Seriously, since tanks don't have worry about heat output, why aren't there more designs fielding the better mid-ranged gun - the AC/10? I can think of only two right off hand. The Patton, and I believe the Zhukov. Everything else either runs AC/20s or AC/5s.
So, what is it with the game designers and this love affair with the AC/5 and some of the more questionable missile classes.
For some reason, LRM 10s, while a better 5-point damage weapon than the AC/5 (they actually get a wayward 6th point more often than not) still seam like a waste to me more often than not. Best used in at least pairs. I'd Almost rather spam 'em with a bunch of LRM 5s or go for the larger damage potential in the LRM 15 and 20.
Missiles, in general, while having interesting niches, seam a little out of sorts. They don't have the stopping power that we see in modern day missiles, and they generally do an average damage amount for a limited time. You can get a similar effect with a bunch of lasers aimed at the same target. Still, indirect possibilities with LRMs and the crit-seaking and incendiary delivering options in SRMs in a single package with relatively low heat output gives them a leg up over the AC/5.
It would make sense to me that something with the speed of the Vedette could handle the shorter range yet extra punch of the AC/10. I sometimes wish that the very common Demolisher had a pair of AC/10s and more armor or better speed. They get shot to pieces far too readily before they can get those heavy guns into a position to use 'em.
And, Vedettes need way too many numbers on the field to be really worth the gun they have on them. A full company wouldn't worry any but the lightest BattleMech lance, and maybe not even then. Heck, a company of Vedettes versus a company of Vedettes might take a while to play out since most of them are going to be rendered immobile before any of them are close to dying from an armor breach.
And, then there are all those medium Mechs sporting said weapon. All. Those. Mechs.
Even being cheep and ready just doesn't justify the failings of the AC/5 and ammo-based weaponry in general, over centuries of use in vast numbers. At one point in BT history, the AC/5 was actually worth something, and a good weapon to have. That isn't the case in modern combat, unless there's an aspect that we just aren't seeing, where the AC/5 is still a potent weapon, but not in armored combat against top-of-the-line forces.
So, why do the game designers still flood the playing field with these weapons in a large number of chassis in seemingly almost universally similar configurations?