Fixing the AToW Companion conversion to TW for Mech Weapons

[monbvol]

So messing around today I found my previous fix(here) doesn't  actually work as I had hoped.

Not sure if I was improperly performing the conversion or was missing an errata at the time but in the end it did not work.

Attached(first of two) is a spreadsheet I put together originally to see how my full conversion AU weapons would translate to TW then realized I could use it to help with this project.

The calculations in it are compliant with rules as written as far as I can tell.  Put in a few weapons that work out correctly to prove it and a couple mech scale weapons that also prove the conversion isn't really meant to work for them.

But if I can I will fix that.

Seems all I need to do for my previous fix is to make a note that magazine should always be 3 for mech scale weapons.

Second has my slightly improved fix.

[Daryk]

Thanks for the posting this!  My sig block has a link to Herb's errata for the Companion page 171 formula (that might have been what you missed... it changes the rounding for bursts).  I'll dig into your spreadsheets today... 

[Daryk]

If I'm reading them right, it looks like you changed the TW scale conversion from 6 BD per TW point to 5, correct?  I do have to wonder why TPTB chose 6 in the first place.  I'm sure it was chasing some other problem...

I'll see if I can reconstruct the spreadsheet I built to take a dynamic burst value and propagate it through a conditionally formatted AP vs. BD table (the original is on a failed USB drive that the recovery company wanted a couple thousand dollars to fix).  If I remember right, I also threw in a toggle for explosive or non-explosive effects too.

And a quick note going back to an earlier discussion with Liam's Ghost: the non-explosive table breaks down at 10 TW damage, not 8 (48 BD with 10 AP is 8.4, which rounds to .

Also, I think autocannons can be adjusted through the miracle of burst fire (as is heavily implied in all the fluff).  Artillery Cannons (and pretty much every other AOE weapon too, really) are a whole other ball of snakes.

[Daryk]

Damn it... the latest Adobe update broke my pdf of the Companion (some font problem).  Are you seeing that?

[Daryk]

Ok, here's the sheet I've thrown together in Excel 2010.  I set the Incendiary and Splash damage options to "Y/N" drop downs, and restricted the Burst value to whole numbers.  The results are shown in an AP vs. BD table that is alternately highlighted for odd rounded damage values.  I hope that makes sense.

[monbvol]

If I'm reading them right, it looks like you changed the TW scale conversion from 6 BD per TW point to 5, correct?  I do have to wonder why TPTB chose 6 in the first place.  I'm sure it was chasing some other problem...

I'll see if I can reconstruct the spreadsheet I built to take a dynamic burst value and propagate it through a conditionally formatted AP vs. BD table (the original is on a failed USB drive that the recovery company wanted a couple thousand dollars to fix).  If I remember right, I also threw in a toggle for explosive or non-explosive effects too.

And a quick note going back to an earlier discussion with Liam's Ghost: the non-explosive table breaks down at 10 TW damage, not 8 (48 BD with 10 AP is 8.4, which rounds to .

Also, I think autocannons can be adjusted through the miracle of burst fire (as is heavily implied in all the fluff).  Artillery Cannons (and pretty much every other AOE weapon too, really) are a whole other ball of snakes.

The trouble is there will be far too many arguments about what the burst rating should be for ACs and as my fix shows it works fine with a zero burst rating.

But yes the changes I made as per the posted errata were change the multiplier to 5 and fudge the damage factor multiplier to work out to 4.

The other adjustment is to basically treat them as energy weapons and I was also putting burst 1 in for single fire weapons, which is obviously not the way the conversion is supposed to work.

[Daryk]

I think burst 1 is exactly how single fire weapons are supposed to work... why do you think not? 

The arguments are why I said "the miracle of burst fire".  There's definitely some PFM in there...

[monbvol]

When I put burst 1 in for the Bolt Action Rifle in either sheet it does not work out correctly but when I put burst 0 through it does work out to 0.14 as per Tech Manual.

You can see the same with the generic Laser Rifle.

[Daryk]

That sounds like you didn't have Herb's rounding change in your formula.  It rounds normally now (0, 1, and 2 round down to 0).  I think you had the reload factor in there correctly, so that shouldn't have been it.

[monbvol]

No I did not.  It hasn't been incorporated yet.  Just updated my pdf as I made this post.  I'll see about updating that for the fix version as I want to keep the base for current as can be found in the Companion as a point of comparison.

[Daryk]

I'd also appreciate a look at my spreadsheet if you have a few minutes... 

[monbvol]

Sure.

In the meantime the updated fix with Herb's errata incorporated attached below.

[Daryk]

What exactly does the "Burst Mod" column do again? 

And I think your Heavy Rifle Cannon row is working properly.  6 points is right.  It's the MARC and LRC that TPTB didn't convert properly (for some reason)...

[monbvol]

Your sheet has one slight oversight.  It doesn't incorporate Reload Factor as far as I can see.

So if you try to run the Bolt Action Rifle through yours it comes out at 0.28 when it is 0.14 due to reload factor.

What exactly does the "Burst Mod" column do again? 

And I think your Heavy Rifle Cannon row is working properly.  6 points is right.  It's the MARC and LRC that TPTB didn't convert properly (for some reason)...

Like I said the spreadsheet was originally a tool for my full conversion AU so I included a column for the burst fire modifier at the AToW scale.  It doesn't alter the TW stats any, though I think it should apply accuracy penalties at the AToW scale, at  but it was a data point I wanted in there so I could see how balanced some of the weapons were in there.  Laid out like that I am seeing some I want to adjust the weights on, one I want to adjust the range on, and I am pondering doing something similar for the armors.  I probably should post up what I have in a more appropriate thread.

And yeah there is no good way to get a flat -3 damage for the Medium and Light Rifle Cannons with the conversion formula.

But yeah the spreadsheet seems to be able to handle any mech weapons and small arm.  I still need to add functionality to handle ordinance weapons though.

[Daryk]

True, I skipped reload factor on the basis that it's WAY too easy to make sure a weapon has 10 or 3 shots depending on its type.

The Rifle Cannon thing has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, but yes, a flat -3 at the TW scale was a mistake.  You'd think it would be easy enought to errata, but TPTB have refused for quite a while now.

Ordnance is a huge problem.  The averaging system makes it too easy to game for one.  For another, it stops well short of 'mech scale weapons.  Just one more missed opportunity in my opinion.  And the system I cannot name went the complete other direction.  I hope to see it fixed someday, but it's certainly not today... 

[monbvol]

Yeah the Reload Factor is such a odd part of that equation.  It only impacts a handful of weapons.

[Daryk]

And I completely forgot we got wrapped around Reload Factor here... 

[monbvol]

And I completely forgot we got wrapped around Reload Factor here... 

The more I work with this conversion the more I do find certain parts of it odd.

[Daryk]

Here's a version that includes Reload Factor (pay no attention the cell with white text).  Now I just have to remember how I built the target's BAR into the equation (the current table assumes BAR 10)...

[monbvol]

Hmmm....

About the only thing that still stands out is that TW damage row.

[Daryk]

How so?  Should I move it back to the top (with an inserted row)? 

[monbvol]

Mostly it seems redundant as the table already has the TW damage in each cell.

[Daryk]

That row is for the entering argument, not the result.  Basically, it highlights the difference in the two conversion systems.