Three fixes for things that mildly annoy me

[Sir Chaos]

So there´s always been three little things, even when introtech was the only thing around, that kinda annoyed me about the construction rules - let that say about me what you want.

The first is that mechs have ten fixed weight-free heat sinks, but a number of crit-free heat sinks dependant on engine rating; some mechs have weight-free heat sinks that take up crit space, some have crit-free heat sinks that take up weight, some even have fewer heat sinks than could fit into their engine - it´s a bit of a mess, really.
The second is that the SRM-6 has a lower number of missiles per ton than other SRM launchers.
The third is that the AC/2 has a lower number of rounds  (in terms of damage done per ton) than the other sizes.

Let´s tackle the second and third first, because they´re quickest, easiest and least disruptive to status quo:
- Ammo per ton for the AC/2 is increased to 50 shots, so all autocannon do 100 points of damage per ton of ammo.
- SRM ammo is standardized to 96 missiles (instead of 100 or 90) per ton, and 16/24/48 shots respectively for the SRM-6/-4/-2. That also leaves the option of introducing an SRM-8 with 12 shots per ton (4 tons, 2 cits, 5 heat)

As for the engines... I think it makes a lot more sense to grant heat sinks by engine rating rather than a fixed number. Since a lot of ´mechs have engine ratings below 250 and would be less viable with only one heat sink per 25 engine rating (the PNT-9R Panther would have 5 free and 3 extra heat sinks to handle 10 heat from firing its PPC, for example), I would increase free heat sinks to one per 20 engine rating; all free heat sinks would be inside the engine an thus not take up crit space.
That would give a semi-representative selection of introtech mechs the following number of (free + extra) heat sinks:
WSP-1A Wasp: 4 (6+0)
COM-2D Commando: 7 (7+0)
PNT-9R Panther: 10 (7+3)
JR7-D Jenner: 12 (12+0)
CDA-2A Cicada: 16 (16+0)
BJ-1 Blackjack: 10 (9+1)
GRF-1N Griffin: 15 (13+2)
RFL-3N Rifleman: 12 (12+0)
WHM-6R Warhammer: 22 (14+8)
MAD-3R Marauder: 21 (15+6)
BLR-1G BattleMaster: 25 (17+8)
AS7-D Atlas: 25 (15+10)

As you can see, this would hamper a lot of lighter designs, especially the ones with slower speed (and smaller engines) for their size, and benefit the heavier ones. With XL engines, and the larger engine sizes they facilitate, that would shift further towards improving existing designs, especially those with doube heat sinks who would benefit twice as much from each extra heat sink.

[maxcarrion]

Indeed, a massive buff for all mechs with big engines is exactly what the game needs, with a big old nerf to the light, slow mechs that were dominating the game too much already.  Afterall, big fission reactors are renowned for their ability to cool things around them more efficiently than smaller fission reactors. 

I especially like how this would impact, say, a Timber Wolf, which would get an additional 8 double heat sinks totally free increasing it's sinking capacity 50% and allowing it to constantly alpha strike for every configuration.  Still, poor Timber Wolf was in desperate need of a buff, especially now that the wasp can't run and fire it's 1 medium laser without overheating.

[Syzyx]

I certainly see the value in standardizing some of the ammo loads. I too have been long annoyed by the SRM6 ammo discrepancy. Hadn't really considered the AC/2 but an extra 5 shots isn't going to hurt it much. And allows for 1/2 ton bins conveniently if using fractional accounting.

Regarding the built-in heatsinks I'd approach the matter a bit differently. Instead of giving more cooling to larger engines, I'd instead adjust the rule on engine hits. The first engine hit disables half of the in-engine heat sinks and the second disables all of them instead of the flat +5 and +10 heat penalties. So something like a Marauder would suffer +6 heat on the first engine hit (or +12 on later models) and +12 for the second (or +24 for the later models). This gives a counterbalance to hiding heat sinks and also somewhat addresses the matter of DHS almost making heat irrelevant.

[garhkal]

Indeed, a massive buff for all mechs with big engines is exactly what the game needs, with a big old nerf to the light, slow mechs that were dominating the game too much already.  Afterall, big fission reactors are renowned for their ability to cool things around them more efficiently than smaller fission reactors. 

I especially like how this would impact, say, a Timber Wolf, which would get an additional 8 double heat sinks totally free increasing it's sinking capacity 50% and allowing it to constantly alpha strike for every configuration.  Still, poor Timber Wolf was in desperate need of a buff, especially now that the wasp can't run and fire it's 1 medium laser without overheating.

Nice sarcasm.  BUT the OP forgets, engine ratings already Do count for heat inside it..  tonnage/25 for # of free heat in your engine.

[VanVelding]

BUT the OP forgets, engine ratings already Do count for heat inside it..  tonnage/25 for # of free heat in your engine.

You forgot that the OP mentioned that several times in their post.

As far as Sir Chaos' idea, I get the aesthetic idea behind it. I can accept that the optimum crits/heat efficiency is the 250-rated engine, smaller engines use additional bulk to keep that 10 heat dissipation ability, and larger engines can only add more internal cooling by adding additional tonnage.

I'd adjust a few things to maybe address the issue:
-Make the external heat sinks optional. And let two of them pack into the same critical space.
-Make engines with internal heat sinks with weight count as a completely different engine type for those without. A 300 SFE with 2 tons of internal heat sinks would be a different animal, for the purposes of salvage, cost, and customization, to a 300 SFE with no internal heat sinks.
-Make the 'free internal heat sinks' rating into a 'free internal heat sink crits' rating.
-Increase the 'free internal heat sink crit' rating of XL, LFE, and XXL engines. Decrease that of CFEs.

I don't know if it addresses all of your issues, but 'mechs only have to take as many heat sinks as they need, 'free' heatsinks that aren't internal have a little bonus instead of sucking up crits, putting extra heat sinks into the engine structurally changes the engine instead of having them pop in like Nintendo cartridges, and the capacity of the engine varies by rating, heat sink type, and engine type.

[drjones]

The "ten free heat sinks" allowance does seem a bit difficult to explain assuming that these are really heat sinks, at one ton each. (Where do those ten tons come from when calculating the tonnage of the 'mech?) However, changing the heat sink calculation would seem to  have serious ramifications for existing 'mech designs and their relative value and capabilities. One alternative idea might be to change the explanation: all 'mechs have, instead of 10 physical heat sink components, an inherent ability to dissipate 10 points of heat (via usual thermal processes using their structure and surfaces). Rules-wise, this could argue for dropping the requirement to place any of these 10 "heat sinks" on critical charts. I'm not sure how significant a change to the game mechanics that would make. A counterargument for leaving these "heat sinks" on the charts could be that these criticals represent structural damage that compromises design elements (baffling? air channels?) intended to dissipate heat; it might be possible to argue why bigger engines would handle more of this task internally. An additional possible logical rule change would be an adjustment to the rules for enhanced cooling due to being in water; a successful explanation for why heat sinks still appear on the critical charts should negate any argument for this change as well. A final possible change would be considering whether critical damage to these "heat sinks" would have different cost/difficulty/parts to repair.

[Sir Chaos]

I certainly see the value in standardizing some of the ammo loads. I too have been long annoyed by the SRM6 ammo discrepancy. Hadn't really considered the AC/2 but an extra 5 shots isn't going to hurt it much. And allows for 1/2 ton bins conveniently if using fractional accounting.

Regarding the built-in heatsinks I'd approach the matter a bit differently. Instead of giving more cooling to larger engines, I'd instead adjust the rule on engine hits. The first engine hit disables half of the in-engine heat sinks and the second disables all of them instead of the flat +5 and +10 heat penalties. So something like a Marauder would suffer +6 heat on the first engine hit (or +12 on later models) and +12 for the second (or +24 for the later models). This gives a counterbalance to hiding heat sinks and also somewhat addresses the matter of DHS almost making heat irrelevant.

Now THAT is an interesting idea. I like it.

Optional rule when using this: Engines aren´t automatically disabled on the third crit, instead each crit disables a fixed number of heat sinks (half the 1-per-25-engine-size crit-less heat sinks, rounding up the TOTAL number of sinks disable, so for 11 sinks, first hit disables 6, second hit disables 5 and so on). The engine is disabled when the amount of heat sinks disabled from both engine crits and heat sink crits at least equals the total heat sink capacity.

So for example a mech with a 250-270 size engine and 10 heat sinks (TBT-5N oder CRD-3R for example) would be knocked out of the fight after two engine crits, while having at least one heat sink outside the engine would make the mech last until the third crit, and machines with a lot of heat sinks and/or small engines (PNT-9R or AWS-8Q) could take a lot of engine crits. That would buff a lot of lighter designs with smaller engines, too.

And as you point out, while double heat sinks in the engine are "free", having double heat sinks also you lose twice as much heat capacity on an engine crit, taking away a small part of the advantage of double heat sinks - which is probably not a bad thing.

[Daemion]

I get the AC/2 not having an even 50 shots per ton.  Don't get it.

SRM-6 is a hard one because you don't get an even division of 6 into 100 rounds.  And, the SRM-2 and -4 do have an even breakdown into 100.  So, even though SRMs of a brand can fit in the launchers for the brand, the SRM-6 has its ammo packets packaged different.

The Heat Sink thing, I really don't have an exact opinion on. 

[Daryk]

This was my approach to the heat sink question: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,62762.0.html

[idea weenie]

So there´s always been three little things, even when introtech was the only thing around, that kinda annoyed me about the construction rules - let that say about me what you want.

(snipped engine heat sink notes)

The second is that the SRM-6 has a lower number of missiles per ton than other SRM launchers.

Let´s tackle the second and third first, because they´re quickest, easiest and least disruptive to status quo:
- SRM ammo is standardized to 96 missiles (instead of 100 or 90) per ton, and 16/24/48 shots respectively for the SRM-6/-4/-2. That also leaves the option of introducing an SRM-8 with 12 shots per ton (4 tons, 2 cits, 5 heat)

For the engines, how about just 10 pts of cooling per engine?  If SHS then each Heat Sink that cannot fit gets put outside the engine.  if DHS then put enough DHS outside the engine so that the remaining DHS can fit inside the engine.  I.e. if using a 175-rated engine with DHS, then only 7 pts of heat dissipation is provided by the engine, meaning 2 of the 5 DHS have to be put outside the engine.


For SRMs, how about 120 missiles per ton?  This changes the shots/ton of ammo to be:
SRM-2 - 60 shots/ton
SRM-4 - 30 shots/ton
SRM-6 - 20 shots/ton
SRM-8 - 15 shots/ton
SRM-10 - 12 shots/ton
SRM-12 - 10 shots/ton

(120 is not just the number of missiles per ton for LRMs, but is also an anti-prime)

[Sir Chaos]

For SRMs, how about 120 missiles per ton?  This changes the shots/ton of ammo to be:
SRM-2 - 60 shots/ton
SRM-4 - 30 shots/ton
SRM-6 - 20 shots/ton
SRM-8 - 15 shots/ton
SRM-10 - 12 shots/ton
SRM-12 - 10 shots/ton

(120 is not just the number of missiles per ton for LRMs, but is also an anti-prime)

I went with 96 shots for two reasons: It is a very minor change (and decent compromise) from the original 90/100 shots, and it gives the three main ammunition categories (LRM, SRM, AC) different numbers of shots per ton (120, 96, 100).

With a potential SRM-8 as the biggest SRM launcher, both LRM and SRM come in four sizes that are multiples (single, double, triple, quadruple) of the same basic launcher (SRM-2 and LRM-5). That kind of symmetry appeals to me.

[RifleMech]

So there´s always been three little things, even when introtech was the only thing around, that kinda annoyed me about the construction rules - let that say about me what you want.

(snip)

The ammo numbers has bugged me too. 96 rounds for SRMs and 100 for the AC/2 works good.

As for the engine, the lower engine ratings end up taking more critical hits because the heat sinks aren't in the engine. They take up critical slots. That gives engines with higher ratings the advantage. Engine Ratings 275 and up actually gain critical slots when it comes to heat sinks, especially when double heat sinks are used. That's up to 6-18 slots depending on the type of heat sinks installed. And while external heat sinks do provide some crit padding their loss can still hamper the mech. The added internal heat sinks can't be hit except from the 3rd engine hit which kills the mech anyway. That's a huge advantage for the larger engines.

That said, Heat Sinks may not be the best term for the ones that come with the engine or are mounted internally.
Maybe Cooling System or something but they'd do the same job so the name probably doesn't matter much. It would be interesting to allow Mechs to not install outside heat sinks to free up space.

[Sir Chaos]

Hmmm... totally wild idea here: What if stronger engines actually gave you fewer heat sinks?

The stronger the engine, the more waste heat it produces, and thus the more heat sinks are busy just keeping heat "neutral" instead actually reducing it. Yet all engines of a given type (standard, light, XL etc) are the same size, and thus should either have the same number of heat sinks built in, or should have fewer heat sinks because more of the given amount of space is taken up by the engine itself. Maybe it´s something like 20 free heat sinks minus 1 per 25 points of engine power, meaning that 250 point engines are still same as before.

[Charistoph]

That might work if there was no Heat for normal operations, i.e. Walking.  Still, I think that just keeping Engines to a base amount of Cooling would be a simpler measure.  Any more desired needs to be provided by crit-taken Heat Sinks.

On the other hand, that would require a notably significant change in official Record Sheet builds.

[DevianID]

I really like the idea that engine heat sinks that don't have a crit slot are what gets hit with each engine hit.  So 1 engine hit to a mech with 7 engine sinks is 4 heat, and 2 hits would be all 7 sinks.  Makes 3025 engine hits not as deadly for smaller engines, and makes double heat sink units actually care about engine hits.  2 engine hits after losing a side torso on a timber wolf dropping 30 engine heat, versus 10, would actually feel like you crippled that mech instead of minor inconvenience.

[garhkal]

SRM-6 is a hard one because you don't get an even division of 6 into 100 rounds.  And, the SRM-2 and -4 do have an even breakdown into 100.  So, even though SRMs of a brand can fit in the launchers for the brand, the SRM-6 has its ammo packets packaged different.

I liked the suggestion, of making ALL SRM's use a 96 shot 'ammo pack', so SRM-2's get 48 shots, SRM-4's get 24 shots a ton, and SRM-6's get 16 shots a ton..

[Daryk]

Hmmm... I suppose I could add a "Type 0" heat sink to my other thread: 1 ton, 1 heat and 2 crits outside the engine... hmmm...

[Mechanis]

I mean, if you actually want SRMs to be given correct ammunition loads it should be 30 rounds for the SRM 2, 15 for the 4, and 10 for the 6, and while we're at it we can drop the MG down to 100/50/33 rounds for the light/standard/heavy variants and, yes,bump the AC 2 back up to 50 rounds.

Heck, while we're on the subject, we can either drop the artillery damage back to what it was originally, or properly give them 6/5/4 rounds a ton for the Thumper/Sniper/LT respectively. Just expunge all the inconsistent ammo numbers and get it back to being 100/120
Or hell, just make everything 120/ton! That would help a lot.   

[AlphaMirage]

120/ton for all ammo except for MRMs (and maybe MGs) would be the optimal choice.

We have done a modification of MGs where it fires a '5' cluster burst (using 5 rounds in process) and that works pretty good considering how short range and explodey it is.

[idea weenie]

Heck, while we're on the subject, we can either drop the artillery damage back to what it was originally, or properly give them 6/5/4 rounds a ton for the Thumper/Sniper/LT respectively. Just expunge all the inconsistent ammo numbers and get it back to being 100/120
Or hell, just make everything 120/ton! That would help a lot.

I'd like Aerospace bomb damage to be proportional to what an artillery shell can do.  I.e. if a 200-kg Long Tom shell can do 25 pts of damage to the center hex, then a 1000 kg aerospace bomb should be able to do 125 pts of damage.  Especially since the 200 kg Long Tom shell also has to include propellant to lift the shell up high enough, while the Aerospace fighter bomb is being lifted by the Aerospace fighter.

[Retry]

I mean, if you actually want SRMs to be given correct ammunition loads it should be 30 rounds for the SRM 2, 15 for the 4, and 10 for the 6, and while we're at it we can drop the MG down to 100/50/33 rounds for the light/standard/heavy variants and, yes,bump the AC 2 back up to 50 rounds.

Heck, while we're on the subject, we can either drop the artillery damage back to what it was originally, or properly give them 6/5/4 rounds a ton for the Thumper/Sniper/LT respectively. Just expunge all the inconsistent ammo numbers and get it back to being 100/120
Or hell, just make everything 120/ton! That would help a lot.

Why is 60 missiles per ton the "correct" choice for SRMs?  The whole point of SRMs is that they trade off the range of LRMs in favor of more firepower. (both per-missile and per-ton), so it would be weird if they didn't do that.

[DevianID]

I'd like Aerospace bomb damage to be proportional to what an artillery shell can do.  I.e. if a 200-kg Long Tom shell can do 25 pts of damage to the center hex, then a 1000 kg aerospace bomb should be able to do 125 pts of damage.  Especially since the 200 kg Long Tom shell also has to include propellant to lift the shell up high enough, while the Aerospace fighter bomb is being lifted by the Aerospace fighter.

My nitpick here is that the bombs are not actually 1 ton each... like a single arrow takes up 5 bomb slots, so 40kgper slot, while a RL10 takes up 1 slot but is a .5 ton item, ect.  Bombs are what they are purely as a gameplay conceit for balanced gameplay.  As for artillery, well artillery damage is comically too high.  A 200kg AC20 does 20, but a long tom has that same shell size yet does 25 ae, 15 ae, 5 ae, for like 380 potential damage with 1 attack?  Its a joke.  Artillery is grossly overpowered, so comparing something like bombs which were balanced for gameplay isn't fair when artillery was buffed far beyond what is sensical. 

[Mechanis]

Why is 60 missiles per ton the "correct" choice for SRMs?  The whole point of SRMs is that they trade off the range of LRMs in favor of more firepower. (both per-missile and per-ton), so it would be weird if they didn't do that.

Because ammo per ton is based on damage points - with the exception of AC/2s, and MGs (and Gauss) every ballistic weapon has 100 damage points per ton of ammunition - even the Artillery did, with the original, less absurd damage values (which the Cannon variants still use, despite nominally using the same ammo, hooray for plotholes); similarly with missile weapons (and gauss rifles) each ton of Ammo is equal to 120 points of damage.

Artillery is off because they massively buffed the damage but didn't apply a corresponding reduction in ammo counts; AC 2s are off because 5 rounds get shaved For Reasons; and MGs are off because their entire statline is wacky and seems like something added by someone who wasn't looking at the rest of the weapons at all. SRMs are off because, as far as I can tell, someone forgot that each missile does 2 damage and so didn't produce the correct ammo counts.

[idea weenie]

My nitpick here is that the bombs are not actually 1 ton each... like a single arrow takes up 5 bomb slots, so 40kgper slot, while a RL10 takes up 1 slot but is a .5 ton item, ect.  Bombs are what they are purely as a gameplay conceit for balanced gameplay.  As for artillery, well artillery damage is comically too high.  A 200kg AC20 does 20, but a long tom has that same shell size yet does 25 ae, 15 ae, 5 ae, for like 380 potential damage with 1 attack?  Its a joke.  Artillery is grossly overpowered, so comparing something like bombs which were balanced for gameplay isn't fair when artillery was buffed far beyond what is sensical. 

Good catch.  Is there a chart in a Core Book that lists the smaller masses for the different types of bombs?  (I likely missed it)

The data I used was:
* Campaign Operations -> Maintenance, Salvage, Repair & Customization -> Design Quirks -> Internal Bomb Bay (page 227): each bomb slot used takes up 1 ton of cargo capacity
* Interstellar Operations -> Alternate Eras, Units & Equipment -> LAM Construction -> Bomb Bays (p114): "each of which weighs 1 ton and occupies 1 critical space in the unit’s left or right torso. Each bomb bay accommodates a single-slot bomb,"
* Tech Manual -> Heavy Weapon Ammunition Table (page 346) lists weight for various bombs as 1 ton each


You are right about the artillery damage though, I have similar comments about the Arrow IV vs the Thunderbolt-20:

Weapon	Damage	Range	mass/shot	mass/lchr
Thunderbolt-20	20	18 hexes	333 kg	15 tons
Arrow IV	20+	8 mapsheets	200 kg	15 tons

Because ammo per ton is based on damage points - with the exception of AC/2s, and MGs (and Gauss) every ballistic weapon has 100 damage points per ton of ammunition - even the Artillery did, with the original, less absurd damage values (which the Cannon variants still use, despite nominally using the same ammo, hooray for plotholes); similarly with missile weapons (and gauss rifles) each ton of Ammo is equal to 120 points of damage.

Artillery is off because they massively buffed the damage but didn't apply a corresponding reduction in ammo counts; AC 2s are off because 5 rounds get shaved For Reasons; and MGs are off because their entire statline is wacky and seems like something added by someone who wasn't looking at the rest of the weapons at all. SRMs are off because, as far as I can tell, someone forgot that each missile does 2 damage and so didn't produce the correct ammo counts.

For MG, assuming the BT 3025-era standard Machine Gun is just the future version of the M2 Browning 50 caliber machine gun, each bullet masses ~125 grams (from here, but I increased the mass to make the math easy).  1 ton of ammo containing shots massing 125 grams per bullet is 8000 bullets.  Assuming 400 shots this is 20 round bursts.

Now if the Battletech Machine Gun is a 20mm cannon, then each bullet would mass about 320 grams, so 1 ton of ammo would contain 3125 individual rounds.  Assuming a 400 shots this would be a 7 or 8 round burst.

Now I'm wondering if all of the larger Autocannons need to be increased in shots per ton of ammo.


For SRMs and LRMs, I'd see them as a roughly similar platform, just that the LRM uses more of its mass for fuel instead of warhead.  The LRM can burn the fuel, which reduces its mass during flight so the engine has less work to do over time.

The SRM however has to keep its 2-pt warhead on board for the entire flight.  This is a warhead twice as heavy as the LRM warhead, imposing a constant and heavy penalty on range.

What would be interesting is changing missile internal explosion damage values to incorporate the missile fuel as well as the missile warhead.  A simple method would be that all missiles do 4 pts of damage when they explode internally, to reflect the fuel + warhead doing damage.  I would have gone with just 3 pts, but the Advanced Tactical Missile has a missile that does 3 pts of damage and still has the range of an SRM.


Or another option:
An LRM-20 launcher fires 1 salvos of missiles, and is lucky to get all 20 missiles to hit and do 20 pts of damage.  The same LRM launcher later fires a Thunder-20 salvo, putting a 20-pt minefield into a hex.  That 20-pt minefield has a chance to damage units wherever they walk in from, and only has a 50-50 chance to degrade (TO: AR, p176, General rules -> Minefields -> Conventional Minefields).  How does the same tonnage of Thunder missiles get to damage units repeatedly when as LRMs they can only do up to 20 pts of damage?

My recommendation: Thunder LRMs only add 1-4 pts to a minefield, based on their missile strength divided by 5 (so that LRM-20 would only add 4 pts to a minefield hex).

[Retry]

Because ammo per ton is based on damage points - with the exception of AC/2s, and MGs (and Gauss) every ballistic weapon has 100 damage points per ton of ammunition - even the Artillery did, with the original, less absurd damage values (which the Cannon variants still use, despite nominally using the same ammo, hooray for plotholes); similarly with missile weapons (and gauss rifles) each ton of Ammo is equal to 120 points of damage.

Ammo per ton tends to constant across class, but not throughout entire categories (e.g. all ballistics).  Even within classes (e.g. ACs) there are sometimes specific outliers outside of the obvious ones (AC2): PACs only have 80 damage/ton, and HVACs are just weird.

It's also not true in general that missile weapons have 120 damage/ton.  XLRMs are 90, Thunderbolts are only 60, MRMs are a whopping 240, Narc and iNarc explosive pods have tiny damage potential, ATMs are 60/120/180 depending on the specific ammo type used, and Mech Mortars are 48 damage/ton except for the -8 which inexplicably is 64 damage/ton.

The point being that constant damage/ton wasn't really much of a consideration, so making everything the exact same isn't the "obvious" correct choice.  In fact it introduces logical inconsistencies: Making a reasonable assumption that explosive weapon damage like missiles are directly proportional to the weight of the warhead, then in the case of comparing a 120 damage/ton SRM, a 120 damage/ton LRM, and a 120 damage/ton XLRM, we'd have to assume that the rocket propulsion system is entirely weightless.

[Sir Chaos]

Because ammo per ton is based on damage points

No, it isn´t, and has never been.

LRM do way less damage per ton of ammo than SRM because more of the weight of each missile is fuel rather than warhead, since they have a much longer range.

[Mechanis]

No, it isn´t, and has never been.

LRM do way less damage per ton of ammo than SRM because more of the weight of each missile is fuel rather than warhead, since they have a much longer range.

Uh, yes it is? Straight Word of God on that; that ammo per ton is based on weapons getting X damage to the ton, generally either 100 or 120, with some rounding (usually down but up in a couple of cases).
SRMs actually get less damage per ton if you account for the math being obviously incorrectly using the number of missiles rather than damage points; it's obvious that they're just on the 100/ton standard but mathed wrong (100÷2=50, 100÷4=25, 100÷6=16 and a bit; presumably dropped to 15 For Reasons, putting them at 90/ton standard like the AC 2)

But yeah, it's a known fact that ammo counts were decided by each ton of ammunition being X damage points, with the two most common being 100 and 120 and there being some outliers caused by Early Installment Weirdness (MGs, AC 2s) or Incorrectly Done Math Which Was Never Corrected (SRMs).

[Retry]

Interesting that SRMs supposedly intended to be 100 damage/ton is apparently a well-known fact, as it's something I've only ever heard from one person in 2023.

Disregarding the obvious problems halving damage potential would cause with SRM viability and overall game balance, this would also imply fuel on Battletech missile weapons has negative mass.  Amusing, but I don't think the overall BTU is that advanced.

[DevianID]

I think they just misspoke.  Srms are obviously 200 damage per ton since battledroids, as less range = more room for warhead.

As for the bomb bay tonnage.  Yeah a 5 ton internal bomb bay holds 5 bomb slots, but that doesnt mean 1 bomb slot is 1 ton.  The bomb bay is the launcher in this case, and the ammo varies by a lot.  In general most external stores are about .5 tons of stuff going by rl10s and fuel, but all the missiles are lighter.  I think the arrow is the lowest and the Alamo is next at 1 ton cargo weight 10 slots as live ordnance.

[Sir Chaos]

Interesting that SRMs supposedly intended to be 100 damage/ton is apparently a well-known fact, as it's something I've only ever heard from one person in 2023.

Disregarding the obvious problems halving damage potential would cause with SRM viability and overall game balance, this would also imply fuel on Battletech missile weapons has negative mass.  Amusing, but I don't think the overall BTU is that advanced.

Yeah, giving SRM the same damage per ton, when they have half the range, would make them a lot less attractive.

Personally, I´ve estimated missile weights (with my adjustment of 96 SRM per ton) like this: The bin and loading mechanism weighs 40 kg; SRM are 10 kg each, consisting of 8kg of warhead and 2kg of fuel, while LRM are 8 kg each, consisting of 4 kg of warhead and 4 kg of fuel.

That gives SRM twice the warhead weight as LRM, consistent with twice the damage; LRM have twice the fuel, and coupled with the fact that they are lighter, that gives them somewhat more than twice the range.

[Mechanis]

Your estimates here are fundamentally flawed, because BattleTech missiles don't have propellent, or rather, the warhead, propellent and missile body are all the same thing; a mostly solid brick of a metallic explosive compound which acts as both the actual explosive payload and the propellent.

No, we have no idea how that's supposed to work, but that's the lore.

[Sir Chaos]

Your estimates here are fundamentally flawed, because BattleTech missiles don't have propellent, or rather, the warhead, propellent and missile body are all the same thing; a mostly solid brick of a metallic explosive compound which acts as both the actual explosive payload and the propellent.

No, we have no idea how that's supposed to work, but that's the lore.

Do you perhaps happen to have a source for all those nuggets of BattleTech wisdom you have been bestowing on us?

[VanVelding]

Disregarding the obvious problems halving damage potential would cause with SRM viability and overall game balance, this would also imply fuel on Battletech missile weapons has negative mass.  Amusing, but I don't think the overall BTU is that advanced.

Have you ever crunched warhead/fuel masses with MRMs in there? Something is already running negative.

Personally, I think ammo efficiency should follow from game system functions. A short-ranged weapon that is less accurate over 21 hexes (that is, it has 0% accuracy from 10-21 hexes) and deals about the same damage per shot has every right to slightly greater ammunition longevity (more damage/ton for the same damage/shot).

Even though ammunition is a liability, the ability to bank weapons sharing a bin or to carry less ammo for entirely reasonable "everyone in universe knows this ammunition is a powder keg and they don't need all of it" reasons mitigates that liability somewhat.

I've tried reconciling missile tonnages and ammo capacities and I've got a spreadsheet that's 98% consistent on the introtech missiles, but it rebuilds missile systems from the ground up and has knock-on effects for MMLs, ELRMs, NLRMs, and MRMs (it spits Thunderbolts out; those missiles ain't right).

Tweaking missiles is pretty easy for some basic consistency, but revamping missiles according to some kind of originalist philosophy--when obviously the strength of Battletech's design is in balancing systems like BV and not construction rules--seems like a strange rock upon which to build your church.

But hell, it's your church and you should have fun with it.

[Cannonshop]

My nitpick here is that the bombs are not actually 1 ton each... like a single arrow takes up 5 bomb slots, so 40kgper slot, while a RL10 takes up 1 slot but is a .5 ton item, ect.  Bombs are what they are purely as a gameplay conceit for balanced gameplay.  As for artillery, well artillery damage is comically too high.  A 200kg AC20 does 20, but a long tom has that same shell size yet does 25 ae, 15 ae, 5 ae, for like 380 potential damage with 1 attack?  Its a joke.  Artillery is grossly overpowered, so comparing something like bombs which were balanced for gameplay isn't fair when artillery was buffed far beyond what is sensical.

Part of that, is what was used as a measuring stick when aerial bombing was moved from Aerotech to Total Warfare-it was balanced against the artillery that had been removed from 'the basic rules' and was still (at that time) only available via BMR(r).

When artillery was intro'ed in TacOps, they had to look at what MWDA was doing, and that year, MWDA's artillery was absurdly overpowered stuff-because damage in that game could be arbitrary, and, largely, was...but they were also the IP owners and if you want to stay in your IP owner's good books, you follow his lead.

it didn't help, that the persons tasked with developing the artillery rules went hawg wild and didn't really reference any experiences players had had for years using the stuff-like how complicated it was and how many people complained aobut the massive drag it imposed-far more than complained that arty damage was anemic, because they didn't want to use it due to the time issue and complexity.  First printing Tac Ops had two optional scatter calculation diagrams-one was perfect for people who find tax accounting to be a joy, and the other had an inherent flaw that made it more dangerous to the side using the stuff, than the opponents they faced.

We didn't get until a later product entirely before artillery scatter was addressed with something that cut that extra calculation down to a dull roar. (We DID get excuses about how bombs are bulky, though, despite the obvious move of using the same streamlining algorithms you'd use for an artillery shell, which would eliminate the bulk of that bulk.  Air drop ordnance in Battletech must be cubes, with concave-scooped sides to catch wind resistance and slow them down while tumbling them off the target...)

but we're stuck with the dinner-plate damage diagram because while air-dropped bombs were balanced against baseline BMR(r) artillery shots, (and Aerotech 2 bombs, which were also balanced against those), they can't be updated without massive upset to match the MWDA/Maxtech inspired artillery damages.

It destabilizes a game balance that's already got problems, and threatens battlemech supremacy^tm.   Upshot being, this is a dissonance that you just, as a player, either live with, or house rule away. It's not something the dev team has the manpower, time, resources or permissions to address, even if the will existed.

[DevianID]

I mean, artillery can be fixed in 2 seconds.  Just errata the damage to 5/10/20 on the guns, and fix the BV as its too low.  Bam, problem solved.  Artillery being poorly implemented 10+ years ago is no excuse not to fix what is an identifiably error via errata.  They already changed how many rules in artillery work via errata, so its not like they dont have the power to errata things.

My complaint with the game currently is that the BV system is actually quite good: it is a calculation, and it does a good job of balance.  But, as a calculation, it also shows us what is wrong in the game and in need of errata.  Artillery is incorrect--BV provides an irrefutable proof of this, as it is math that anyone can do if they feel inclined (and I felt inclined).  I know the team is over worked, but someone with the formulas (it doesnt have to be me) can go through the game with a fine tooth comb and fix all this broken stuff.

And if the designers word of god stated they want to keep artillery at 15/20/25 damage for what I consider no good reason?  Well its stupid, but its easy to model in BV.  Thus the thumper would go up to a bit more then 4x the BV it costs now, and while silly in lore versus the identical thumper cannon, the artillery shell would be at least BV balanced with no glaring error.

[Cannonshop]

I mean, artillery can be fixed in 2 seconds.  Just errata the damage to 5/10/20 on the guns, and fix the BV as its too low.  Bam, problem solved.  Artillery being poorly implemented 10+ years ago is no excuse not to fix what is an identifiably error via errata.  They already changed how many rules in artillery work via errata, so its not like they dont have the power to errata things.

My complaint with the game currently is that the BV system is actually quite good: it is a calculation, and it does a good job of balance.  But, as a calculation, it also shows us what is wrong in the game and in need of errata.  Artillery is incorrect--BV provides an irrefutable proof of this, as it is math that anyone can do if they feel inclined (and I felt inclined).  I know the team is over worked, but someone with the formulas (it doesnt have to be me) can go through the game with a fine tooth comb and fix all this broken stuff.

And if the designers word of god stated they want to keep artillery at 15/20/25 damage for what I consider no good reason?  Well its stupid, but its easy to model in BV.  Thus the thumper would go up to a bit more then 4x the BV it costs now, and while silly in lore versus the identical thumper cannon, the artillery shell would be at least BV balanced with no glaring error.

I cannot fault your logic. 

[Demiurge]

Have you ever crunched warhead/fuel masses with MRMs in there? Something is already running negative.

Personally, I think ammo efficiency should follow from game system functions. A short-ranged weapon that is less accurate over 21 hexes (that is, it has 0% accuracy from 10-21 hexes) and deals about the same damage per shot has every right to slightly greater ammunition longevity (more damage/ton for the same damage/shot).

Even though ammunition is a liability, the ability to bank weapons sharing a bin or to carry less ammo for entirely reasonable "everyone in universe knows this ammunition is a powder keg and they don't need all of it" reasons mitigates that liability somewhat.

I've tried reconciling missile tonnages and ammo capacities and I've got a spreadsheet that's 98% consistent on the introtech missiles, but it rebuilds missile systems from the ground up and has knock-on effects for MMLs, ELRMs, NLRMs, and MRMs (it spits Thunderbolts out; those missiles ain't right).

Tweaking missiles is pretty easy for some basic consistency, but revamping missiles according to some kind of originalist philosophy--when obviously the strength of Battletech's design is in balancing systems like BV and not construction rules--seems like a strange rock upon which to build your church.

But hell, it's your church and you should have fun with it.

Is there any way to make the damage/ton of ammo of missiles work out if we assume that missile damage doesn't track linearly with warhead mass?  That might explain how MRMs are so efficient and why Thunderbolts are so bad.  Furthermore, if missile range scales with missile burnout velocity, then we have a pretty good out on things like ELRMs and long-range ATMs since the real-life Tsiolkovsky Equation is exponential with respect to fuel fraction for linear increases in delta-V.

See?  It can all be reconciled.

Unless you compare missile damage to autocannon damage.  Then everything I just said completely falls apart and make no sense whatsoever again.  Or machine guns.  Just pretend those don't exist either.

[VanVelding]

I ran them through a Python program to reverse engineer the relationships. I forget the mathematical term. Regression? It works when you give gross numbers--damage per weapon, tonnage, etc--but it gives irrational results when trying to construct missile stats from individual components. Even when using exponential variables.

Fooling with the linearity of it doesn't work intuitively either. If MRMs had tiny explosive masses that could deal the same damage as an equal number of LRMs, then the LRMs would use that same tiny explosive mass. Possibly less if accuracy is a factor in damage effectiveness.

They're just nonsense.

If I had my druthers, I'd have missile classes, let a 'mech mount any number of racks for them, and then give each class a series of compatible ammo types with varying damages and ranges. Big, big tables. Everything from close-in flechette-like missiles to Sidewinder analogs (Thunderbolt 6?).

[Hellraiser]

For SRMs, how about 120 missiles per ton?  This changes the shots/ton of ammo to be:

(120 is not just the number of missiles per ton for LRMs, but is also an anti-prime)

I've been advocating for fixing all ammo at 120 points total for all weapons for a long time now.

It would get rid of a bit of MG ammo but for most other things they would get a bit of a boost.

Divisible by 1-2-3-4-5-6-8-10-12-15-20-30-40, it works for most anything except a couple of ATM/MML options and even those the rounding would be minimal.

It would be less of an issue with a "tech advancement/standardization" that left all missile launchers to fit into the new "Variable Missile Launcher / VML" weapons that come in the same 4 sizes as ACs at 2-5-10-20 & combine the effects of ATM/MML type missiles where range/damage will be decided on ammo type & not launcher type.

[Retry]

Have you ever crunched warhead/fuel masses with MRMs in there? Something is already running negative.

Not with MRMs, no.

Did your reverse engineering consider guidance systems for SRMs/LRMs?  Electronics are rather heavy in the Battletech universe, and MRMs don't have 'em, so a fairly heavy guidance component could help rationalize the differences between SRMs, LRMs, and MRMs.

I think the Thunderbolt missiles are beyond saving, though.

I've been advocating for fixing all ammo at 120 points total for all weapons for a long time now.

120 SRMs/ton would be 240 points of damage, not 120.

And I gotta be honest, I've tried this a bit and it's a hard pass for me; it creates just as many problems as it solves.

[Daryk]

I think he meant 60 SRMs per ton (120 DAMAGE points)... ?

[Charistoph]

I think he meant 60 SRMs per ton (120 DAMAGE points)... ?

That makes ATM loads... interesting.  Are the 3 Damage Types the model so each one has a different load (120 for ER, 60 for Standard, and 40 for HE), or just go based on the Standard Damage's Damage option?

At times I wonder if the ATM would have been better off as a Variable Damage Missile system, but FASA wasn't really in to doing that in those days.

[Daryk]

I think your first example is the way to go...  ATM launchers are special because they can handle missiles of different dimensions/weights...

[Retry]

I think he meant 60 SRMs per ton (120 DAMAGE points)... ?

Maybe?  IW did specifically call out 120 as being an anti-prime, so I think 120 was intended to be the number of missiles.

At times I wonder if the ATM would have been better off as a Variable Damage Missile system, but FASA wasn't really in to doing that in those days.

I don't wonder at all; ATMs absolutely would have been better off as a variable damage missile system.

[VanVelding]

Not with MRMs, no.

Did your reverse engineering consider guidance systems for SRMs/LRMs?  Electronics are rather heavy in the Battletech universe, and MRMs don't have 'em, so a fairly heavy guidance component could help rationalize the differences between SRMs, LRMs, and MRMs.

MRMs get waaay too much damage per ton for their drop in range and accuracy. It annihilates the whole set of linear relationships.

The linear regression included tonnage, damage per missile, missiles per shot, crits, heat, ammunition/ton, average damage per shot, cluster size, and average to-hit over 34 hexes. All of which were game attributes.

When doing linear regression with things like fuel weight, explosive weight, guidance system weights, and other, fluffier, qualities, it doesn't work. Shit like "more damage creates less weight" happens because of little inconsistencies with the weapon stats. The removal of guidance systems from LRMs to make MRMs tends to double their explosive power. It pushes it up past SRMs. The guidance system takes up 50% of an LRM's size, but when you double the explosive warhead, it only gets 20% heavier.

The more weapons you include in the (successful) regression, the less accuracy the equations yield. You can approximate many things or specify a few things, but I don't have a computer powerful enough to create some 12th-order polynomials which would make everything work under one set of equations. Actually, if I did, it would probably be a set of equations powerful enough to create all equipment that already exists exactly, but make an LRM 6 weigh 2,103 tons.

[Hellraiser]

120 SRMs/ton would be 240 points of damage, not 120.

And I gotta be honest, I've tried this a bit and it's a hard pass for me; it creates just as many problems as it solves.

In the case of SRM/LRM, I was referring to # of Missiles, which in the case of SRM/HE/ATM is an exception to the rule of damage.

What sort of problems does it create?

Most ammo is already at 120 (damage or missiles) or close to it (Gauss/LtGR/LRM/ATM)
You have AC/SRM set at 100 (90) which would get a small bump.
I'm not seeing too many issues here.

I think he meant 60 SRMs per ton (120 DAMAGE points)... ?

I mean Missiles themselves, which for LRM/ERATM is also damage.
For everything else I mean damage.
Missiles are a "self explained" exception since they are part Damage & part Range so sort of auto correct for each type.
SRM/LRM a mix of 1-2 parts damage & 1-2 parts range (9/21).
ATMs take it a step further w/ 4 parts of Range/Damage.

Maybe?  IW did specifically call out 120 as being an anti-prime, so I think 120 was intended to be the number of missiles.

Yes, its # of Missiles for Missiles (and MG shots), but raw damage for those systems that divide damage into shots.

I just think 120 is a solid figure to simplify for everything so we don't have this variable figure ranging from 60-400 or whatever the current totals are.


MGs = 120 Shots   (Range/Damage varies like missiles so its the same for all MGs)
Missiles = 120 Missiles  (7/9 shot launchers would be exceptions currently)

AC/Gauss/T-Bolt = 120 Damage/Ton = Shots ranging from 6-60/Ton based on # Damage/Shot.  (HGR goes by Medium-20 figure)
iHGR would like 7/9 shot launchers be an exception at 110/22 = 5 shots and I'm fine w/ that for cheesy "new tech" experimental guns :)


I'm not worried about real world math explaining how every ounce of a "ton" is made up, its a game, I just think 120 is a nice round # that is divisible by "almost" every weapon that could be a nice standard to build around.

No one would ever have to look up ammo tables again because they are all 120 as their base stat for shots/damage.

[Retry]

In the case of SRM/LRM, I was referring to # of Missiles, which in the case of SRM/HE/ATM is an exception to the rule of damage.

What sort of problems does it create?

Most ammo is already at 120 (damage or missiles) or close to it (Gauss/LtGR/LRM/ATM)
You have AC/SRM set at 100 (90) which would get a small bump.
I'm not seeing too many issues here.

Well, one of the problems was SRM becoming dramatically worse so as to become unviable without going ham on special ammo like smoke and infernos, but with the carveout for SRMs that point is moot.

There's some other problems too though:
-120 dmg/ton MRMs loses half of their damage capacity and become more pointless than usual.
-XLRMs partially lose one of their main balancing measures (90 damage/ton).  While that series of weapons is kinda weird they're actually really good for IS weapons, especially in company-sized and larger contexts, so while they could use some, ahem, rationalization in other stats I strongly recommend the reduced damage/ton remain.
-Narc (especially Clan) and iNarc become weirdly credible to use as regular weapons at 120 damage/ton rather than explosive shots being more of a last-ditch backup.  Sure they're not weight efficient launchers but they produce no heat.
-Mech Mortars become much better.  More of a lore problem than an actual game problem though since they're still a bit weird to use compared to LRMs.
-Plasma Rifles become a bit better, which is not world-ending but honestly they don't need any buffs.
-Plasma Cannons become...???  (They'd probably stay 10, or 12 following the neo Plasma Rifle.)
-Small and Medium Chemical Lasers become mostly pointless as losing their high damage capacity costs them the one reasonable niche they had.  The improvement to the large one is fine though, since it kinda sucks.
To tell you the truth I do approve of buffing the ACs to 120.

I'm not against adjusting damage/ton counts but I'm strongly for having it done on a case-by-case basis; In my experience making it a blanket 120 across the entire board regardless of context robs us of a useful balancing mechanism.

[Charistoph]

I think your first example is the way to go...  ATM launchers are special because they can handle missiles of different dimensions/weights...

On the other hand, are they really different dimensions and weights and just set up so that the Ammo is constructed so they are all in the same body, just with different fuel:explosive power ratios altered, such as what people are trying to do here with the SRM, MRM, and LRM?

The number of shots currently stay the same between the Ammo Types, so it appears to be the case, or, at least, close enough not to change around like MML loads do between Long and Short Ranged Missiles.

Maybe?  IW did specifically call out 120 as being an anti-prime, so I think 120 was intended to be the number of missiles.I don't wonder at all; ATMs absolutely would have been better off as a variable damage missile system.

The only reason I wonder is because requiring to have 3 Ammo Bins to use all 3 Range bands is a good balancing point.


At this point, I wonder if the Inner Sphere would make a Variable Range/Damage Missile System, and if so, who would do it?

The Commonwealth is too shattered and broken.  The Combine has the resources.  The Confederation and FedSuns have the will.  If the League ever got their act together long enough, they could probably do it.  Of the Periphery, it might be the Concordat or Magistry.

[Daryk]

In the case of SRM/LRM, I was referring to # of Missiles...
*snip*

I stand corrected!

[DevianID]

So on the point of MRMs being too efficient.

If the warhead is the same on LRMs and MRMs with no kinetic component as both deal 1 damage, then only the propellent, guidance, and housing matters for the relationship.

The LRM is an indirect capable weapon, so it's range is greater than 21 as it travels in an arc up and over intervening terrain.  The MRM on the other hand is a slow weapon, slower then cannons, as it takes an accuracy penalty, and the propellant appears to have a long burn time as range increases over time.

So if a 2 kg warhead was responsible for the lrm and mrm damage, that leaves about 6kg of stuff for the lrm and 2kg of stuff for the mrm.  That puts MRMs in the RPG territory for rocket propellent and LRMs in a staged hydra70 territory to go up then come down.  That feels consistent with how they operate, the MRMs famous inaccuracy acting like a bunch of RPGs fired together in a wave.

[Demiurge]

I ran them through a Python program to reverse engineer the relationships. I forget the mathematical term. Regression? It works when you give gross numbers--damage per weapon, tonnage, etc--but it gives irrational results when trying to construct missile stats from individual components. Even when using exponential variables.

Fooling with the linearity of it doesn't work intuitively either. If MRMs had tiny explosive masses that could deal the same damage as an equal number of LRMs, then the LRMs would use that same tiny explosive mass. Possibly less if accuracy is a factor in damage effectiveness.

They're just nonsense.

You might be able to make sense of it if the warhead is a truly tiny percentage of the mass of an LRM, and the guidance and fuel is a comparatively high percentage.  But this is probably not a worthwhile exercise at that point.  The damage/ton of ammo in CBT is utter nonsense, probably cannot be made sense of in a general sense, and aren't well balanced either.

Don't believe me?  I have two words for you.

A-pods.

A-pods are apparently filled with confetti and spring-loaded plastic snakes.  If you work out the damage they do vs a much lighter artillery shell of any flavor, you will realize that this is all silly.

If I had my druthers, I'd have missile classes, let a 'mech mount any number of racks for them, and then give each class a series of compatible ammo types with varying damages and ranges. Big, big tables. Everything from close-in flechette-like missiles to Sidewinder analogs (Thunderbolt 6?).

I heartily agree.  The missile racks would be like the VLS on a destroyer; compatible with a wide range of various sorts of explosive goodness to ruin the enemy's day.

I'm not against adjusting damage/ton counts but I'm strongly for having it done on a case-by-case basis; In my experience making it a blanket 120 across the entire board regardless of context robs us of a useful balancing mechanism.

Yeah, at the point that you make everything a flat 120 across the board, why even bother tracking ammo bins as separate criticals?  At that point just say that each weapon has a more-or-less standard amount of ammo and feed systems "built in" to the mass of the weapon and that extra can be added if needed for a small weight fee.  You know, like how BA does it.

I don't mind streamlining superfluous rules and I don't mind rationalizing nonsensical ones but partly streamlining nonsensical rules leaves the system needlessly complex and still nonsensical.

[VanVelding]

So if a 2 kg warhead was responsible for the lrm and mrm damage, that leaves about 6kg of stuff for the lrm and 2kg of stuff for the mrm.

If an LRM weighs 8 kg and an MRM weighs 4 kg, then an SRM weighs 9.6 kg.

If 1 damage weighs 2 kg, then 2 damage weighs 4 kg.

Then that means an SRM has 9.6 kg - 4 kg = 5.6 kg of propellant, guidance, and housing. An LRM--by that same math--has 6 kg of propellant, guidance, and housing. A difference of 0.4 kg.

Which means a range of 9 versus a range of 21, a guidance system which creates single-missile clusters instead of 5-damage clusters, and housing for 120 missiles versus 100 missiles only has a mass difference of 0.4 kg.

An MRM's 2 kg of propellant, guidance, and housing could be significantly improved by adding 0.4kg of propellant, guidance, and housing to each missile. That's what turns an SRM into an LRM.

MRM mk 2, with 233% of the range and a (speculative) guidance bump equal to that from an SRM to an LRM.
1/msl C1, (6)7/18/35 218 shots/ton +1 to-hit penalty

That seems intuitively insane. To me.

But you don't have to do all of that math to look at a 4 kg MRM and 4 kg (2 damage) of combat-grade explosives:
MRM mk 3, with duct tape
3/msl C5, 3/8/15, 120 shots/ton, +1 to-hit penalty.

If we assume very small explosive weights, then there's no reason weapons couldn't get a lot deadlier for the range or rangier for the dead.

We can break out more algebra (like the page or two I deleted in draft), or some fancy calculus with rocket equations and volumetric efficiency of missile housings and guidance versus flight distance and guidance versus effective damage, but I don't think any of them would support reasonable relationships between specific missile qualities and MRM, SRM, LRM, and MRM stats.

Eventually, you have to offload differences onto the launcher itself and begin breaking down LRM 5's as if they're completely different animals compared to an LRM 10 with an ammunition efficiency derived from its load out.

That puts MRMs in the RPG territory for rocket propellent and LRMs in a staged hydra70 territory to go up then come down.  That feels consistent with how they operate, the MRMs famous inaccuracy acting like a bunch of RPGs fired together in a wave.

Right, but we canonically have those in the form of Rocket Launchers. And they have different ranges, different range profiles, and ranges that diminish with proximity to each other and we're back to attributing missile performance to launcher characteristics.

[DevianID]

I never divided MRMs and rocket launchers in my head.  To me, MRMs are just autoloading rocket launchers built at scale to create a consistent product.  The difference in 3 rocket launcher ranges and characteristics feels in line with not providing proper tube spacing and clearance, while the MRM has a consistent tube and launch spacing.

On the specifics, the MRM rocket motor is different from the SRM motor which is different from the LRM motor.  So if 2kg of explosives was the value, then the fast burning SRM motor is designed to burn fast and at point blank range, while LRMs have much slower launches with that massive minimum range, unless you hot load the rack making them hazardous to the firing unit.  Both SRMs and LRMs have guidance, so we cant say guidance is .4 kg, nor can we say .4 kg of propellent gives LRMs a longer range, when the motors operate so differently to start, with LRMs having an indirect launch trajectory that takes more time versus the instant straight path of SRMs.

So the idea that adding .4kg to an MRM increases the range by 20 on those mk2s is pulling some very bad numbers... The difference between an SRM and LRM is only 12 to begin with, if we ignore the very different flight characteristics.

As for the mk3, you double the missile weight, adding 4kg, but have the same range... So the same rocket motor is pushing double the weight but you didn't adjust range at all.

If you look at deadfire SRMs and LRMs, they do a better job describing what you are talking about.  They strip guidance and propellent and have a reduced range with a +1 to hit, and a mallus to cluster rolls, but they do +1 damage.  So range goes down for damage to go up.

As a final note, one of the reasons MRMs dont have guidance was to make a very cheap weapon to shoot a lot of.  So if you could add guidance to the missile, it was decided in fluff not worth it compared to existing guided missiles.  Indeed, the MRM has just enough range to make LOS attacks, making it perfect as an anti structure saturation weapon.  It also pairs well with C3.  But in terms of raw potential, the SRM6 outperforms the MRM already, outside of cost and range.

[VanVelding]

This conversation has sidetracked into a discussion about whether individual missiles from LRMs, SRMs, & MRMs are created with a consistent set of physical rules based on masses, fuel, and explosive warheads.


I've said that using simple algebra does not bear that out because the relationships are wrong. This is the "algebra approach" and it does not work. 100%.

I've said that using linear, quadratic, exponential, and a few other regressions largely contradict this premise. I call this the "calculus approach," and it largely does not work. That inability to absolutely rule it out is due to lack of both computational resources/knowledge and interest on my part. If had those, maybe I could find a solution. If you have a solution, share it.

I don't know enough about rocket propulsion systems, explosive warhead configurations, or rocket fuel efficiencies to really say. This is the "rocket equations approach." My amateurish looks at the issue have yielded much the same answer as above and my understanding of those relationships is that they would largely look like the equations the regressions ruled out.


It could be. I can't say it's absolutely not. That's been my position.

If you think LRM, SRM, and MRM missiles were created by game designers with an internally consistent set of rules relating fuel masses, fuel efficiencies, explosive masses, propulsion designs, flight characteristics, and unique sets of guidance, stabilization, and proximity detonation systems based on an intelligent layperson's understanding of technology from the 80's and 90's, I'm not here to say you are 100% full-stop wrong.

If you want to say there's a simple linear relationship between any two of those missile types, because one of those missile types is a radically different system, then yes. There absolutely is that linear relationship.

If you want to say all of this is nonsense and it's a game made by jackasses to be played by other jackasses so we can joyfully relax and engage our jackass selves during our downtime, you are right.

If you want to give me numbers for all three of those systems and say they're not nonsense, you're wrong and the numbers are nonsense.

The only way to get the numbers to work is to say that "integral flight process X, Y, Z is handled by the this launcher type, while the other launcher type only handles X." That works just fine. No argument there.

[Daryk]

The trick is that missile velocity affects the damage, so the fuel/warhead relationship is... complicated.  It probably takes differential equations to sort it out, and I haven't had to do that in over 30 years at this point.  And I don't intend to get back into it either.

The jackass point is spot on, but I value consistency in rules for games I play.  Hence why I'm following this thread... :)

[DevianID]

VanVelding, I mostly just saw your example of adding .4 KG to an MRM, the MRM mark 2 you called it, with a range of 35!, and had to speak up because however you came up with those conclusions they seemed so wrong as to be worth weighing in on.  Since the regression series you ran seemed to color your perception that MRMs are so flawed, I thought I was helping by pointing out that your math went off track somewhere along the way.  Ill stay out of it going forward.

There was a cool thread a while back listing actual missiles in the real world, and their weight.  It was interesting to put scale to what mechs are shooting, as to call the 'missiles' of battletech missiles at all is more just for convention sake.  An MRM round is very tiny, only 4ish KG.

The art and models dont do us favors here either.  They show these massive missile bays, like on the catapult, with tubes many many times too big because scale is hard.  Same with all the cannons, the AC10 on some mechs is insanely wide.  You can fit all 20 LRM launch ports in the space taken up by 1 LRM on a Timberwolves shoulder.  And the art for the rocket launcher mechs is especially hilarious.  I wont mention the Yeoman other than to say its name haha.

This started with an idea to make missile numbers consistent BTW, with 120 per bay, and how that doesnt work, referring to OP vs Off topic.

I think a different approach, if you did away with the concept of missile ammo entirely, would be to treat each visual missile on a mech as a single launch cell.  So an SRM6 would be 6 missiles, each SRM doing 20 damage in clusters.  Each LRM would do 7 damage, ect.  Obviously the weapon weight and ammo would be combined and not 2 seperate items, so an SRM6 would be 4 tons, 2/3rd tons per tube, an LRM10 would be 6 tons, 9 for a LRM15, .6 tons per tube.  You'd just increase heat so that you dont fire an SRM every turn out of your SRM6, but 1 missile every 2-3 turns, so the average damage done matches the SRM6+ ammo dealing 8 damage at 4 heat currently.

[Demiurge]

CBT missiles are really small.  SRMs, which are fairly chonky by BT missile standards, weigh only 10kg each.  That's about a kilogram lighter than the M222 missile fired by the M47 Dragon missile launcher, and that's a little baby man-portable system:



So, basically, battlemechs are firing clouds of shoulder-fired missile equivalents.

... Unless you're talking Thunderbolts, and then the size of each missile balloons massively.  Thunderbolt-5s are 83kg a piece, which is about the same mass as an AIM-9 Sidewinder, and Thunderbolt-20s are 333kg each, which is a little bit more than an AGM-65 Maverick.


You know, that missile which has been used to blow up 140 ton displacement patrol boats.

And T-bolt 5s are fully five times heavier than ATMs on a per-missile basis, and yet do only 66% more damage than the flavor with comparable range.  You have to come up with a fairly complex model to explain this.

The thing is, the ammo weight mechanic in CBT is nearly vestigial.  Games don't usually run past 20 turns, and most weapons don't have any sort of rapid-fire rules that allow them to burn surplus ammo faster to do more damage (and those that do have fairly inefficient ammo to begin with and modest damage/weight ratios).  Having more tons of ammo total allows the use of additional munitions types, if they exist and the rules aren't optional/a pain, and if they're even worth using in the first place.  Oh, and the critical locations of the ammo are tracked in the event that they get struck in order to invoke the outrageously punishing ammunition explosion rules.  It's just one of those things that's left in the rules because the rules have never really gotten a second edition which adds a lot of housekeeping but affects the game very little.

[Charistoph]

CBT missiles are really small.  SRMs, which are fairly chonky by BT missile standards, weigh only 10kg each.  That's about a kilogram lighter than the M222 missile fired by the M47 Dragon missile launcher, and that's a little baby man-portable system:

Less, actually.  The weight of one ton for an Ammo Bin also includes storage and feeding systems.

So, basically, battlemechs are firing clouds of shoulder-fired missile equivalents.

And their shoulder-fired Missiles are even smaller when you take in to account the relative lack of range that ConvInf SRMs have.  Of course, that could be angle of attack combined with a relative lack of electronic assistance, too.  The LRMs are even worse, having a 57% reduction in range over the Heavy LRMs mounted in Mechs and Combat Vehicles.

... Unless you're talking Thunderbolts, and then the size of each missile balloons massively.  Thunderbolt-5s are 83kg a piece, which is about the same mass as an AIM-9 Sidewinder, and Thunderbolt-20s are 333kg each, which is a little bit more than an AGM-65 Maverick.

Well, yeah (aside from the specific weights).  We're dealing with a single missile versus a missile array.  Which makes logistics one more reason for the BT universe to change using multiple missile racks instead of single missile launchers.  1 ton of LRMs have 120 missiles.  Other than linking them up to fire in the 5, 10, 15, or 20 batches, you can basically use the same Ammo to stretch across all bands of your unit.

[Demiurge]

Which makes logistics one more reason for the BT universe to change using multiple missile racks instead of single missile launchers.  1 ton of LRMs have 120 missiles.  Other than linking them up to fire in the 5, 10, 15, or 20 batches, you can basically use the same Ammo to stretch across all bands of your unit.

I don't buy this last point.  All LRMs are materially the same weapon system.  The in-game effects of 4X LRM-5 vs 1X LRM-20 are negligible and the tubes are practically fungible in increments of 5.  Level 1 play has exactly two missile weapons in it, to several decimal places of rounding error.  I've had people argue otherwise, but they're wrong and the math proves it.

Nobody is going to be pleased at the logistical streamlining of using one caliber of LRM for various sizes of launchers; they're going to be annoyed at the proliferation of different launcher sizes.

Whereas different sizes of thunderbolts are materially different weapons.  2X T-bolt-5s are most certainly not fungible with 1X T-bolt-10.

[Charistoph]

I don't buy this last point.  All LRMs are materially the same weapon system.  The in-game effects of 4X LRM-5 vs 1X LRM-20 are negligible and the tubes are practically fungible in increments of 5.  Level 1 play has exactly two missile weapons in it, to several decimal places of rounding error.  I've had people argue otherwise, but they're wrong and the math proves it.

Nobody is going to be pleased at the logistical streamlining of using one caliber of LRM for various sizes of launchers; they're going to be annoyed at the proliferation of different launcher sizes.

Whereas different sizes of thunderbolts are materially different weapons.  2X T-bolt-5s are most certainly not fungible with 1X T-bolt-10.

Okay, look at it this way.  You can either carry 15 tons of Ammo for the 3 LRM launcher types your unit is bringing, or you can bring 27 tons of Ammo for the 3 Thunderbolt Launchers that you have.

Yes, you need to account for replacements of the Launchers, but with LRMs, you can reconfigure the LRM-10 Ammo Bays that the Centurion was using to supply the LRM-15 for the Catapult or LRM-20 for the Archer.

With the Thunderbolts, once you're out of Thunderbolt-15s, you can't just switch to using Thunderbolt-10s.

And if you don't think someone would be pleased with such streamlining, you've never had to work supply for any situation or understand basic government purchasing.  It's a Quartermaster's and Logistician's dream.  While the Pilot may not like it when firing these Missiles that won't head-cap, he WILL like having Missiles to fire at all.

Originally my main theory was because AMS made Thunderbolt-type missiles too much an all or nothing, but this adds another feature because the government purchaser doesn't always thinks what the pilot likes, but what how they can manage their budgets.

[VanVelding]

Less, actually.  The weight of one ton for an Ammo Bin also includes storage and feeding systems.

I'd honestly rather open the Ark of the Covenant than that conversation, but you're right. Breaking it open really messes with the math.

I'd rather a consistent abstraction.

[Demiurge]

Okay, look at it this way.  You can either carry 15 tons of Ammo for the 3 LRM launcher types your unit is bringing, or you can bring 27 tons of Ammo for the 3 Thunderbolt Launchers that you have.

But that's the thing; LRM-5/10/15/20 are not materially different missile launcher types.  Yes, you've condensed down the ammo logistics, which is good, but it's not like you're streamlining the supplies while keeping weapons diversity.  No, you've condensed down to a single weapons type.  All LRMs are the same weapon; the differences between a cluster of small launchers and a single big one are so trivial that they can be safely ignored.  If you think LRMs are a great weapon for all occasions, sure, feel free to standardize on those (the fact that Thunderbolts are arbitrarily gimped in terms of ammo efficiency and range doesn't hurt...), but don't think for a second that you've found a single ammo type that can feed multiple weapons because different LRM systems do not constitute multiple weapons types by any sane metric.

Originally my main theory was because AMS made Thunderbolt-type missiles too much an all or nothing, but this adds another feature because the government purchaser doesn't always thinks what the pilot likes, but what how they can manage their budgets.

I think a lot of people have played with the idea that some sort of ECM or active protection system harms the viability of single large missiles, but the problem with that idea is that the game does have rules for ECM and AMS, and those rules are so impoverished that they actually break the internal consistency of such an idea.

[Charistoph]

But that's the thing; LRM-5/10/15/20 are not materially different missile launcher types.  Yes, you've condensed down the ammo logistics, which is good, but it's not like you're streamlining the supplies while keeping weapons diversity.  No, you've condensed down to a single weapons type.  All LRMs are the same weapon; the differences between a cluster of small launchers and a single big one are so trivial that they can be safely ignored.  If you think LRMs are a great weapon for all occasions, sure, feel free to standardize on those (the fact that Thunderbolts are arbitrarily gimped in terms of ammo efficiency and range doesn't hurt...), but don't think for a second that you've found a single ammo type that can feed multiple weapons because different LRM systems do not constitute multiple weapons types by any sane metric.

Then where does that extra ton from the 10 and 15 racks, and the 2 tons from the 20 rack come from?  The weapon doing the firing is different, but their Ammo is the same.

If anything, you're actually making my point more than you are trying to counter it.  It is because they are so materially similar is the point of it being more efficient in a logistical chain.  Yes, they all fire the same missile bodies.  That's the point of what I'm trying to make of it being more efficient for logistics.

Meanwhile the Thunderbolts AREN'T firing the same missile body between sizes, which means you have to provide separate stocks for each individual launcher size your force is using.

I think a lot of people have played with the idea that some sort of ECM or active protection system harms the viability of single large missiles, but the problem with that idea is that the game does have rules for ECM and AMS, and those rules are so impoverished that they actually break the internal consistency of such an idea.

How does AMS having a 50% chance to completely negate a weapon's shot sound impoverished when compared to only a 17% chance of completely negating a weapon's shot (Cluster Roll needs to be below 6 for AMS to do this) and break the internal consistency?

[Retry]

I think it's mainly ECM, since those rules don't actually do anything to vanilla launchers.  There's only any effect when they're linked to an Artemis system or if you're using ghost targets, but the latter effect isn't specific to guided missiles.

AMS is only worth it in space though.  I've consistently found just putting on more armor (or upgrading it to FL or Reactive if it's already maxed) to be more useful than AMS or LAMS, even when the opponent is missile-heavy.  The sole exception is if the OPFOR is using just Thunderbolts, which... isn't exactly an organic scenario.

[Demiurge]

Then where does that extra ton from the 10 and 15 racks, and the 2 tons from the 20 rack come from?  The weapon doing the firing is different, but their Ammo is the same.

The lighter racks run slightly hotter in large arrays. With level 1 tech the weight comes out in a wash if you account for heat sinks.  A bunch of lighter racks has basically zero capability of inflicting 5 point cluster hits as well, since it requires several successive rolls of 11 or 12.  Additionally, a bunch of little launchers will bell-curve the expected damage value within a turn more centrally than a single launcher, which can miss entirely.

All of these things are tiny and unimportant details.  5 point clusters vs average 3 point clusters aren't enough difference to pierce armor on anything that had enough armor to avoid dying immediately anyway, and the average expected damage over multiple turns is the same.

More generally, because the rules have never had a proper re-write, the game is filled with charts upon charts of things that are slightly, but not materially different.  There are oodles of choices that make incremental, but not materially significant differences.  Things that could easily simply have been retconned/errata were needlessly duplicated (see: improved one-shot launchers and improved heavy gauss rifles) and now all the charts are an absolutely cluttered mess of things that do not need to be there.

If anything, you're actually making my point more than you are trying to counter it.  It is because they are so materially similar is the point of it being more efficient in a logistical chain.  Yes, they all fire the same missile bodies.  That's the point of what I'm trying to make of it being more efficient for logistics.

Meanwhile the Thunderbolts AREN'T firing the same missile body between sizes, which means you have to provide separate stocks for each individual launcher size your force is using.

You're missing the point I'm making.  T-bolt 5s and T-bolt 10s do materially different things.  LRM-5s and LRM-10s absolutely do not.  This is like standardizing all autocannons on AC-2s and giant clusters of AC-2s glued together.  OK, yes, all the ammo logistics are streamlined now.  You're fooling yourself if you think that various sizes of AC-2s glued together, some of which inexplicably weigh one ton more or less than multiplication would suggest they should counts as having meaningfully different weapons.

How does AMS having a 50% chance to completely negate a weapon's shot sound impoverished when compared to only a 17% chance of completely negating a weapon's shot (Cluster Roll needs to be below 6 for AMS to do this) and break the internal consistency?

For several reasons:

1)  Battlemechs firing massive salvoes of tiny missiles predates there being rules for AMS; as others have rightly pointed out it's taken from the Itano Circus aesthetic.  It started as a purely aesthetic choice, it's not like the rules are molded around it in a coherent way.  It absolutely would make sense for loads and loads of small missiles to be a countermeasure developed to overwhelm widespread AMS, but the out of universe the game was simply not conceived that way, and in universe, it's a little hard to justify because

2)  AMS is rare, and the original ruleset for it was garbage.  The 2006 revision of the rules in Total Warfare is what you're referring to, but for 16 years prior to that AMS was a finnicky system that was very difficult to justify on a weight basis.  If you made some generous assumptions the Clan version of the system, which was literally twice as good, was nearly competitive on a weight basis with armor provided your enemies were absolutely in love with missiles.

3)  Big, consolidated missiles that did loads of damage of the sort that would justify both AMS and by extension the existence of missile racks that shoot giant clouds of inexplicably tiny missiles were even rarer, being optional rules that only showed up a year after AMS, and remaining optional rules until 2009's TacOps.


So yes, the idea that mechs shoot zillions of little missiles as a countermeasure to AMS, and that large missiles are rare because of AMS makes logical sense.  This is a reasonable headcanon that you can have as it makes physical and logical sense.  However, it absolutely does not mesh with the tabletop experience as presented at all.  This was clearly never something the game writers had seriously in mind, wasn't even an in-game interaction that existed until comparatively recently, and is a fairly rare interaction at all given the scarcity of AMS and thunderbolt missiles in canon units.  This explanation is a retroactive attempt to rationalize a pre-existing game design choice.  It's an elegant explanation, but it simply does not mesh with the actual gameplay experience.

[Charistoph]

All of these things are tiny and unimportant details.  5 point clusters vs average 3 point clusters aren't enough difference to pierce armor on anything that had enough armor to avoid dying immediately anyway, and the average expected damage over multiple turns is the same.

Which doesn't really address my point about it being a case of logistics efficiency.  You're creating a red herring.

You're missing the point I'm making.  T-bolt 5s and T-bolt 10s do materially different things.  LRM-5s and LRM-10s absolutely do not.  This is like standardizing all autocannons on AC-2s and giant clusters of AC-2s glued together.  OK, yes, all the ammo logistics are streamlined now.  You're fooling yourself if you think that various sizes of AC-2s glued together, some of which inexplicably weigh one ton more or less than multiplication would suggest they should counts as having meaningfully different weapons.

Incorrect.  The Thunderbolts all do the exact same thing, just at different sizes.  Nor does this challenge the statement on logistics being a reason for the change.  Meanwhile, you ignore that Thunderbolts only have one Ammo Type while the number of LRM Ammo types is staggering, even when ignoring one-offs like the Anti-TSM rounds, which means I can do so much more with LRMs than with Thunderbolts, and that's not even considering that one cannot often use Thunderbolts due to Tech or Era limitations.

Meanwhile, the LRMs do different things by your standards, as I can hit different locations at different values, or the same location several times.  With further consideration, reflect on how Motive and Breach Checks work.  LRMs pre-date Battlemechs by 140 years.  That means that the primary use of LRMs was against tanks and aerospace.  An LRM-20 will average 3 Hits against a target.  That's 3 chances at a Motive or Breach Check.  Thunderbolts, or their Age of War equivalent would only be doing that once.

As for the AC/2 argument, I merely point at the Rotary AC/2 being exactly that (albeit with Light AC/2s).

1)  Battlemechs firing massive salvoes of tiny missiles predates there being rules for AMS; as others have rightly pointed out it's taken from the Itano Circus aesthetic.  It started as a purely aesthetic choice, it's not like the rules are molded around it in a coherent way.  It absolutely would make sense for loads and loads of small missiles to be a countermeasure developed to overwhelm widespread AMS, but the out of universe the game was simply not conceived that way, and in universe, it's a little hard to justify because

Battletech started, in-universe, in an era of Lostech.  Saying when the rules were created is irrelevant to in-universe history.  What is relevant is when it exists in-universe.  Historically-speaking AMS systems have existed since before the game started.  They are just massive affairs and not put on Tank equivalents in the 20th Century (See the CIWS for more information).  They would also be poor against an assault by a cloud of small missiles.

The out-of-universe reason is because they had design pictures which showed dozens of apertures, and so them being Missile systems made more sense than 40 Machine Guns.  We see this perspective duplicated in the Macross and Dougram series who used designs from the same creator.

2)  AMS is rare, and the original ruleset for it was garbage.  The 2006 revision of the rules in Total Warfare is what you're referring to, but for 16 years prior to that AMS was a finnicky system that was very difficult to justify on a weight basis.  If you made some generous assumptions the Clan version of the system, which was literally twice as good, was nearly competitive on a weight basis with armor provided your enemies were absolutely in love with missiles.

The Clan version was not twice as good, as it could only swat down the same number of missiles.  It just had twice the endurance (which wasn't much with D6 rolls for Ammo). 

The Total Warfare rules are more effective against LRM-20s than the TRO:2750 version was, but the TRO:2750 rules were more effective against the smallest launchers.  Yes, the old rules were finicky, but they still existed, nor did I deny them.  As for the rarity, that's largely design team thinking.  There's literally a Kit Fox that carries 3 AMS.

3)  Big, consolidated missiles that did loads of damage of the sort that would justify both AMS and by extension the existence of missile racks that shoot giant clouds of inexplicably tiny missiles were even rarer, being optional rules that only showed up a year after AMS, and remaining optional rules until 2009's TacOps.

You're confusing some things here.  The Tac Ops rule would take 9 Missiles from an LRM-20 that hit to nothing, but the Total Warfare would drop it down to 6.  It's not swatting down giant clouds.  By comparison, going from a 11 roll on the Cluster Chart, it takes out 8 missiles on its own.  That's not a giant swarm in comparison.  Effectively speaking, the AMS doesn't shoot down Missiles that won't hit the target, and didn't even before Total Warfare.

In addition, I'm considering in-universe reasoning (largely) while you're solely focused on reasoning from a game design program.  So you're arguing against something I'm not presenting.  That's either a strawman or red herring argument scheme.

So yes, the idea that mechs shoot zillions of little missiles as a countermeasure to AMS, and that large missiles are rare because of AMS makes logical sense.  This is a reasonable headcanon that you can have as it makes physical and logical sense.  However, it absolutely does not mesh with the tabletop experience as presented at all.  This was clearly never something the game writers had seriously in mind, wasn't even an in-game interaction that existed until comparatively recently, and is a fairly rare interaction at all given the scarcity of AMS and thunderbolt missiles in canon units.  This explanation is a retroactive attempt to rationalize a pre-existing game design choice.  It's an elegant explanation, but it simply does not mesh with the actual gameplay experience.

And when I say it is for historical in-universe concepts, I'm obviously not applying it to the game's concepts.  So please don't argue against in-universe historical concepts with game-design reasoning.  It's disingenuous.

[VanVelding]

Maybe it's just because I'm skimming this on a Saturday afternoon, but it seems like you guys agree.

LRM 5's and LRM 10's and LRM 15's and LRM 20's essentially use the same ammo type. (universal LRM ammo)

Thunderbolt 5's, Thunderbolt 10's, etc. are weapons with incompatible ammo types.

There's a good, in-universe reason for houses to prefer LRMs over Thunderbolts--all other factors aside--because universal LRM ammo is logistically simpler than tracking four types of ammo for four types of Thunderbolts.

[Charistoph]

Maybe it's just because I'm skimming this on a Saturday afternoon, but it seems like you guys agree.

LRM 5's and LRM 10's and LRM 15's and LRM 20's essentially use the same ammo type. (universal LRM ammo)

Thunderbolt 5's, Thunderbolt 10's, etc. are weapons with incompatible ammo types.

There's a good, in-universe reason for houses to prefer LRMs over Thunderbolts--all other factors aside--because universal LRM ammo is logistically simpler than tracking four types of ammo for four types of Thunderbolts.

Exactly. 

And that's not even considering that by the time the Thunderbolts came in to play some 600 years later, so the refinement of the LRM package made it a "simple" design and carry numerous types of payloads, or that LRMs also have a slightly better range profile.

Thunderbolt Missiles can sure punch holes better than the LRM system.  That isn't in argument.  They just aren't as efficient a general system as the LRM system is.

[Demiurge]

Incorrect.  The Thunderbolts all do the exact same thing, just at different sizes.  Nor does this challenge the statement on logistics being a reason for the change.  Meanwhile, you ignore that Thunderbolts only have one Ammo Type while the number of LRM Ammo types is staggering, even when ignoring one-offs like the Anti-TSM rounds, which means I can do so much more with LRMs than with Thunderbolts, and that's not even considering that one cannot often use Thunderbolts due to Tech or Era limitations.

No, you don't understand my meaning if that's what you think.

I'll explain it one more time; all LRM damage is fungible.  It doesn't matter whether it's LRM-5 or 20s, they all cluster the same way.  The differences are negligible.  That's why I mean when I say it's the same weapon listed four times, because absent small discrepancies that are absolutely pedantic to argue about, it is.

Non-cluster damage absolutely is not fungible in this way.  Nobody who has played CBT thinks that a gauss rifle is equivalent to three medium lasers because they both 15 damage total.  That's why you're completely wrong when you say thunderbolts all do the same thing, just at different sizes.  That's equivalent to saying that 2X large lasers is equivalent to 1X improved heavy large laser because they have the same range brackets and do the same sum total damage.  I'm not strawmaning here, that's literally what you're saying and it's obviously wrong.

Saying that LRM racks of different sizes use common ammo is true, but it's trivially true and uninteresting.  They all use the same ammo because they're all materially the same weapon.  That's not logistically more efficient in any way (aside from damage/ton of ammo).  That's still one type of ammo per one type of weapon.  There's nothing saved here.

The Clan version was not twice as good, as it could only swat down the same number of missiles.  It just had twice the endurance (which wasn't much with D6 rolls for Ammo). 

Nope.  Page 130 of BTMR clearly states that the clan system knocks down 2D6 missiles while the Inner Sphere one only does 1D6.  On top of getting twice as much ammo per ton, the clan system was quite literally two times better exactly the way I said.

Effectively speaking, the AMS doesn't shoot down Missiles that won't hit the target, and didn't even before Total Warfare.

Nope.  Again, page 130 of the BTMR very explicitly states that the declaration of AMS salvo engagement is done before the to-hit roll, and that even if the salvo misses heat is generated and ammo consumed even though the missiles went into the dirt.

[Daryk]

Speaking of small missiles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAVAIR_Spike

[Charistoph]

No, you don't understand my meaning if that's what you think.

More than you think, you just don't understand what I've been saying.

I'll explain it one more time; all LRM damage is fungible.  It doesn't matter whether it's LRM-5 or 20s, they all cluster the same way.  The differences are negligible.  That's why I mean when I say it's the same weapon listed four times, because absent small discrepancies that are absolutely pedantic to argue about, it is.

It's not pedantic to argue about when you're stocking up your ship with spare parts, which is part of the logistics argument you attacked, but completely ignored.

Non-cluster damage absolutely is not fungible in this way.  Nobody who has played CBT thinks that a gauss rifle is equivalent to three medium lasers because they both 15 damage total.  That's why you're completely wrong when you say thunderbolts all do the same thing, just at different sizes.  That's equivalent to saying that 2X large lasers is equivalent to 1X improved heavy large laser because they have the same range brackets and do the same sum total damage.  I'm not strawmaning here, that's literally what you're saying and it's obviously wrong.

It IS strawmanning my argument when all you are talking about is the hole-punching benefits of a weapon as if it had anything to do with a logistics argument.  Again, if anything, you're making my point for me that the LRM system is more efficient for a logistics perspective.

Meanwhile, the only thing that the Thunderbolts do is punch holes.  Nothing you said really challenges this concept.  In this, the Thunderbolt-5 is superior to the LRM-5, as that's where you want that consistent Damage.  Meanwhile, the average Damage of the LRM-10 is 6, so probably Hits 2 locations while the Thunderbolt-10 only Hits 1.  In an environment where the number of Hits can mean just as much as how hard the Hit makes (see the reasoning for using LB-X Cluster besides the -1 To-Hit), the LRM's ability to be "fungible" is far more effective than you give it credit for.

Saying that LRM racks of different sizes use common ammo is true, but it's trivially true and uninteresting.  They all use the same ammo because they're all materially the same weapon.  That's not logistically more efficient in any way (aside from damage/ton of ammo).  That's still one type of ammo per one type of weapon.  There's nothing saved here.

Yet, you went off on the logistics argument with a hole-punching argument.

And how is it not more logistically efficient to be carrying 16 tons of Ammo that can be realigned to work with up to 4 different racks, then 16 tons of Ammo that will only have 4 tons for the Thunderbolt-5, 4 tons for the Thunderbolt-10, 4 tons for the Thunderbolt-15, and 4 tons for the Thunderbolt-20?

[DevianID]

Speaking of small missiles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAVAIR_Spike

That is a great candidate for the infantry 2 shot mini SRM launcher right?

[idea weenie]

CBT missiles are really small.  SRMs, which are fairly chonky by BT missile standards, weigh only 10kg each.  That's about a kilogram lighter than the M222 missile fired by the M47 Dragon missile launcher, and that's a little baby man-portable system:

(snip)

So, basically, battlemechs are firing clouds of shoulder-fired missile equivalents.

... Unless you're talking Thunderbolts, and then the size of each missile balloons massively.  Thunderbolt-5s are 83kg a piece, which is about the same mass as an AIM-9 Sidewinder, and Thunderbolt-20s are 333kg each, which is a little bit more than an AGM-65 Maverick.

If you need more data about missile weights, here is a topic I started that has a few different missile/rocket masses:
Missiles & Rockets, BT and Real Life

Speaking of small missiles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAVAIR_Spike

Added to my list

[Daryk]

Glad to help!  And yes, a great candidate for an SRM... :)