Author Topic: Rotary vs. Ultra  (Read 16884 times)

Stinger

  • Freelance Artist
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1423
  • Artist, Writer, 3D Modeler Extraordinaire
Re: Rotary vs. Ultra
« Reply #30 on: 06 August 2013, 06:45:06 »
Back on the UAC vs RAC issue.  Assuming Identical to hit numbers, 3 UACs do have the advantage of single firing.  From all the numbers I see, 3 UACs firing in single mode will get 3 hits, where an RAC needs to fire 5 shots and still has a chance of jamming on 3 or lower...  I know that isn't worth 8 tons, but it is something to think about...

WarGod

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Rotary vs. Ultra
« Reply #31 on: 06 August 2013, 08:18:22 »
you also need what a 8+ to get both ultra shots to hit?  versus if you fire a 3 or 4 round burst with a rotary?    math just works out a bit better.  Plus when a RAC "Jams" its not out of the fight unless you roll crappy on the ammo lost.  where as a single snake eyes with the ultra makes a paper weight. 
A knight in shining armor is a man who has never had his metal truly tested
You're falling through the air in a Grenadier. Style went out the window long before you did.

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2943
Re: Rotary vs. Ultra
« Reply #32 on: 06 August 2013, 10:50:38 »
The whole point of using a RAC is to fire as many shots over as little time as possible taking in mind that shooting 6 brings the jam number to 5 a little too high so most fire at the 5 rate. Shooting at 4 does not further lower the jam number over 5 so there is no point in shooting less than 5/round . The Ultra is meant for a player for a discreet choice of on or two shots . The early Clan mechs had very limited ammo capacity sometimes only one ton for an Ultra or a LB Cannon a serious design flaw . Using a RAC with that kind of Combat Philosophy in which only in later designs they fix and address the previous design flaws and replace them with other ones. I do not think that the Clans have the mindset to really use the system in which they would be better off with the better average speed of their mechs to install streak launchers or lasers for the tonnage. Clans lose if they use ballistic weapons as the  slim advantages of Clan ballistic weapons are dwarfed by the advantages of the better energy weapons . The Clans strength are it faster mechs and better energy weapons the innersphere strength is better heat balance and higher use of ballistic and missile weapons and combined arms combat with C3 to off set the Clan advantages .

stoicfaux

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 502
Re: Rotary vs. Ultra
« Reply #33 on: 06 August 2013, 21:35:30 »
Numbers comparing RAC5 versus UAC5:  http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,15277.0

You can multiply the damage values by 0.4 to get the RAC2/UAC2 numbers.  For UACs look for "unjam_opportunity: 0.000" at the bottom of the the first block of stats.

The "turns jam" column (turns spent jammed) is probably the most informative number...


edit:  Helps to include the actual link. =P
« Last Edit: 06 August 2013, 22:19:19 by stoicfaux »

Arkansas Warrior

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9203
Re: Rotary vs. Ultra
« Reply #34 on: 06 August 2013, 22:03:21 »
The whole point of using a RAC is to fire as many shots over as little time as possible taking in mind that shooting 6 brings the jam number to 5 a little too high so most fire at the 5 rate. Shooting at 4 does not further lower the jam number over 5 so there is no point in shooting less than 5/round . The Ultra is meant for a player for a discreet choice of on or two shots . The early Clan mechs had very limited ammo capacity sometimes only one ton for an Ultra or a LB Cannon a serious design flaw . Using a RAC with that kind of Combat Philosophy in which only in later designs they fix and address the previous design flaws and replace them with other ones. I do not think that the Clans have the mindset to really use the system in which they would be better off with the better average speed of their mechs to install streak launchers or lasers for the tonnage. Clans lose if they use ballistic weapons as the  slim advantages of Clan ballistic weapons are dwarfed by the advantages of the better energy weapons . The Clans strength are it faster mechs and better energy weapons the innersphere strength is better heat balance and higher use of ballistic and missile weapons and combined arms combat with C3 to off set the Clan advantages .

If that were the case, RACs would only be capable of firing at 4+ rounds/turn.  The very fact that they can fire anything from 1-6 means they were designed solely to put out a large volume of fire.  It's just sill to be firing off 4-5 rounds/turn at high TNs where odds are none are going to hit.  Take a speculative shot or two?  Sure.  But don't fire 4-6 rounds on, say, 11s.
Sunrise is Coming.

All Hail First Prince Melissa Davion, the Patron Saint of the Regimental Combat Team, who cowed Dainmar Liao, created the Model Army, and rescued Robinson!  May her light ever guide the sons of the Suns, May our daughters ever endeavour to emulate her!

Akalabeth

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1533
Re: Rotary vs. Ultra
« Reply #35 on: 07 August 2013, 01:30:22 »
RAC2, easily.

The thing is, Ultras are bad, and of the ultras, the UAC2 is the worst. Think about it, with a UAC20, you have a significant chance to jam, but you get 20 damage out of it. But with a 2, it's the same chance to jam, but the benefit is literally 1/10th as much.

So RAC2 wins by being able to be unjammed.

That's not necessarily as big a benefit as it seems.
In order to unjam an RAC, you need to go a turn without firing any weapons, and even then unjamming your gun is not guarenteed. Point is if you have a mech with multiple weapons that are still viable, why stop firing all of them just so you can get a single gun on line?

Arkansas Warrior

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9203
Re: Rotary vs. Ultra
« Reply #36 on: 07 August 2013, 01:54:37 »
It's better than not being able to, therefore having to dump any remaining ammo, and hope you don't get shot in the back while doing so.
Sunrise is Coming.

All Hail First Prince Melissa Davion, the Patron Saint of the Regimental Combat Team, who cowed Dainmar Liao, created the Model Army, and rescued Robinson!  May her light ever guide the sons of the Suns, May our daughters ever endeavour to emulate her!

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Rotary vs. Ultra
« Reply #37 on: 07 August 2013, 02:37:38 »
That's not necessarily as big a benefit as it seems.
In order to unjam an RAC, you need to go a turn without firing any weapons, and even then unjamming your gun is not guarenteed. Point is if you have a mech with multiple weapons that are still viable, why stop firing all of them just so you can get a single gun on line?

Really the biggest benefit of the unjamming is logistics in a campaign.  Being able to unjam it on your way back to base saves the techs a lot of trouble compared to fixing UACs.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

sebster

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: Rotary vs. Ultra
« Reply #38 on: 07 August 2013, 03:34:45 »
If that were the case, RACs would only be capable of firing at 4+ rounds/turn.  The very fact that they can fire anything from 1-6 means they were designed solely to put out a large volume of fire.  It's just sill to be firing off 4-5 rounds/turn at high TNs where odds are none are going to hit.  Take a speculative shot or two?  Sure.  But don't fire 4-6 rounds on, say, 11s.

Yeah, its kind of mad to accept a high risk of jamming if you're hitting on an 11 or 12.

That said, if you drill down further in to how the mechanics operate, there's a bit more to it.  Basically there's no point to either 2 shots or 4 - 2 shots is delivering less expected damage than 3 shots at the same chance of jamming, and 4 shots is delivering less expected damage than 5 shots at the same chance of jamming.

So that gives us the options of 1 shot, 3 shots, 5 shots or 6 shots.

1 shot is an okay option if it's a long shot and you're being very conservative on jamming, or if you're running low on ammo (as you lose no shots on the cluster hits table it's the most efficient method firing)... but you shouldn't be doing this very often, or you might as well just take a light autocannon.

3 shots is basically the default for long shots - the risk of jamming is very low (1/36) and you can still expect about two hits.

5 shots is the standard basically.  The risk of jamming is much higher (3/36), but you can now expect about 3.17 hits a turn.  This is basically how the RAC should work - get to decent target numbers and just grind out 5 shots every turn until you jam, run out of ammo, or your opponent explodes.

6 shots adds only more damage still, jumping to an expected four hits, but the risk of jamming jumps considerably, doubling to 6/36.  It's an option if you've got a near certain hit and you're looking to max out damage ASAP, no matter the risk.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Rotary vs. Ultra
« Reply #39 on: 07 August 2013, 03:49:54 »
There's another factor to consider besides risk of jamming when determining rate of fire, however, and that's ammo consumption.  Sometimes you want to conserve ammunition, and at those points it makes perfect sense to fire less shots, even if the jamming risk doesn't noticeably decrease.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2943
Re: Rotary vs. Ultra
« Reply #40 on: 07 August 2013, 04:51:10 »
Aerospace units have no choice the MUST fire in ultra mode and rate of fire 6 for a RAC . The damage is averaged . This is another reason I do not like either system .  For bullistic  I prefer Light AC / 2s and 5s ; LB 10 X and 20 ; and lastly Gauss Rifles The standard one the Light Gauss has it's niche for Aerospace and the heavy is a little too clumsy weapon with only 4 shots a ton . I never experimented with an Improved Gauss never had ready access to either  Heavy or Improved Heavy Gauss as my logistical supply train had enough demands that yet another system that needed support and supply for a rare system was not worth my while. Gauss Rifle ; LB 10 X ; ER-Large ; ER - Med laser ; Med X -Pulse  ; LRM  15s ;  Light AC /5s  and 2s ;  light  machine guns with arrays ; C3 and ECM ; and lastly Arrow IV systems with huge variant ammo supply is enough of a burden . That and fielding Battle Armor and conventional infantry made me shy from adding anything that do not field enough of it to make it worth my while.

sebster

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: Rotary vs. Ultra
« Reply #41 on: 07 August 2013, 11:16:12 »
There's another factor to consider besides risk of jamming when determining rate of fire, however, and that's ammo consumption.  Sometimes you want to conserve ammunition, and at those points it makes perfect sense to fire less shots, even if the jamming risk doesn't noticeably decrease.

Not really. In terms of ammo efficiency the cluster hits table is very consistent - about 65% of shots hit. The 2 column bucks the trend a little and is a little over 70% but the rest stick around 65%... and what movement there is isn't the pattern you'd expect - the % hits on the 6 column is higher then the five.

So shooting smaller numbers of rounds doesn't make you more ammo efficient, unless you fire just one round.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Rotary vs. Ultra
« Reply #42 on: 07 August 2013, 12:14:13 »
I didn't say more efficient, I said more conservative.  If you fire less shots, you by definition have more shots to fire out of your reserve at an opportune time.

People always crunch the numbers hard for something like this, but sometimes the difficult to quantify concept of biding your time can be the difference between a full burst at low TNs and a piddly one or two shots as your magazines run out.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

sebster

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: Rotary vs. Ultra
« Reply #43 on: 08 August 2013, 22:45:24 »
I didn't say more efficient, I said more conservative.  If you fire less shots, you by definition have more shots to fire out of your reserve at an opportune time.

People always crunch the numbers hard for something like this, but sometimes the difficult to quantify concept of biding your time can be the difference between a full burst at low TNs and a piddly one or two shots as your magazines run out.

I mentioned the role of ammo, I just mentioned in a substantial way in which it makes sense (because if your concern is maintaining fire while keep ammo, then the only option is single shot).

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Rotary vs. Ultra
« Reply #44 on: 08 August 2013, 23:51:17 »
(because if your concern is maintaining fire while keep ammo, then the only option is single shot).

Reducto ad absurdum.  I've mentioned the utility of not shooting the maximum number of shots at a given jam chance.  If you disagree, fine, but don't twist it like that.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

sebster

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: Rotary vs. Ultra
« Reply #45 on: 09 August 2013, 01:44:51 »
Reducto ad absurdum.  I've mentioned the utility of not shooting the maximum number of shots at a given jam chance.  If you disagree, fine, but don't twist it like that.

So that's your personal theory and you're sticking to it, and whatever.  It isn't really my place to explain to you why it doesn't make sense over and over again.

But you responded to my post, to point out something that apparently I had missed.  I hadn't missed the concept, instead I had mentioned the concept in the ways in which it makes sense, and not mentioned the ways in which it does not.

Charlie Tango

  • Moderator Emeritus
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6494
  • I'm feeling a little sketchy...
Re: Rotary vs. Ultra
« Reply #46 on: 09 August 2013, 03:24:06 »
 [copper]

OK folks, we're getting awfully close to Rule #1 violations in here.  Let's all ratchet down the tone in here and get back to discussing the topic.

/  [copper]
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature.
There may be other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be based on war and games."
  
-- William S. Burroughs

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2943
Re: Rotary vs. Ultra
« Reply #47 on: 09 August 2013, 05:56:17 »
Have you lost my point . A whole level of the game the Aerospace aspect does not give you a choice about ammo conservation it is all or nothing an Ultra must fire in ultra mode and a RAC must fire 6 round bursts ( No Option of firing less ) . That is an aspect that makes my point the most about ammo usage  being high .  They will always be players that see them as new toys to use and have no ammo discipline anyway .

Arkansas Warrior

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9203
Re: Rotary vs. Ultra
« Reply #48 on: 09 August 2013, 13:07:53 »
The fact that some players go new toy crazy isn't really a strong reason not to use a RAC.  And really, one could make the same argument about UACs or any other weapon.

As for aero, I'm admittedly not terribly familiar with he aero rules, but it seems to me that a RAC firing at max rate is still going to be lighter than two UAC-5s, and the greater ammo usage is more than offset by the greater damage done.
Sunrise is Coming.

All Hail First Prince Melissa Davion, the Patron Saint of the Regimental Combat Team, who cowed Dainmar Liao, created the Model Army, and rescued Robinson!  May her light ever guide the sons of the Suns, May our daughters ever endeavour to emulate her!

 

Register