Balancing ACs, LRMs, and energy weapons in 3025. Or, justifying the AC/5.

[FixDis]

That might be a bit OP for most folks.

Alternative: All autocannons have no minimum range unless they fire precision ammo, which now has minimum range equal to 25% of the weapon's short range band, rounded down. Ammo count isn't reduced.

minimum ranges:
AC/2: min 2
AC/5: min 1
AC/10 min 1
AC/20 min 0

[Daryk]

That might work... I'll let others weigh in on it before commenting further.

[DevianID]

I mean, if you are asking from a balance POV, precision AC ammo is really powerful and the shot count decrease isnt any drawback.  Having used it a lot competitively, 4 precision ac20 shells instead of 10 normal showed time and again the 4 precision shells are still better then a 50/50 mix or all 10 rounds standard.  Yes there are mechs or vees without backup weapons that may run out of ammo, but if you are in a scenario where you dont need precision you wouldnt load it.  AKA, if the enemy is all 2/3 urbanmechs, well you arnt taking precision anyway, but if the enemy has dasher Hs you will win or lose before you empty 4 shots.

I digress, precision ammo brings standard ACs into the 'powerful standard/level 2' weapon category, often being limited or banned like pulse lasers.  It needs no buffs, and is too powerful for 'introductory' level games in the same way a pulse laser is.

In 3025 flak is already 'standard' rules appropriate, and gives ACs more then enough power to justify themselves in combined arms.  The ac10 and 20 are balanced fine in old school tonnage based games, the ac5 is balanced fine as a support weapon when you dont have the heat for a PPC, and the ac2 is the longest range gun in the introductory game so is more then powerful enough, if niche. 

AC 5/2 are Niche weapons, like the flamer and machine gun... they are not anti-everything, but that doesnt mean they are not balanced.  And if you stop balancing by tonnage and use BV, the AC5 and 2 are very nice cheap weapons that give range without adding an arm and a leg.  Like the ac2s on the blackjack cost almost nothing.

Autocannon balance is mostly a problem when balancing by tonnage or in mech only games in the clan invasion era that precedes the fedcom civil war and its amazing precision ammo, because double heat sinks make tonnage balanced AC5s and 2s too heavy, and new weapons also have long range meaning the ac2 isnt the longest ranged weapon any more.  Its the big problem with tonnage balanced games, and why you shouldnt balance by tonnage especially in clan invasion.

EDIT: for example, in BV balance, the ac5 on a wolverine is a GOOD gun cause its low cost and still plinks at range.  The jaegermech for 900 BV is a steal for a budget fire support mech with 24 heat neutral damage.  The griffin would be a better mech if it traded the PPC and 2 heat sinks for an AC5, so it could actually jump and fire the LRM10 and AC5 without heat issues.  The BV discount a mech gets with an AC5 is not insignificant, and a big reason BV balance is better then tonnage balance.

[Cannonshop]

I proposed a solution to this a long time ago,  nobody is crazy enough to implement it-even in home games.

but it would explain the massive distribution of AC/5s.

My awful, terrible munchkin solution?

Autocannons threshold armor, that is, they generate a threshold check every time they hit, based on how thick the armor is and the power of the autocannon in question.

AC/2: Threshold at 10 armor or below.
AC/5: Threshold at 20 armor and below
AC/10: Threshold at 30 armor and below
AC/20: Threshold at 40 armor and below.

When your Auto cannon hits armor on one of those values, if 'threshold' applies, you roll a crit check regardless. (Or add 1 to your crit check on a 2 or on a location with no/depleted armor) In locations where there are no systems to 'crit to', it inflicts damage to a point of internal structure-even if the armor is still intact.

for A/P specialist ammo, you double the bonus damage.

Now, is that munchkin enough for all of you??  It certainly would recast the proliferation of AC/5s in the Succession Wars era, and makes them competitive with PPC's and Large Lasers, doesn't it?

[Daryk]

The main problem with that solution is that it opens the "threshold" can of worms for ground units.

[Cannonshop]

The main problem with that solution is that it opens the "threshold" can of worms for ground units.

call it enduring the process of BAR as it was being formulated and playtested, but I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing.  as things stand right now, AC's, specifically the 5 but to a lesser extent the 2 and the 10, are boat anchors you pull to install something actually good.

they don't make sense as common armament on anything.

YET, they ARE common armament on LOTS OF THINGS.

they don't have a 'killer application', they're too  heavy for the damage and range, the heat curve isn't made up, and other solutions already end up changing rules, mine at least makes designs that use them a rational idea.

[Daryk]

The concept could probably work, but I foresee a LOT of wrangling to get them "right"...

[Mechanis]

"fixing" Autocannons is easy: you stick "Primitive" in front of them, drop them to Tech B, and make Tech C Standard Autocannons with sane weights (and by "sane" we mean "light enough that just flat replacement with energy weapons and or missiles requires actual sacrifices be made")

Something like:

Code: [Select]

AC/2: 3 tons
AC/5: 5 tons
AC/10: 8 tons, 5 slots
AC/20: 12 tons, 8 slots
This makes them still statistically the least efficient weapons in the system, but not egregiously so; making it no longer a "Turn off brain" level swap as:

Code: [Select]

AC/2->LRM 5+ML+sinks+1-2 tons Whatever (or even a Large Laser and sinks, if you care less about the engagement envelope)
AC/5->Large Laser+Sinks (or a PPC, if you have the spare heat for it)
AC/10->PPC+sinks (notably, this one is mathematically identical in terms of the heat curve)
AC/20->MLs+Sinks OR Blazer+Sinks (depending on whether you value raw damage or the decapitation threat more)-

The problem with Autocannons is not actually their performance statistics, but in their opportunity cost; because they're so hellishly heavy, they occupy too much design space compared to other weapons systems that can do the same job, only better.
You then of course have to knock-on recalculate all the other fancy Autocannons- including the Clan ones!- but hey, small price to pay.

[FixDis]

"fixing" Autocannons is easy: you stick "Primitive" in front of them, drop them to Tech B, and make Tech C Standard Autocannons with sane weights (and by "sane" we mean "light enough that just flat replacement with energy weapons and or missiles requires actual sacrifices be made")

Something like:

Code: [Select]

AC/2: 3 tons
AC/5: 5 tons
AC/10: 8 tons, 5 slots
AC/20: 12 tons, 8 slots
This makes them still statistically the least efficient weapons in the system, but not egregiously so; making it no longer a "Turn off brain" level swap as:

Code: [Select]

AC/2->LRM 5+ML+sinks+1-2 tons Whatever (or even a Large Laser and sinks, if you care less about the engagement envelope)
AC/5->Large Laser+Sinks (or a PPC, if you have the spare heat for it)
AC/10->PPC+sinks (notably, this one is mathematically identical in terms of the heat curve)
AC/20->MLs+Sinks OR Blazer+Sinks (depending on whether you value raw damage or the decapitation threat more)-

The problem with Autocannons is not actually their performance statistics, but in their opportunity cost; because they're so hellishly heavy, they occupy too much design space compared to other weapons systems that can do the same job, only better.
You then of course have to knock-on recalculate all the other fancy Autocannons- including the Clan ones!- but hey, small price to pay.

So the Light AC becomes the new standard?

I mean, if you are asking from a balance POV, precision AC ammo is really powerful and the shot count decrease isnt any drawback.  Having used it a lot competitively, 4 precision ac20 shells instead of 10 normal showed time and again the 4 precision shells are still better then a 50/50 mix or all 10 rounds standard.  Yes there are mechs or vees without backup weapons that may run out of ammo, but if you are in a scenario where you dont need precision you wouldnt load it.  AKA, if the enemy is all 2/3 urbanmechs, well you arnt taking precision anyway, but if the enemy has dasher Hs you will win or lose before you empty 4 shots.

I digress, precision ammo brings standard ACs into the 'powerful standard/level 2' weapon category, often being limited or banned like pulse lasers.  It needs no buffs, and is too powerful for 'introductory' level games in the same way a pulse laser is.

In 3025 flak is already 'standard' rules appropriate, and gives ACs more then enough power to justify themselves in combined arms.  The ac10 and 20 are balanced fine in old school tonnage based games, the ac5 is balanced fine as a support weapon when you dont have the heat for a PPC, and the ac2 is the longest range gun in the introductory game so is more then powerful enough, if niche. 

AC 5/2 are Niche weapons, like the flamer and machine gun... they are not anti-everything, but that doesnt mean they are not balanced.  And if you stop balancing by tonnage and use BV, the AC5 and 2 are very nice cheap weapons that give range without adding an arm and a leg.  Like the ac2s on the blackjack cost almost nothing.

Autocannon balance is mostly a problem when balancing by tonnage or in mech only games in the clan invasion era that precedes the fedcom civil war and its amazing precision ammo, because double heat sinks make tonnage balanced AC5s and 2s too heavy, and new weapons also have long range meaning the ac2 isnt the longest ranged weapon any more.  Its the big problem with tonnage balanced games, and why you shouldnt balance by tonnage especially in clan invasion.

EDIT: for example, in BV balance, the ac5 on a wolverine is a GOOD gun cause its low cost and still plinks at range.  The jaegermech for 900 BV is a steal for a budget fire support mech with 24 heat neutral damage.  The griffin would be a better mech if it traded the PPC and 2 heat sinks for an AC5, so it could actually jump and fire the LRM10 and AC5 without heat issues.  The BV discount a mech gets with an AC5 is not insignificant, and a big reason BV balance is better then tonnage balance.

What say you about moving minimum range?

Alternative: All autocannons have no minimum range unless they fire precision ammo, which now has minimum range equal to 25% of the weapon's short range band instead of reduced ammo, rounded down.

[Cannonshop]

The concept could probably work, but I foresee a LOT of wrangling to get them "right"...

I don't.  People are far more interested in reducing their weight and giving them pulse-boat accuracy.  My solution doesn't require changing a single published record sheet, and actually provides a solid REASON for designs like the SHD-2H to have been so heavily invested in by the Star League.  (Per the fluff), why the Dragon had an AC/5, why the Zeus had one...Jagermech, Rifleman...and why there's an ASF that has a variant that inentionally swapped out energy weapons to  carry one. (Stingray's got a variant with an AC/5! it's in the original entry even!)

not to mention making Scorpion (tanks) actually worth the C-bills to buy, what with their dirty toilet paper armor, 4/6 movement, and relying on an AC/5...

If it were actually DANGEROUS and could do something that LRM's, and PPC's can't do?  that would be a reason why anyone would bother with eight tons of weight not including ammo for a system that is effectively less useful than a medium laser on account of it running out of ammo and requiring ammo.

The easiest way to make it dangerous, is to make "Armor Piercing" a baseline stat that defines 'autocannon' from 'not an autocannon'.  It justifies the existing stats from an in-universe perspective (We still use them because the more powerful energy weapons can't do the same thing and Missiles can't either) and from an out of universe position;  namely "It's got a very useful niche against lightly armored heavies, Mediums, and Lights at PPC ranges."

[Speedbump]

I don't.  People are far more interested in reducing their weight and giving them pulse-boat accuracy.  My solution doesn't require changing a single published record sheet, and actually provides a solid REASON for designs like the SHD-2H to have been so heavily invested in by the Star League.  (Per the fluff), why the Dragon had an AC/5, why the Zeus had one...Jagermech, Rifleman...and why there's an ASF that has a variant that inentionally swapped out energy weapons to  carry one. (Stingray's got a variant with an AC/5! it's in the original entry even!)

Having an in universe (i.e. non-bv) reason to use autocannons is definitely a worthy goal. But wrangling wise there's a pretty big difference between the effect of the March 2024 version of this idea you proposed earlier in the thread:

The thresholding would be 1/10th round to the nearest tenth.  (aka an armor of 21 thresholds to an AC.2, but 28 you need an AC/5 for that critical threshold check)

And the January 2025 version you've suggested now the thread has been revived once more:

AC/2: Threshold at 10 armor or below.
AC/5: Threshold at 20 armor and below
AC/10: Threshold at 30 armor and below
AC/20: Threshold at 40 armor and below.

Would it atleast be fair to say that there's some discussion to be had over exactly where to set these values?

[Mechanis]

So the Light AC becomes the new standard?

What say you about moving minimum range?

In essence, the present Autocannons are perfectly fine as primitive technology that is deliberately bad, but the setting either needs to acknowledge this and stop using them, or have non-Primitive versions that aren't completely inferior to the other two thirds of the weapon trifecta.
The easiest way to do that is to properly label them as Primitive technology, and have standard ones that are exactly the same except lighter/smaller.
Unfortunately, like a lot of legacy issues with BattleTech, it pretty much has to stay house rules, as;

I don't.  People are far more interested in reducing their weight and giving them pulse-boat accuracy.  My solution doesn't require changing a single published record sheet,

This is completely impossible. Either you alter the weight of at least some of the Autocannons, or you have to redo the Battle Value for every single unit carrying one. There's no way to fix the performance of Autocannons without record sheet errata of some kind, it's very much a pick-your-poison situation. And in this case, a blanket mass reduction is actually the simplest solution; as this doesn't invalidate any record sheet that already exists (there is, after all, no rule stating that a unit must use its full mass for equipment, only those stating that one cannot exceed said mass;) nor does it involve changes to the Battle Value as additional special effects would (nor, for that matter, induce the problems with variant types that already have special rules attached).

There's just no painless way of fixing this given how it should have been done either during the BattleDroids to BattleTech transition or, at the very latest, when Star League technology was being introduced.

[Daryk]

Clanner improved ACs are pretty much exactly what you describe, but don't seem to have solved anything.

[Mechanis]

Clanner improved ACs are pretty much exactly what you describe, but don't seem to have solved anything.

The problem with iACs is that being ClanTech they are then competing with the rest of ClanTech, and are if anything even worse comparitivly.
To expound more, a weight (and or size) reduction would of necessity apply to all Autocannons across the board. EG:

Code: [Select]

AC/2 & LB-2: 6 tons -> 3 tons
UAC/2: 7 tons -> 4 tons
LAC/2: 4 tons -> 1.5 tons
RAC/2 & HVAC/2: 8 tons -> 5 tons
Clan UAC/2 & LB-2: 5 tons -> 2 tons
iAC/2: 3 tons -> 2.5 tons
ProtoMech AC/2: 3.5 tons -> 1 ton (rounded up from 800 kg)
Etc etc etc.

This would result in basically every design previously equipped with an Autocannon having a bunch of extra space not doing anything (especially if you also reduced the size of the ten and twenty by two slots, which I recommend if only so that the King Crab can stop being a Gameplay And Lore Segregation example) with the attending knockoffs of that (EG, UAC/20s actually fitting in an arm rather than being impossible to mount in an arm, for starters,) but that doesn't actually invalidate their record sheets at all, just makes them undesirable/inefficient.

[FixDis]

Would invalidating existing record sheets become palatable after most of them are added to masterunitlist?

[Mechanis]

Would invalidating existing record sheets become palatable after most of them are added to masterunitlist?

Honestly the "we won't invalidate sheets ever" is a great sentiment and I fully understand why it's a policy, but it does pose some serious issues for Early Installment Weirdness and legacy problems like this one.

[Cannonshop]

Having an in universe (i.e. non-bv) reason to use autocannons is definitely a worthy goal. But wrangling wise there's a pretty big difference between the effect of the March 2024 version of this idea you proposed earlier in the thread:And the January 2025 version you've suggested now the thread has been revived once more:Would it atleast be fair to say that there's some discussion to be had over exactly where to set these values?

Well, sure, my original idea was, as was observed at the time, grossly overpowered for the ground game.  By reducing the armor value that can resist criticals, and cleaning up the spread into nice neat increments that can be easily remembered?  It becomes both less unbalancing/overpowered, and easier to use and remember. 

A 'mech's base Armor at a hit location is 40 (say, an assault) even an AC/20 won't generate the threshold crit on a hit there, but an AC/2 hitting a location with 10 points? crit check even if eight points are left, and if there's nothing in that location (gear wise) to crit, well...so sad, too bad. you still did 2 points of armor damage.

IN the case of an AC/5 you're going to be doing crits quite often on anything below around 65 tons, but probably not a lot of CT front or Torso front crits unless it's on the light side of a Medium. lots of leg and arm crits, and if yiou get in the rear, it's party time.

and of course, head hits get nastier all 'round with an autocannon under this, but head hits are usually pretty nasty and it really only brings it up CLOSE to what you'll do with 7 tons of PPC doing 10 points of damage (enough to strip all the armors off and maybe kill the pilot anyway).

It brings parity and difference, is the idea.  YES, you need 9 tons to fire for 20 rounds with an AC/5, but under this? it's actually worth it to mount when you could mount something else that doesn't need ammo or run out.

The trade being that you get a crit chance all over, but you can still screw up the dice roll or get sometihng innocuous (like a heat sink, or an actuator you don't use anyway outside melee). but more importantly, it makes the Davion fascination with the Jagermech make sense, it makes the 2H and 2D Shadowhawks useful as more than expensive popup targets and mediocre-at-everything 'mechs...

and you don't have to change the record sheets.

[Primus203]

Here are my proposals for revising Autocannons to be better and more practical than an energy boat in 3025. For the AC 2, 5, and 10. Simply add three hexes of range.

This can be done in two ways depending on how you want to balance it. One extra range to each range band giving the updated AC-10 a 6/12/18 like the standard PPC. The other way is to claim that shells are more affected by environmental conditions so the 3 hexes of extra range are added to the long range band this means that though the updated AC-10 could reach out as far it would have slightly smaller closer range bands.

New ranges for the autocannons would be
AC-2 : 8/16/24 or 7/14/24
AC-5 : 7/14/21 or 6/12/21
AC-10: 6/12/18 or 5/10/18

The AC-20 cannot get this range boost or it would unbalance the medium laser. There is only two way I can see to balance it. An extra range band where it can fire another three hexes at an even greater difficulty. Or second due to extreme work put into the design the range limit is still only nine hexes but the new AC-20 has only a short and medium range bracket of 1-3 Short and 4-9 Medium this means that though still loosing out in tonnage efficiency to medium laser the AC-20 would really fulfil it's role as a close range beast justifying it's immense cost in tonnage and heat.

Proposal for an AC-15 the weapon would be an intermediate between the 10  and 20. The weapon would have the same tonnage as the AC-20 but more range instead Having a range band of either 5/10/15 or 4/8/15. It would have 7-8  shots per ton. Heat would be in between the 10's 3 points and the 20's 7 points at 5 points of heat. Crits would be 8-9.

If these modifications went through of course all other autocannons would need the same type of range adjustment or they would loose out especially the LB X.

Proposal even shaving off a single ton of weight would have noticeable implications on the AC's effectiveness especially if it was combined with the above modifications.

[Mechanis]

and you don't have to change the record sheets.

Except no, actually, you still do, because that's at least a 25% BV increase for every single Autocannon and means having to recalculate the BV of everything which mounts one. As mentioned, this is very much a pick-your-poison situation vis a vis recsheet data; except that altering the mass doesn't actually require changing any of the existing sheets, it just means that those versions are inefficient and have unused mass.

Here are my proposals for revising Autocannons to be better and more practical than an energy boat in 3025. For the AC 2, 5, and 10. Simply add three hexes of range.

This can be done in two ways depending on how you want to balance it. One extra range to each range band giving the updated AC-10 a 6/12/18 like the standard PPC. The other way is to claim that shells are more affected by environmental conditions so the 3 hexes of extra range are added to the long range band this means that though the updated AC-10 could reach out as far it would have slightly smaller closer range bands.

New ranges for the autocannons would be
AC-2 : 8/16/24 or 7/14/24
AC-5 : 7/14/21 or 6/12/21
AC-10: 6/12/18 or 5/10/18

The AC-20 cannot get this range boost or it would unbalance the medium laser. There is only two way I can see to balance it. An extra range band where it can fire another three hexes at an even greater difficulty. Or second due to extreme work put into the design the range limit is still only nine hexes but the new AC-20 has only a short and medium range bracket of 1-3 Short and 4-9 Medium this means that though still loosing out in tonnage efficiency to medium laser the AC-20 would really fulfil it's role as a close range beast justifying it's immense cost in tonnage and heat.

Proposal for an AC-15 the weapon would be an intermediate between the 10  and 20. The weapon would have the same tonnage as the AC-20 but more range instead Having a range band of either 5/10/15 or 4/8/15. It would have 7-8  shots per ton. Heat would be in between the 10's 3 points and the 20's 7 points at 5 points of heat. Crits would be 8-9.

If these modifications went through of course all other autocannons would need the same type of range adjustment or they would loose out especially the LB X.

Proposal even shaving off a single ton of weight would have noticeable implications on the AC's effectiveness especially if it was combined with the above modifications.

Note that the AC/20 can already shoot out to 12 hexes; it's just at +6 To-Hit and -5 damage.
The biggest problem with doing anything to the range or damage statistics, adding hit modifiers or extra crit rolls or whatever is that you then have to recalculate all the Battle Values involved. Which is a pain in the neck.

[DevianID]

I still see every post talking about tonnage, like its a tonnage problem. 
In universe, the ac5 can load flak and is more heat efficient then a PPC, so designs that can't fully sink a PPC can use an AC5 to better effect.  Its not always the most efficient option, but it sometimes is the most efficient option, especially versus air.
In universe, the ac2 has the longest range, so will always exist in universe as a weapon to fear.  The Vulcan and blackjack will terrorize you with its ac2 and force you to engage.  Especially in universe when 45 rounds is just 8 minutes, ac2's put up a solid barrage of fire.

Its only in tonnage balanced tabletop games of 10-15 turns that the smaller autocannons rate as 'bad'.  Its the theory of missing out on "more damage" with the tonnage--totally a game artifact.  BV accurately describes the range*damage, without the 'tonnage' bias.  Its why a jagermech is 'fine', good even.  Because we dont balance by tonnage, so the jagermech isnt missing out on anything due to 28 tons of cannons.  It has a BV of 900 and does decent heat neutral long range damage. 

Its only in the early clan invasion, where the clan dueling and focus on mech v mech combat not combined arms has standard autocannons behind the curve, because clan large pulse lasers exist but not precision AC ammo yet.

[Cannonshop]

Except no, actually, you still do, because that's at least a 25% BV increase for every single Autocannon and means having to recalculate the BV of everything which mounts one. As mentioned, this is very much a pick-your-poison situation vis a vis recsheet data; except that altering the mass doesn't actually require changing any of the existing sheets, it just means that those versions are inefficient and have unused mass.

Note that the AC/20 can already shoot out to 12 hexes; it's just at +6 To-Hit and -5 damage.
The biggest problem with doing anything to the range or damage statistics, adding hit modifiers or extra crit rolls or whatever is that you then have to recalculate all the Battle Values involved. Which is a pain in the neck.

ISTR BV getting rearranged more often than some folks change their socks, with BV2 even getting suspended because some of the people producing product got the order of operations wrong.

Sure as hell my SHD-2H from a 1990s era record sheets product isn't oging to have the same BV as one from 2005.

Battlevalue, is flexible.  It changes with updates and releases.   When I say "You don't have to change the record sheet" I'm entirely referring to weight, crits, and location calculations. 

There are only a few units in the game that got that level of change-some of the smallcraft in the transition from aT1 to AT2, because the whole system changed, the Mark VII from it's intro to the 200 ton monster it became, and the Warrior H-7 because Inner Sphere can't have a VTOL that outperforms the nearest Clan equivalent (in any way at all) or the galaxy will implode from the accumulated paradox.

[RifleMech]

Ah, the legacy of rule change continues. When all heat sinks took critspace the autocannon was a great because it didn't take as much space as a PPC. Engine mounted heat sinks nerfed autocannons. DHS nerfed them even more. We have gotten different engine types where autocannons can still shine but most people don't use them.

We did have the Solaris VII's Overriding Delay (rapid fire) rule. Granted it applied to all weapons but it really benefited autocannons. AC/2s being able to fire 4x per turn with out jamming made the Blackjack scary. AC/5s being able to fire 2x per turn without jamming made mech's like the Rifleman and JagerMech something you didn't want to get in range of. Anyone trying to take advantage of their light armor would get hurt. And it's entirely optional. No changes to stats or record sheets needed.

 

The problem with iACs is that being ClanTech they are then competing with the rest of ClanTech, and are if anything even worse comparitivly.

Not really. They generate less heat than energy weapons, don't need to worry about Ultra's jamming, and alternative munitions give them some flexibility Ultra's and LBX don't have. And they cost less, if you're tracking that. Their only draw back is their lower range compared to Ultras and LBX. Still, if you're having to stagger your fire do to heat or operate at closer ranges, that's not too bad. We often used Improved Weapons on OMNIs to lower heat. They're also great for customizing secondline units. Swap standard for improved, add ammo and done. I don't know why TPTB decided to retcon them to go extinct after 20 years instead of remaining available in 3050.

This would result in basically every design previously equipped with an Autocannon having a bunch of extra space not doing anything (especially if you also reduced the size of the ten and twenty by two slots, which I recommend if only so that the King Crab can stop being a Gameplay And Lore Segregation example) with the attending knockoffs of that (EG, UAC/20s actually fitting in an arm rather than being impossible to mount in an arm, for starters,) but that doesn't actually invalidate their record sheets at all, just makes them undesirable/inefficient.

UAC/20s will fit in the arm if you remove the lower arm and hand actuators.

call it enduring the process of BAR as it was being formulated and playtested, but I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing.  as things stand right now, AC's, specifically the 5 but to a lesser extent the 2 and the 10, are boat anchors you pull to install something actually good.

Thresholding sounds like a huge can of sandworms. Not only would every hit lower the threshold but we also have BAR with lower thresholds. Would and AC/5 have double thresholding against BAR5 Armor? How would it effect Rifles? It sounds bad.

they don't make sense as common armament on anything.

YET, they ARE common armament on LOTS OF THINGS.

they don't have a 'killer application', they're too  heavy for the damage and range, the heat curve isn't made up, and other solutions already end up changing rules, mine at least makes designs that use them a rational idea.

Too heavy depends on what you put them on. If you've got a standard fusion engine, and the crit space, you could swap a PPC for an autocannon without much problem. If you any other engine type, that's an extra 5-10 tons for heat sinks plus a possible 1 ton for power amplifier. It's not always practical, or legal, to swap engines and not all units have the tonnage available to install the extra weight to deal with the PPC's heat.

Then there's things like cost. A PPC costs 200,000 c-bills, + power amplifier, + heatsinks, or + increased engine cost and/or + heat sinks.
For 200,000 c-bills, you can buy an AC/5 (125,000 c-bills) and 16 tons of standard ammo at 4,500 credits a ton and have 3000 credits left over.
 
A PPC may be better for a frontline unit, that travels often, to be independent of ammo and fuel but it may not for a garrison unit on a backwater world or a cash strapped unit.

And not only can autocannons be used as field guns, they don't suffer penalties.  :evil:

Autocannons should be autocannons. And we won't have to add any new rules. Just fix the ones we have. Blend the Solaris VII rules with TO's rapid fire rules. It lets ACs be more effective and won't replace Ultras.
AC/5s can fire twice per turn with no penalty or 4 times at a +4 to jam.
UAC/5s can fire twice per turn with no penalty or 4 times at a +2 to jam.
A UAC/5 rapid firing... 20 damage at 20-21 hexes... at 4 heat. It's not the solid hit of a Clan ERPPC at slightly less range (23) but it can do more damage over all for a lot less heat. 

[Cannonshop]

Ah, the legacy of rule change continues. When all heat sinks took critspace the autocannon was a great because it didn't take as much space as a PPC. Engine mounted heat sinks nerfed autocannons. DHS nerfed them even more. We have gotten different engine types where autocannons can still shine but most people don't use them.

We did have the Solaris VII's Overriding Delay (rapid fire) rule. Granted it applied to all weapons but it really benefited autocannons. AC/2s being able to fire 4x per turn with out jamming made the Blackjack scary. AC/5s being able to fire 2x per turn without jamming made mech's like the Rifleman and JagerMech something you didn't want to get in range of. Anyone trying to take advantage of their light armor would get hurt. And it's entirely optional. No changes to stats or record sheets needed.

 




Not really. They generate less heat than energy weapons, don't need to worry about Ultra's jamming, and alternative munitions give them some flexibility Ultra's and LBX don't have. And they cost less, if you're tracking that. Their only draw back is their lower range compared to Ultras and LBX. Still, if you're having to stagger your fire do to heat or operate at closer ranges, that's not too bad. We often used Improved Weapons on OMNIs to lower heat. They're also great for customizing secondline units. Swap standard for improved, add ammo and done. I don't know why TPTB decided to retcon them to go extinct after 20 years instead of remaining available in 3050.



UAC/20s will fit in the arm if you remove the lower arm and hand actuators.





Thresholding sounds like a huge can of sandworms. Not only would every hit lower the threshold but we also have BAR with lower thresholds. Would and AC/5 have double thresholding against BAR5 Armor? How would it effect Rifles? It sounds bad.


Too heavy depends on what you put them on. If you've got a standard fusion engine, and the crit space, you could swap a PPC for an autocannon without much problem. If you any other engine type, that's an extra 5-10 tons for heat sinks plus a possible 1 ton for power amplifier. It's not always practical, or legal, to swap engines and not all units have the tonnage available to install the extra weight to deal with the PPC's heat.

Then there's things like cost. A PPC costs 200,000 c-bills, + power amplifier, + heatsinks, or + increased engine cost and/or + heat sinks.
For 200,000 c-bills, you can buy an AC/5 (125,000 c-bills) and 16 tons of standard ammo at 4,500 credits a ton and have 3000 credits left over.
 
A PPC may be better for a frontline unit, that travels often, to be independent of ammo and fuel but it may not for a garrison unit on a backwater world or a cash strapped unit.

And not only can autocannons be used as field guns, they don't suffer penalties.  :evil:

Autocannons should be autocannons. And we won't have to add any new rules. Just fix the ones we have. Blend the Solaris VII rules with TO's rapid fire rules. It lets ACs be more effective and won't replace Ultras.
AC/5s can fire twice per turn with no penalty or 4 times at a +4 to jam.
UAC/5s can fire twice per turn with no penalty or 4 times at a +2 to jam.
A UAC/5 rapid firing... 20 damage at 20-21 hexes... at 4 heat. It's not the solid hit of a Clan ERPPC at slightly less range (23) but it can do more damage over all for a lot less heat.

I'll disagree with you on several points here.

1. Ultras are okay...as backup weapons.  Making every cannon a Jammin' Cannon is pointless and defeats the purpose of even examining autocannons, because the jammin' feature is the balancer chosen for ultras.  If you want a dubble Tap that doesn't jam as often, and can be unjammed, you grab a rotary and eat the range penalty (Unless you're Clan, because they get all the toys in better form).

2. there's a reason that aspect of Solaris never made it mainstream even when they were grabbing Mechforce UK stuff for Total Warfare.

3. I guess I wasn't clear enough-the threshold is set at BASELINE, it doesn't slide (neither does it slide in Aerotech, unless you use the optional rule.)  while it might be autistic fun to use a sliding scale, it's not practical fun for non-autists.

4. Autocannon 5 was still junk when the Heat Sinks were not internal-they eat CRITS. Lots of them, and the ammo explodes for what amounts to a limited duration (VERY) extended range medium laser without the heat...but with a bin full of explosives right next to your vulnerable bits. It matrially didn't offer anything but a lower heat generation, and even if your heat sinks were external to the engine? you only need between 10 and 13 for most 'mechs-the same ten to thirteen you'd have if they were internal on most builds.

in short, not a tradeof-you still can't alpha a MAD-3R and remain heat neutral. *(in that machine's case, the AC/5 is just a way to have a bomb in the torso anyway-the overheat from the PPC's and lasers will cook the ammo off before you're likely to expend it if you're not really careful.)

BUT, my proposal makes that autocannon legitimately dangerous enough to justify lugging that bomb around, and doesn't rely on trying to emulate some other weapon that was introduced later as a specific upgrade that would then lose it's unique status.

[Daryk]

I think RifleMech is on to something.  We certainly shouldn't go full Solaris, but the existing Rapid-Fire rules (TO:AR, page 98) could use a little tweaking, along with complementary tweaks to Ultras/RACs and CASE.

1) Normal ammunition bins act as if they have CASE.  CASE works like CASE II.
2) Standard or Light Autocannons can double fire, but jam on a 2 when doing so.
3) Ultras DON'T jam when firing 2 shots.  They can fire three shots but potentially jam on 2, or 4 shots with a jam on 2-3.
4) RACs DON'T jam when firing 4 or fewer shots.  They jam on a 2 for 5 shots and 2-3 for 6.
5) HVACs don't explode on a 2, they jam.  HVACs can double fire, but jam on a 3, and explode as normal on 2.
6) All jams can be cleared during game play as per the rules for RACs (TW, page 140 refers).  This also means a jammed Autocannon can explode if it takes a critical hit (also TW, page 140).

[DevianID]

I dont know about the jam stuff.  Ive used the rapid fire standard autocannons in tac ops, and those rules are not well received.  As in, too powerful to only jam on 4 and explode on 2.  Blowing your mech up potentially on snake eyes when you are likely to die anyway just gives my opponent a bad time, and in short duration games the extra shots outpaced the loss of firepower when jamming.

As an aside, like what is the goal of buffing ACs?  Is it to avoid using precision and AP ammo?  Is it for tonnage balance despite the contridactions of balancing by tonnage?  Like, if AC2s shoot 4 times in a turn solaris style, what problem does that solve from a game theory POV?  If ac5s can shoot 2 times, what is fixed by that change?  And why do those changes not apply to an LRM10 or large laser?

I'm just confused by it is all.  The reasons HBS buffed autocannons and nerfed LOS and medium lasers centered around balancing weapons by tonnage and damage, as range was artificially curtailed for gameplay keeping targets on a single screen as much as possible.  It makes sense in that context because that video game was balanced strictly on tonnage = damage.  But that's not the case in classic, so what game related mechanic is buffing autocannons solving?

[RifleMech]

I'll disagree with you on several points here.

1. Ultras are okay...as backup weapons.  Making every cannon a Jammin' Cannon is pointless and defeats the purpose of even examining autocannons, because the jammin' feature is the balancer chosen for ultras.  If you want a dubble Tap that doesn't jam as often, and can be unjammed, you grab a rotary and eat the range penalty (Unless you're Clan, because they get all the toys in better form).

2. there's a reason that aspect of Solaris never made it mainstream even when they were grabbing Mechforce UK stuff for Total Warfare.

3. I guess I wasn't clear enough-the threshold is set at BASELINE, it doesn't slide (neither does it slide in Aerotech, unless you use the optional rule.)  while it might be autistic fun to use a sliding scale, it's not practical fun for non-autists.

4. Autocannon 5 was still junk when the Heat Sinks were not internal-they eat CRITS. Lots of them, and the ammo explodes for what amounts to a limited duration (VERY) extended range medium laser without the heat...but with a bin full of explosives right next to your vulnerable bits. It matrially didn't offer anything but a lower heat generation, and even if your heat sinks were external to the engine? you only need between 10 and 13 for most 'mechs-the same ten to thirteen you'd have if they were internal on most builds.

in short, not a tradeof-you still can't alpha a MAD-3R and remain heat neutral. *(in that machine's case, the AC/5 is just a way to have a bomb in the torso anyway-the overheat from the PPC's and lasers will cook the ammo off before you're likely to expend it if you're not really careful.)

BUT, my proposal makes that autocannon legitimately dangerous enough to justify lugging that bomb around, and doesn't rely on trying to emulate some other weapon that was introduced later as a specific upgrade that would then lose it's unique status.

1) Ultras shouldn't have to be backup cannons though. Ultra's would still fire more rapidly than standard autocannons. They did under the Solaris VII rules. There's no reason for that to change. The more ammo sent down range the better. That's why Rotary's were created. And the rule should apply to them as well. AC/5 2x per turn. UAC/5 4x per turn. RAC/5 12x per turn.

The balance used to be heat, weight, and crit space. Putting HS in the engine changed the balance. Energy weapons got a huge boost in free weight and reduced crits. DHS made the imbalance even worse.

2) That it applied to all weapons or the self inflicted damage rules weren't written to be easy to use?

3) So if a Locust 1V with 10 points of CT armor would have a threshold of 10?  What about the 1S or some other variant? It'd be constantly changing with each mech. And then there's other armor types. Would 10 points of Commercial Armor still have a threshold of 10? Is that on top of the penetrating hit for weapons that do 6+ damage? I'm sorry but it sounds like a mess.

4) With all heat sinks taking crits, they can be damaged which reduces how much heat the mech can get rid of each turn.

Yes, ammo can explode when hit. It can also explode when the mech gets too hot. The Mech can also shut down and the pilot be effected by the heat just like with the ammo explosion. There's balance there.

Lower heat is a good thing when heat sinks take tonnage as not all engines come with 10 free heat sinks. 

The Marauder-3R has the AC/5 because it can't fire both PPCs every turn do to heat. That second PPC becomes dead weight for a turn. It also inflicts a movement penalty that doesn't reduce if you fire 1 PPC and the AC/5.
Turn 1
2PPCs = 20 heat - 13=7 (-1MP)
Turn 2
Previous heat 7+11 (1PPC+AC/5) = 18-13 = 5 (-1MP)
Turn 3
Previous heat 5+11 (1PPC+AC/5) = 16-13 = 3

If that second PPC is fired on Turn 3
Previous heat 5+20 (2PPCs) = 25-13 = 13 (-2MP and +2 to hit modifier.)

And that doesn't include movement heat. It works if the Marauder can kill it's opponent quickly. If not, it's in trouble.

But if you swapped things around. 1 PPC + 2 AC/5s with 12 heat sinks,
Turn one
all three fire for 12 heat. With 12 heat sinks it can fire every turn without a problem. Even if the ACs rapid fire it'd still only generate 14 heat. Even with  2 heat for movement it'd have 4 heat the next turn so it wouldn't have any penalties. So it can go back and forth double and single tapping while firing the PPC and be more effective.

And yes, there's ammo limits but if the second PPC isn't firing it's as good as autocannons without ammo.

[Mechanis]

I'm not sure why you're comparing the AC 5 to a PPC?
They're not in competition most of the time (there are some AC 5 designs which have sufficiently low heat usage that they can do an AC/5 to PPC swap, but those are in the minority)
The AC 5 is competing with the Large Laser, which is a superior weapon in the vast majority of cases. Similarly, the practical difference between an AC 2 and LRM in range effectively only matters for static platforms such as fixed fortifications or landed DropShips; a whole sixty meters matters basically not at all for things that are actually capable of moving (assuming you even have the ability to shoot that far to begin with thanks to that inconvenient "terrain" thing.)
The fundamental problem is that Autocannons were never approprately balanced; talking about heat sinks or tonnage balance or whatever is entirely missing the point. the problem with Autocannons is that Their mass value is too high for their performance; solutions to this always taking the form of either increasing the actual performance (more damage, firing multiple times, to hit mods, special critical hits rules, etc) or reduction of said mass. As long as it's a trivial change to pull an Autocannon for similar or outright superior firepower in missiles and or energy weapons, Autocannons will remain a problem.

[RifleMech]

I think RifleMech is on to something.  We certainly shouldn't go full Solaris, but the existing Rapid-Fire rules (TO:AR, page 98) could use a little tweaking, along with complementary tweaks to Ultras/RACs and CASE.

1) Normal ammunition bins act as if they have CASE.  CASE works like CASE II.
2) Standard or Light Autocannons can double fire, but jam on a 2 when doing so.
3) Ultras DON'T jam when firing 2 shots.  They can fire three shots but potentially jam on 2, or 4 shots with a jam on 2-3.
4) RACs DON'T jam when firing 4 or fewer shots.  They jam on a 2 for 5 shots and 2-3 for 6.
5) HVACs don't explode on a 2, they jam.  HVACs can double fire, but jam on a 3, and explode as normal on 2.
6) All jams can be cleared during game play as per the rules for RACs (TW, page 140 refers).  This also means a jammed Autocannon can explode if it takes a critical hit (also TW, page 140).

Thanks. I wouldn't go full Solaris VII but I would barrow from it to tweak the TO's rapid fire rules.
Let lighter cannons fire more often than bigger ones. That is the biggest complaint I see. The lighter AC's don't do enough damage for their weight. The way to change that is to allow them to fire more often.

1) I don't know. What would CASE II act like?

2) Could be good. I'm still thing smaller ACs should be able to fire more often but we can make it a bit riskier.
(AC, IAC, HVAC, PAC)
AC/2s can fire up to 4x per turn. 2x jam on 2, 3x jam on 3, 4x jam on 4.
AC/4/5/8 can fire 3x per turn. 2x jam on 2, 3x jam on 4.
AC/10s and AC/20s can fire twice and jam on 4.

3) Ultras, reduce the jam rate.
UAC/2 can fire up to 4x per turn. 2x no jam. 3x jam on 2. 4x jam on 3.
UAC/5 can fire 3x per turn. 2x no jam. 3x jam on 3.
UAC/10s and UAC/20s can fire twice and jam on 2.

4)RACs
Up to 3x jam on 2, 4-5x jam on 3, 6x jam on 4. Same as normal. After that... either continue as normal or increase the chance of jam for each shot but it fires fast enough it's going to jam.

5) I like it.

6) I'd go with a chance of clearing rather than it being a sure thing. There should be a risk to rapid firing and sometimes you just need a tech to fix it. RACs remain jammed on a 2. Ultras on a 3. All others remain jammed on a 4.

I dont know about the jam stuff.  Ive used the rapid fire standard autocannons in tac ops, and those rules are not well received.  As in, too powerful to only jam on 4 and explode on 2.  Blowing your mech up potentially on snake eyes when you are likely to die anyway just gives my opponent a bad time, and in short duration games the extra shots outpaced the loss of firepower when jamming.

I think it depends on if you're playing a pick-up game or a campaign. The stakes are higher in a campaign when you can end up dispossessed.

As an aside, like what is the goal of buffing ACs?  Is it to avoid using precision and AP ammo?  Is it for tonnage balance despite the contridactions of balancing by tonnage?  Like, if AC2s shoot 4 times in a turn solaris style, what problem does that solve from a game theory POV?  If ac5s can shoot 2 times, what is fixed by that change?  And why do those changes not apply to an LRM10 or large laser?

I'm just confused by it is all.  The reasons HBS buffed autocannons and nerfed LOS and medium lasers centered around balancing weapons by tonnage and damage, as range was artificially curtailed for gameplay keeping targets on a single screen as much as possible.  It makes sense in that context because that video game was balanced strictly on tonnage = damage.  But that's not the case in classic, so what game related mechanic is buffing autocannons solving?

Those ammo types aren't available in all eras. Mostly, it's to fix the complaint I read about Autocannons, especially the lighter ones. They're too heavy for the damage they do compared to energy weapons. And that's kind of true with standard engines. At least up to 10(20) heat sinking. Units get 10-20 free tons which benefit Energy weapons a lot more than Autocannons. And unless the engine rating is below 250, Mechs don't risk losing any to being crited and taking longer to get rid of heat. For 9 tons you get an AC/5 and an ammo bomb. For 9 tons you get 3  LPPCs. And with DHS the you don't have to worry about heat. That's a huge advantage for the LPPC.

When you start using other unit types with other engines, they are more balanced. Those unit types can pay 8-8.5 tons for a LPPC. The AC/5 with ammo weighs 9 tons. The advantage for the LPPC is slight. With a PPC those units can end up paying 18 tons. That's two AC/5s with 2 tons of ammo. The weight/damage is more balanced

LRMs don't need it as they can do 10 damage for 6-10 tons. They're balanced with AC/5s and PPCs by trading a little weight for range.

Large Lasers have the same issue of PPC/AC/5 but weigh 2 tons less. They're also a bit more balanced vs an AC/2 though. 5-13.5 tons (LL) vs 7-8 tons (AC/2). LL's also range trade range for damage.  So things aren't as bad as they are for the AC/5. Maybe if the AC/5's range were better than the PPC's, such as (3/7/14/21) there wouldn't be as many complaints about the AC/5 but weight and damage is still going to be an issue for most.

[RifleMech]

I'm not sure why you're comparing the AC 5 to a PPC?
They're not in competition most of the time (there are some AC 5 designs which have sufficiently low heat usage that they can do an AC/5 to PPC swap, but those are in the minority)
The AC 5 is competing with the Large Laser, which is a superior weapon in the vast majority of cases. Similarly, the practical difference between an AC 2 and LRM in range effectively only matters for static platforms such as fixed fortifications or landed DropShips; a whole sixty meters matters basically not at all for things that are actually capable of moving (assuming you even have the ability to shoot that far to begin with thanks to that inconvenient "terrain" thing.)
The fundamental problem is that Autocannons were never approprately balanced; talking about heat sinks or tonnage balance or whatever is entirely missing the point. the problem with Autocannons is that Their mass value is too high for their performance; solutions to this always taking the form of either increasing the actual performance (more damage, firing multiple times, to hit mods, special critical hits rules, etc) or reduction of said mass. As long as it's a trivial change to pull an Autocannon for similar or outright superior firepower in missiles and or energy weapons, Autocannons will remain a problem.

Because I usually see people comparing the AC/5 to a PPC and swapping the latter for the former as it weighs less and does more damage for the same  range. Some will trade the AC/5 for a LL but it's usually a PPC that's getting installed.

Firing multiple times would allow autocannons to do more damage.

Outside of use on aerospace units I never think of LRMs as superior to autocannons. They're lighter and with greater range but generate more heat with random damage and lower shots per ton.

[Daryk]

RifleMech:

1) There would be no CASE II.  You'd get CASE II effects for a half ton/1 crit per location installed.
2-4) Those seem more fiddly than what I proposed, but that's subjective.
5) Thanks!
6) The rules for clearing RACs are no sure thing.  I remain opposed to weapons that irretrievably break themselves under normal combat conditions.  Occasional stoppages that can be cleared in the field are ok.