An idea: the AC-15

[FedComGirl]

OK, it should be "=<" Rather than just "=".
You need to take a second look at what "balanced" usually means in games. It doesn't mean "these numbers look pretty", it usually means "these options are equally viable choices".

Making a 5 heat, 13 ton, 4/8/12 range AC/15 makes it significantly better than both the AC/10 and AC/20. As I said, if that's your goal, fine. But you should know what you're doing!

Except it isn't significantly better. It doesn't have the range or ammo supply of the AC/10 or the damage capability of the AC/20. What it is, is viably optional but still odd enough that it wouldn't replace either AC. Both of which would do more damage with that extra ton. One by sheer firepower and the other with more ammo.

Having the AC/15 be much heavier than the AC/20 makes it completely non viable. No one would use it. And again it breaks how AC/s work and how they're classified. AC/s as classified by how much damage they do. And the greater the AC/s damage the more it weighs and the lower it's range. That is a fact for every type of AC there is. They don't mix up class and weight they way you describe. The only way smaller AC/s can be heavier than larger class AC/s is if they're of a different type. And again, all AC types follow the same progression, so while that smaller AC is heavier than higher classed AC of a different type, it'd still be lighter than a higher classed AC in its type.

To have the weight you want, the autocannon would have to be a HV AC/15 weighing 18 tons, taking 8 critical slots, with a range of 4/8/12, and 4 rounds of ammo. And while I'm totally okay with that in the current time setting, Hyper-velocity Autocannons are not Succession War technology. And even then you're still not going to get an AC to match a Gauss Rifle in both range and damage. The only AC that comes close is the UAC/10 and that's providing both rounds hit the same place.

[anime ninja]

Reading the replies, I see that a lot of people have missed the part of changing the weight and size of the AC10.  For the AC-15 to work with my idea the AC 10 becomes 10 tons.

you then have for weights
AC-2 at 6
AC-5 at 8
AC-10 at 10
AC-15 at 12
AC-20 at 14

This follows the patten that LRMs and SRMs have.

The idea of the AC-15 does break down with gauss rifles.  The high damage, long range and low heat make it almost a wonder weapon.

[FedComGirl]

Reading the replies, I see that a lot of people have missed the part of changing the weight and size of the AC10.  For the AC-15 to work with my idea the AC 10 becomes 10 tons.

you then have for weights
AC-2 at 6
AC-5 at 8
AC-10 at 10
AC-15 at 12
AC-20 at 14

This follows the patten that LRMs and SRMs have.

That would be better.

The idea of the AC-15 does break down with gauss rifles.  The high damage, long range and low heat make it almost a wonder weapon.

But it can blow up which would ruin your whole day.  :(

[Sabelkatten]

That's still completely unintuitive and I have no idea what you're trying to measure here. Most people generally don't consider how far a weapon reaches when trying to decide if they have enough ammo. They count how many shots they have against how long they expect combat to last and whether they want to run out . Range is a complete non-factor in their decision making except insofar it dictates "how soon can I start shooting". Having an ELRM launcher than can reach out to 36 hexes doesn't mean I want to carry 36 rounds' worth of reloads for it.

And you know, even a top end Assault Mech can cross 9 hexes in 3 turns... at a WALK no less.

Many people don't consider range... Until they think of what actually goes into their decisions. Like, for example, wanting to carry a lot more ammo for a long-range weapon that they expect to use from the very start of a battle to the very end, than for an extremely short-range weapon that they expect to get a few shots with in any given battle.

I didn't just pull those numbers out of that dark place, I actually investigated how much ammo people on these forums generally used. At ~1 shot for every hex of range very few people ever worried about running out of ammo during any normal engagement, i.e. they could use the weapon at its fullest. Sure a lot of people thought that was a lot of ammo - but said people also had to admit that if they were to fight on large fields they had to pick their shots, which meant they weren't using their weapons to the fullest.

What really factors in most people's decisions regarding ammo are:

1) How much damage does this ammo do if I take a critical hit to it? This is a straight up negative, as ammo explosions are the risk of carrying ammo, especially since mechs have so little Internal Structure points compared to their armor.

2) What is the minimum ammo do I need to last a fight? What is the Maximum ammo I should take? Too little ammo means running out when you need it. Too much ammo means ammo that will never be used but can explode at the wrong moment. Most people prefer 12 to 20 turns' worth of fire with 10 being just this side of adequate. How much weight you need to spend to get that ideal ammo count also factors in.

3) Should I take this ammo using weapon at all? Is there another weapon that doesn't use ammo but can perform the same job just as well or better? Not needing ammo is a huge advantage and should be a factored in.

1) Meaningless point. In almost every case a hit to an ammo slot either wipes the location (with CASE) or mech (w/o CASE), or has no effect because the slot is empty.

2) Exactly what I measure. On specific mech designs the optimal ammo load can vary a bit, but when comparing just the weapons themselves it has to be assumed that the platforms are identical, or there is no way to compare them at all.

3) Not measureable. "Do I think ammo is worth the risk?" is a personal opinion. What is measurable is how much of a danger the ammo poses to the mech, and the 1.5x modifier to ammo weight gives a rough but reasonable penalty for that danger.

This is why I think you need to split this term into two separate ones.

Term 1 measures ammo endurance using Shots/ton as a base. The more shots/ton a weapon has, the less limiting its ammo is, and the lower value the term gives. A weapon that uses no ammo at all should result in the term returning a zero value, ie, no limitation at all.

Term 2 measures the consequences if the ammo (or the weapon in the case of Gauss weapons) explodes. The higher the damage from an explosion, the higher the value of the weapon limitation, with a cap on this value because a mech can only soak up so much damage even without CASE. By the same token, weapons which have no danger of exploding should have the Term 2 return a zero limitation value.

1) The advanced version of my formula counts the value of each weapon for 1 shot up to 1 shot/hex range (which is the automatic default of energy weapons, of course. Incidentally, if you enter, say, the LL above it works great - ammo weight is 0).

2) As noted, essentially pointless since ammo explosions almost always causes so much damage that you can simply write off the affected sections. And of course the formula above returns 0 here as well, since a weapon with no ammo has no risk of ammo explosions.

And, as also noted, since this was only about ACs I didn't add the parts that account for things like exploding GRs or non-explosive ammo.

[Sabelkatten]

Except it isn't significantly better. It doesn't have the range or ammo supply of the AC/10 or the damage capability of the AC/20. What it is, is viably optional but still odd enough that it wouldn't replace either AC. Both of which would do more damage with that extra ton. One by sheer firepower and the other with more ammo.

Having the AC/15 be much heavier than the AC/20 makes it completely non viable. No one would use it. And again it breaks how AC/s work and how they're classified. AC/s as classified by how much damage they do. And the greater the AC/s damage the more it weighs and the lower it's range. That is a fact for every type of AC there is. They don't mix up class and weight they way you describe. The only way smaller AC/s can be heavier than larger class AC/s is if they're of a different type. And again, all AC types follow the same progression, so while that smaller AC is heavier than higher classed AC of a different type, it'd still be lighter than a higher classed AC in its type.

To have the weight you want, the autocannon would have to be a HV AC/15 weighing 18 tons, taking 8 critical slots, with a range of 4/8/12, and 4 rounds of ammo. And while I'm totally okay with that in the current time setting, Hyper-velocity Autocannons are not Succession War technology. And even then you're still not going to get an AC to match a Gauss Rifle in both range and damage. The only AC that comes close is the UAC/10 and that's providing both rounds hit the same place.

You think it's non-viable because you haven't actually looked at how much damage you can expect to cause with the AC/15 over the course of a normal battle compared to the /10 or /20. You're making the classic mistake of getting stuck on names instead of looking at the only important thing - the numbers. Ignore the lines that say "Autocannon/10" or "Autocannon/15". Look at the lines that say "damage 15, range 4/8/12..." and rank the power of the weapons on those values.

But as I said, feel free to use a 13-ton version with 4/8/12 range. It's only about 10-15% better than the /10 or /20, so it's going to take a long time for the difference to become obvious. And of course the standard PPC is generally a better buy in all cases!

[Sabelkatten]

Reading the replies, I see that a lot of people have missed the part of changing the weight and size of the AC10.  For the AC-15 to work with my idea the AC 10 becomes 10 tons.

you then have for weights
AC-2 at 6
AC-5 at 8
AC-10 at 10
AC-15 at 12
AC-20 at 14

This follows the patten that LRMs and SRMs have.

That would be better.

Of course, it also leaves the AC/2 and /5 is extreme specialist and crap (as is), the AC/20 as a specialist of limited value, and the /10 and /15 as good and extremely good weapons - as in, the the AC/15 is a serious contender with the PPC for the title of "king of big guns!".

The idea of the AC-15 does break down with gauss rifles.  The high damage, long range and low heat make it almost a wonder weapon.

But it can blow up which would ruin your whole day.  :(

The GR is the wonderwaffe of the IS. As I noted several posts ago it's almost twice as effective (per ton) as most standard ACs, and even the best advanced AC variants are still very far behind. And that accounts for its explosiveness!

[FedComGirl]

You think it's non-viable because you haven't actually looked at how much damage you can expect to cause with the AC/15 over the course of a normal battle compared to the /10 or /20. You're making the classic mistake of getting stuck on names instead of looking at the only important thing - the numbers. Ignore the lines that say "Autocannon/10" or "Autocannon/15". Look at the lines that say "damage 15, range 4/8/12..." and rank the power of the weapons on those values.

But as I said, feel free to use a 13-ton version with 4/8/12 range. It's only about 10-15% better than the /10 or /20, so it's going to take a long time for the difference to become obvious. And of course the standard PPC is generally a better buy in all cases!

I have looked at ranges and numbers. It's only does 5 more points of damage if the AC/15 has 7 rounds per ton. However, the AC/10 has LOS range of 60 hexes. The AC/15 has a maximum extreme range of 16. That's a big advantage for the AC/10. The AC/20 more damage per hit than the AC/15 and it's maximum range is 12 hexes. A difference of 4 hexes. In the course of 1 turn that's not much. And the AC/20 doing 20 points of damage has a greater chance of doing critical damage if not outright destroying what it hits.

Now if we pretend AC/s mysteriously gain weight and range while getting smaller in class your 20 ton AC is now not only the heaviest AC in existence but it matches the weight of a Long Tom Cannon. Yet it doesn't it's range is only that of an AC/10. For that weight, I can mount an smaller AC in addition to an AC/10. Then use the smaller one at range and then both together when the ranges overlap for the same damage as the AC/15. If I want a one shot kill at that weight, I have the Long Tom Artillery Cannon. Either option renders the super heavy AC/15 completely pointless.

Of course, it also leaves the AC/2 and /5 is extreme specialist and crap (as is), the AC/20 as a specialist of limited value, and the /10 and /15 as good and extremely good weapons - as in, the the AC/15 is a serious contender with the PPC for the title of "king of big guns!".

The GR is the wonderwaffe of the IS. As I noted several posts ago it's almost twice as effective (per ton) as most standard ACs, and even the best advanced AC variants are still very far behind. And that accounts for its explosiveness!

Yep. A Super Heavy Rifle Cannon though could match the Gauss in most except heat and ammo.

[Sabelkatten]

I have looked at ranges and numbers. It's only does 5 more points of damage if the AC/15 has 7 rounds per ton. However, the AC/10 has LOS range of 60 hexes. The AC/15 has a maximum extreme range of 16. That's a big advantage for the AC/10. The AC/20 more damage per hit than the AC/15 and it's maximum range is 12 hexes. A difference of 4 hexes. In the course of 1 turn that's not much. And the AC/20 doing 20 points of damage has a greater chance of doing critical damage if not outright destroying what it hits.

Optional rules are not reasonable to consider, since their use are arbitrary. If you plan to use an optional rule that benefits a spcific system more than another - and find that a problem - you should use another optional rule to cancel that benefit.

Now if we pretend AC/s mysteriously gain weight and range while getting smaller in class your 20 ton AC is now not only the heaviest AC in existence but it matches the weight of a Long Tom Cannon. Yet it doesn't it's range is only that of an AC/10. For that weight, I can mount an smaller AC in addition to an AC/10. Then use the smaller one at range and then both together when the ranges overlap for the same damage as the AC/15. If I want a one shot kill at that weight, I have the Long Tom Artillery Cannon. Either option renders the super heavy AC/15 completely pointless.

Name argument again, plus irrelevant comparison. Saying it's unbalanced because "it's the heaviest AC without having the highest damage" means that the GR must suck because it only causes 15 damage while being heavier than the AC/20. It is really the same argument.

Comparison to the LT cannon is irrelevant since it works completely different, and given its tech base is actually supposed to be superior when it's actually comparable.

[Scotty]

1) Gauss Rifles are not autocannons; your protest is invalid.

2) Long Tom artillery cannon is "advanced" only because it slows down gameplay.  It is not technically more advanced than an autocannon.

The point of that comparison is that the Long Tom masses the same, has longer range than, and does more damage than your 20 ton AC/15.  It handily outclasses it in every single way except heat and ammo (to the tune of a whopping one shot per ton).  There is literally no reason to ever use an AC/15 while the Long Tom artillery canon exists.  That is the very definition of unbalanced within the game.

[FedComGirl]

Optional rules are not reasonable to consider, since their use are arbitrary. If you plan to use an optional rule that benefits a spcific system more than another - and find that a problem - you should use another optional rule to cancel that benefit.

Even if you don't use those rules (and the targeting modifiers do balance them out) the AC/15 will still only do 5 points more damage only if it has 7 shots per ton. Considering that AC/2s don't have a full 100 points of damage per ton it's quite reasonable to presume the AC/15 would only receive 6 shots for 90 points of damage. That reduces its damage a lot.

There's also the fact that just using the long range there's only very few hexes between them. For a little bit smaller AC you get greater range and can add more ammo, weaponry, or armor. OR for a little more tonnage you can do far more damage. It puts the AC/15 into a niche where its only used when the mech doesn't have enough tonnage/crits for a AC/10 but the pilot really wants more damage than the AC/10.

Name argument again, plus irrelevant comparison. Saying it's unbalanced because "it's the heaviest AC without having the highest damage" means that the GR must suck because it only causes 15 damage while being heavier than the AC/20. It is really the same argument.

Like Scotty said, they're not autocannons. And calling a guass rifle an autocannon just to have a weapon during the Succession Wars that does 15 damage points doesn't work.

Comparison to the LT cannon is irrelevant since it works completely different, and given its tech base is actually supposed to be superior when it's actually comparable.

Again like Scotty said. It isn't more advanced than an Autocannon. In fact it's tech rating is below that of the AC.  And when you consider that they're just snub nosed versions of weapons that were introduced pre-spaceflight its rather surprising they weren't introduced until 3012.

[Sabelkatten]

1) Gauss Rifles are not autocannons; your protest is invalid.

It's not my protest, it's your argument.

Both are CBT weapons with the same type of performance, therefore their names are irrelevant. If weapon A with stats B are unbalanced because it's named C, then weapon D with stats B is also unbalanced whether its name is C or E.

2) Long Tom artillery cannon is "advanced" only because it slows down gameplay.  It is not technically more advanced than an autocannon.

Artillery cannons are advanced because they're area-effect weapons. The idea that they'd noticeable slow down gameplay is ridiculous - a large LB-X cluster is far worse!

The point of that comparison is that the Long Tom masses the same, has longer range than, and does more damage than your 20 ton AC/15.  It handily outclasses it in every single way except heat and ammo (to the tune of a whopping one shot per ton).  There is literally no reason to ever use an AC/15 while the Long Tom artillery canon exists.  That is the very definition of unbalanced within the game.

There's no reason to use any other AC (with the possible exception of LB-X) either. Unless, of course, you want to cause damage in something other than 5-point clusters or add 10 tons of SHS to handle the heat from a LT cannon.

So congratulation, you've just demonstrated that with artillery cannons in play all AC are unbalanced (underpowered).

Even if you don't use those rules (and the targeting modifiers do balance them out) the AC/15 will still only do 5 points more damage only if it has 7 shots per ton. Considering that AC/2s don't have a full 100 points of damage per ton it's quite reasonable to presume the AC/15 would only receive 6 shots for 90 points of damage. That reduces its damage a lot.

So get another ton of ammo. That's a weight increase of ~6%. Plus of course even at 6 rounds per ton 2 tons should last most battles with no problem.

There's also the fact that just using the long range there's only very few hexes between them. For a little bit smaller AC you get greater range and can add more ammo, weaponry, or armor. OR for a little more tonnage you can do far more damage. It puts the AC/15 into a niche where its only used when the mech doesn't have enough tonnage/crits for a AC/10 but the pilot really wants more damage than the AC/10.

Yes, and...? Given that you've specified that you want a 13-ton AC/15 your choice is an overpowered AC/15 or an AC/15 with very short range.

Like Scotty said, they're not autocannons. And calling a guass rifle an autocannon just to have a weapon during the Succession Wars that does 15 damage points doesn't work.

That's not my point, I was demonstrating the fallacy of your argument that "ACs don't work that way". The name doesn't matter, the stats do! Your argument was that a 15-damage weapon weighting more than 13 tons is underpowered. The GR shows that the argument fails.

Again like Scotty said. It isn't more advanced than an Autocannon. In fact it's tech rating is below that of the AC.  And when you consider that they're just snub nosed versions of weapons that were introduced pre-spaceflight its rather surprising they weren't introduced until 3012.

Sorry, I looked at the availability rather than the tech. Change the second part of my sentence to "...and the game designers didn't bother trying to balance a weapon that was experimental tech anyway."

Doesn't change the important part of my sentence, namely that artillery cannons work differently than ACs and thus can't be directly compared (while GRs do work the same way and thus can be compared).

[Scotty]

So congratulation, you've just demonstrated that with artillery cannons in play all AC are unbalanced (underpowered).

You're ignoring why this makes your AC/15 obsolete: it's because they're the exact same tonnage!  I can take any other kind of autocannon without needing 20 tons of weight available.

At any rate, it's clear that you don't intend to actually try to configure any sort of real balance for the weapon and are intent on muddling the issue, so I'll see my way out.

[Sabelkatten]

You're ignoring why this makes your AC/15 obsolete: it's because they're the exact same tonnage!  I can take any other kind of autocannon without needing 20 tons of weight available.

At any rate, it's clear that you don't intend to actually try to configure any sort of real balance for the weapon and are intent on muddling the issue, so I'll see my way out.

I see it's time for personal attacks instead instead of factual argument. Have a nice day.

[WeaponX]

In my opinion there's nothing wrong with an AC/15 that falls roughly between the AC/10 and AC/20 in stats, especially when you compare it with the other 15 damage weapon, the Gauss Rifle:

Code: [Select]

                      Heat     Ammo  Crits  Mass    Range
-------------------------------------------------------------
AC/15                  5        7      8    13.00   0/4/8/12
Gauss Rifle            1        8      7    15.00   2/7/15/22

The Gauss Rifle is hands down the better weapon*, so if you make the AC/15 even more worse than the Gauss Rifle by making it weigh more than an AC/20 etc., then its not a matter of making the AC/10 and AC/20 "obsolete", but "why bother using an AC/15 when you can use a Gauss Rifle" instead.

*Assuming that you need to also add 2 Double Heatsinks with the AC/15 in order to match the heat profile of the Gauss Rifle, which effectively makes the AC/15 a 15 ton, 14 crit weapon with almost half the range of the Gauss Rifle.

[evilauthor]

The Gauss Rifle is hands down the better weapon*, so if you make the AC/15 even more worse than the Gauss Rifle by making it weigh more than an AC/20 etc., then its not a matter of making the AC/10 and AC/20 "obsolete", but "why bother using an AC/15 when you can use a Gauss Rifle" instead.

Because the AC/15 is supposed to be Succession Wars tech when the Gauss Rifle is not available. The problem is that if you could simply make an AC longer or shorter ranged by simply changing weight, it raises the question about why this has already been done long since with the canon AC classes. The AC/2 and AC/5 are both premier examples of overweight weapons that could stand to lose some tonnage, but you don't get Light ACs until you get LB-X tech because the Light ACs canonically use the same light weight alloys as the LB-X weapons.

And if you can make an AC/15 that's heavier than an AC/20... why not make a heavier, longer ranged AC/20 to go along with it?

[Sabelkatten]

Both the AC/10 and AC/20 - even with precision ammo - are handily outclassed by the GR except in extremely specialized cases. The weight difference is to small to causes noticeable problems. So if the problem with a heavy AC/15 is that "you can get a GR instead", then the AC/10 and AC/20 isn't much better off!

Question: Does anyone believe that BV2 weapon BV is basically sound? That is, that damage*range is a good approximation of how effective a weapon generally is? If you do, why should a 4/8/12 AC/15 - which has the same BV as an AC/20, be lighter than said weapon?

[FedComGirl]

So get another ton of ammo. That's a weight increase of ~6%. Plus of course even at 6 rounds per ton 2 tons should last most battles with no problem.

That's presuming you have the tonnage available.

Yes, and...? Given that you've specified that you want a 13-ton AC/15 your choice is an overpowered AC/15 or an AC/15 with very short range.

It isn't overpowered and AGAIN, Autocannon ranges decrease the large they get, and smaller AC/s DO NOT weigh more than larger ones.

That's not my point, I was demonstrating the fallacy of your argument that "ACs don't work that way". The name doesn't matter, the stats do! Your argument was that a 15-damage weapon weighting more than 13 tons is underpowered. The GR shows that the argument fails.

The only think you've demonstrated is that you want an unbalanced weapon. You're stats have it trying to compete with an Artillery Cannon and FAILING.  The Artillery cannon will do more damage and has greater range.  Your AC also fails against the weapon its supposed to replace by being far heavier.  And it fails to agree with other autocannons. Smaller AC/s don't weigh more than larger AC/s!  The only AC that could weigh that much would be a Hyper-Velocity AC/15 and going by the stats it should weigh 18 tons! And it fails the time period because HV tech isn't available during the succession wars. 

Sorry, I looked at the availability rather than the tech. Change the second part of my sentence to "...and the game designers didn't bother trying to balance a weapon that was experimental tech anyway."

I would say that they have.

Doesn't change the important part of my sentence, namely that artillery cannons work differently than ACs and thus can't be directly compared (while GRs do work the same way and thus can be compared).

Gauss Rifles do not work the same as Autcannons, while artillery does work the same way. They're just bigger and slower firing.

Because the AC/15 is supposed to be Succession Wars tech when the Gauss Rifle is not available. The problem is that if you could simply make an AC longer or shorter ranged by simply changing weight, it raises the question about why this has already been done long since with the canon AC classes. The AC/2 and AC/5 are both premier examples of overweight weapons that could stand to lose some tonnage, but you don't get Light ACs until you get LB-X tech because the Light ACs canonically use the same light weight alloys as the LB-X weapons.

And if you can make an AC/15 that's heavier than an AC/20... why not make a heavier, longer ranged AC/20 to go along with it?

Exactly. And if you have an AC/20 that hits that far out why have a GR or any other AC for that matter?

Both the AC/10 and AC/20 - even with precision ammo - are handily outclassed by the GR except in extremely specialized cases. The weight difference is to small to causes noticeable problems. So if the problem with a heavy AC/15 is that "you can get a GR instead", then the AC/10 and AC/20 isn't much better off!

Weight is a big difference. Even 1 ton can make a difference between victory and defeat. Your 20 ton AC has a much bigger tonnage difference. There's a lot one can do with 5 tons. Presuming they don't use all the tonnage and out range your AC/15 with a Long Tom Artillery Cannon.

Question: Does anyone believe that BV2 weapon BV is basically sound? That is, that damage*range is a good approximation of how effective a weapon generally is? If you do, why should a 4/8/12 AC/15 - which has the same BV as an AC/20, be lighter than said weapon?

I don't see how it can have the same value and from my understanding BV doesn't work.

[Sabelkatten]

That's presuming you have the tonnage available.

Of course, and irrelevant to the discussion anyway. The same argument can be used against any weapon - either you have the weight for the heavier weapon or the comparison is impossible.

It isn't overpowered and AGAIN, Autocannon ranges decrease the large they get, and smaller AC/s DO NOT weigh more than larger ones.

1) It is more powerful per ton than both the AC/10 and AC/20. That is the very definition of overpowered! Compared to those two weapon, of course - it's still rather sucky compared to the PPC.

2) Names doesn't matter, numbers does! Is this so hard to understand? Calling a weapon an "Autocannon" is fluff! The idea that an AC/15 must be 13 tons, 4/8/12 range is a choice to fit fluff - that is completely arbitrary in the first place! As I've pointed out several times, you have 3 choices:

-Make a heavier AC/15.
-Give the AC/15 less range.
-Make an overpowered AC/15 and face the result.

The only think you've demonstrated is that you want an unbalanced weapon. You're stats have it trying to compete with an Artillery Cannon and FAILING.  The Artillery cannon will do more damage and has greater range.  Your AC also fails against the weapon its supposed to replace by being far heavier.  And it fails to agree with other autocannons. Smaller AC/s don't weigh more than larger AC/s!  The only AC that could weigh that much would be a Hyper-Velocity AC/15 and going by the stats it should weigh 18 tons! And it fails the time period because HV tech isn't available during the succession wars. 

The stricken-out part is completely irrelevant to a discussion of game balance.

The other parts... are nonsense. The AC/15 can't compete with any artillery cannon since it works completely different. And I wasn't aware that anyone was trying to replace any existing weapon - I assume that means you want to make the AC/10 and AC/20 obsolete, in which case an overpowered AC/15 should be just the thing for you!

Gauss Rifles do not work the same as Autcannons, while artillery does work the same way. They're just bigger and slower firing.

So, according to you, ACs are now indirect fire only area effect weapons? When did this rule change happen?

Weight is a big difference. Even 1 ton can make a difference between victory and defeat. Your 20 ton AC has a much bigger tonnage difference. There's a lot one can do with 5 tons. Presuming they don't use all the tonnage and out range your AC/15 with a Long Tom Artillery Cannon.

The AC/15 with 5/10/15 range is about 70% more powerful than the AC/10. 12 tons *1.7 is 20.4.

I don't see how it can have the same value and from my understanding BV doesn't work.

Average damage over entire range (BTN4), *1.2 if headcapper. A 4/8/12 AC/15 has the exact same BV as the AC/20.

That this is a fair approximation of a weapon's effectiveness has been agreed upon in several threads - the problems are different, in case of weapons mostly that TN modifiers are undervalued (which is irrelevant here) plus some disagreement on the value of critseeking (isn't counted) and headcapping (arguably overvalued).

[FedComGirl]

Of course, and irrelevant to the discussion anyway. The same argument can be used against any weapon - either you have the weight for the heavier weapon or the comparison is impossible.
 

It is extremely relevant when you want a 20 ton weapon to replace one that 5 tons lighter.

1) It is more powerful per ton than both the AC/10 and AC/20. That is the very definition of overpowered! Compared to those two weapon, of course - it's still rather sucky compared to the PPC.

It's supposed to be more powerful than an AC/10 because its an AC/15. However, because its a larger class AC its range is less. It's less powerful than an AC/20 because its an AC/15. However, as it's smaller its range is greater.

Sure it is because it requires ammo and weighs twice as much. Or for you three times as much. Unless you don't have a fusion engine. Then the weight of the heat sinks will balance things out. The PPC does generate a lot of heat though so that's a bit of a draw back. And it's range is only 3 hexes more and it has a minimum range. So for those with lower tech engines an AC/15 isn't a bad choice.

2) Names doesn't matter, numbers does! Is this so hard to understand? Calling a weapon an "Autocannon" is fluff! The idea that an AC/15 must be 13 tons, 4/8/12 range is a choice to fit fluff - that is completely arbitrary in the first place! As I've pointed out several times, you have 3 choices:

-Make a heavier AC/15.
-Give the AC/15 less range.
-Make an overpowered AC/15 and face the result.
The stricken-out part is completely irrelevant to a discussion of game balance.

WRONG! AC/s are class not by fluff but by their game stats! The Fluff doesn't matter it's how much damage they do! And AC/s range decrease the larger their class size! That's been a game fact for at least 25 years now! You can't just make an smaller AC/class heavier! Nor can you just reduce or increase it's range over that of the AC/s above and below it. It does fit the stats. It doesn't fit the universe. And it doesn't fit the balance of the game!

What you are striking out are game facts. Clearly you do not wish to have an AC that has anything to do with fitting in with the game stats and balance. Otherwise you would not be blatantly trying to change the rules of the game!

The other parts... are nonsense. The AC/15 can't compete with any artillery cannon since it works completely different. And I wasn't aware that anyone was trying to replace any existing weapon - I assume that means you want to make the AC/10 and AC/20 obsolete, in which case an overpowered AC/15 should be just the thing for you!

What do you mean nonsense? This whole thread is about replacing one weapon with another! And AC/s do work the same way artillery do. Propellant fires a round through a barrel at a target. Artillery just fire much bigger rounds! To say they don't is like saying a Revolver and a 16mm Cannon don't work the same. They do. The latter is just much much much bigger!

And its not about making the AC/10 and AC/20 obsolete. The AC/15 wouldn't do that. If anything it'd be the other way around since one has greater range and the other does more damage.

So, according to you, ACs are now indirect fire only area effect weapons? When did this rule change happen?

Kindly do not put words in my mouth. Artillery are indirect fire weapons because they're range over AC/s is so much greater. Artillery Cannons are direct fire weapons using the same ammo.
Again they work the same way as AC/s. They just fire BIGGER rounds!

The AC/15 with 5/10/15 range is about 70% more powerful than the AC/10. 12 tons *1.7 is 20.4.

I do not know where you are getting your numbers. As far as I can tell you're making them up using you're made formula. As far as I can tell the AC/15 would have a battle value of 150, since that's between the AC/10 and the AC/20. Which is where the AC/15 is!

Average damage over entire range (BTN4), *1.2 if headcapper. A 4/8/12 AC/15 has the exact same BV as the AC/20.

That this is a fair approximation of a weapon's effectiveness has been agreed upon in several threads - the problems are different, in case of weapons mostly that TN modifiers are undervalued (which is irrelevant here) plus some disagreement on the value of critseeking (isn't counted) and headcapping (arguably overvalued).

Again, WHAT?

[Sabelkatten]

It is extremely relevant when you want a 20 ton weapon to replace one that 5 tons lighter.

Since there is no weapon to replace, it's irrelevant. The only question was how heavy a hypothetical AC/15 with a given range should be, and to be balanced against the AC/10 and AC/20 it should be around 20 tons.

It's supposed to be more powerful than an AC/10 because its an AC/15. However, because its a larger class AC its range is less. It's less powerful than an AC/20 because its an AC/15. However, as it's smaller its range is greater.

Sure it is because it requires ammo and weighs twice as much. Or for you three times as much. Unless you don't have a fusion engine. Then the weight of the heat sinks will balance things out. The PPC does generate a lot of heat though so that's a bit of a draw back. And it's range is only 3 hexes more and it has a minimum range. So for those with lower tech engines an AC/15 isn't a bad choice.

"Powerful" in game balance terms doesn't mean "causes more points of damage", it means "causes more damage to a target during a normal game". Longer range generally means more shots on target, thus more total damage, thus more powerful.

And yes, I'm balancing on the common assumption that the weapons will be used on mechs. Due to the different heat rules it's impossible to balance a weapon for both mechs and vehicles unless the weapon generates 0 heat.

WRONG! AC/s are class not by fluff but by their game stats! The Fluff doesn't matter it's how much damage they do! And AC/s range decrease the larger their class size! That's been a game fact for at least 25 years now! You can't just make an smaller AC/class heavier! Nor can you just reduce or increase it's range over that of the AC/s above and below it. It does fit the stats. It doesn't fit the universe. And it doesn't fit the balance of the game!

The idea that range must go down and damage must go when weight increases is fluff. There is no game balance reason what-so-ever not to make a range 18 AC/20, as long as it is heavy and hot enough to balance it out. It's only when you get to the extremes that the general system of balance fails (if you were to make a range 30 AC/20 the rest of the game mechanics would start to come apart).

What you are striking out are game facts. Clearly you do not wish to have an AC that has anything to do with fitting in with the game stats and balance. Otherwise you would not be blatantly trying to change the rules of the game!

Nope, you just don't understand what "game balance" means. Game balance means "all choices should be (roughly) equal, given a generalized set of circumstances", it does not mean "I read this arbitrary piece of fluff to say that anything with this name must have those stats".

The rules of the game would remain exactly the same with a range 18 AC/15 as with a range 6 AC/15, only the fluff for AC (might) have to change.

What do you mean nonsense? This whole thread is about replacing one weapon with another! And AC/s do work the same way artillery do. Propellant fires a round through a barrel at a target. Artillery just fire much bigger rounds! To say they don't is like saying a Revolver and a 16mm Cannon don't work the same. They do. The latter is just much much much bigger!

The thread is - at least as far as been said - about adding a new weapon, not replacing anything.

And you're still arguing about names. An CBT AC or artillery cannon doesn't fire rounds through a barrel, they fire (usually) words across a table.

Saying they use chemical explosives to propel a round down a barrel is fluff. They could just as well be renamed "Beautifiers" and described as trowing daises with the aid of Care Bears - the game wouldn't change in any way!

What makes weapons different is how they work in game, and artillery cannons work very differently from ACs, while GRs work almost identically.

And its not about making the AC/10 and AC/20 obsolete. The AC/15 wouldn't do that. If anything it'd be the other way around since one has greater range and the other does more damage.

A 13-ton AC/15  with 4/8/12 range would definitely make the AC/20 a very doubtful proposition, and it's highly questionable if the AC/10's range advantage would be enough for people to bother with it compared to the killing power of the AC/15.

Going back to the OP's stats (10 and 12 tons respectively) the AC/20 is definately out in the cold, but the AC/10 looks slightly better.

Kindly do not put words in my mouth. Artillery are indirect fire weapons because they're range over AC/s is so much greater. Artillery Cannons are direct fire weapons using the same ammo.
Again they work the same way as AC/s. They just fire BIGGER rounds!

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm explaining how games works. Names and descriptions are fluff, game stats and rules are how things work (in the game). As explained, ACs and GRs work almost the same in the game (ammo explosion vs/ weapon explosion being the big difference, special ammo and rapid fire being the others). Arty cannons, OTOH fire and causes damage in very different ways - the only thing they have in common with ACs is that both have explosive ammo.

I do not know where you are getting your numbers. As far as I can tell you're making them up using you're made formula. As far as I can tell the AC/15 would have a battle value of 150, since that's between the AC/10 and the AC/20. Which is where the AC/15 is!

I'm getting my numbers from the description of BV2. According to that system a 4/8/12 AC/15 has the exact same BV as the AC/20. Ask anyone with HMPro to confirm if you want to.

I forgot about the mod for ammo-using weapons, thought. Which is rather important since it's actually the biggest flaw of weapon BV. The BV for an ammo-using weapon is multiplied by 0.8, with each ton of ammo being worth 1/8 of the weapon. Obviously this makes for very strange numbers for designs with very much or very little ammo, and multiple small weapons that need little ammo gets a cost break compared to large ones (4 LRM5s with 3 tons ammo have ~20% cost break compared to a LRM20 with 3 tons ammo!).

Again, WHAT?

The definition of BV2, and several discussions about it on these forums.

[FedComGirl]

Since there is no weapon to replace, it's irrelevant. The only question was how heavy a hypothetical AC/15 with a given range should be, and to be balanced against the AC/10 and AC/20 it should be around 20 tons."Powerful" in game balance terms doesn't mean "causes more points of damage", it means "causes more damage to a target during a normal game". Longer range generally means more shots on target, thus more total damage, thus more powerful.

First, the AC/15 was suggested to be a replacement for the Gauss Rifle therefore it is relevant. And again, a smaller class AC being heavier than a larger class is NOT balanced, and goes against the game mechanics. And by your definition of more powerful everyone would be using AC/2s because they're more powerful than all the other canons since they have greater range. However, that clearly isn't the case.

And yes, I'm balancing on the common assumption that the weapons will be used on mechs. Due to the different heat rules it's impossible to balance a weapon for both mechs and vehicles unless the weapon generates 0 heat.

Not all mechs use Fusion engines.

The idea that range must go down and damage must go when weight increases is fluff. There is no game balance reason what-so-ever not to make a range 18 AC/20, as long as it is heavy and hot enough to balance it out. It's only when you get to the extremes that the general system of balance fails (if you were to make a range 30 AC/20 the rest of the game mechanics would start to come apart).

Clearly you're not even looking at the rules or the stats. That, or you just don't care and play Battletech solely with your own house rules. The game mechanics are quite clear. The larger the class of AC the shorter its range. The reasons why are fluff and speculation. But the fact remains, the larger the AC/s class the shorter its range. It's been that way ever since there's been more than one autocannon.

Nope, you just don't understand what "game balance" means. Game balance means "all choices should be (roughly) equal, given a generalized set of circumstances", it does not mean "I read this arbitrary piece of fluff to say that anything with this name must have those stats".

I do understand what game balance means. Clearly though you don't understand any of the rules and haven't read the stats. If you had you'd see that I'm going by the stats. NOT by fluff as you continuously insist I am.

The rules of the game would remain exactly the same with a range 18 AC/15 as with a range 6 AC/15, only the fluff for AC (might) have to change.

Again you're not adding a different type of AC but a different class. There is a difference. A Standard AC is not the same as a Light, Ultra, Rotary, or LB-X. They are all different types. Yet in all of them, smaller classes DO NOT weigh more than larger classes of the same type. For all of them the larger the AC class the more it weighs and the lower its range. That is a FACT! Any AC that's added must conform to that basic rule.

The thread is - at least as far as been said - about adding a new weapon, not replacing anything.

This was an idea for Succession Wars era.  The in the history it was written off due to the Gauss Rifle did the same damage but longer range.  It would still be 3 tons lighter then the Gauss.

And you're still arguing about names. An CBT AC or artillery cannon doesn't fire rounds through a barrel, they fire (usually) words across a table.

Saying they use chemical explosives to propel a round down a barrel is fluff. They could just as well be renamed "Beautifiers" and described as trowing daises with the aid of Care Bears - the game wouldn't change in any way! 

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.

What makes weapons different is how they work in game, and artillery cannons work very differently from ACs, while GRs work almost identically.

Bigger boom from a bigger round. How the round got there is the same for AC/s and Rifle Cannons. A Chemical reaction resulting in an explosion that pushes the round through the barrel at great velocity. A Gauss Rifle uses electromagnetism to propel a round through the barrel. Clearly they function quite differently.

A 13-ton AC/15  with 4/8/12 range would definitely make the AC/20 a very doubtful proposition, and it's highly questionable if the AC/10's range advantage would be enough for people to bother with it compared to the killing power of the AC/15.

According to you. However, its just as likely that people would prefer either the AC/10's added range and the extra ton available or sacrificing tonnage and range for damage.

Going back to the OP's stats (10 and 12 tons respectively) the AC/20 is definately out in the cold, but the AC/10 looks slightly better.

Not really. It's damage is to great for it to be out in the cold.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm explaining how games works. Names and descriptions are fluff, game stats and rules are how things work (in the game). As explained, ACs and GRs work almost the same in the game (ammo explosion vs/ weapon explosion being the big difference, special ammo and rapid fire being the others). Arty cannons, OTOH fire and causes damage in very different ways - the only thing they have in common with ACs is that both have explosive ammo.

I doubt that you do know how the game works.

I'm getting my numbers from the description of BV2. According to that system a 4/8/12 AC/15 has the exact same BV as the AC/20. Ask anyone with HMPro to confirm if you want to.

Where is it in an actual book that calculate's a weapon's battle value? I am not seeing anything like that. In fact the only thing I see is from Tactical Operations stated that if a weapon doesn't have a listed Battle Value it receives a value of 0.

I forgot about the mod for ammo-using weapons, thought. Which is rather important since it's actually the biggest flaw of weapon BV. The BV for an ammo-using weapon is multiplied by 0.8, with each ton of ammo being worth 1/8 of the weapon. Obviously this makes for very strange numbers for designs with very much or very little ammo, and multiple small weapons that need little ammo gets a cost break compared to large ones (4 LRM5s with 3 tons ammo have ~20% cost break compared to a LRM20 with 3 tons ammo!).
The definition of BV2, and several discussions about it on these forums.

I don't think mods to out dated software designed to make and print record sheets is canon. Again, please provide me with an actual book name and page number that gives a formula for determining a value of a weapon. I'm not sure there is one since values are listed. But if there is I'd like to read it.

[Sabelkatten]

Since you apparently refuse to accept the basic principles of game design and even refuses to check up facts about the game we're discussing I don't see any reason to continue this discussion, thank you.

[anime ninja]

I was not expecting the thread break down like this.

I had always thought it weird that the AC 10 was 4 tons heaver then the AC 5.  It felt like the designers in the 80's we trying to keep the damage, weights and crits with a pattern.  The AC5 to AC10 jump broke the pattern.

Myself, I really did not play with many mechs with ACs, I liked the PPC as my main weapon.

Looking at a lot of the comments, there are a lot of things I have not used in play.  I played the game back in the early 90's with a 4th SW and Clan invasion era and rule set.

[Sabelkatten]

I was not expecting the thread break down like this.

I had always thought it weird that the AC 10 was 4 tons heaver then the AC 5.  It felt like the designers in the 80's we trying to keep the damage, weights and crits with a pattern.  The AC5 to AC10 jump broke the pattern.

Myself, I really did not play with many mechs with ACs, I liked the PPC as my main weapon.

Looking at a lot of the comments, there are a lot of things I have not used in play.  I played the game back in the early 90's with a 4th SW and Clan invasion era and rule set.

I suspect the original stats were set with 50% (probably faulty) math, and 50% gut feeling. Twin AC/5 with ammo and heat sinks weight a bit more than a PPC with heat sinks, but it wouldn't surprise me if the original designers just though "1 heat, that must be good!". An AC/10 with ammo and SHS weight as much as a PPC, with the same damage and only a little less range, it probably looked reasonable as well. And if you divide (range*damage) with total weight the AC/20 comes very close to the AC/10.

Of course players soon figured out that PPCs beat both AC/5s and AC/10s... :P

A smoother progression of both weight and range might well have been a good thing for ACs, but now we're stuck with the ones we have, baring house rules...

Of course the problem with the AC/15 specifically is that, as pointed out, if you want a noticeable range advantage over the 20 you should make it quite heavy. But if you'd like to re-stat all the ACs you could play with all the weights and ranges to put both in a smooth(er) scale.

[evilauthor]

I was not expecting the thread break down like this.

I had always thought it weird that the AC 10 was 4 tons heaver then the AC 5.  It felt like the designers in the 80's we trying to keep the damage, weights and crits with a pattern.  The AC5 to AC10 jump broke the pattern.

Myself, I really did not play with many mechs with ACs, I liked the PPC as my main weapon.

Looking at a lot of the comments, there are a lot of things I have not used in play.  I played the game back in the early 90's with a 4th SW and Clan invasion era and rule set.

Probably a game balance issue. The jump from single digit to double digit damage tends to be quite a leap psychologically. And while not automatically head capping, 10 damage WILL strip all the armor from a head and leave 1 damage point going internal and possibly kill the pilot. That right there probably justifies the huge tonnage leap.

[Sabelkatten]

Probably a game balance issue. The jump from single digit to double digit damage tends to be quite a leap psychologically. And while not automatically head capping, 10 damage WILL strip all the armor from a head and leave 1 damage point going internal and possibly kill the pilot. That right there probably justifies the huge tonnage leap.

It's not just psychological - 100% more damage at 85% of the range! I figure they had noticed even then that the AC/5 sucked, if the AC/10 had been based straight of that weapon it would probably have as heavy as the AC/20... #P

[evilauthor]

Truth be told, the AC progression has always struck me as the each larger AC doubling in damage being done (or each smaller AC halving damage). The AC/2 should really be AC/2.5, but you can't do half damage so the damage gets rounded down.

And now I want to see an "improved AC/2" that's really an AC/3.

Anyway, if we assume the damage progression is doubling, the AC/15 really doesn't fit in at all since it's not a doubling or halving of any existing AC.

Edit: And now that I think about it, the "real AC/15" would be the Ultra AC/10 firing in Ultra mode, given that the second shot of a hit has a near 50/50 chance of missing outright. End result is 15 damage on average over time. Just gotta eliminate the jamming and get the second shot to always hit where the first did when the second shot manages to connect.

[FedComGirl]

Since you apparently refuse to accept the basic principles of game design and even refuses to check up facts about the game we're discussing I don't see any reason to continue this discussion, thank you.

I am not the one ignoring the game mechanics and facts. But you are right about it being pointless to continue. Thank you.

I was not expecting the thread break down like this.

I had always thought it weird that the AC 10 was 4 tons heaver then the AC 5.  It felt like the designers in the 80's we trying to keep the damage, weights and crits with a pattern.  The AC5 to AC10 jump broke the pattern.

Myself, I really did not play with many mechs with ACs, I liked the PPC as my main weapon.

Looking at a lot of the comments, there are a lot of things I have not used in play.  I played the game back in the early 90's with a 4th SW and Clan invasion era and rule set.

You're right. It is weird that there's a gap. I suspect that evilauthor is right about the damage doubling but there's still a gap in weight and range.

evilauthor, an AC/3 would be cool. I think it'd be even cooler if there was a rule that would allow you to increase an AC/s damage and/or range by increasing tonnage and crits. Want an AC/10 with a range or 18? Add X tons and Y crits to the base stats. Want to increase the damage? Add another X tons.

[evilauthor]

evilauthor, an AC/3 would be cool. I think it'd be even cooler if there was a rule that would allow you to increase an AC/s damage and/or range by increasing tonnage and crits. Want an AC/10 with a range or 18? Add X tons and Y crits to the base stats. Want to increase the damage? Add another X tons.

And if I want an AC/2 or AC/5 that isn't grossly overweight but can still get the same performance as the standard models?

[mutantmagnet]

Truth be told, the AC progression has always struck me as the each larger AC doubling in damage being done (or each smaller AC halving damage). The AC/2 should really be AC/2.5, but you can't do half damage so the damage gets rounded down.

And now I want to see an "improved AC/2" that's really an AC/3.

Anyway, if we assume the damage progression is doubling, the AC/15 really doesn't fit in at all since it's not a doubling or halving of any existing AC.

Edit: And now that I think about it, the "real AC/15" would be the Ultra AC/10 firing in Ultra mode, given that the second shot of a hit has a near 50/50 chance of missing outright. End result is 15 damage on average over time. Just gotta eliminate the jamming and get the second shot to always hit where the first did when the second shot manages to connect.

Way back when, I had the same thought about AC progression but too that implication a step further. AC 2, 5, 10 and 20 should've been AC 3, 6, 12 and 24.

In the end I decided that ACs would still need their ranges to be adjusted a bit with the short range of the AC3 being 9, the AC6 being 7 and their medium/long brackets readjusted respectively.