Anyway To Enhance the Effectiveness of Small LRM Launchers?

[Colt Ward]

Damage does not take out the NARC beacon, sorry I said launcher at first.

[Weirdo]

Yeah, Beacons are only gone when the location they're mounted on is destroyed.

Note, the rules do say "location", not "location's armor". You want to lose that NARC stuck to your elbow, the whole arm's gotta come off at the shoulder.

[garhkal]

In 3025 I actually like modding mechs that have 1 large rack with multiples of LRM5s.  It usually doesn't create heat problems and for the Atlas it matches the original fluff.  It also allows you to tailor your deliveries. So you don't have to launch an entire salvo of 15 or 20 at that long range light, but you can do 5 or 10 just to let them know you are thinking about them.  The downside is that it does produce more rolling and I have also feel (read no statistical evidence to back that) that you tend to hit with less missiles.

Well an average hit from an LRM-5 is 3 missiles..  Where as its 9 or 12 for a 15 or 20 pack..  so essentially they are 'averaging' the same.

[grimlock1]

In 3025 I actually like modding mechs that have 1 large rack with multiples of LRM5s.  It usually doesn't create heat problems and for the Atlas it matches the original fluff.  It also allows you to tailor your deliveries. So you don't have to launch an entire salvo of 15 or 20 at that long range light, but you can do 5 or 10 just to let them know you are thinking about them.  The downside is that it does produce more rolling and I have also feel (read no statistical evidence to back that) that you tend to hit with less missiles.

I don't have an analytical solution, but I have a simulation that shows 4xlrm 5's to be +/- 1 point of damage compared to lrm 20's, over several thousand comparisons.

[RunandFindOut]

yep I did basically the same thing several years ago.  You end up with effectively the same amount of damage over time.  The only real difference is that one is a stream of more smaller hits with less variation.  The other has more variation but averages out to the same over time.

[Alsadius]

The analytical solution is actually really easy - just multiply the cluster hits table by the probability of each roll.

The averages are as follows.

LRM-5: 3.17 (3.83 w/Artemis IV)
LRM-10: 6.31 (7.67 w/Artemis IV)
LRM-15: 9.50 (11.50 w/Artemis IV)
LRM-20: 12.69 (15.36 w/Artemis IV)

If you factor in launcher size, they're almost precisely equal - all of them average 63% of the theoretical max, or 77% with Artemis equipped.

[grimlock1]

The analytical solution is actually really easy - just multiply the cluster hits table by the probability of each roll.

The averages are as follows.

LRM-5: 3.17 (3.83 w/Artemis IV)
LRM-10: 6.31 (7.67 w/Artemis IV)
LRM-15: 9.50 (11.50 w/Artemis IV)
LRM-20: 12.69 (15.36 w/Artemis IV)

If you factor in launcher size, they're almost precisely equal - all of them average 63% of the theoretical max, or 77% with Artemis equipped.

My model factors in the difference of 4 TH rolls versus 1.  I expected LRM 5's would start to suffer when you get to TH numbers of 10-12.  Oddly enough, they don't.

You know what they say about statistics and bikinis?  On a whim, I reduced my sample from hundreds of lrm 20 firings to just 6, or 1 ton, and lowered the LRM 5 set to match.  Under those conditions there is a LOT more variability.  When limited to a single ton of ammo, the difference between the 2 sets could be +/- 5 damage points, but that's extreme.  There's no bias towards either launcher setup.

[monbvol]

Hmmm...  Still seems off to me but I'm not sure how I could make anything more accurate or know enough to properly refute those findings.

[(SMD)MadCow]

My model factors in the difference of 4 TH rolls versus 1.  I expected LRM 5's would start to suffer when you get to TH numbers of 10-12.  Oddly enough, they don't.

Seems a bit superfluous to attempt to account for "to hit" rolls, the data should only be concerned with assuming you hit since that's what triggers a roll on the cluster table. Really, the only thing that accounting for "to hit" will do is generate a 0 result which you're not measuring anyway.

[monbvol]

Well you do need to track that too for a fair comparison to account for the times where you only hit with say three LRM-5s but the LRM-20 does hit.

[garhkal]

yep I did basically the same thing several years ago.  You end up with effectively the same amount of damage over time.  The only real difference is that one is a stream of more smaller hits with less variation.  The other has more variation but averages out to the same over time.

Plus 4 lrm-5s do NOT weigh the same as a LRM-20.  So technically to get a proper comparison you'd have to do 5 lrm-5s (same weight)..

[Alsadius]

If you're looking at the variance, then it matters greatly. But if you're looking at the averages, it's so close as to be meaningless.

And yes, 4 LRM-5 don't weigh the same as 1 LRM-20, but they also don't have the same heat. So really you should use 3 LRM-5, to have the same heat balance. /s

[monbvol]

Personally that is where I would probably say the 4xLRM-5s = 1xLRM-20 makes the most sense.  You save enough weight and critical slots to add in some heat sinks to cover the added heat or add more ammo while also having the ability to voluntarily fire fewer LRM-5s if the variables of the combat situation have it make sense instead of firing all 4.

[(SMD)MadCow]

So there needs to be 3 different sets then?
5/20 Heat - 3 LRM5 to 1 LRM20 based on heat generated
5/20 Damage - 4 LRM5 to 1 LRM20 based on total damage
5/20 Weight - 5 LRM5 to 1 LRM20 based on with of the systems

What information do we stand to gain by measuring the variance of each set and between each set?
The averages are expected to remain the same, yes?

[monbvol]

Those three tests would reveal different spreads, thus resulting in different variances.

Just as a super simplistic example 3xLRM-5s if they all hit will tend to average out to 9 total damage applied in 3 clusters of 3 for the same heat as a LRM-20 but the LRM-20 assuming it hits will average out to 12 damage applied in two clusters of 5 and a cluster of 2.  As you can see that is a fairly substantial jump in damage you could reasonably expect and is the same number of hit locations.

[Dayton3]

The analytical solution is actually really easy - just multiply the cluster hits table by the probability of each roll.

The averages are as follows.

LRM-5: 3.17 (3.83 w/Artemis IV)
LRM-10: 6.31 (7.67 w/Artemis IV)
LRM-15: 9.50 (11.50 w/Artemis IV)
LRM-20: 12.69 (15.36 w/Artemis IV)

If you factor in launcher size, they're almost precisely equal - all of them average 63% of the theoretical max, or 77% with Artemis equipped.

I never knew Artemis increased your number of hits by only 14% on average?

How much do Streak's increase your number of SRM hits?

[(SMD)MadCow]

I never knew Artemis increased your number of hits by only 14% on average?

How much do Streak's increase your number of SRM hits?

100%, if you hit with a streak launcher all missiles hit.

[Alsadius]

Artemis is +2 on the cluster hits table, which works out to that bump. It's fairly substantial, though - it's 14 percentage points, but that's a 22 percent increase in damage done(because 77/63 = 1.22). In weight efficiency terms, anything LRM-10 or larger is improved by adding Artemis IV. (Artemis V is harder to calculate, as it gives a to-hit buff as well, but I suspect it's similar in the end).

[Iceweb]

I also wonder how much a +2 cluster helps when you throw in anti missile systems and glancing blows which can each put a -4 on the cluster table. 
There the +2 can mean getting a few missiles on target as opposed to having the whole salvo knocked out. 
I would love to see some mathcraft on that.

[Colt Ward]

AMS only gets to go against a single missile launch.  I think you can pick it . . .

[Dave Talley]

the problem with NARC was that it never proliferated in any serious way. You have, at max, three dozen units to choose from vs SG compatibility with hundreds of units mounting various flavors of TAG

but in a unit that is mostly L1 tech, you only need modify one mech to make every launcher in the unit better
ie swap a SRM6 on a hovercraft for a NARC and every other SRM/LRM in the company is improved when firing at that target

[Sartris]

but in a unit that is mostly L1 tech, you only need modify one mech to make every launcher in the unit better
ie swap a SRM6 on a hovercraft for a NARC and every other SRM/LRM in the company is improved when firing at that target

Indeed, at the top of the thread I mentioned that I was most successful with narc in this situation. The awkward paucity of in-universe deployment makes it a tough thing to wedge into forces sometimes if you don’t play customs.

[Luciora]

Part of me thinks all that was needed is a line in the NARC text saying it was a common refit for units that carried an SRM6, but on the other hand, we would end up with a glut of designs needing record sheets and designations for a single weapon swap for a canon sheet.

[grimlock1]

Part of me thinks all that was needed is a line in the NARC text saying it was a common refit for units that carried an SRM6, but on the other hand, we would end up with a glut of designs needing record sheets and designations for a single weapon swap for a canon sheet.

I like the idea of fluffing that in, and bearing it in mind going forward, but if it's just a SRM 6-->Narc swap, that can easily be added by hand to sheet.

Consider the CN9-D to CN9-D3, or SCB-9A to SCB-9T.  The only change to the record sheets are penciling in the new walk/run speeds and writing six "TSM" crits. The DCMS's C3 upgrades warranted a change because not every mech had a medium laser to swap out. Sometimes it was a heatsink, or some ammo.

[Iceweb]

AMS only gets to go against a single missile launch.  I think you can pick it . . .

 

Once you are into using AMS and the -4 you are in optional rules and I think there are some rules to let AMS fire multiple times. 
Also you get to target one flight (that hits) per AMS you have some mechs have more than one like the Komodo. 
Any attack roll can be exact and glance and get the -4 result so that is not limited. 

Some math would be nice to see.

[Colt Ward]

Well, glancing blows are option rules and the only time I remember seeing that used was in a novel.

[monbvol]

AMS applying -4 is a standard rule.

AMS being able to shoot down all missiles in a flight is an optional rule, or any other method causing all clusters to miss.

Glancing Blows is an optional rule.

This actually gives us multiple conditions to test.

Artemis vs AMS under standard rules which will also give us the same results as testing for just Glancing Blows without the optional rule for all missiles missing.

Artemis vs AMS with optional rule where all missiles can miss which will also give the same results as Glancing Blows with the optional rule in play as well.

Artemis vs AMS and Glancing Blows but not with the optional rule for all missiles to miss.

Artemis vs AMS and Glancing Blows with the optional rule for all missiles to miss in play.

Each requires a slightly different methodology which I think I will leave to others to go through because I'm getting some really funky numbers.