3176 Hegemony Refits - the 30-day wonder

Sockmonkey

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 622
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #17 on: 12 July 2017, 21:23:41 »
AC rounds always seemed too darn heavy to me. Each one weighs as much as an SRM.
But I digress. Fact is, there are only two things that are going to make people use ACs.
Either actually make cost and/or availability a factor in all your games when creating mechs, or improve the ACs in some way thus changing their BV.
You have to pick one.
People are not gonna give up their DHS.
That's it! Challenge the Clans to rock-paper-scissors in 3050! A good portion of the 'Mechs didn't have hands so the Inner Sphere would win!
If I had a nickel for every time I've legged a Warhammer, I could put them in a sock, spin it around and leg another Warhammer.

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4070
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #18 on: 13 July 2017, 01:03:51 »
To make AC's and Missiles better in introductory play, I'm liking the idea of using a Margin of Success that gives extra damage.

AC's - MoS of 2 or 3, + 1 damage.  4 or more, +2 damage.  All AC's get a -1 bonus for AA attacks.

Missiles - MoS of 2 or more, +1 on the missile hit chart.

The core rules don't change, no need to mess with stats, makes ammo weapons more appealing, and it's easy enough to understand that it won't bog down gameplay.
The conflict is pure - The truth devised - The future secured - The enemy designed
Maj. Isaac "Litany" Van Houten, Lone Wolves, The Former 66th "Litany Against Fear" Company

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37060
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #19 on: 13 July 2017, 05:38:44 »
AC rounds always seemed too darn heavy to me. Each one weighs as much as an SRM.
But I digress. Fact is, there are only two things that are going to make people use ACs.
Either actually make cost and/or availability a factor in all your games when creating mechs, or improve the ACs in some way thus changing their BV.
You have to pick one.
People are not gonna give up their DHS.
On cost and availability, the need to keep buying ammunition still gives the logistical edge to energy weapons.

Sockmonkey

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 622
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #20 on: 15 July 2017, 15:54:21 »
On cost and availability, the need to keep buying ammunition still gives the logistical edge to energy weapons.
Assuming DHS are widely available yes. If they're fluffed as less available then the parts to maintain them get rarer and more expensive too. Whereas AC ammo is everywhere. I'm not real big on that solution though.
The RACs would easily be competitive if they let you get off two or three shots before a  jamming roll.
Plus there should be RAC 10s and 20s.
That's it! Challenge the Clans to rock-paper-scissors in 3050! A good portion of the 'Mechs didn't have hands so the Inner Sphere would win!
If I had a nickel for every time I've legged a Warhammer, I could put them in a sock, spin it around and leg another Warhammer.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37060
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #21 on: 15 July 2017, 16:10:04 »
Even with SHS, I think energy weapons still have the edge, at least for 'mechs and fusion vehicles.  It's the 10 free HS in the engine that tip the balance.

Sockmonkey

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 622
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #22 on: 16 July 2017, 15:24:26 »
Even with SHS, I think energy weapons still have the edge, at least for 'mechs and fusion vehicles.  It's the 10 free HS in the engine that tip the balance.
True, even with intro level tech an ML boat Hunchback conversion has more firepower and can blast away all day.
That's it! Challenge the Clans to rock-paper-scissors in 3050! A good portion of the 'Mechs didn't have hands so the Inner Sphere would win!
If I had a nickel for every time I've legged a Warhammer, I could put them in a sock, spin it around and leg another Warhammer.

Hafergulden

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #23 on: 18 July 2017, 09:49:54 »
The houserule we settled on was of the Burst Fire type. We kept it as simple and straightforward as possible – AC/2s may fire 5 shots,  and AC/5s may fire 3 shots, using ammunition and generating heat as normal for each single shot (i.e., rapidfiring an AC/2 eats up 5 shots and builds up 5 heat). Roll on the appropriate cluster table to determine number of shots that actually hit the target, roll separate hit location for each shot that does hit.

That’s it. It has worked very well for us so far. The only problem is the AC/10, which, if you allow it to fire 2 shots, is slightly overpowered; if you leave it at 1 shot, it remains slightly underpowered. (AC/20 is perfectly fine as is.)

If you stick to pre-made designs, their limited ammo load and heat capacity serves very nicely to keep everything balanced and makes AC-armed ’Mechs a viable and fun choice, but not overpowering. It’s one of only two or three house-rule we use.

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4070
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #24 on: 18 July 2017, 10:08:46 »
Also, I always felt the AC/2 and 5 should have been bumped up 1 point each.  Maybe even make the 5 do 7 damage.  If the ammo is recalculated to reflect this:

AC/3 ammo (32)
AC/7 ammo (14) OR AC/6 ammo (16)

I really think that having the AC/2 do small laser damage with a long reach brings it up to par with other weapons in the game, instead of making it an overweight machine gun or long range SRM clusters.

Bumping up the AC/5 to 7 actually makes it compete better with the Large Laser and PPC.  Bumping it up to 6 almost achieves the same thing.  So much so that it could be a valid replacement because of the trade off in heat, something most can't even justify at 5 damage and 8 tons.  The AC/10 is still arguably much better, giving you that PPC punch with almost no heat.

I just like the idea of having light ballistics doing damage that is different than LRM/SRM clusters.  It creates more variety without breaking the game.  But yeah, rather than make a few simple changes for the sake of modernizing the game and encouraging use, just argue about it for 20 years and wonder why no one plays anymore OR boats lasers.

EDIT:  Oh, I'm also talking about ALL autocannons for this (Ultra, LB-X, Light, Rotary)  The increase in damage (all around) would make them different than LRM/SRM launchers and make them competitive with double heat sinks in play.
« Last Edit: 18 July 2017, 12:07:34 by Fear Factory »
The conflict is pure - The truth devised - The future secured - The enemy designed
Maj. Isaac "Litany" Van Houten, Lone Wolves, The Former 66th "Litany Against Fear" Company

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9102
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #25 on: 25 July 2017, 09:19:13 »
The houserule we settled on was of the Burst Fire type. We kept it as simple and straightforward as possible – AC/2s may fire 5 shots,  and AC/5s may fire 3 shots, using ammunition and generating heat as normal for each single shot (i.e., rapidfiring an AC/2 eats up 5 shots and builds up 5 heat). Roll on the appropriate cluster table to determine number of shots that actually hit the target, roll separate hit location for each shot that does hit.

That’s it. It has worked very well for us so far. The only problem is the AC/10, which, if you allow it to fire 2 shots, is slightly overpowered; if you leave it at 1 shot, it remains slightly underpowered. (AC/20 is perfectly fine as is.)

If you stick to pre-made designs, their limited ammo load and heat capacity serves very nicely to keep everything balanced and makes AC-armed ’Mechs a viable and fun choice, but not overpowering. It’s one of only two or three house-rule we use.

Interesting solution but this does indeed cause problems with bigger ACs. And more importantly, this makes rotary and ultra autocannons worthless unless those are also buffed similarly (eg Ultra/5 fires up to 3 double shots, total of 6 shots though heat starts becoming an issue along with ammo use). Perhaps it is fine for intro-tech level games, but for anything else with other types of ACs...


I had an idea of modifying autocannons as a weapons to be burst-fire weapons that fire 3 shots each every time. This required me to limit their values to 3/6/9 and remove one class of ACs (as AC/12 that fires 3 shots would have 3 chances of head-shotting a 'Mech and would be way too good).
But this was part of an BTU arsenal re-work, since the result overlap cause ultras and rotaries become useless, and the system being also overlapping with LB-X type would lead them being somewhat pointless as well. With so many changes to merely ACs, i figured i might as well rework everything else to reduce amount of weapons.

Xeno426

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 184
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #26 on: 02 August 2017, 15:01:45 »
Personally I have no intention of actually using house rules to that effect, but that is the direction I would take it. As it is, I am okay with weapons becoming obsolete, or at least subpar, because that is what the weight of history does to weapons. As we develop newer more effective weapons, older ones fall by the wayside, like swords and bows.
That's rather a good point; the old ACs, and the lighter UACs, have basically been made obsolete by the march of progress in the game's universe, particularly the proliferation of things like DHS.

On that same note, though, I would love to see a new wave of autocannons that are meant to replace the old versions on the "modern" (i.e. 3150s and later) battlefield. There's certainly design space for new weapons in this category that can behave more competitively with energy weapons and missile systems.

It would, however, be a true nail in the coffin for the older AC designs, but that's kinda happened anyway. And they'd still be around in the Periphery.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #27 on: 02 August 2017, 16:45:45 »
I see Gauss tech as the future of ballistic design in BattleTech. Compare the HAG-20 to the clan LB 10-X to see what I mean. Eventually Gauss weapons will start firing warheads instead of just solid shot (like our current modern day experimental railguns are already trying to do).

Gauss weapons don't have explosive ammo, and despite the weapon itself being explosive, it is a lot less dangerous an explosion than a full ammo bin exploding. Gauss weapons are all long range weapons. Their only disadvantage is that they don't really have light caliber equivalents of AC-2s or -5s. A HAG-20 is a fantastic replacement for an LB-10X AC, but you can't really replace an AC-5 with it. On the other hand even the machine gun is outclassed by it's Gauss equivalent (AP Gauss). Personally I consider the light caliber LBXs as some of the best light anti-aircraft weapons in the game.

Now I have never used an silver bullet Gauss on the inner sphere side of things, so I can't speak to it's effectiveness, but to me it is clear that Gauss technology is the future of BattleTech's ballistic scene... and as I said before, I am okay with new tech obsoleting old tech.

Especially with the rise of retrotech. Militaries are plainly willing to use old tech still, as long as it can be made cheaply, and that is one things ACs should be good for is cheap production costs.

Also, an LB 5-X AC is, in my opinion, better at AA than an LRM 20. It's 5 potential hits does something more than any other weapon it's size can do (to airborne things anyway). The LB 2-X AC even has it's place as a decent AA weapon, since it can score as many hits as an SRM-2, but at some nicely staggering ranges. No laser, missile, or other ballistic weapon does quite what those two weapons can... unfortunately a certain armor type could potentially obsolete them anyway... and I would be okay with it, because that is what technological progress should look like.

HobbesHurlbut

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3089
  • Live Free or Die Hard
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #28 on: 07 August 2017, 07:18:15 »
Quote
Their only disadvantage is that they don't really have light caliber equivalents of AC-2s or -5s.
So....Light Gauss Rifle and Magshot Gauss Rifle don't exist for you?
Clan Blood Spirit - So Bad Ass as to require Orbital Bombardments to wipe us out....it is the only way to be sure!

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6952
Re: House Rules to Make Autocannons Not Suck
« Reply #29 on: 07 August 2017, 13:02:10 »
So....Light Gauss Rifle and Magshot Gauss Rifle don't exist for you?
Not really comparable... The LGR is still 12 tons, only a little less than the standard GR's 15. The Magshot is more like a souped-up MG.

A "Gauss light AC" ought to be in the 5-10 ton span.