Autocannon-2's

[ANS Kamas P81]

I guess, but it doesn't seem right to do that with a weapon that can explode firing at close range, whether the rules say you can or not.

It doesn't explode.  Reread the rules on using PPCs.

[FedComGirl]

How are they more dangerous? Anything past 20 or 30 damage in an internal explosion is pretty much an instakill of the mech carrying ammo (or at least instant destruction of a side torso if you're using CASE). That's like 2 or 3 shots for most weapons regardless if their missile launchers or ACs. The lighter ACs have less damage per shot, but they have lots more shots to burn through per ton too and are thus more likely to have that much damage left or more when the ammo bin gets critted.

True but they're also bracket fire weapons more than AC/s. That means you're not going to be using them for every shot leaving ammo sitting in the bin. In this case the LRM has an advantage over the SRM as SRMs have more shots. More so than AC/s. And yes the AC/20 has the same range as SRMs but the AC/20 has less than hald as many shots as the SRM-6.

And due to the fact that Missiles use the cluster hits table and the light weight you're likely to have more then one launcher, burning through ammo faster

That is both a plus and a drawback. It's a plus because you can possibly do more damage and reduce the damage a possible ammo explosion can do. It's bad because you have to fire more to be sure you do as much damage as and AC.

[SCC]

Yes, but the LRM's can do that damage from a longer range and are lighter

[SteelRaven]

Yes, but the LRM's can do that damage from a longer range and are lighter

It's still direct fire vs a scattered volley. If you roll bad and only one of your LRM's hit, your only doing half the damage of a AC-2

Don't get me wrong, I rather pack a LRM launcher any day and my dice hate me when I roll for LRMs.

[SCC]

Yeah, the AC-20 is the big winner on whether or not to put AC's on vehicles, it's almost as good as LRM's on a damage-per-ton basis and it's a single cluster, the AC-10's an edge case, but the AC-5 loses out to LRM's and generally the AC-2's simply too marginal

[StoneRhino]

I'm not even sure how or why missiles were brought into the conversation. They are completely different animals due to their spread out damage, their ability to fire indirectly as well as their nice collection of special munitions.

The AC2 against an LRM5 is a rather obvious fight.  2 tons for 3 points of damage, on average > 2 points. Throw in the difference in tonnage and the ac2 is left with only one advantage, that it has slightly longer ranges. The advantage is soon destroyed by the difference in tonnage, where the same number of tons of LRMs going to yield far more damage ( 3 LRM5s= average of 9 points of damage with a max of 15) and still be under the 10 free single heatsinks of a standard engine in 3025 play.

The Ac2 loses out in 3050+ play as it never sees a boost in firepower. Meanwhile the LRM5 can be loaded with various munitions to make it far more flexible then an ac2 with any of it's own special munitions. A -2 to hit with a 2 point weapon is unlikely to make a significant difference when the LRMs get 3 chances to hit in order to yield one more point of damage. The ability to bring some mine laying LRMs can hinder a light mech trying to make its way towards your units, thus negating it's MP advantage by forcing it to run around the mines or risk taking what is going to amount to some decent damage against a light mech's legs.

As much as I like the Ac2 for being the underdog and oh so niche, it is hard to suggest that the ac2 can even begin to compare to the lrm5 stack. Anything the ac2 can do the LRm5 can do better. :(

[Orin J.]

I'm not even sure how or why missiles were brought into the conversation.

people like to diss ACs. personally though, i consider AC/2's special munitions to be more useful, since precision is better against VTOLs and hovers than what LRMs get, and AP is a great way to REALLY piss someone off with pointless crit rolls  ::).

[StoneRhino]

people like to diss ACs. personally though, i consider AC/2's special munitions to be more useful, since precision is better against VTOLs and hovers than what LRMs get, and AP is a great way to REALLY piss someone off with pointless crit rolls  ::).

The AC2 is the Urbanmech of Battletech weaponry.  I just wish the Devs would give the Ac2 and the 5 some love. I will admit it is hard to go with an ac2 over a stack of lrm5s, but it all comes down to what you are trying to accomplish with the design.  I personally hate the guass rifle for being so optimized that I will try to avoid using them in any designs that I create.

I remember one game back in the days where a few of my friends decided to finally play IS, but only because they planned on using nothing but mechs armed with ac2s and 5s. They misread the AP rounds' rules and got the mods for crits wrong thinking the lighter cannons had a better chance instead of the larger ones. I suppose they could have gone with it thinking the lighter cannons had longer range, therefore their rounds likely traveled faster, therefore had a greater chance of punching through armor, though doing less damage due to the size of the round. I think a unit with several ac2s could be fun to try out with Ap rounds just looking fora chance to blow off a limb of a mech early in the game. If you can get enough of those units going then you'll eventually hit that 12 you need.

[Orin J.]

I will admit it is hard to go with an ac2 over a stack of lrm5s-

play a campaign, realize just how much paying more 30 times the cost for ammo between the two really is for what is largely the same overall damage. Proceed to steal all LRM ammo at enemy depots, laughing in a slightly mad way

[FedComGirl]

Yes, but the LRM's can do that damage from a longer range and are lighter

They also generate more heat so they're good for vehicles but not so good for mechs, especially lower tech ones.

I'm not even sure how or why missiles were brought into the conversation. They are completely different animals due to their spread out damage, their ability to fire indirectly as well as their nice collection of special munitions.

The AC2 against an LRM5 is a rather obvious fight.  2 tons for 3 points of damage, on average > 2 points. Throw in the difference in tonnage and the ac2 is left with only one advantage, that it has slightly longer ranges. The advantage is soon destroyed by the difference in tonnage, where the same number of tons of LRMs going to yield far more damage ( 3 LRM5s= average of 9 points of damage with a max of 15) and still be under the 10 free single heatsinks of a standard engine in 3025 play.

The Ac2 loses out in 3050+ play as it never sees a boost in firepower. Meanwhile the LRM5 can be loaded with various munitions to make it far more flexible then an ac2 with any of it's own special munitions. A -2 to hit with a 2 point weapon is unlikely to make a significant difference when the LRMs get 3 chances to hit in order to yield one more point of damage. The ability to bring some mine laying LRMs can hinder a light mech trying to make its way towards your units, thus negating it's MP advantage by forcing it to run around the mines or risk taking what is going to amount to some decent damage against a light mech's legs.

As much as I like the Ac2 for being the underdog and oh so niche, it is hard to suggest that the ac2 can even begin to compare to the lrm5 stack. Anything the ac2 can do the LRm5 can do better. :(

The amount of damage LRMs can do depends on the dice. Those of us who are dice challenged rarely get half damage from missiles. A 10 ton 1 point weapon isn't much fun. Especially when it generates 6 times the heat. Quirks, the missed shot rule and other equipment help but former two are optional the latter tends to add weight. Even when they are available and the optional rules are used you've only got 6 shots compared to 45. Shots that cost a whole lot more.   

That's not to say we can't get a lucky shot and the alternative ammo can be fun. :)

AC/s also have alternative ammo. They can also make use of the above rules and equipment I mentioned above to improve accuracy. They're not effected by anti-missile defenses though. All the extras don't help when you're missiles only do half damage. If they get to the target at all.

[jymset]

Never had any hate for the AC2. I have usd the Vulcan several times over the years & have had it do right by me. The Jagermech ..... well I will swap the AC5's out before the AC2's. When playing floating crits I have  had better more memorable crits happen with AC2's more than any other weapon.

<points to your user name, the best 'Mech ever in the 3025 setting>

I think we can agree that you missed a rather important 'Mech which makes the best possible use of the AC/2, ever.

[Redman]

To use bracketing fire /you have to spend tonnage/crits on more weapons. That makes the energy weapons heavier and usable only part of the time. The AC/10 though keeps firing. The big advantage is that the PPC gets 10 tons free.  The AC/10 only gets 3 tons. That's 7 tons is what allows you to be able to bracket fire.

As hard as i try i fail to grasp your logic here. How does bracketing make energy weapons heavier? A bracketing setup allows weapons to share heat sinks together so energy weapons get even more attractive.

I don't see AC/s as inferior so while it's true the rules are optional, their existence does balance out some of energy weapons advantages, if they're used.

Interesting logic.

It's still a factor. The PPC heat sinks cost 14,000-24,000 times as much as an AC/10 and a ton of ammo. While the costs of additional ammo will eventually cancel out that difference you don't have to pay that right away.

Could you explain your math to me here? The 10 SHS a PPC needs to keep heat neutral cost 20,000c which raises the PPCs cost by just 10% to 220,000 c-bills. An AC10 with three SHS and two tons of ammunition costs 200,000c + 3 x 2,000c + 2 x 6,000c = 218,000c. The difference is that ammunition is a consumable while heat sinks are not. So no later than the time at which you have to replace four rounds of ammo the PPC will become the cheaper weapon.

True, ammo explosions are a bad thing but so is having your mech shut down do to heat. and unless your mech has a big engine, each heat sink hit will increase the chances of that happening.

[sarcasm mode]
True, breaking your spine is a bad thing but so is breaking off a fingernail.
[/sarcasm mode]

There is world of difference between having an ammo bin hit and a heat induced shutdown. The former will cripple or destroy your mech whereas the latter depending on the situation may range from a potentially dangerous but temporary tactical disadvantage to an irrelevant passing inconvenience. Furthermore the heat scale i can manage in most cases. As for the crits to my heat sinks: I  take them over a crit into an ammo bin (=loss of mech) or the weapon itself (loss of a primary weapon system) any day of the week and twice on sundays.

BTW a PPC padded with 9 SHS has only a 25% chance that a crit takes out the weapon. A crit to an AC10 with 2t ammo and 3 SHS in the same location has an 58,3% chance to take out the AC, a 16,7% chance to blow up the ammo and only a meager 25% chance to be a merely inconveniencing loss of an heat sink.

That's presuming you can afford all those extra heat sinks. That also presumes that you're going to lose your ammo to a critical hit. You can still lose your mech because it over heated do to lost heat sinks. Granted it'd take longer but it can still happen.

I didn't presume i can afford the heat sinks anymore than you presumed to have the funds to buy ammo for your AC. I just calculated the costs which you apparently did not. I also do not presume that i will lose my ammo because of a critical hit i just don't ignore the considerable risk ammunition presents when there is a perfectly safe and equally effective alternative available. You on the other hand presume that a heat induced shutdown will most likely cost me my mech although a) the shutdown causes me absolutely no direct damage, b) even enemy units in firing range have absolutely no guarantee that they can finish me off until i can restart, c) heat induced ammunition explosions only occur if i were using an ammo-dependent weapon (like an AC for instance!) and d) i have considerable influence on my mechs heat output.

[Greywind]

I seem to recall that repairs on ACs were generally easier than repairing energy weapons.

[FedComGirl]

As hard as i try i fail to grasp your logic here. How does bracketing make energy weapons heavier? A bracketing setup allows weapons to share heat sinks together so energy weapons get even more attractive.

You have to add the other weapons to fire. That means extra tonnage for them. Combat Fusion Engines give a cheat by coming with 10 heat sinks free. So as long as stay balanced and keep to the same weight you can bracket all you want. The thing is not every unit uses those engines and combat vehicles still have to add extra heat sinks to remain heat neutral.

Low tech mechs are also a problem. You start with 18 tons for PPC, power amplifier, and heat sinks, on a low tech mech, and you remove 2 heat sinks to add 2 medium lasers to bracket fire. You're going to be overheating right from the start. You're going to have to bracket fire eventually or you risk shut down and/or a fuel explosion. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

Interesting logic.

Perhaps I should have said, alternative rules balance things out even more?

Could you explain your math to me here? The 10 SHS a PPC needs to keep heat neutral cost 20,000c which raises the PPCs cost by just 10% to 220,000 c-bills. An AC10 with three SHS and two tons of ammunition costs 200,000c + 3 x 2,000c + 2 x 6,000c = 218,000c. The difference is that ammunition is a consumable while heat sinks are not. So no later than the time at which you have to replace four rounds of ammo the PPC will become the cheaper weapon.

Who said you had to buy 2 tons of ammo? I also said that the cost was lower initially but would go away over time. You also added in the cost of heat sinks with the AC/10. I'm presuming this is going on a mech? If it's for a vehicle the cost for the AC is lower since you don't have to buy heat sinks. You do have to buy a power amplifier for anything low tech though. That's another 20,000 for the PPC.  Coolant does have cost but I'd have to hunt for it. Coolant can also break down, if those rules are used.

[sarcasm mode]
True, breaking your spine is a bad thing but so is breaking off a fingernail.
[/sarcasm mode]

One is less devastating than the other though.

There is world of difference between having an ammo bin hit and a heat induced shutdown. The former will cripple or destroy your mech whereas the latter depending on the situation may range from a potentially dangerous but temporary tactical disadvantage to an irrelevant passing inconvenience. Furthermore the heat scale i can manage in most cases. As for the crits to my heat sinks: I  take them over a crit into an ammo bin (=loss of mech) or the weapon itself (loss of a primary weapon system) any day of the week and twice on sundays.

I agree. Ammo explosions are not a good thing. However, Heat can be just as bad and can still cost you your mech and possibly your life. There's two differences between the two. One's quick compared to slow. The second is one doesn't leave your enemy as much as the other. And if your in a low tech mech the risk of heat induced explosion is still there.

BTW a PPC padded with 9 SHS has only a 25% chance that a crit takes out the weapon. A crit to an AC10 with 2t ammo and 3 SHS in the same location has an 58,3% chance to take out the AC, a 16,7% chance to blow up the ammo and only a meager 25% chance to be a merely inconveniencing loss of an heat sink.

And there's that second ton of ammo again. I'll have to take your word on that.

I didn't presume i can afford the heat sinks anymore than you presumed to have the funds to buy ammo for your AC. I just calculated the costs which you apparently did not. I also do not presume that i will lose my ammo because of a critical hit i just don't ignore the considerable risk ammunition presents when there is a perfectly safe and equally effective alternative available. You on the other hand presume that a heat induced shutdown will most likely cost me my mech although a) the shutdown causes me absolutely no direct damage, b) even enemy units in firing range have absolutely no guarantee that they can finish me off until i can restart, c) heat induced ammunition explosions only occur if i were using an ammo-dependent weapon (like an AC for instance!) and d) i have considerable influence on my mechs heat output.

I did calculate the costs. You missed some. And if funds are not an issue, CASE will be installed.  I also didn't ignore the risk of an ammo explosion. It is a concern. You however did ignore what heat can do to a pilot. You also ignored what heat can do to a fuel tank. You also presume that not only can you restart your mech right away but that your enemies will be too far away to take advantage of your immobility.  You also presume that there will be a critical hit to a full ammo bin when every shot reduces that chance.

[RedMarauder]

Ton-for-ton the A/C-2 is the poorest weapon one can get.  You have to buy special, very expensive ammo for it to be even marginally effective.  Yes it has a tremendous range, but it's nothing more than an overweight machinegun when it comes to firepower.  And without that special ammo, it's not even good against infantry.

The A/C-10 is the best you can get for the money in 3025 when it comes to ballistic weapons.  Yeah the range is almost half of the A/C-2's, but the firepower is 5x better.

So, in my opinion, no, they aren't worth a darn.

[Redman]

You have to add the other weapons to fire. That means extra tonnage for them. Combat Fusion Engines give a cheat by coming with 10 heat sinks free. So as long as stay balanced and keep to the same weight you can bracket all you want. The thing is not every unit uses those engines and combat vehicles still have to add extra heat sinks to remain heat neutral.

Please note that during my entire post i never even referred the free heat sinks that come with an engine. I only compared weapons on a one-to-one basis under the assumption that you install enough heat sinks to keep the unit in question heat neutral and have enough ammo, so that you can can stay functional for the duration of a single battle. By doing that i already was generous towards the ACs because i took away the option to seriously overheat which strongly favours energy weapons. So I am actually loading the initial setup in favour of ACs and they still come up short!

Nevertheless i agree that the AC10 has a real weight advantage over the PPC in a tank and but even then there are exceptions. But in the end battletech is more about mechs than tanks.

Low tech mechs are also a problem. You start with 18 tons for PPC, power amplifier, and heat sinks, on a low tech mech, and you remove 2 heat sinks to add 2 medium lasers to bracket fire. You're going to be overheating right from the start. You're going to have to bracket fire eventually or you risk shut down and/or a fuel explosion. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

First you might want to recheck the rules: Mechs don't need power amplifiers which is true for any other unit that uses a fusion engine. Second: You really need to stop comparing apples to oranges. A PPC + 10 SHS is heat neutral as is an AC10 with 3 SHS. If I subtract 2 heat sinks from either one and add two medium lasers i get exactly the same amount of over heating. The difference is: With the PPC i can fire those two ML alone and don't build up heat whereas if i had paired the MLs with the AC i would gain a +5 net heat. So as long as we are talking about mechs or ASFs your entire argument about heat is moot.

Perhaps I should have said, alternative rules balance things out even more?

What i meant was: How can it be that ACs are not inferior to energy weapons when by adding rules that seriously increase their firepower and versatility they just get balanced? Either they were balanced before and got overpowered by the optional rules or they are balanced with the optional ones in which case they were inferior beforehand.

Furthermore lets not forget that is ACs + optional rules against energy weapons under standard rules. Again apples to oranges.

Who said you had to buy 2 tons of ammo? I also said that the cost was lower initially but would go away over time. You also added in the cost of heat sinks with the AC/10. I'm presuming this is going on a mech? If it's for a vehicle the cost for the AC is lower since you don't have to buy heat sinks. You do have to buy a power amplifier for anything low tech though. That's another 20,000 for the PPC. 

If you think that 10 shots of ammo for an AC10 are enough be my guest. In nearly any combat scenario you will either run out of ammo early on which leaves you with 12 tons of useless equipment and a serious loss of firepower or you have to seriously husband your ammo never taking shots unless the TNs are really good whereas the PPC can fire all day and can easily afford to try even a tricky shot.

And a single ton of ammo costs as much as three SHS. So when you say 'over time' you should really say 'over the time of no more than two engagements'. This is not a case where the operating costs make themselves felt only in the long term. Sure i wasn't counting the power amplifier because i was mostly referring to Mechs and ASFs but even then 20,000c is a little more than 3 tons of ammo. Hope you never do any life fire excercises.

Coolant does have cost but I'd have to hunt for it. Coolant can also break down, if those rules are used.

Under standard rules coolant does not have a cost. If have checked tactical operations and i did not find any repair costs given for coolant failure either. Given that a standard SHS including coolant costs a measly 2,000c it will in any case by irrelevant compared to the ammo costs of your AC.

One is less devastating than the other though.

I agree. Ammo explosions are not a good thing. However, Heat can be just as bad and can still cost you your mech and possibly your life. There's two differences between the two. One's quick compared to slow. The second is one doesn't leave your enemy as much as the other. And if your in a low tech mech the risk of heat induced explosion is still there.

As i showed earlier overheating is irrelevant. It's a strawman argument here. But even then it is a bad one as the likely results of both are completely out of proportion.

I did calculate the costs. You missed some. And if funds are not an issue, CASE will be installed.  I also didn't ignore the risk of an ammo explosion. It is a concern. You however did ignore what heat can do to a pilot. You also ignored what heat can do to a fuel tank. You also presume that not only can you restart your mech right away but that your enemies will be too far away to take advantage of your immobility.  You also presume that there will be a critical hit to a full ammo bin when every shot reduces that chance.

Care to elaborate on the costs i missed? I still don't see them except for the power amplifier which is not needed for anything with a fusion engine. As for CASE that's something that i did consider as i said that an ammo explosion "will either cripple or destroy" your mech. The former is for a mech with CASE in case you haven't noticed.

BTW could you point me to where i get the rules for heat induced fuel explosions? Because to my knowledge, there are none.

[StoneRhino]

They also generate more heat so they're good for vehicles but not so good for mechs, especially lower tech ones.


The amount of damage LRMs can do depends on the dice. Those of us who are dice challenged rarely get half damage from missiles. A 10 ton 1 point weapon isn't much fun. Especially when it generates 6 times the heat. Quirks, the missed shot rule and other equipment help but former two are optional the latter tends to add weight. Even when they are available and the optional rules are used you've only got 6 shots compared to 45. Shots that cost a whole lot more.   

That's not to say we can't get a lucky shot and the alternative ammo can be fun. :)

AC/s also have alternative ammo. They can also make use of the above rules and equipment I mentioned above to improve accuracy. They're not effected by anti-missile defenses though. All the extras don't help when you're missiles only do half damage. If they get to the target at all.

Actually, I have historically dice challenged. IF I am GMing an RPG game then the dice will roll so many 5's and 6's per die that it would force me to change up my dice in the hopes of getting dice that are not hot as hell. However, when I am playing a game of BT, my dice were always low. I ended up with green pilots in all of my units the vast majority of the time while everyone else had elites, vets, and their worst would be 1 average pilot. Thats what I had to play against all the time, and yes we did roll pilots and never used BV to balance anything. To make things worse I would roll low the entire game. But, I never was so unfortunate as to reliably roll so low as to manage 1 point of damage out of 10 tons of LRMs. With LRMs I would average the average number of missiles.

Even if you did roll rather low it is unlikely that you would continue to roll 1s all day. There is no way that an ac2 is ever going to outperform any lrm launcher, even a lowly 5, over the course of the entire game. The average, even with nothing but low and mid range rolls are going to still leave you outperforming an ac2. The additional flexibility of an LRM launcher over that of a 2 makes it hard to suggest that the weapon can even compete with a single LRM5 the vast majority of the time.

If someone wants to use ac2s then okay, go for it. As I mentioned at several points I like the AC2, and unit designs that are clearly underpowered. It is difficult to get others that do not have a soft spot for the underdog to really see why they should opt for it over other weapons or units that do far more damage. The ac2 is just to niche to ever have a solid argument for it's use. People are resorting to talk about the costs of ammo as a merc unit on some backwoods planet that is extremely low tech, with a cousin that has a strange ability to blow up a ppc with a monkeywrench while workign on it when a goat sneezes in a north-western direction at 3 a.m.

For the most part the ac2 is never going to be worth that much unless it is used in great numbers as a single 2 point slug is not going to bother many units. Now if you are pumping out 10 two pointers per turn and can maintain some distance to maintain that range advantage, now you are talking. General purpose, low number, 3025 standard tech rounds...ac2 still sucks. Thats coming from someone that likes the damn thing. It would require a large number of units with ac2s that are fast, that have a lot of room to run around and expend a lot of ammo. That would make it great for an RPG or campaign that is being GMed where you can use a bunch of the vtol armed with an ac2, the warrior I think it is, to harass a unit before or while your main units are moving up to their position. Once the vtols are within striking range for the opposing force, withdraw them. Other then that, ac2s armed units are going to be hard pressed to take on a much more conventional force.

[monbvol]

I'll grant the AC-2 and LB-2X are fantastic AA weapons simply because of their reach.  I still feel they are too heavy and the LB-2X could stand to lose a crit but oddly enough I have never complained about their damage output because you really never have needed much for most things that AC-2s and LB-2Xs are great against.

[YingJanshi]

Don't forget that AC/2s are really good for field guns. A normal generic motorized can haul around 4 guns, might not do all that much damage, put the range will keep them out of  trouble.
Militia's PBI poor man's artillery.

[mutantmagnet]

Finally, unlike the LB-2X's cluster rounds, the standard AC/2's bonuses for flak and precision ammo stack with that of a targeting computer! Using an AC/2 with precision ammo and a targeting computer to target a breached location can allow you to quickly finish off damaged enemy units at a significant distance, preventing them from escaping.

Targeting computers and LBX clusters do stack. What isn't allowed are aimed shots. I'm surprised that a person who has played the game as long as you have has confused this point for so long.


As for the OP, AC 2s don't have the a single strength to justify their penalties.

If they did 3 points of damage that would fix certain problems.
If they had their short range extended by 2-3 points (with appropriate adjustments also made for the other brackets) it would fix different problems.
If they even had built up more heat but weighed less that would address other most different  issues.

In the end a lot of things can be done because as it currently stands the AC 2 doesn't excel in situations it is meant to excel at.  Other weapons out perform it to easily.

[CrossfirePilot]

I would dismiss the AC2 with the wave of the hand, but for the number of times that i have been TACed by my opponents 3025 Black Jack, I just cant.  In a rifleman i would rather have the AC2 than the AC5 if allowed to make that swap.

[Yeti]

Targeting computers and LBX clusters do stack. What isn't allowed are aimed shots. I'm surprised that a person who has played the game as long as you have has confused this point for so long.

No, they don't, never have and most likely never will

TW p143 When firing cluster munitions, LB-X autocannons lose the benefits of the firing unit’s targeting computer

[StoneRhino]

Don't forget that AC/2s are really good for field guns. A normal generic motorized can haul around 4 guns, might not do all that much damage, put the range will keep them out of  trouble.
Militia's PBI poor man's artillery.

That would be a great use for them, a logical use for them too. I am rather rusty on what is now tourney and what is L3 play(yeah, that rusty I just said L3), but if they are not legal in all games then it is more of a reach then legal special munitions. Of course i am wondering just what the BV would be for something like that, and at what point does it become better to get a long range mech.  ???

[rocqueforte]

I noted the fact that autocannons really seem to get screwed over in these two threads:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5896.msg131490.html#msg131490 (optimising the original 3025 'mechs (aka Munchkinism Unleased!))
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,6702.msg151185.html#msg151185 (what if fusion engines only came with their "free" heat sinks?)

One quick 'n' dirty fix I can think of to re-balance autocannons would be to make all regular autocannons act like Ultra autocannons. Ultra's would then be changed to be unjammable. I'd also double the number of shots a ton of ammo provides. This way, players no longer have to be quite as mindful of wasting autocannon shots with high to-hit numbers (do you really want to fire your ac/20 with a to-hit number of 10, if you're only carrying 10 shots for it?), but they would still have to contemplate the heat effects of double-tapping with the larger autocannons (this rule would also explain why a stock standard 3025 Hunchback has so many heat sinks! :) ). Not quite sure how the rules for LB-X and light autocannons would be modified (maybe double the number of shots a ton of ammo gives you, but don't allow double-shots with these weapons?).

Thoughts?

[Death by Zeus]

Ha!  How about saying that ACs don't generate heat in mechs, just like vehicles?  Change nothing else, just that.

[evilauthor]

Ha!  How about saying that ACs don't generate heat in mechs, just like vehicles?  Change nothing else, just that.

Doesn't help the AC/2 or AC/5 much since they already generate next to no heat.

[Death by Zeus]

Light AC construction stats with standard AC combat stats.   ??

[SCC]

Ha!  How about saying that ACs don't generate heat in mechs, just like vehicles?  Change nothing else, just that.

Considering that the vehicle rules say that non-energy weapons don't generate heat this would be a change in (and a house rule) that only serves to nerf AC's in vehicles, and likely make a good deal of existing designs illegal/unworkable

The problem with using AC-2's as field guns is that they suffer the same problems when mounted in 'Mechs, only more so. Infantry can not attack an airborne target unless it attack the hex the infantry unit is in, which is one of the main reason to use AC-2's and then it may not be possible to use AC-2's as AA

[widowmaker]

I would have to agree that ac/2's are probably one of the least useful weapons in the game, but they are not completely useless against aerospace and vehicles. That is not really enough to justify their weight and almost complete worthlessness against mechs.

I mean hey, they take a while to run out of ammo!  :D

[evilauthor]

I would have to agree that ac/2's are probably one of the least useful weapons in the game, but they are not completely useless

No... The distinction of being completely useless goes to AC/5s. AC/2s at least have one of the longest ranges even in the post 3050 era and are hard to beat when it comes to tonnage/crit efficiency.