Author Topic: A few non-canon cannons  (Read 45486 times)

Suralin

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1077
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #60 on: 13 July 2012, 02:39:20 »
One of these should surprise no one, and has probably been statted out numerous times in the past decade. I just refluffed it. The other one I came up with after really wanting something else for the 250kg weight bracket.

Clan Streak MRM Racks
Code: [Select]
Type: Missile
Tech Base: Clan
Available: 3065 GBD (prototypes), full production not begun until 3092

cSMRM-10 cSMRM-20 cSMRM-30 cSMRM-40

Heat: 4 6 10 12
Damage: 1x missile 1x missile 1x missile 1x missile
Range: x/5/10/15(20) x/5/10/15(20) x/5/10/15(20) x/5/10/15(20)
Tons: 3 7 10 12
Crits: 2 3 5 7
Ammo/ton: 24 12 8 6
Cost (unl): 75,000 187,500 337,500 525,000
Ammo cost: 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
BV: 112 224 336 448
Ammo BV: 12 22 33 44
Note:
   Streak MRM launchers may also accept standard MRM ammunition. When firing standard MRM ammo, it acts as though using an Apollo FCS.

Desc:
   The Ghost Bears have wound up capturing a fair number of MRM launchers as isorla over the years. In the past decade or so their scientists have labored to make this weapon more acceptable to the warrior caste, but have met with widespread rejection. The MRM's use by Combine forces, after all, is much more a function of cheapness and raw damage than any sort of technical sophistication.
   This changed somewhat when a Rasalhagian technician got the idea to mate the MRM delivery system with Streak targeting. Seen in very limited numbers in the Jihad, the Streak MRMs have only seen anything approaching regular use in the last ten years, as the Khan has ordered the Dominion's scientists to reduce the logistical strain on frontline units.
   While Streak MRM ammo has until recently only produced in small lots, the launchers themselves can readily accept standard MRMs as ammunition. This allows for a much greater possibility of resupplying from captured Inner Sphere depots. The prospect of using otherwise-wasted ammo is a token appeal to Clan efficiency, and the high damage levels are certainly enough to recommend the weapon. In practice, however, only Rasalhagian freeborn units and the most desperate of solahma use this weapon without any grumbling.

Addendum: Streak MRMs are generally seen as "missing the point" of both Streak targeting and MRMs, by adding homing capability to what were supposed to be cheap rockets. The Dominion still uses them in limited numbers, but they were very lackluster in the Second Dominion-Combine War and production stopped altogether in 3111.




Micro Machine Gun
Code: [Select]
Type: Direct Fire (Ballistic)
Tech Base: Inner Sphere (IS)
Available: 3092 CC/RotS

Heat: 0
Damage: 1
* + 1d6/2 dmg vs inf
Range: x/1/2/3(4)
Tons: 0.25
Crits: 1
Proto Space: 1
Ammo/ton: 200
Cost (unl): 5,000
Ammo cost: 500
BV: 3
Ammo BV: 1
Desc:
   The Micro Machine Gun is an outgrowth of the same materials science that heralded the Light Autocannons. Though the gun's effective range has been reduced back to that of the standard Machine Gun (due to the lower muzzle velocity), the Micro Machine Gun does manage to shave off enough mass to weigh in at a very trim 250 kilograms, making it highly useful on the new ProtoMechs where every bit of free weight counts.

Addendum: The Micro Machine Gun's relatively low weight makes it usable even by some unarmored infantry. Vehicles, 'Mechs and ProtoMechs tend to have more than a quarter-ton free, and so rarely bother with a minigun of this caliber, but lighter Battle Armors have made use of it on a few occasions.


I can't help but try to read that last one in the voice of John Moschitta, the Micro Machines guy.

Suralin

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1077
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #61 on: 03 August 2012, 01:10:56 »
Inspired by someone's post in the "Fixing Autocannon" thread, I fluffed this one out. I'm not sure about the balancing tho; is +50% BV about right for all the bonuses I gave these guns? Or are the bonuses too much?


Improved Autocannons

Code: [Select]
Type: Direct Fire (Ballistic)
Tech Base: Inner Sphere
Available: 3100 FS (iAC/5), 3102 (iAC/2), 3103 (the other three)

iAC/2 iAC/5 iAC/10 iAC/15 iAC/20

Heat: 1 1 3 5 7
Damage: 2 5 10 15 20
Range: 2/9/18/27(36) 1/7/14/21(28) x/6/12/18(24) x/5/10/15(20) x/4/8/12(16)
Other: All Improved ACs get a -1 bonus to hit at short and medium range. This stacks with
other bonuses, e.g. from Precision ammo, AES, or a Targeting Computer.
Tons: 6 8 12 13 14
Crits: 2 5 8 9 11
Proto Space: 1 1 x x x
Ammo/ton: 45 20 10 8 5
Cost (unl): 150,000 250,000 400,000 500,000 600,000
Ammo cost: 1,000 4,500 6,000 8,000 10,000
BV: 56 105 185 233 267
Ammo BV: 5 9 15 19 22

Ammo effects:
- Standard AC Ammo
- Armor-Piercing AC Ammo
- Flak AC Ammo
- Precision AC Ammo
- Tracer AC Ammo
The ammo is the same ammo available to standard ACs. However Caseless iACs
are not available.

Desc:
   Apparently, putting all of a nation's best minds in one place has consequences.

   With NAIS nothing but rubble in the aftermath of the Blakist invasion of New Avalon, scientific advancement in the Davion realm slowed to a relative trickle for years. Princess Yvonne responded by ordering the creation of numerous smaller skunkworks, spread across the Federated Suns so as to minimize the loss should one be compromised.

   Most of these scientific cadres' efforts have been directed towards ways to improve the rebuilding process or the civilian infrastructure at large. One of these cadres, however, based out of the rebuilt GM plant on Kathil, has been working on a way to improve the old standard autocannon technology. Last month, they announced the first successful product of their efforts: the Improved AC/5.

   Using many of the same metallurgical improvements that went into the LB-X Autocannon series, as well as a more robust set of recoil absorbers, the Improved AC/5 boasts improved range and accuracy over its centuries-old progenitor. It also has fewer problems targeting an opponent at close range. The cannons can even accept old, pre-existing ammo stocks. All this was accomplished with only a minor increase in size over the standard AC/5.

   The main problem with the cannon is logistical. As it uses some of the same alloys that go into Endo-Steel, the Improved AC/5 is about twice as expensive to produce, and requires vulnerable orbital smelting facilities. As a result it is likely that there will be a major bottleneck in production for some time to come. Furthermore the cannons are difficult to repair when damaged, for the same reason.

   Nonetheless, the Kathil Skunkworks is pushing ahead with their plans for other calibers of Improved AC based on their success. Scaling up the improvements will take longer than scaling them down, but it's probable the AFFS will start fielding variants of existing designs with Improved ACs before the year is out; as field refits, if nothing else.

Addendum: With the Sea Foxes selling Clan Heavy ACs to the Davions, the Improved ACs were shelved. The advances made on this project may be used to improve other ballistic weapons, though; RAF Intel obtained most of the data in the 3110s and has been working since the Fortress went up to integrate it into our R&D.

Sockmonkey

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 622
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #62 on: 02 December 2013, 20:48:48 »
Boomfist
This device consists of a single armor piercing AC round on a retractable tube mounted in the arm of a mech.
It functions like the so-called "bang stick" used to kill sharks underwater.
When making a punching attack with the boomfist a round is fitted on the end of the tube by the loading mechanism and it flips out to extend past the fist of the mech. The mech then makes a punching attack as normal, and the AP round punches through the mech's armor and scores a critical hit doing one point of damage to the armor as the hit is extremely localized.

The boomfist itself weighs .5 tons and occupies one crit as the mechanism is far simpler and smaller than an AC since it only uses a single shot per combat round.
Ammo for the boomfist is the same armor-piercing rounds that ACs can use at 25 rounds per half ton.
Any arm mounting a boomfist must also be eqipped with ammo in the arm with the loading mechanism is too simple to handle a complex feed from another location.
CASE may be used and the mech must have functioning arm and hand actuators.
Although using ammo, the boomfist functions as a melee weapon and is used during the physical attack portion of the combat round.
To-hit rolls are made on the punch table.
The boomfist can benifit from AES but a tarcomp gives no benifit.

Heavy and light versions of ER and snub PPCs. Pretty self explanatory. They really should exist already just to fill out the gaps instead of the dozens of bizarre laser variants.

Also for the indecisive the new semi-er PPC classes.
Same range as standard PPCs but without the minimum range problems in exchange for only running 25% hotter, rather than 50% like ERPPCs.

Light AC 10s and 20s since we already have light AC 2s and 5s. Self-explanatory.



Stats below.

              type   heat   damage      range      ammo   tons   crits   specials    cost          bv
HERPPC   de      23         15        0/7/14/23       --       10       4         -        262,500    412.00
LERPPC    de       8          5          0/7/14/23       --        3        2         -        175,000    115.00
HSNPPC   de      15     15/12/7    0/9/13/15       --        8        3         -        450,000    297.00
LSNPPC   de       5        5/4/2      0/9/13/15       --        3        2         -        225,000    83.00
SERPPC   de       13         10       0/6/12/18       --        7        3         -       
SERLPPC  de       7           5        0/6/12/18        --        3        2         -
SERHPPC de       19         15       0/6/12/18       --        10      4         -
LAC10      ?         3          10        0/3/6/9          10       8       4    explosive          ?        ?
LAC20      ?         7          20        0/1/2/3          5         10     5    explosive          ?        ?
BF            ?         1           1              -                5        .5       1    explosive          ?       ?
« Last Edit: 02 December 2013, 20:50:52 by Sockmonkey »
That's it! Challenge the Clans to rock-paper-scissors in 3050! A good portion of the 'Mechs didn't have hands so the Inner Sphere would win!
If I had a nickel for every time I've legged a Warhammer, I could put them in a sock, spin it around and leg another Warhammer.

Suralin

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1077
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #63 on: 09 December 2013, 09:21:30 »
The boomfist is an interesting idea, a melee enhancer that uses ammo and can be stacked. Can it be combined with other melee weapons, like hatchets?

Light AC/10 and 20 I approve of. The former is almost identical to mine in fact; the latter, tho, I couldn't see becoming popular given its restricted range.

The various PPC variants... Logical, but getting a bit crowded in the category IMO.

I do like the concept of the semi's, tho -- brute-forcing past the minimum range problem just like the ER PPC, but not to the point of actually adding any range. Well-balanced.  :)

Suralin

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1077
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #64 on: 09 December 2013, 22:56:39 »
Decided to write up some fluff for the large Light ACs and the AC/15 series. The latter are based heavily on the stats someone else posted somewhere or other (I'll find the post later.)

15-Class Autocannons
Code: [Select]
Type: Ballistic
Available:
AC/15: 2588 FS (extinct 2620), reintroduced 3086 FS
LBX-15: 3082 CDS, 3087 LC/FS
uAC/15: 3084 CDS, 3088 MSC

AC/15 LB 15-X uAC/15

Heat: 5 4 6/shot
Damage: 15 15 15
Range: x/4/8/12(16) x/5/10/15(20) x/5/10/15(20)
Tons: 13 11 Clan/12.5 IS 11 Clan/14 IS
Crits: 8 7 Clan/9 IS 6 Clan/8 IS
Ammo/ton: 8 8 8
Cost (unl): 250,000 500,000 400,000
Ammo cost: 8,000 16,000 Slug 16,000
27,000 Cluster
BV: 155 200 251 IS/264 Clan
Ammo BV: 18 19 31 IS/34 Clan
Desc:
   The AC/15 was originally conceived by Kallon Industries and Mydron during the Reunification War as a midway point between the 10-class and 20-class autocannons. It was a decent idea, but ultimately the logistical difficulties outweighed the potential benefits -- especially after the cannon was rejected for use by the SLDF soon after the War ended.

   The AC/15 languished in obscurity until the specs were recovered (along with various other, more valuable pieces of information) by the Diamond Sharks on their flight from the Clan Homeworlds. A couple trade deals later, and the weapon, along with its more modern descendants, were being produced by the Diamond Sharks, Hell's Horses, Wolves-in-Exile, and Houses Steiner and Davion.

Addendum: The logistical difficulties reasserted themselves during the peacetime decades, and the impetus to keep the guns in production was largely gone. TharHes and Defiance both still produce the LB 15-X and standard AC/15 at a couple of their smaller plants, and Imperator produces the Ultra and LB-X versions. Outside of the Hell's Horses, Clan forces have little interest in these weapons, but the Sea Foxes do produce small batches of Clan-grade 15-class autocannons for sale to interested Inner Sphere parties. At the new Captain-General's request, Imperator has been working on copies of Clan autocannons.



High-Caliber Light ACs
Code: [Select]
Type: Direct Fire (Ballistic)
Tech Base: Inner Sphere (IS)
Available: 3089 TC, 3101 FS, 3105 LC respectively

LAC/10 LAC/15 LAC/20

Heat: 3 5 7
Damage: 10 15 20
Range: x/4/8/12(16) x/3/6/9(12) x/2/4/6(8)
Other: +0/0/1(2) penalty +0/1/2(3) penalty
to hit to hit
Tons: 8 9.5 11
Crits: 5 7 9
Ammo/ton: 10 8 5
Cost (unl): 250,000 300,000 350,000
Ammo cost: 4,500 8,000 10,000
BV: 115 143 163
Ammo BV: 12 15 21
Desc:
   Building Light ACs in larger calibers has been a bit of a vanity project for both the Federated Suns and the Lyran Commonwealth. Agents of the Taurian Concordat managed to steal a large cache of data from one of the Suns' Skunkworks, though, and completed early prototypes of the Light AC/10 by the end of 3088. Since then the weapon has shown up sporadically, but only the Taurians and FedSuns have bothered to manufacture it in numbers.

Addendum: While the Light AC/10 was a success, diminishing returns have set in beyond this caliber. The lower muzzle velocity of Light ACs, and the more limited ability of the gun to absorb recoil, has reduced the effective range of the LAC/20 almost to point-blank, making it of dubious usefulness outside of very specific situations. Meanwhile, although the LAC/15's problems in this regard are less egregious, the nonexistent logistical support for this caliber of weapon has made it an afterthought among all but the most detail-obsessed circles of Davion and Marik military enthusiasts.

Sockmonkey

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 622
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #65 on: 13 December 2013, 02:46:54 »
The boomfist is an interesting idea, a melee enhancer that uses ammo and can be stacked. Can it be combined with other melee weapons, like hatchets?
IIRC the rules say if you attack with a hatchet or sword you can't make any other melee attacks that round.
Quote
Light AC/10 and 20 I approve of. The former is almost identical to mine in fact; the latter, tho, I couldn't see becoming popular given its restricted range.
Maybe. Would it be OP'ed to boost the range to 2/4/6?
Quote
The various PPC variants... Logical, but getting a bit crowded in the category IMO.
True, but not nearly a much as the laser category. Frankly, I'd leave it at basic, ER, and pulse versions. None of this chem laser, bombast laser, laser with a side of fries crap. At the very least, the PPC categories should have been filled out before all lasers went crazy.
Quote
I do like the concept of the semi's, tho -- brute-forcing past the minimum range problem just like the ER PPC, but not to the point of actually adding any range. Well-balanced.  :)
Thank you. It seems like they would have been an obvious intermediate step in the development of full ER PPCs.
That's it! Challenge the Clans to rock-paper-scissors in 3050! A good portion of the 'Mechs didn't have hands so the Inner Sphere would win!
If I had a nickel for every time I've legged a Warhammer, I could put them in a sock, spin it around and leg another Warhammer.

Suralin

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1077
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #66 on: 13 December 2013, 23:01:58 »
IIRC the rules say if you attack with a hatchet or sword you can't make any other melee attacks that round.
D'oh, forgot. :/

Quote
Would it be OP'ed to boost the range to 2/4/6?
I don't think so, but if you look at my previous post, I added a serious to-hit penalty to the gun. Methinks something that's both very light and heavily damaging like that should have an extra drawback.

Quote
True, but not nearly a much as the laser category. Frankly, I'd leave it at basic, ER, and pulse versions. None of this chem laser, bombast laser, laser with a side of fries crap. At the very least, the PPC categories should have been filled out before all lasers went crazy.
Meh, suit yourself. I rather like the variety of lasers, personally. The R-E Lasers in particular are fast becoming a favorite of mine.  8)

Quote
Thank you. It seems like they would have been an obvious intermediate step in the development of full ER PPCs.
Probably could be fluffed as such. A Star League-era intermediate project or something, which lost favor when the ER PPC debuted. (On that note, PM.)

Sockmonkey

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 622
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #67 on: 14 December 2013, 23:23:50 »
D'oh, forgot. :/
Happens to me all the time.
Quote
I don't think so, but if you look at my previous post, I added a serious to-hit penalty to the gun. Methinks something that's both very light and heavily damaging like that should have an extra drawback.
Well that's what the short range was supposed to be.
Quote
Meh, suit yourself. I rather like the variety of lasers, personally. The R-E Lasers in particular are fast becoming a favorite of mine.  8)
I can live with all the lasers as long as the PPCs get added at some point.
Quote
Probably could be fluffed as such. A Star League-era intermediate project or something, which lost favor when the ER PPC debuted. (On that note, PM.)
Works for me. I could see them saying "MOAR POWAH!" even after they fixed the PPC's primary weakness due to the way they loved to overdo things.
It especially makes sense that it would come from the old SL days since they still had DHS back then and using anything that runs hotter than a basic PPC just isn't worth it with only SHS.
That's it! Challenge the Clans to rock-paper-scissors in 3050! A good portion of the 'Mechs didn't have hands so the Inner Sphere would win!
If I had a nickel for every time I've legged a Warhammer, I could put them in a sock, spin it around and leg another Warhammer.

HazMeat

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 374
  • Ardy whom a bee is
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #68 on: 19 December 2013, 18:08:54 »
Wow.  That clan railgun is just... wow.  I very much like the idea of applying the HGR concept to other weapons, though, as well as moar Gauss, Plasma, PPC and whatever else.  I agree with Sockmonkey in preference for fleshing out more types, but I can understand wanting to have lasers and autocannon serving as "generic" types, even if I don't personally like it as much: I guess the idea is that they're more well-understood and matured technologies, hence get a head start in being successfully shaped into new specialised variations. 

I would like the Support ER PPC, but it feels a bit too lightweight for what it does or too effective for its weight; I know that, if I had access to that, I'd feel a bit dirty using it the way it looks like it's meant to be used but not find it very sexy otherwise.  Ditto for a "Standard" version, though on principle I think it should also exist if the ER one does: classic [2] 6-12-18 (24?) range profile and 2 heat points. 

I love the idea of a chemical heavy laser, and am kicking myself for not thinking of the Blazer as well.  Speaking of the BLC, I think it looks like the result of a last-minute change from an "Ultra LL," since the 12 damage is what the average for an Ultra would round to.  I think it would have been more interesting as a cluster-2 weapon, so I'd like to see more "binary" weapons take the cluster route and better differentiate from Heavy Lasers.  Does the idea of an "Improved Heavy Binary Chemical Laser" sound appealing, consuming ammo and being volatile kinda like a Gauss weapon, while also functioning like an Ultra weapon? 

I'm a bit biased toward thinking this is a good idea, but I like Sockmonkey's Boomfist.  I like the idea of the "Semi-ER" PPC even more, though I'd probably call it "Enhanced PPC," following convention set by XLRMs and NLRMs.  It's eerily complementary to what I've been toying with, an ER PPC alternative which extends the minimum range to 6 hexes like LRMs have, in exchange for less added heat.  My motive behind that is not so much a creative stroke as it might seem when presented out of the blue like this, though.  I was just trying to find a way to stat ER Heavy and ER Light versions without having to round things, so the heat penalty was dropped down to 2/5 rather than 1/2, and to balance that, the minimum range extended rather than dropped. 

In light of Sox' and my opposite interpolations of standard and ER, perhaps tidy it up and expand a bit with...
ENPPC (the "E" to distinguish Enhanced PPC from Naval PPC) with a 1/5 heat penalty, (for clarity, totals heat costs of 6, 12 and 18 for the 3 sizes) and standard ranges minus the minimum range,
iPPC (deliberately ambiguous between "Improved," "intermediate/interpolated" and "Apple Defense Industries") with a 2/5 penalty (for 7, 14 and 21 points) and [6] 7-14-21 (28) ranges, and
EXPPC (deliberately ambiguous between "experimental," "extended," and "X-notpulse") with a 3/5 penalty (8, 16 and 24 points) and range comparable to the clan ERLL: [3] 8-16-24 (32?)

Regarding that motive of mine to use avoidance of rounding to help me choose where to go, and my crackpot theory that TPTB witheld the Ultra LL from us:  The Heavy Snub-Nose PPC, aka BPC, is perhaps most closely comparable to the Heavy PPC but trades decapitating concentration for [almost] a 1-in-2 chance to deal enough damage on its own to force a PSR.  Simply roll cluster 2 for number of ordinary Snubbie hits, modified as usual by range.  Alternately, for a slight buff, roll 1d6 instead of using the cluster table, and a result of 4 or more gives the second hit.  (Or flip a coin, whatever.)  Stats are straitforward: 9 tons, 3 crits, 20 heat, no explosive jamming or any such since the heat cost means a lot more than for UAC, and because there's no "single fire" mode: just full-on double-barrel sawn-off PPC silliness.  Maybe add one ton and one crit for that firemode selectability? 

Okay, I know I'm going nuts with PPC at this point, but just one more?  ...for now... 
Since it alludes to a shotgun, a lighter unary rather than binary version could imitate the LB-guns instead of the Ultras, again losing the firemode selectability.  Hopefully, construction stats can be identical to standard PPC except for being LB-ified with damage being reduced by cluster roll in exchange for a -1 TN bonus, trading hole punch for critseeking.  This one's called a "Pulse PPC," and is treated as a type P rather than type DE despite not getting the full -2 bonus.  (That means rules follow Pulse, X-Pulse and Variable-Speed lasers.) 
I'm pretty happy that Battletech is divorced from actual warfare by its inherent silliness. Real war machines tend to be closely tied with the other--to avoid opening a can of worms--unpleasant, real world elements of war.

Sockmonkey

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 622
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #69 on: 19 December 2013, 20:17:01 »
I'm a bit biased toward thinking this is a good idea, but I like Sockmonkey's Boomfist.
Woo!

Quote
I like the idea of the "Semi-ER" PPC even more, though I'd probably call it "Enhanced PPC," following convention set by XLRMs and NLRMs.
I'm cool with that.

Particle beam weapons are already a thing in RL, although not developed enough for actual field use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle-beam_weapon

This article
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/sidearmenergy.php
says that using a laser in conjunction with a particle beam will improve range and control by creating a path for the electrons to follow. This is how I always imagined ERPPCs got their improved range and why they run so much hotter.
for snubs, I could see them as already using multiple smaller electron beam emitters rather than one big one.
That's it! Challenge the Clans to rock-paper-scissors in 3050! A good portion of the 'Mechs didn't have hands so the Inner Sphere would win!
If I had a nickel for every time I've legged a Warhammer, I could put them in a sock, spin it around and leg another Warhammer.

HazMeat

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 374
  • Ardy whom a bee is
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #70 on: 20 December 2013, 10:06:52 »
Yeah, and there are multiple distinct concepts fitting that description!  Because of things like the Cyclops Eye, I've been imagining that such various solutions are competing.  For example, and I'm making these up, a Hellstar model is adapted from Naval PPC technology, creating a neutral beam, so it needs an impressive laser to blow out a vacuum channel, that laser becoming a noticeable part of the weapon's effect.  Then maybe a Donal model makes a Proton or Ion beam, which only needs LIPC guidance.  Then an infantry-scale man-portable "PPC" is not actually a kinetic beam at all, but rather just a giant taser or lightning gun, and again LIPC-guided. 

Maybe some [kinetic ones] use wakefields in a body of plasma to produce required beam power, while others instead produce a series of hundreds or thousands of pulses of increasing velocity, tuned to converge at the target's range, while still others use an electric accelerator scheme (like for medical accelerators) for one smooth stream of several miliseconds instead of hundreds of smaller ones, but to similar effect.  I'm not sure how the latter works, actually; collected output from [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_emission_display]gobs of[/url] realistically-sized emitters?  "Realistically," of course, my money would be on "none of the above; something we haven't thought of yet," but that's not as fun IMO. 
I'm pretty happy that Battletech is divorced from actual warfare by its inherent silliness. Real war machines tend to be closely tied with the other--to avoid opening a can of worms--unpleasant, real world elements of war.

Suralin

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1077
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #71 on: 10 March 2015, 14:08:52 »
Bumping this with a few things I came up with for a timeline in which the New Dallas Core got found, but the Helm core didn't.


Trimmed Engine

Introduced: 3036 Confederated Suns
Rules: Occupies 8 criticals -- 6 in CT, 1 in each side torso, but weighs only 7/8 that of a Standard fusion engine (rounded up to the nearest half-ton unless you're using Fractional Accounting rules). In Vehicles, it occupies the same number of slots as a Standard engine. Otherwise follows all standard fusion engine rules.
Cost: [10,000 * EngineRating * Tonnage / 75] C-bills (twice that of a Standard engine)
Multiplies Internals BV by 0.88

Desc:
   Though much of the advanced technology of the Star League still eludes House scientists, the freshly-minted Davion-Liao realm is still able to spend considerable time and effort improving their abilities. An early product of this was the development of the Trimmed Engine, reducing the engine's weight by an eighth, at the cost of slightly enlarging the radiation shielding.
   Since the Clans arrived in 3056, the Light Engine and the reverse-engineered Extra-Light have largely supplanted the Trimmed Engine in many of the CSAF's 'Mech designs, since the cost-to-weight-savings ratio kept Trimmed Engines from being terribly useful on lighter 'Mechs. It does, however, still see use from time to time.

Notes: There is literally no point to using this engine type below a 115 rating unless you're using Fractional Accounting rules. Up at higher engine ratings, though, those few extra tons help on otherwise-level 1 designs. Especially the extra 6.5 tons on the Charger.

Trimmed Engine Weights (with Standard engine for comparison)
Code: [Select]
Rating Std Trim
10 0.5 0.5
15 0.5 0.5
20 0.5 0.5
25 0.5 0.5
30 1 1
35 1 1
40 1 1
45 1 1
50 1.5 1.5
55 1.5 1.5
60 1.5 1.5
65 2 1.75
70 2 1.75
75 2 1.75
80 2.5 2.25
85 2.5 2.25
90 3 2.75
95 3 2.75
100 3 2.75
Rating Std Trim
105 3.5 3.25
110 3.5 3.25
115 4 3.5
120 4 3.5
125 4 3.5
130 4.5 4
135 4.5 4
140 5 4.5
145 5 4.5
150 5.5 5
155 5.5 5
160 6 5.25
165 6 5.25
170 6 5.25
175 7 6.25
180 7 6.25
185 7.5 6.75
190 7.5 6.75
195 8 7
200 8.5 7.5
Rating Std Trim
205 8.5 7.5
210 9 8
215 9.5 8.5
220 10 8.75
225 10 8.75
230 10.5 9.25
235 11 9.75
240 11.5 10.25
245 12 10.5
250 12.5 11
255 13 11.5
260 13.5 12
265 14 12.25
270 14.5 12.75
275 15.5 13.75
280 16 14
285 16.5 14.5
290 17.5 15.5
295 18 15.75
300 19 16.75
Rating Std Trim
305 19.5 17.25
310 20.5 18
315 21.5 19
320 22.5 19.75
325 23.5 20.75
330 24.5 21.5
335 25.5 22.5
340 27 23.75
345 28.5 25
350 29.5 26
355 31.5 27.75
360 33 29
365 34.5 30.25
370 36.5 32
375 38.5 33.75
380 41 36
385 43.5 38.25
390 46 40.25
395 49 43
400 52.5 46
Rating Std Trim
405 56.5 49.5
410 61 53.5
415 66.5 58.25
420 72.5 63.5
425 79.5 69.75
430 87.5 76.75
435 97 85
440 107.5 94.25
445 119.5 104.75
450 133.5 117
455 150 131.25
460 168.5 147.5
465 190 166.25
470 214.5 187.75
475 243 212.75
480 275.5 241.25
485 313 274
490 356 311.5
495 405.5 355
500 462.5 404.75

Vehrec

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1222
  • Mr. Flibble is Very Cross
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #72 on: 11 March 2015, 11:15:16 »
Clan Thunderbolt Missile Launcher
Code: [Select]
Type: Missile
Tech Base: Clan
Available: 3095 CC (prototypes), 3105 RoS (Prototype)

Thunderbolt-C5 Thunderbolt-C10 Thunderbolt-C15 Thunderbolt-C20

Heat: 2 4 6 8
Damage:         5         10         15         20
Range: 2/7/14/21 2/7/14/21 2/7/14/21 2/7/14/21
Tons: 2 4 6 8
Crits: 1 2 3 5
Ammo/ton: 16 8 6 4
Cost (unl): 100,000 250,500 337,500 500,000
Ammo cost: 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
BV: 78 154 278 371
Ammo BV: 8 16 29 38
Note:
        Missiles of the Thunderbolt C type are only destroyed by AMS on rolls of 1 or 2-additionally, the armor on the 15 and 20 is so heavy that they must be successfully engaged by two AMS in order to destroy them.
   Thunderbolt C launchers may use standard thunderbolt ammo, but must then use standard thunderbolt range and do not benefit from the anti-AMS protection of their own improved ammunition.

Desc:
   When compared to the LRM that it is based on, the Thunderbolt missile has a number of shortcomings.  It produces more heat, has a shorter range, fewer salvos per ton of ammo, weighs more, takes up more budget, and is more vulnerable to AMS.  These problems have persisted despite years of production to 'iron out the kinks' and it was claimed by some that eventually the Clans would obviously step in and take an interest in the type.  This would provide the improvements needed for the missiles to become a truly fearsome battlefield force.  Those who claimed such things have been sorely disappointed.  No Clan warrior has ever managed to get their council to agree to a development program for large-diameter missiles of the Thunderbolt type.
        Surprisingly, the first real efforts to improve the type came out of a skunk works program in the Capellan Confederation that was able to hand-build their first prototype-and 72 rejected prototypes- in 3095.  Ten years later, a separate program was set up by the Republic of the Sphere code-named Chinese Whispers.  By Grey Monday, both programs had converged on the same improvements.  Increased focus of warheads allowed for minimum range to be shortened, improved auto-loaders and handling equipment lightened the launchers, lightening the missiles themselves, improved rocket motors and propellant to increase range, and a thin coating of standard 4-layer armor laminate to protect the investment in each missile.  Re-armament programs opted to focus on weapons ready for immediate production however, and the improved Thunderbolts were pushed back and have not entered service even for testing.

Addendum: Thunderbolts are still mostly unseen among actual Clan forces, and no nation has brought the upgraded version to full production just yet-however, sources from inside the Capellan Confederation indicate that a massive new weapons factory is under construction on St. Ives to build all sizes of these missiles and their launchers, and limited serial production of the Thunderbolt C5 may have already begun.  Improvements to Pixiu tanks and Behemoth II assault tanks are expected to begin within the next two years.
*Insert support for fashionable faction of the week here*

Sockmonkey

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 622
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #73 on: 11 March 2015, 13:43:09 »
A while back I had the notion of "ghetto" XL engines. In that instead of using advanced materials to make the reactor radiation shielding lighter, they simply removed most of it with only a few bits here and there to "shadow shield" the cockpit and other tender bits from radiation.
(yes shadow shielding is an actual real-world thing)

The upside is that you get the lightness of an XL in the size of a compact engine.

The downside is of course that even when totally shut down the torso of your mech is now too radioactive for techs to even approach it, much less work on it without radiation suits.
Tere are also issues like neutron embrittlement and such but those are long-term concerns.
As a desperation move though, it would be highly effective.
That's it! Challenge the Clans to rock-paper-scissors in 3050! A good portion of the 'Mechs didn't have hands so the Inner Sphere would win!
If I had a nickel for every time I've legged a Warhammer, I could put them in a sock, spin it around and leg another Warhammer.

Caedis Animus

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2129
  • How can a bird be sultry? Very carefully.
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #74 on: 11 March 2015, 18:32:56 »
I'd probably use that in conjunction with drone controls, to pilot it remotely.

Sockmonkey

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 622
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #75 on: 11 March 2015, 21:47:20 »
I'd probably use that in conjunction with drone controls, to pilot it remotely.
Yeah, otherwise the pilot would need a radiation suit when getting in and out.

Maybe add in a restriction that units using the GXL engine can't mount stuff like tarcomps and ECM in the torso because the radiation interferes with it.
That's it! Challenge the Clans to rock-paper-scissors in 3050! A good portion of the 'Mechs didn't have hands so the Inner Sphere would win!
If I had a nickel for every time I've legged a Warhammer, I could put them in a sock, spin it around and leg another Warhammer.

Suralin

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1077
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #76 on: 15 March 2015, 00:56:23 »
Snub ACs as well as a very minor rework for standard ACs

Introduced: 3034 Confederated Suns
Rules: Identical to the canon Light ACs /2 and /5, and my non-canon Light AC/10, but with a +1 penalty to hit, and jams on a roll of 2. Snub AC ammo balances this out with a -1 bonus. Both Snub and Standard ACs of the same class can fire each other's ammo, though when Snub ACs fire Standard ammo they jam on a roll of 2 or 3.

Desc:
   Efforts were made to try to lighten some of the heavy ballistic cannons common to the CSAF's medium and heavy 'Mechs. Barring major metallurgical breakthroughs, this could only be achieved by lightening the cannons and reducing their recoil absorption, and then balancing this out by reducing the propellant charge on the shells, reducing the effective range.

   One of the unexpected boons of this research was that the resulting Snub ACs could fire standard ammo (albeit with serious recoil issues impacting accuracy). Vice versa, older Standard autocannons were even better at absorbing the lesser recoil of the Snub AC shells, and could hit more often at the cost of effective range.

   Attempts to produce a Snub AC/20 have proven hazardous, as the lightened cannons simply can't absorb the recoil of shells of the required size without reducing the shells' propellant such that the effective range is point-blank. It's likely that this technology won't become possible without the rediscovery of Star League advances in metallurgy.


Cluster Ammo for Standard ACs

Introduced: 3040 ConSuns
Rules: Identical to Cluster ammo for LB-X ACs, but using the standard ACs' range bracket.

Cluster Ammo for Snub ACs

Introduced: 3041 ConSuns
Rules: Identical to Cluster ammo for LB-X ACs, but using the Snub ACs' range bracket and getting the Snub ammo -1 targeting bonus (cumulative with -1 Cluster bonus).

So, for instance, a Standard AC/5 firing Snub-Cluster ammo gets a -2 bonus to-hit (-1 for Snub, -1 for Cluster), but
only has a 5/10/15 range bracket when doing so.

Ammo types as of the Clan arrival in 3056:
- Standard
- Std-Flak
- Std-Tracer
- Std-Cluster
- Snub
- Snub-Flak
- Snub-Tracer
- Snub-Cluster


Improved Vehicular Grenade Launchers

Identical to the standard VGL, but is 1 ton per launcher. However, this comes with the benefit of multiple shot capability, with 8 shots per ton of ammo.


Light Gyro

Introduced: 3033 Confederated Suns
Rules: Occupies 5 slots in the center torso, but weighs 25 percent less (rounded up to the nearest half ton).
Cost: [450,000 x Gyro Tonnage]
Tech Level: E


Improved Electronic Warfare Package

Introduced: 3035 Confederated Suns
Rules: Exactly the same as the Capellan EW package, but only weighs 4.5 tons instead of 7.5, and has a 4-hex range (for both its effects) rather than 3.
Cost: Same as EW
Tech Level: E


Semi-Ferro Armor

Introduced: 3033 Free Worlds League
Rules: Occupies 14 slots, as per standard Ferro-Fibrous armor. Provides 16.96 points of armor per ton, as per Light Ferro.
Cost: [12,500 * tons of armor] (in between Standard and Light Ferro)
Tech Level: E

Red Pins

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4070
  • Inspiration+Creativity=Insanity
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #77 on: 15 March 2015, 01:26:00 »
...I like the Snub-ACs.  Seems realistic, have you playtested them?
...Visit the Legacy Cluster...
The New Clans:Volume One
Clan Devil Wasp * Clan Carnoraptor * Clan Frost Ape * Clan Surf Dragon * Clan Tundra Leopard
Work-in-progress; The Blake Threat File
Now with MORE GROGNARD!  ...I think I'm done.  I've played long enough to earn a pension, fer cryin' out loud!  IlClan and out in <REDACTED>!
TRO: 3176 Hegemony Refits - the 30-day wonder

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #78 on: 15 March 2015, 03:32:58 »
Do the Improved Vehicle Grenade Launchers work the same as standard VGLs? Firing into 3 adjacent hexes? Or are they like an automatic grenade launcher type gun?


I don't understand how your snub autocannons work. If you reduce propellant you reduce damage and range. Firing standard rounds also won't effect accuracy. The length of the barrel helps with accuracy and it's been shortened. Firing standard rounds in a weapon that has had it's recoil mechanisms reduced runs the risk of over stressing the cannon with the result being that it blows up. Firing snub rounds through standard autocannons would also be a problem. Because of the reduced propellant they're not going to be strong enough to work the recoil and reloading mechanisms properly. The results being a much greater chance in the weapon jamming.

May I recommend just cutting the barrel off to reduce weight? Then changing the range brackets so that short is medium, medium is long, and long range is now extreme with the targeting penalties that incurs? And dropping the minimum range. That would avoid any complications with recoil/reloading mechanisms and propellants.

For kicks I took 25% off standard ACs and ended up with an 4.5 ton AC/2 with a range of 0/4/8/16. 24 with extreme range. This is slightly worse than the LAC/2 but then LAC/2 is made with better materials. It also doesn't obsolete the LAC. If a snub AC were better the LAC wouldn't have been created. And you can do this with any Autocannon.

Semi-FerroFibrous Armor?  ???

Suralin

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1077
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #79 on: 15 March 2015, 19:24:31 »
...I like the Snub-ACs.  Seems realistic, have you playtested them?

Not yet.


Do the Improved Vehicle Grenade Launchers work the same as standard VGLs? Firing into 3 adjacent hexes? Or are they like an automatic grenade launcher type gun?

They work exactly the same as the standard VGL, firing into the 3 adjacent hexes. The only update has been to add a reloading mechanism. In a timeline where AMS' rediscovery is pushed back by a decade and a half, that added smoke/chaff/incendiary deployment can be a godsend.


Quote
I don't understand how your snub autocannons work. If you reduce propellant you reduce damage and range. Firing standard rounds also won't effect accuracy. The length of the barrel helps with accuracy and it's been shortened. Firing standard rounds in a weapon that has had it's recoil mechanisms reduced runs the risk of over stressing the cannon with the result being that it blows up. Firing snub rounds through standard autocannons would also be a problem. Because of the reduced propellant they're not going to be strong enough to work the recoil and reloading mechanisms properly. The results being a much greater chance in the weapon jamming.

May I recommend just cutting the barrel off to reduce weight? Then changing the range brackets so that short is medium, medium is long, and long range is now extreme with the targeting penalties that incurs? And dropping the minimum range. That would avoid any complications with recoil/reloading mechanisms and propellants.

For kicks I took 25% off standard ACs and ended up with an 4.5 ton AC/2 with a range of 0/4/8/16. 24 with extreme range. This is slightly worse than the LAC/2 but then LAC/2 is made with better materials. It also doesn't obsolete the LAC. If a snub AC were better the LAC wouldn't have been created. And you can do this with any Autocannon.

You do have a point about obsoleting the LAC, but then the LAC doesn't have the accuracy penalty. I don't want to mess with the range brackets, tho; in particular, I still want the SNAC/2 to match up with the AC/5's 6/12/18 range. Any ideas for how that could still be made to work?


Quote
Semi-FerroFibrous Armor?  ???

This is an attempt to improve armor coverage per ton, and it does so. But without the Helm Core, it just isn't very efficient. It's strictly worse than Standard Ferro or Light Ferro, but on Mechs with a lot of free crits (a lot of the IS repertoire in this timeline, really) it might still be a better choice than Standard.

Fluffwise, it's essentially an early NAIS approximation of Ferro-Fibrous circa 3031, stolen by Irian's industrial spies and quickly moved to full production at the behest of Captain-General Thomas Marik. (The real one, BTW, since there's no double in this timeline.)

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #80 on: 16 March 2015, 02:04:55 »
So each grenade weighs 41.6 kg?

All weapons that can fire into extreme range have the same penalty. The LAC/2 can hit 20 hexes in extreme range. It just won't be that easy doing so.

Well, you could just shift them all down one class. The AC/5's range becomes the AC/2s. The AC/10's the AC/5s. The AC/20 the AC/10's. And the AC/20 gets the range of a machine gun.

The problem is you just eliminated the LACs. Possibly even the RACs as they were developed from the same research. The ranges are identical and the slight difference in weight isn't enough to push further research just to obtain the same results.


Oh okay. That's cool.

Suralin

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1077
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #81 on: 16 March 2015, 21:54:25 »
So each grenade weighs 41.6 kg?

It's a volley that deals damage across ~2000 m^2 of space, so I would imagine there's more than just 3 grenades per volley.

Quote
All weapons that can fire into extreme range have the same penalty. The LAC/2 can hit 20 hexes in extreme range. It just won't be that easy doing so.

Well, you could just shift them all down one class. The AC/5's range becomes the AC/2s. The AC/10's the AC/5s. The AC/20 the AC/10's. And the AC/20 gets the range of a machine gun.

The problem is you just eliminated the LACs. Possibly even the RACs as they were developed from the same research. The ranges are identical and the slight difference in weight isn't enough to push further research just to obtain the same results.

The problem with Snub ACs vis-a-vis LACs is that Snubs wear out a lot faster due to the inferior metallurgy and recoil stress. A lot of what the ConSuns bring to the fore in this timeline is stuff that was already being worked on during the Succession Wars, but was never brought to full production because better stuff was available via the Helm Core anyway.

I do agree with you that the Snubs need another gameplay downside. I'm merely saying I'd rather the downside in question not be range-related.

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #82 on: 16 March 2015, 23:58:03 »
Oh okay. That'd work I guess.

Wearing out faster just means they require more maintenance. I'm also not sure why you'd go backwards on metallurgy. And if you've reduced the amount of propellant at the same rate you reduce the recoil mechanism there's no problem there either.  It's when you have more propellant than the recoil mechanism can take  that you have a problem. But if you really want pure metallurgy you could give a +1 targeting penalty  after every ton or so of ammo fired to reflect barrel wear. And if you want a poor recoil mechanism have the weapon jam on a roll of 4 and explode on a roll of 2. I'd recommend that if you're going to fire standard rounds in a gun not designed for them. That would give the weapon some negative and keep researchers working for a better alternative. And woe be to he who misslables the ammo boxes!

I know you don't want to change the range but the thing is snub weapons trade barrel length and weight for better use in close quarters. Their rounds don't travel as far or accurately at a distance because the barrels aren't as long. That's a big difference from replacing heavy components with lighter material but keep the same performance. That's what Improved Autocannons do. LACs are in between. They use lighter materials but also have smaller barrels. That's why they can fire the same munitions as Standard Autocannons.  If I may say your snubs feel more like Primitive LACs than snub nosed weaponry. They achieve the same results lower technology. Which is cool. There should be lower tech rated autocannons. Then Snub misnamed but the concept works.


Starfox1701

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 521
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #83 on: 17 March 2015, 10:01:17 »
Its retro tech gone to far. Some one in business is always going to try and cut corners.

Suralin

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1077
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #84 on: 18 March 2015, 13:50:40 »
And if you want a poor recoil mechanism have the weapon jam on a roll of 4 and explode on a roll of 2.

Hmm. Maybe give Snubs the Ultra AC jamming possibility (jam on 2) normally, and jam on 2-3 when firing standard AC ammo?

Oh, also. I threw in IS Heavy Lasers. They're literally just standard lasers that leave the beam on for 50% longer, racking up more heat and causing serious blooming problems. On top of that, it's hard for the pilot to keep the beam on target.

IS Heavy Lasers

Code: [Select]
Type: Direct Fire (Energy)
Tech Base: Inner Sphere (IS)
Available: 3037A LC

Small Medium Large

Heat: 2 6 14
Damage: 5 8 12
Range: x/1/2/3(4) x/3/6/9(12) x/5/10/15(20)
Other: +0/1/2(3) penalty to-hit depending on range.
Can act as though they are functionally identical to Standard Lasers,
eliminating the targeting penalty and reducing the heat accordingly
but also reducing the damage to that of standard Lasers of the
appropriate size.
Tons: 0.5 1 5
Crits: 1 2 3
Cost: 16,750 60,000 150,000
BV: 18 70 225

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #85 on: 19 March 2015, 02:42:21 »
I would have gone with the rapid fire penalties for firing standard rounds. They're not made for it and their weaker materials shouldn't handle it and be more damaging when they fail. But as long as there's some risk in using standard ammo the Ultra rates would work.

Wouldn't the lasers risk burning out the lenses or whatever they need to focus?

Right now I'm thinking of a cross between a laser and an autocannon. Only instead of chemicals have focusing lenses be the ammo. The laser fires longer than normal for more damage and heat but burns out the lens. Then that lens is ejected and a new one loaded in place. I'm thinking they wouldn't be quite as accurate as standard lasers do to the reloading systems but they wouldn't cause problems the way Clan Heavy Lasers do. Actually, such a system could probably be applied to any laser. Plus if you've got the heat sinks you could try rapid firing it like and autocannon.

Sockmonkey

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 622
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #86 on: 20 March 2015, 22:44:23 »
Lasers with consumable elements could be viable, though it really wouldn't hurt the accuracy since other ammo-using weapons don't seem to suffer from using reloading on top of dealing with recoil.
A big plus for them would be running cooler since each lasing bit only has to work once and get ejected, taking the heat with it.
Say you have the option of rapid-fire like RACs.
This involves firing several shots per lasing element instead of just one so subsequent shots in the volley would be less powerful and less accurate, plus it would generate far more heat than normal since you hang on to the hot lasing element for the duration of several shots rather than ejecting it immediately.

So you have the "volley" option but it's weak, sloppy and hot after the first shot in the volley, though much more lasing-ammo efficient.

As for snub ACs, I agree that we need something like that since right now there is a bit of a gap in good midrange crit-seeking.
That's it! Challenge the Clans to rock-paper-scissors in 3050! A good portion of the 'Mechs didn't have hands so the Inner Sphere would win!
If I had a nickel for every time I've legged a Warhammer, I could put them in a sock, spin it around and leg another Warhammer.

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #87 on: 22 March 2015, 06:15:33 »
What I was thinking though was that the beam would be on long enough to do more damage. Doing so would generate more heat, destroying the lens. To keep it from being a one shot weapon lens are changed like ammo. I had been thinking that the melting lens would degrade targeting but that seems kind of backwards now. So maybe they shouldn't do as much damage as they're capable of because the melting lends diffuses the beam?

Your laser RAC sounds like a Gattling Laser I saw rules for in a magazine. The barrels and stuff would rotate around the rest of the laser. Like a gattling gun. But it ended up being a short range weapon because the beams didn't last as long.  It was sort of a low tech pulse laser. which also sounds like you're describing. If the focusing systems, whatever it is, isn't destroyed by the firing there's no need to eject it. And when I said you could try rapid firing it like an autocannon I meant that it could jam like one. You're trying to make the loading system move faster than it was designed to. This could possibly lead to ultra classes or RACs. But the point wasn't to create a lesser beam but fire a larger or full strength beam faster.

The thing is with rapid firing you could still jam the loading mechanism. 


Suralin

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1077
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #88 on: 23 March 2015, 13:12:43 »
Just putting down some more notes for my AU here.

Production-level Freezers
Introduced: 3031 Federated Suns
Rules: Function identically to Double Heat Sinks, except that they cannot be placed in the engine. The 10 free heat sinks that come with the engine also cannot be Freezers, even if they're external (as on 'Mechs with an Engine Rating below 250). However, Freezers can be mounted on Combat Vehicles using any type of Fusion Engine at the cost of 3 Equipment Slots per Freezer, as long as the previous rules are followed.
Cost: [6,000 * number of FHS] (same as DHS)
Tech Level: E
After deducing that someone besides MIIO or SAFE was involved in trying to hunt down and destroy Liao's copies of the New Dallas Core, Hanse decides to play it safe and make as many backups of research. As a result, the DHS research being carried out at NAIS isn't lost when ComStar tries their false-flag attack.

The production-level Freezers don't function right when they don't have room to radiate the heat (unlike Star League DHS, which work fine in an engine), but they're still a significant step up from Single HS. As an additional plus, Freezers don't rely on anything hazardous like the Hoff prototypes. They're a bit easier to produce than DHS due to the less stringent material tolerances, leading to them spreading quickly once the War of 3038 is over.


Medium-Range Missiles
Introduced: 3027 Capellan Confederation
Functionally equivalent to canon MRMs in all respects except introduction date.


Prototype Light and Heavy PPCs
Introduced: 3036 DC
Obsolete: 3040
Rules: If Prototype Light or Heavy PPCs are damaged, they explode, causing a 5 or 15-point Ammo Explosion in their section (respectively).
These are caused by the DC tinkering around with the data they got from the New Dallas Core after Romano Liao spammed the HPG network with it. Production-level Light and Heavy PPCs are perfected within a few years, and the remaining balky prototypes are given as "gifts" to the Tamar Pact in 3042.

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: A few non-canon cannons
« Reply #89 on: 23 March 2015, 19:07:04 »
Freezers.

We already have those. The rules for them are in SB:Sword & Dragon and H:War of 3039. They can't be placed in the engine but they can replace any outside. So they're even better.

I also don't see how they'd work in vehicles at all. You'd run out of space before you reduced enough heat.

And the Hoff Double Strength Heat Sinks only take 1 crit. We can argue canon about them but canon conflicts with itself. The original rules and the fluff have consistently said that Chemical Double Heat Sinks are more compact than double heat sinks and were developed independently from the GD Memory Core. Prototype Double Heat Sinks are based on Star League Technology and take 3 critical slots. Record Sheets on the other hand have been inconsistent. Mechs with Chemical DHS are either given standard heat sinks or DHS:P. It's something I really wish TPTB would fix. We need rules for the Chemical Double Strength Heat Sinks chemical corrosion and other problems.
« Last Edit: 23 March 2015, 19:23:29 by FedComGirl »

 

Register