Why Tweak the Autocannon?

[Daemion]

I notice that a lot of people are proposing the desire for buffs to the stock autocannons. 

Why? 

Is it because they're on a lot of 'favorite' designs? Is it because of the potential versatility in ammo?

BattleTech has a lore that shows a shift in weaponry, some becoming dead-end technologies over time.  It stands to reason, for me, that ACs, and powder ballistics in general, reach a limit prior to the succession wars, and are a fall-back weapon for less-than-capable machines in a time of tech-regression.  I personally have no problem with them being ultimately replaced with either gauss or energy weapons in the future.

(Side thought - precision and AP ammo for MGs? - to be discussed in the Fan Rules board.)

Secondly, from a meta-perspective, I've always thought of front-line munitions as being capable of all the tasks that alternate ammo give you, because it's that good, and look at dedicated ammo slots to particular styles of ammo as sub-par, stuff you'd find in militia, local noble, and merc ranks simply because the good stuff is restricted by larger governments to their troops.   The same as applying time-of-day or weather modifiers.  Front-line units don't have to track them, but anything less does. However, this is more a personal taste.  Others may not see it that way or agree. But, the fewer modifiers you have to track, the more powerful the unit seems, because it's ignoring a lot of things that would hamper a unit which has to.

That aside, why the desire for better dakka? (Let's face it, the Davions are orkish in some of their natures.  >:D )

Discuss.

[Church14]

Spitballing here: Just add one more ammo type. An AC “Scatter” ammo. Similar to LB-X cluster, but no -1 to hit and the damage is done in groups of two.

The “point” of an AC may not be to be the best at a task, but maybe that it is capable of any task. Specialized ammunition allows an AC to moonlight as a mediocre equivalent of a lot of weapons in the game. Add a cluster-style ammo and some sort of low velocity round that can be fired indirectly and I think most use cases are covered.

[ThePW]

I'd rather go the BTPC route and give the AC an additional - to any PSRs (-4 to roll for a AC/2 up to a -1 for a AC/20) as a automatic roll, like Aerospace.

[Apocal]

I notice that a lot of people are proposing the desire for buffs to the stock autocannons. 

Why? 

Is it because they're on a lot of 'favorite' designs? Is it because of the potential versatility in ammo?

Because they don't want the medium laser to rule over everything in 3025.

Secondly, from a meta-perspective, I've always thought of front-line munitions as being capable of all the tasks that alternate ammo give you, because it's that good...

All of them? If standard ballistic ammo gave automatic crit rolls every hit after reducing TMM by 2, I think people would have a much, much more favorable view of ballistics.

[Daemion]

All of them? If standard ballistic ammo gave automatic crit rolls every hit after reducing TMM by 2, I think people would have a much, much more favorable view of ballistics.

 >:D :thumbsup: xp  It would, wouldn't it? Don't need to change the damage or range profiles at all.

But, no.  AP and Precision are recent developments, introduced even in the BMR as such, and I'm fully aware of this.  I refer specifically to flechette ammo, which gives the AC its full damage against infantry, as an example.  Back in the BMR, that wasn't required.  So, if you look at Total Warfare, compared to the BattleTech Master Rules, as a sign of tech regression, then having to rely on flechette ammo to do full damage against infantry is a downgrade from the capacity to simply do the damage with stock ammo.  Same goes for the partial cover effects, a representation of degraded fire-control accuracy.  Or the sudden Terrain Factor requiring 8 to 10 medium laser or AC hits to reduce light woods to rough.  But back in the Tac Handbook, 40 damage could make a crater, and in the old 2nd ed and BattleTech Manual rules, most weapons which could total 5 damage or higher (the AC/5 being the odd exception) could clear woods outright, and failed shots against targets in woods could not only accidentally cause fires, but could accidentally clear them (on an 11 or 12).

But, that's a different discussion entirely.


However, I did play around with ACs getting Precision and AP effects against support level units, with sub-par armor, like Primitive, or anything made at Tech level C, B, or A.  With something like that, you could then see why the AC/5 replaced the rifle cannon for ground units before the advent of the Mech.

In our fifth succession war games, we did play around with locally produced stuff for each of the worlds designated a hot-spot, and different levels of tech. However, at the moment, things have gone back to 'Mechs are everywhere', especially on Halloran V, as nobles are throwing in either for or against the Liao invaders, and bringing retinues into the fight.  But, at some point, the defenders will want a quick boost in numbers, and may fall back on local Milindustrial units that had been stocked away for just such an occasion.  In that instance, Halloran V has turned into an ongoing hotspot, with the events having spanned a full year and a half.  Fed Suns units have already been called in from other fronts to bolster the besieged defenders, but, there are other worlds under attack, so there's only so much the front line forces can do before materials run out.  Same with the Liao attackers.  They're hitting other worlds, and the Magistracy has also come under attack, prompting some Magistracy forces to at least champ at the bit to return home and retake what's theres.

I've found both styles to be fun.  For one, even the most basic level 1 BattleMech becomes a power-house when fighting alongside or against such 'faceless' masses.  But, it's also fun to have a bunch of stock level 1 (intro-tech) Mechs as replacement machines for the upgraded stuff that is down for repairs or outright destroyed. 

If there were a time to see damage boosts or stat boosts for the AC, I submit that it should be in the early days of the BattleMech, and before.   But, not during the succession wars.  I like the idea of certain technologies reaching a cap, and eventually falling by the way-side.  I'd love to see Gauss tech start to diversify, taking AC munition mechanics and finding ways to apply them to magnetic field propulsion and getting away from blast powder propulsion.


Oh, and:

Because they don't want to the medium laser to rule over everything in 3025.

Only when customs are in order.  It think the most Medium Lasers I've ever seen on any stock designs (Mech) is 4, until you get to the Nova.  But, that's using Clan ER Medium Lasers, which are broken, ultralight large lasers.  (Ontos, a tank, has 8 medium lasers, by the way.)  Fire Javelin. Black Jack. Swayback. 

I've yet to see someone create the IntroTech version of the Nova.  (Aside: However, I did make an ARC-2R with 8 LRM-5s, and filled in the rest with heatsinks, and it turns out to be heat accurate when firing all 8 LRM-5s. Talk about anime missile spam.)  I  have seen a friend outfit a Phoenix Hawk Lam with a crap-ton of Clan ER Smalls, though.


But, back to the question.  Why do you think ACs need a tweak?  Or do you?

[dgorsman]

I think the intended point was the AP/precision affects were already taken into account in the standard ammo, and the specialty ammo doesn't/shouldn't exist.  Any "special" ammo is more like a degraded version, deficient in some manner.

I would further suggest that missiles, not autocannon, are the jack of all trade.

I'm happy where autocannon are right now.  They may indeed be a dead end considering the introduction of inner sphere versions of all ratings of LBX and ultra models.  Not immediately though.

[Apocal]

Oh, and:
Only when customs are in order.  It think the most Medium Lasers I've ever seen on any stock designs (Mech) is 4, until you get to the Nova.
...
I've yet to see someone create the IntroTech version of the Nova.

Hunchback-4P has eight medium lasers and I think one small as well, but I can't remember off the top of my head. It gets complaints for that reason. But the thing is that you don't need more than four medium lasers to out-perform an AC/5.

But, back to the question.  Why do you think ACs need a tweak?  Or do you?

I just accept that the AC/5 is trash, the AC/2 is niche and the AC/10 is modestly suboptimal while feeling the AC/20 is a great weapon. The only improvement needed is better weapons in the later eras and that already happened, with ultras and LBs.

[Sartris]

♫tale as old as time
song as old as rhyme
Are Autocannons Bad?♫

[abou]

I'm finding that ACs just need the damage boost. And it really becomes evident in the 3050+ game environment.

That Clan ER medium laser is pretty obscene. I could point out how Clan missile racks weigh half as much, the LRMs don't have a minimum range, ammunition weapons automatically have CASE, etc... but when it comes down to it, you have the ER medium laser. You practically have a more efficient large laser that already has the range and only for 1 ton. It does more damage than an AC/5 and has, to be honest, comparable range. Once you add in double heat sinks to the mix... well, that says it all.

I think there are interesting possibilities that could be used for ACs in the meta of the game -- eg. PSR rolls -- but you don't want to make the game too complicated. Increasing damage is simply the easiest method. And in my experiments with it, it does not unbalance the game at all.

[Ogra_Chief]

♫tale as old as time
song as old as rhyme
Are Autocannons Bad?♫

And yet, every mech I use has to have one, or it feels wrong. Every time I see a laser boat, I think, '... amateur.'

Dakka - is Life.  ::)

[SteelRaven]

The BTU is not centered around the performance of the standard AC. I much rather see the Ultra jam rule revised or at least see a new Improve Ultra AC now with have RACs (which are awesome)

[Alan Davion]

Hunchback-4P has eight medium lasers and I think one small as well, but I can't remember off the top of my head. It gets complaints for that reason. But the thing is that you don't need more than four medium lasers to out-perform an AC/5.

You are correct. 8 medium lasers, 1 small laser, 10 tons of armor and 23 heat sinks. So a 4P firing all 8 mediums can cause upwards of 40 total damage and generates 24 heat. That is assuming all the lasers hit of course.

I've been combing through Sarna lately, expanding the file I have for my personal Mercenary unit, going through all my favorite mech designs and writing down what all they are equipped with so I can assign roles and such for when I eventually get around to playing. As well as helping plan for future expansion.

[Daemion]

Okay, so the -4P Swayback is a lighter, Mech version of the Ontos.

Good to know. That looks like one-of-a-kind.

[Retry]

I notice that a lot of people are proposing the desire for buffs to the stock autocannons. 

Why? 

Is it because they're on a lot of 'favorite' designs? Is it because of the potential versatility in ammo?

For me, it's because autocannons are one of the "main" weapons of the game.  There's 3 weapon "flavors" in BT, and the Autocannon is the poster-child of the Ballistics.  Heck, they're the only ballistics in an intro-tech setting other than the machine gun.  In higher-tech settings, the Ballistics are still basically an "Autocannon but Also" category, since the only non-autocannon type ballistic weapons are a handful of obsolete Rifle-type weapons and a few flavors of Gauss.  So it's a shame when such a huge chunk of weapons end up being completely overshadowed by the other two categories.

BattleTech has a lore that shows a shift in weaponry, some becoming dead-end technologies over time.  It stands to reason, for me, that ACs, and powder ballistics in general, reach a limit prior to the succession wars, and are a fall-back weapon for less-than-capable machines in a time of tech-regression.  I personally have no problem with them being ultimately replaced with either gauss or energy weapons in the future.

I somewhat agree, but also don't.

I think there should be tech progressions that make earlier versions obsolete, such as having the vanilla ACs become replaced by Ultras and LB-Xs or even something better, or how Clan-tech generally obsoletes IS-spec weapons.

I'm not so keen on the Autocannons in general go the way of the Rifle.  Other than losing a sort of flavor that a laser or a gauss cannon just can't capture, there feels like there SHOULD be a viable combat role in BT's setting for a good rapid-fire anti-mech weapon.  Killing off autocannons for being "obsolete" in favour of the Gauss Rifle or lasers would feel somewhat forced for me, especially when the only thing you'd really need to do to fix the AC is just draft a somewhat less junky version.

Secondly, from a meta-perspective, I've always thought of front-line munitions as being capable of all the tasks that alternate ammo give you, because it's that good, and look at dedicated ammo slots to particular styles of ammo as sub-par, stuff you'd find in militia, local noble, and merc ranks simply because the good stuff is restricted by larger governments to their troops.   The same as applying time-of-day or weather modifiers.  Front-line units don't have to track them, but anything less does. However, this is more a personal taste.  Others may not see it that way or agree. But, the fewer modifiers you have to track, the more powerful the unit seems, because it's ignoring a lot of things that would hamper a unit which has to.

Realistically, trying to integrate ever single ammo capability known to man (in BT: Tracers, Flak, Flechette, Caseless, AP, and Flechettes) would end with an excessively expensive round with none of those abilities.

If there were a time to see damage boosts or stat boosts for the AC, I submit that it should be in the early days of the BattleMech, and before.   But, not during the succession wars.  I like the idea of certain technologies reaching a cap, and eventually falling by the way-side.  I'd love to see Gauss tech start to diversify, taking AC munition mechanics and finding ways to apply them to magnetic field propulsion and getting away from blast powder propulsion.

The death of the autocannon is not necessary for more Gauss diversity.  Regular powder has its advantages: The energy needed to fling the projectile is stored in the shell by design instead of needing an external power source (like BT infantry needs for their gauss rifles).

[Crimson Dawn]

It is not going to happen since it would require too many changes to all sorts of mechs but I would like autocannons more if they weighed less and some other benefits.

I like the idea of making the AC 2 weigh like a LAC2, no minimum range, standard AC 2 range, 50 shots per ton of ammo, and no heat.

AC5 weight of LAC5, no minimum range, standard AC 5 range.

AC 10 should weigh slightly less (maybe LBx weight).

I know it does not make the ACs so much better but they allow for more stuff on the mech that would help.  A Blackjack could afford some heat sinks with its AC2s and they would be great additions to the medium lasers when it closes.

[Alan Davion]

AC5 weight of LAC5, no minimum range, standard AC 5 range.

Anything that makes my favorite AC/5 wielding mechs better I'm all for, the Shadow Hawk, Wolverine, Marauder and more could always use more armor, or a bigger engine, or more heat sinks, or maybe more ammunition for their existing weapons, or a couple more weapons even.

[dgorsman]

If anything, I would be in favor of standardizing the rapid fire rules from TacOps.  Changing weight, damage, min range etc. makes them just a little too good.  I don't think there's a small enough increment of change for those to keep the balance.

[monbvol]

To me the standard ACs don't need damage boosts, they need diets.

Case in point the Urbanmech.  That 10 points of concentrated damage is nothing to scoff at but I can take a Panther instead and be more mobile while still having 10 concentrated damage and a slight range boost with a manageable minimum range.

I just wish it was a more compelling choice because it really doesn't work out to be one.

[wundergoat]

I always liked the idea of upping damage by +2.  Then and AC/2 isn't laughably bad as a plunked, and AC/5 is a cold LL and a credible main gun, and the AC/10 becomes a headcapper.  The AC/20 is basically the same.

Since damage is in a good place, when you get to more advanced eras, you can add special ammo and keep the weapons relevant, or even further improve special ammo.

[Red Pins]

...I think, mostly, that people are able to see the general growth in other areas (construction materials, lasers, missiles) and find the standard autocannon - old.  The release of the Light/AC and eventual production of the RAC are fine, but people - still - produce - these - antiquated - weapons.  And you still find them on the battlefield, after 300 years of continuous production in every major state of the IS, as well as a couple Periphery nations.

Well, you can't turn them into anything news, so you're left just staring at them.  That's where the new dakka comes in, just cut them up and use these out-of-date guns to build I-ACs.  (Also, there was talk of simplifying the number of weapons to something similar to 3025 in the 3250 era, so this would replace standard ACs, Ultras, LB, Light, and RACs.)

TL;DR - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEu9LLQpOF8  Cut down existing barrels, make these.

Improved Autocannon (I-AC)
   Despite the heat efficiency of Autocannons, advances in heatsinks and energy weapons have diminished their presence on the battlefield.   Looking for weapons systems adaptable to modern warfare, the Civil Government has successfully combined the 21st century Metalstorm system with the modern Autocannon, providing compact, heat efficient weapons capable of flexibility unmatched by current designs.
   I-ACs take advantage of several centuries of development in ballistic weapons to provide cutting edge weight-to-damage ratios; the Metalstorm concept, used in large caliber grenade launchers before being abandoned by 2050, takes advantage of these developments to provide a rate of fire similar to Rotary Autocannons.

Game Rules
   I-ACs are useless after firing their pre-loaded ammo until the barrel is exchanged, but offer an increased rate of fire at a growing cost in accuracy.  I-AC/2 and /5s fire Bursts of six rounds per Turn, I-AC/10s fire Bursts of four, and I-AC/20s Bursts of two.

              Heat     Dam              Range     Ammo    Wt        Space          Tech
Weapon          Std(Aero)      Std (Aero)       M/S/M/L (Aero)    (barrel)  (tons)   M  E  CV  SV  F  SC  DS Rating
I-AC/2                 0*(0*)              2(2)            4/6/12/18 (Long)      45          3       1   2    1     1    1   1     1      F
I-AC/5                 0*(0*)              5(5)         3/5/10/15 (Medium)    20          4       1   3    1     2    1   1     1      F
I-AC/10                1(1)              10(10)        0/4/8/12 (Medium)     10          6       1   4    1     4    1   1     1      F
I-AC/20                3(3)              20(20)           0/3/6/9 (Short)          5          7       2    -    1     8    1   1     1      F
* - See Notes

Notes:
•   I-ACs are able to use special- and mixed ammo, in any order and any type except Caseless.  Players must record the type of ammo in order of firing.
•   I-ACs may fire single rounds or in Bursts.  Players must specify the number of rounds to be fired before the weapon is fired.
•   Heat is cumulative with each shell fired.  I-AC/2s and /5s do not generate heat for single shots; for each multiple of 2 rounds fired, one heat is generated.
•   Damage is allocated by shell, in order of rounds fired, following the rules for specialty ammo.
•   I-ACs roll on the Cluster Hits table to determine the number of rounds that hit the target.
•   I-ACs may fire a single round or Bursts.  When firing a single Burst, I-ACs do not receive a to-hit penalty and roll on the Cluster Hits table normally.
•   I-ACs may fire up to four Bursts in a single Turn, but players must make a to-hit roll for each Burst with a cumulative to-hit penalty.  Each Burst after the first requires its own to-hit roll (with a cumulative +2 to-hit penalty) and Cluster Hit table roll.
Ex.  An I-AC/2 needs a 3 to hit.  Because the to-hit number is low, the owner decides to risk the maximum number of Bursts in an attempt to kill his target.  The first Burst, without a to-hit penalty, requires a 3 (3+0), which the Player makes easily.  Rolling on the Cluster Hits table, he sees five have hit the target.  Checking the list of ammunition, he sees that all are standard rounds, and rolls hit locations for all five before proceeding.
The second Burst suffers from the first cumulative penalty, requiring a 5 (3+0+2).  Rolling on the Cluster Hits table, he finds that five more standard rounds have hit the target, and rolls hit locations for all five before proceeding.
The third Burst requires a 7 (3+0+2+2), which he makes narrowly.  Checking against the Cluster Hits table he finds 3 rounds hit the target and rolls locations for all three.
The fourth Burst brings him to his first specialty ammunition, a six-round Burst of Precision ammo.  (Note the added mass of the specialty ammo has no effect on the I-AC/2.)  The ammunition provides a –2 to-hit modifier, giving him a to-hit number of 7 (3+0+2+2+2-2) for the second time.  If the fourth Burst had been standard ammo, it would have been a 9 (3+0+2+2+2).
•   If a Burst contains mixed ammunition types each round must be individually rolled in the order of firing and a hit location determined before going on to the next Burst.

[Caedis Animus]

The only buff I've ever wanted to see for standard autocannons was reducing the size of the AC/10 to LB10X standards and increasing the range to LBX autocannon ranges.

[SteelRaven]

The only buff I've ever wanted to see for standard autocannons was reducing the size of the AC/10 to LB10X standards and increasing the range to LBX autocannon ranges.

... Or use a LBX.

[Caedis Animus]

... Or use a LBX.

LBX Autocannons cannot use Precision or AP ammunition.

[RifleMech]

I like Autocannons. In part because they're on some of my favorite units but also because I like Dakka!

AC/s also great for units that don't have Fusion of Fission Engines, especially for vehicles. Power Amplifiers and Heat Sinks add extra weight. While AC/s, and Missiles don't generate heat on vehicles. Even for LowTech Mechs that extra weight adds up.

Field Guns!  >:D

Alternate rules also lets AC/s rapid fire. Risky but if you're lucky, effective. They can also walk their fire. Good against lightly armored targets, and a another reason why they should be more effective against infantry.

When it comes to changes;
In the time line I would have all the alternative ammos in use by the Star League, with some going extinct and then being reintroduced after the Clan Invasion. I would have Clan Improved Weapons slowly starting to replace the old IS Standards by 3150. I'd also have AC/s being replaced by Gauss Cannons by 3250. AC/s'll never be completely gone but they'd be more 2nd Line weapons.

For rules changes, I'd change how they damage infantry. Autocannons fire multiple rounds so they should be capable of killing more than just 1 infantry at a time, 2 for the AC/20. Beyond that I would have more alternative ammo available sooner.

However, I did play around with ACs getting Precision and AP effects against support level units, with sub-par armor, like Primitive, or anything made at Tech level C, B, or A.  With something like that, you could then see why the AC/5 replaced the rifle cannon for ground units before the advent of the Mech.

I think having more than three times the ammo of the Heavy Rifle Cannon might have something to do with why the AC/5 replaced it. Not right away but once the HRC's damage is reduced and it loses its extra penetration chance then the AC/5 looks more favorable. Conversely I can see the Light Rifle Cannon being better in an anti-infantry role than the AC/2. Yes, they have less than half the ammo and range but they also weigh half as much. That means they can carry more ammo and other equipment. Their doing zero damage to BAR8-10 armors is a big drawback so I would think they'd be more in use by militia's but the LRC's light weight does allow for a back up weapon.

A rule change I'd make for Rifles would be to give them alternate ammos. I'd also legalize Tank Cannons.  And I'd create vehicle size Recoiless Rifles.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Might want to move this over to Fan Rules at this point, guys...

[SteelRaven]

LBX Autocannons cannot use Precision or AP ammunition.

I really don't care for ether.

[Daemion]

Realistically, trying to integrate ever single ammo capability known to man (in BT: Tracers, Flak, Flechette, Caseless, AP, and Flechettes) would end with an excessively expensive round with none of those abilities.

That sounds like Level-2 overbalance rules design talking.

I'm suggesting that the Star League, in my head-canon, had already done just that.  I'll continue this part of the discussion in the 'Visualizing BT Weapons' thread.

As for keeping ACs around:
I'd like to point out that one of the things that could have made stock ACs a good thing is Anti-Vehicle and Anti-personnel capabilities. Without the specialty ammo under Total Warfare, the AC/5 is no better at anti-infantry work, or ant-aircraft work, than, say, the light PPC.  I'm surprised that with the LB-x, we didn't see an attempt at creating bird or buck shot rounds for the stock ACs so that they could do crit/motive work.  It seems the versatility, the capacity of a swiss army knife weapon, through ammo types is what make ACs interesting.

edit: It's just that with the extra ammo types allowing you to perform such roles better, you have to dedicate an ammo slot, and there are some Mechs with only one slot. Hence the notion that some of this should be available in an expensive round which can 'do it all'.

Aside - The Light PPC is a weapon I'd wish had been around during the succession wars or during the Star League, because a stock Wasp or Stinger could take advantage of speed and dictating range, rather than having to close with its normal list of weapons, and risk being at short range for some of the bigger guns in order to get a decent shot.  Not a good thing when High target modifiers are what keep you alive.

[Sartris]

I really don't care for ether.

The +1 on AP, half ammo, and harder crits really dampen the utility for me. I’ve had a few spectacular successes with the AC/20 but you really need something like a BNC-3Q with a giant magazine to take advantage

Precision I find indispensable using older units in later eras. Cutting down big TMMs, especially when you have mediums and heavies that can generate +3 or better

[Retry]

That sounds like Level-2 overbalance rules design talking.

No, engineering reality.

And I say that as a person who is really not a fan of overbalancing high-tech.

Unless you invent TARDIS technology and apply it to make your shell bigger on the inside, you're limited by the shape and space of the shell and practical concerns (adding all your features cannot let your shell look like swiss cheese).

You could make a good APBC-T round.  You could make a good APFSDS round.  You could make a good tandem-charge HEAT or maybe a Proximity HE round.  But you're not going to get a good APBCFSDSHEATP-T round.

[RifleMech]

That sounds like Level-2 overbalance rules design talking.

I'm suggesting that the Star League, in my head-canon, had already done just that.  I'll continue this part of the discussion in the 'Visualizing BT Weapons' thread.

As for keeping ACs around:
I'd like to point out that one of the things that could have made stock ACs a good thing is Anti-Vehicle and Anti-personnel capabilities. Without the specialty ammo under Total Warfare, the AC/5 is no better at anti-infantry work, or ant-aircraft work, than, say, the light PPC.  I'm surprised that with the LB-x, we didn't see an attempt at creating bird or buck shot rounds for the stock ACs so that they could do crit/motive work.  It seems the versatility, the capacity of a swiss army knife weapon, through ammo types is what make ACs interesting.

edit: It's just that with the extra ammo types allowing you to perform such roles better, you have to dedicate an ammo slot, and there are some Mechs with only one slot. Hence the notion that some of this should be available in an expensive round which can 'do it all'.

Way back when, specialty ammo only existed in the fluff or for the LB-X. The description for the LB-X was also more of a shotgun instead of just an improved, longer ranged AC. Thinking about it now, I'd give AC/s Cluster Ammo and LB-X the other types with a mark up for the ammo. The LB-X would need a bonus for the other ammos though and maybe some optional rules to make it more distinctive from the AC. For example an optional Double Barrel rule to keep the shotgun feel. I've also considered an optional Gast gun and Gatling Gun rules for the AC.

Aside - The Light PPC is a weapon I'd wish had been around during the succession wars or during the Star League, because a stock Wasp or Stinger could take advantage of speed and dictating range, rather than having to close with its normal list of weapons, and risk being at short range for some of the bigger guns in order to get a decent shot.  Not a good thing when High target modifiers are what keep you alive.

I don't see why it shouldn't be. There is the smaller Support Particle Cannon which is on a vehicle. I don't think it should eclipse the main variants though. It should provide cover fire for scouts not doing the scouting.