Autocannon Amendment

[Nebfer]

As for me

Drop the use of the cluster tables for Ultras, they simply have a +1 to hit penalty (perhaps +2) If you need an 7 to hit then the second shot will hit on an 8 or 9...
As for RACs they also drop the Cluster table and for every two shots above the first adds a +1 to hit (1st shot +0, 2-3rd shots +1, 4-5 shots +2 & 6th shot +3)

All Ballistic weapons (sans MGs) have a +1 bonus plus an extra point for every 5 dmg or faction their of they do, as a bonus when calculating for  the knock down check. This bonus "damage" is not actual damage, only for the purpose for determine if the targeted unit needs to make a knock down check.
As such an AC-10 will have done 13 damage for the purpose of determine if it contributed for a knock down check, as such if a Large laser also was used that turn and hit the resulting damage would be 21 as such such the targeted unit would face such a role.

As for the Ultras Jamming, well I would say for games set in the 3030s to the 3080s they jam as normal rules, after 3080 they can be unjammed.

[DevianID]

Drop the use of the cluster tables for Ultras, they simply have a +1 to hit penalty (perhaps +2) If you need an 7 to hit then the second shot will hit on an 8 or 9...

That feels like an off the cuff solution; unless you have some math to illustrate the balance?

[Charistoph]

That feels like an off the cuff solution; unless you have some math to illustrate the balance?

Heh, a lot of it would be interesting, as right now, the second shot requires an 8 to hit, no matter what the base target originally was.  Presently second shots are easier to hit for hard shots, and much harder for easy shots.

While not my suggestion, I see it as being a more consistent targeting set up that what is currently available.

[Apocal]

I don't think anyone who's ever been on the receiving end of a rapid firing AC/20 would view that a "1% more damage".  Sure, the expected value math may work out to that, but if we were all proficient with that, would we even play?

Yes, math people would.

Being good at the underlying math just means you understand the odds. It doesn't mean that you never enjoy beating them. Even for the sorts who see every game as an optimization problem, BT is still interesting because the person across the table is doing their own optimizing and that leads to moves and countermoves, analysis and prediction. 

[Charistoph]

Yes, math people would.

Being good at the underlying math just means you understand the odds. It doesn't mean that you never enjoy beating them. Even for the sorts who see every game as an optimization problem, BT is still interesting because the person across the table is doing their own optimizing and that leads to moves and countermoves, analysis and prediction.

Yeah, because because good math people know that even when odds are low, the actual rolls are what matter in the end, no matter the odds.