Only 5 Free Heatsinks

[blueratel413]

Anyone who plays Battletech often complains that energy weapons are too good. The problem isn't that their weight-to-heat ratio isn't balanced in isolation but out of isolation the internal heatsinks mean it becomes way too good. I will focus on CBT because DHS makes these issues worse.

Let me show you the math.
Name, Damage, Heat, Weapon Weight, Total Weight after heat neutral, DMG/Weight Ratio
SL, 3 DMG, 1 Heat, 0.5 tons, 1.5 tons, 3/1.5 = 2
ML, 5 DMG, 3 Heat, 1 tons, 4 tons, 5/4 = 1.25
LL, 8 DMG, 8 Heat, 5 tons, 13 tons, 8/13 = 0.61
PPC, 10 DMG, 10 Heat, 7 tons, 17 tons. 10/17 = 0.59

Note: I have included enough ammo for 20 shots and used HBS damage values 5/8/12/20
AC2, 5 DMG, 1 Heat, 6 tons, 0.5 ton ammo, 7.5 tons, 5/7.5 = 0.66
AC5, 8 DMG, 1 Heat, 8 tons, 1 ton ammo, 10 tons, 8/10 = 0.80
AC10, 12 DMG, 3 Heat, 12 tons, 2 tons ammo, 17 tons, 12/17 = 0.70
AC20, 20 DMG, 7 Heat, 14 tons, 4 tons ammo, 25 tons, 20/25 = 0.80

Note: I include enough enough ammo for 20 shots.
SRM2, 0-4 DMG, 2 Heat, 1 ton, 0.5 tons ammo, 3.5 tons, 2/3.5 = 0.57
SRM4, 0-8 DMG, 3 Heat, 2 tons, 1 ton ammo, 6 tons, 4/6 = 0.66
SRM6, 0-12 DMG, 4 Heat, 3 tons, 1 ton ammo, 8 tons, 6/8 = 0.75
LRM5, 0-5 DMG, 2 Heat, 2 tons, 1 tons ammo, 5 tons, 2.5/5 = 0.5
LRM10, 0-10 DMG, 4 Heat, 5 tons, 2 tons ammo, 11 tons, 5/11 = 0.45
LRM15 0-15 DMG, 5 Heat, 7 tons, 2.5 tons ammo, 14.5 tons. 7.5/14.5 = 0.52
LRM20, 0-20 DMG, 6 Heat, 10 tons, 3.5 tons ammo, 19.5 tons, 10/19.5 = 0.51

All of them have reasonable Damage to weight ratios, those with lower ratios have the bonus of being harder hitting or hitting further. The problem is that the 10 internal heat sinks are too much, it leaves any mech with AC oversinked (consider the WVR-6R generates a max of 13 heat if they jump and alpha with 12 heat sinks) and makes energy weapons from good to great.
SL, 3 DMG, 1 Heat, 0.5 tons, 0 tons, 3/0.5 = 6
ML, 5 DMG, 3 Heat, 1 tons, 0 tons, 5/1 = 5
LL, 8 DMG, 8 Heat, 5 tons, 0 tons, 8/5 = 1.6
PPC, 10 DMG, 10 Heat, 7 tons, 0 tons. 10/7 = 1.43

In comparison, the damage to weight values for AC.
AC2, 5 DMG, 1 Heat, 6 tons, 0.5 ton ammo, 6.5 tons, 5/6.5 = 0.77
AC5, 8 DMG, 1 Heat, 8 tons, 1 ton ammo, 9 tons, 8/9 = 0.88
AC10, 12 DMG, 3 Heat, 12 tons, 2 tons ammo, 14 tons, 12/14 = 0.85
AC20, 20 DMG, 7 Heat, 14 tons, 4 tons ammo, 18 tons, 20/18 = 1.11

My fan rule change is reducing the free heat sinks from 10 to 5. Every other rule stays the same. You still get an extra free heat sink for every 25 engine ratings above 250 and need to place an internal sink for below 250. DHS still double the heatsinks. 5 free heat sinks instead of 10 means that the choice to jump or run is a choice instead of hopping around like a bunny on crack.
What do you all think?

[Speedbump]

Your damage to rate ratio calculation is slightly underestimating missiles(a little more than half the missiles hit on average) and more importantly the comparison appears to be completely ignoring range. The AC5 isn't competing against medium lasers, it's competing against PPCs and it a lesser extent LRMs. Now it's perfectly valid to say that you want ballistic weapons to have a better damage to weight ratio than energy weapons because ammo explosions are a devestating weakness in a pre-CASE techbase, but if you're doing that you probably need to buff missiles as well. Side note, but HBS battletech made a slight tweak to internal structure insure you needed the equivalent of 12.1 damage to destroy a fully armoured head so that the AC10 wasn't a headcapper. You don't necessarily have to do the same, but I thought it was worth pointing out for anyone borrowing those numbers.

As for reducing base heat sinks, it won't necessarily break anything, but it will make armour even better vs weapons as a design trade off in a game where alot of people already recommend you take near max armour as the first thing on a new design. Do you want to slow a game down such that two assault mech slugging away at eacher takes even longer? If you actively want mechs to feel more like titanic war machines that take alot of beating to finish off then fair enough, but historically alot of the advanced equipment introduced on both sides of the Clan invasion seems to have been designed to push things to be more lethal to speed games up.

Also, tweaking base heatsink numbers is one of those changes where you basically have to redesign most mechs if you want them to make sense and even if you don't you need to re-write every record sheet. That shouldn't stop you from doing it if that work will improve your game enough, but if you're at that point you're also at the point where you can do things like tweak tonnage values for weapons at the same time.

[Daryk]

I approached the problem this way: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,62762.0.html

Granted, that really only partially ameliorates it...

[Zematus737]

Considering the Wolverine, as a 55 ton mech is getting 11 spaces in the engine for free non-crit space heat sinks, it is hardly the best example of heat efficiency being too good as it is an excellent candidate for high heat weaponry by its engine size and high rate of movement that overcomes the short fall of laser range and lack of custom ammo options.  Double heat sinks will take up 3 slots for Inner Sphere, possibly causing many fitting issues with larger mechs and their load-outs getting tighter and tighter.  The wolverine can fit the doubles, but, like I said, it is a good engine size for it's weapons and weight.  Not the best example of a laser platform as a baseline for comparison, as it's only sporting 1 med laser and the rest is low heat A/C.  The WVR-7K is the better example, but you'll see it is forced to use the XL engine to support the weight of the loadout and remains mostly a player within short range engagements.

The 10, while being free, still demands that engine rating division of 25 to find the amount of free sinks that don't require critical slots.  The Wolvering at 275/25=11 is probably not the fairest example of free sinks being OP.  While other mechs have to remain with a tight weight restriction on their loadouts, and the larger mechs worry with critical space limitations, medium mechs have a unique position to diversify their options in a much less stressful way.

[RifleMech]

I don't think that would help as it would invalidate designs that were maxed out of crit space and weight. What would help is to make ballistics more competitive against energy weapons and I think the key to that resides in the old Solaris VII Override Delay rules. Basically rapid fire.

Solaris VII has 2.5 second turns and weapons can only fire so often as they need to cool. They can override that at a risk. In BT time the AC/2 can fire 4 times without delay. The AC/5 can fire twice.

This rule does apply to energy weapons too but there's the heat. Each weapon generates heat when it's fired plus the heat times it's Override Delay number. The AC/2 has a Overide delay of 0. If can fire 4 times per BT turn generating 4 points of heat with no further problems. The AC/5 has a delay of 1. It can fire twice per BT turn with no problems for 2 heat.  To fire 3 times that third shot would generate 1 heat + (1 heat x Overide #) for 2 heat and then have to roll for any damage, which would be a +2 +O# for a +3. Get that and the AC/5 is toast and you have to roll for to see if the ammo explodes which is a +6.

For a Large Laser with an Override # of 2 would generate 8 heat for firing, plus 16 heat for overriding the delay for a total of 24 heat. A PPC with an O#3 would generate 40 heat if it fired twice per turn. A and an ER PPC would generate 60 heat! Those heat numbers aren't something a mech with DHS is going to want to do very often. If ever! This rule makes the AC/5 is very competitive with the PPC and the AC/2 with the LL. At least as long as the ammo lasts.

Where the Override Delay would need work converting to BT scale is the time. (And to include all weapons.) Technically any weapon with a Override delay of 2 or less can fire twice a BT 10 second turn. So the rule would need some tweaking to avoid keeping track of quarter turns.

Large Laser with Override 2
10 second BT Turn
2.5 sec, 2.5 sec,  2.5 sec,   2.5 sec
Fire!       Wait,       Wait,      Fire!

Still, the LL firing twice a turn generates 16 heat generate per BT turn. That's crippling with SHS and rough for DHS if you want to fire anything else. But for ballistics, especially the lighter ones, it's a huge help. With this rule mechs like the Vulcan and Blackjack aren't just for plinking, and the Shadow Hawk isn't in a hurry to ditch it's AC for a PPC. And AC carriers like the JagerMech, Pike and Partisan get scary. Even the Urbie gets more dangerous as the AC/10 can fire twice per round with no problem.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

What do you all think?

I don't think that it's meaningful at all, for it results almost nothing positive, but have a bunch of negatives.

All it does is, just adds +5 tons for DHS mechs/ASFs when they want to reduce 20 heat per turn. At this, still starting to 150 grade engine DHS uses smaller internal size in overall compared by single heat sink, while it's still weights 10 tons less, and still leaves SHS inferior to DHS.

Also I worry that it only makes the weaker units even worse. Yes it reduces the performance of units with DHS, but it's a flat 5 tons reduction, means while the heavier units are not so affected by that too much but the lighter chassis such as medium and light units are suffer a fatal blow with this. For a 100 tons, 5 tons is mere a 5%, but for a 50 tons, it's 10%. For 25 tons? It's 20%. While the endo steel frame gives spare weight to the same chassis by 5 tons, 2.5 tons and 1.0 ton.

And it allows a glitch, that DHS uses smaller internal size on a 75 or more grade engine than a SHS and also has 5 tons less when you want to reduce 10 heat per turn, means for the unit with low heat that don't needs to reduce more than 10 heat and smaller engine DHS is even better with this while units with SHS would be required to change the heat sink to DHS or thirst for more spare space and weight. Yes it means even for just reduce 10 heat DHS is still far better choice.

So, seriously, I don't think that it's something good enough, and also the side effect would be too dangerous as well. Especially for the weaker units.

edit: I have a suggestion for the alternative solution for this. What about to limit the free heat sink for DHS only, while you are need to have 10 heat sinks at least anyways? Although it doesn't do much for the superiority of DHS, and it still have the problem for weaken the lighter chassis with DHS so it needs more to fix those problems, but at least it doesn't harm the chassis with SHS.

[Grand_dm]

I think the best solution would just be to make ballistics better for Fan campaigns.

If you need a weapon, ammo and potentially Case they should be more competitive for all that investment.

Back in the 90s, the black summer of DHS virtually ruined our Battletech campaigns. ML spam was everywhere because of DHS in engines.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

I think the best solution would just be to make ballistics better for Fan campaigns.

If you need a weapon, ammo and potentially Case they should be more competitive for all that investment.

Back in the 90s, the black summer of DHS virtually ruined our Battletech campaigns. ML spam was everywhere because of DHS in engines.

Perhaps that is the answer. AC is too weak compared by its various problem. Even for the advanced ACs are not so feasible I think. Still, about the time DHS is available CASE is available too, although they needs CASE II to be properly functional.

[DevianID]

So energy weapons being too good is not solved with fewer heat sinks.  No matter the 'free' heatsinks being 5 or 10, the energy weapon efficiency is the issue.  17 tons for a 0 heat PPC+sinks is less then 19 tons for 2 AC5s and HS+ammo.

The 'fix' to energy weapons lies in the BV system.  We no longer balance by tonnage, so the fact that the PPC is a tad more efficient after HS saturation when balancing by tonnage doesnt matter.  What matters is that 2 ac5s and a ton of ammo is cheaper, in BV, then 1 PPC, because the AC5s have ammo and ammo explosions that drag the BV down (which is good and appropriate).

HBS battletech, the video game, does not balance by BV, but instead balances by tonnage.  In that game, the strongest build is 4 100 ton mechs, and the game is coded to ramp up the players tonnage, trading fast light things for things with more tonnage as a clear upgrade, because tonnage is king in that system.  And in a tonnage balanced video game, they felt they had to buff AC weapons and make energy weapons hotter, due to tonnage balance reasons.  They also massively reduced visual LOS, making long range much weaker because the AI has a hard time dealing with sniping tactics, so the valid tactic of sniping with weak, but longer ranged guns like the ac2 doesnt exist in that video game.

Now, if you dont play a lot with BV, then yes you will find the same issues with a mech like a Jagermech.  However, the Jagermech in BV balanced games is quite good, its ~900 BV, but has 24 sustained damage, and for the same cost or cheaper then many medium or even light mechs.  Its cheaper then a centurion, for example, but outranges the centurion and has almost the same total amount of armor and structure.

Now, even with BV, the BV system is in need of an update.  I have gone on at quite a length about what should be Errata'd for BV to improve the formula.  However, I play a lot of BV balanced games, and I can say very confidently that ACs, like the 5/2, are UNDERCOSTED when using the alternate ammos available to them.  So as soon as you advance past beginner box/intro tech, the AC class of weapon is very deadly.  Flak ammo, available in 3025 but like all alternate ammo not part of introductory tech, makes AC2/5 guns very potent vehicle and plane hunters.  Further, the Flak ac2 is the most efficient anti infantry weapon in 3025, dealing the most damage at long range in that era for the tonnage, let alone the battle value, until you reach range 3 where flamers become amazing.  So while ac2s may feel underwhelming in an introtech mech v mech game, even just using standard rules in 3025, with vehicles and infantry and such, immediately shows why ac2s and 5s are fine, as they are class leading weapons against non-mech targets.

[Grand_dm]

BV is so imperfect though. Any savings for ballistics still don't equal the efficiency of DHS laser spam once mechs hit the game table.

[DevianID]

BV is so imperfect though. Any savings for ballistics still don't equal the efficiency of DHS laser spam once mechs hit the game table.

In what way?  Again, if you are balancing by BV, 5 damage is 5 damage.  But 5 energy damage is more expensive then 5 ballistic damage.  So a mech with 12 machine guns is cheaper then a mech with 8 small lasers, but both have the same damage output.

If you are using tonnage as part of the argument, then 12 machine guns and 1 ton of ammo, versus 14 small lasers, well the small lasers now have more points total in offense.  So, for the same BV, you just get more points in armor or more units when using machine guns instead of small lasers.  A big folly is that the unit with more damage (per same tonnage) is better... but because we dont balance by tonnage, efficient ballistic mechs (and more of them, because they are cheaper), often wins versus max damage laser boats.

On the flip side, its easy to make 'bad' ballistic mechs.  Too much ammo, not enough ammo, ammo poorly placed, ect.  Like, 2 machine guns and 1 ton of ammo is poor optimization because of the ammo bomb.  Or 5+ tons of ammo for one gun, like on some gauss or ac20 units.  The flipside for energy mechs is usually not enough heat sinks, like on the Nova prime which is hilariously over weapon'd.  The nova prime would be a much stronger mech by turning 6 of those ER medium lasers into an lb2x, or literally anything other then that much laser overheat.

[Charistoph]

Perhaps that is the answer. AC is too weak compared by its various problem. Even for the advanced ACs are not so feasible I think. Still, about the time DHS is available CASE is available too, although they needs CASE II to be properly functional.

Pfft, I think Clan CASE should be the standard, honestly.  Then CASE would have the rules for CASE II.  CASE II is then moved so that the single Structure point of Damage just doesn't happen.  CASE III then improves the situation by reducing Pilot Damage by 1.

Still not perfect for ACs.  The Mass/Damage/Range paradigm for Autocannons under the 20 are just off.

[Daryk]

That sounds a lot like how Paul runs his games... but this thread isn't about CASE...

[Retry]

CASE is indirectly relevant to the overarching topic of "energy weapons are better than non-energy weapons", however.

[DevianID]

Still not perfect for ACs.  The Mass/Damage/Range paradigm for Autocannons under the 20 are just off.

Again though, the MASS being worse for autocannons doesnt matter, if you are not balancing your games with tonnage.  It doesnt matter that the ac5 is 'too heavy'... like, yes you need a 65 ton jaegermech to mount 4 ACs, and could mount a similar amount of firepower/armor/structure on a 4/6 45 ton energy only mech... but in the end, they cost the same BV so being 'heavier' didnt matter.  The fact that the jaegermech is 20 tons heavier then a 45 ton mech built with energy weapons doesnt matter if their capabilities are the same... but because Jaegmech's ACs provide BV discounts you get a tad bit more shooting value out of the 900ish BV, but have ammo risks to go with said non-energy discount.

And, when better ammo comes out, those ACs get a whole second lease on life.  Lots of post fedcom civil war era units switch back to standard autocannons to take advantage of the new ammo, and they are great because of it.  But even without precision ammo, just flak ammo alone, available in 3025, is enough of a reason to take ACs.

EDIT: I do want to say, like anything you shouldnt judge poorly optimized designs that mount an AC, and claim its cause of the ac5.  Thats like saying the clan ER medium laser is an overpriced bad gun, because the Nova is so poorly designed.  Like, its not the autocannon5s fault the designers of the marauder put the ammo alone in the side torso... Thats just a terrible place to stick ammo, not a reason never to take ammo.

[Charistoph]

Again though, the MASS being worse for autocannons doesnt matter, if you are not balancing your games with tonnage.  It doesnt matter that the ac5 is 'too heavy'... like, yes you need a 65 ton jaegermech to mount 4 ACs, and could mount a similar amount of firepower/armor/structure on a 4/6 45 ton energy only mech... but in the end, they cost the same BV so being 'heavier' didnt matter.  The fact that the jaegermech is 20 tons heavier then a 45 ton mech built with energy weapons doesnt matter if their capabilities are the same... but because Jaegmech's ACs provide BV discounts you get a tad bit more shooting value out of the 900ish BV, but have ammo risks to go with said non-energy discount.

It does matter because the "lost" mass when mounting these over-weight guns means you cannot be mounting other things like more guns, more Ammo, more Heat Sinks, or more Armor.  That throws things off with both BV AND tonnage variations.

That's partly why Clan Mechs cost a whole lot more than their Inner Sphere counterparts in BV.  Not just because their guns cost more, but because they can either put more guns in, greatly increasing their BV, or they have room to add more Ammo, Heat Sinks (which can double the BV of guns), etc.

Let's take that JagerMech and do a little IICing of it.  Keep everything Standard but the ACs.  I'll use standard MedLas, but use the LB-X ACs as they are the cheapest in BV.  I have 4 tons less, and I'm already 136 BV higher before I even mount anything.

Just going back to Inner Sphere tech and going with "Light ACs", I'm only 18 BV over the standard JM6-S, but I also have 10 tons left to fill.  That's 2 more LAC/5s!

So, yes, lighter ACs will mess with more than just Tonnage comparisons.

A Fusion Engine only providing 5 Heat Sinks does the same thing, only the other way around.  I'm either less effective in combat, and so the BV of Weapons will go down if I don't change anything, or I have to devote more mass to more Heat Sinks which means I have less other equipment to plug in.

[RifleMech]

Let's take that JagerMech and do a little IICing of it.  Keep everything Standard but the ACs.  I'll use standard MedLas, but use the LB-X ACs as they are the cheapest in BV.  I have 4 tons less, and I'm already 136 BV higher before I even mount anything.

How would BV change if using Improved Autocannons with the same weight savings?

[DevianID]

How would BV change if using Improved Autocannons with the same weight savings?

It wouldnt.  I think he is saying that a mech that pays for 6 guns, by using improved autocannons, is better then a mech that pays for 4 guns.  However, thats not how BV works, as the 6 gun mech now costs 150% more offensive BV.  You cant say, in BV, the mech with the highest BV is the 'best' mech.

But yeah, if you just mount heavier guns or lighter guns with free space, your BV doesnt change.  BV only cares about your actual damage.  Thats why the 65 ton Jagermech and a 45 ton mech with equal, but lighter, weapons and a similiar armor/structure total are the same BV.  The fact that the Jagermechs guns are heavier doesnt matter at all r make it worse in any way, just pretend its a medium mech.

[Charistoph]

How would BV change if using Improved Autocannons with the same weight savings?

It doesn't so long as you remember not to include the Clan Case (which adds 36 BV all on their own).  However, that being said, you still have 4 tons to play with.  Do they go to Heat Sinks?  More Ammo?  More Armor?  More Guns?  Most of that will affect BV values.

It wouldnt.  I think he is saying that a mech that pays for 6 guns, by using improved autocannons, is better then a mech that pays for 4 guns.  However, thats not how BV works, as the 6 gun mech now costs 150% more offensive BV.  You cant say, in BV, the mech with the highest BV is the 'best' mech.

But yeah, if you just mount heavier guns or lighter guns with free space, your BV doesnt change.  BV only cares about your actual damage.  Thats why the 65 ton Jagermech and a 45 ton mech with equal, but lighter, weapons and a similiar armor/structure total are the same BV.  The fact that the Jagermechs guns are heavier doesnt matter at all r make it worse in any way, just pretend its a medium mech.

It's more that the weight difference allows for more stuff to be added in, which would increase the BV.

"Better" is all a matter of perspective.

[DevianID]

"Better" is all a matter of perspective.

to loop this back to the OP though, if everything had 5 less heat dissipation, that wont fix any perceived AC versus energy imbalance.  It will make most 3025 designs bad though.  Like, the Orion, which doesnt use energy weapons really, would get crippled with 5 less heat.  But a Davion Warhammer, with its 20 heat sinks, will only lose 25% effectiveness, still outputting most of its damage by nature of starting with more total heat sinks.  Same with a standard hunchback, which would now be at only 8 sinks, versus the 18 sink hunchback 4P.  The 4p will continue to do 10 more damage then the 4g, but you have cut 33% of the 4g's damage, and only 25% of the 4P, making the energy weapon version better with a rule designed to hurt energy weapons. 

Thus, since going to 5 free heat sinks makes energy weapons BETTER, because it leans further into squeezing the most tonnage efficient gear (energy weapons) into a chassis, its even worse for tonnage balancing.  So if you did balance by tonnage (I still think you should use BV), the 5 heat sink rule doesnt help fix tonnage balance issues.

[Retry]

It wouldnt.  I think he is saying that a mech that pays for 6 guns, by using improved autocannons, is better then a mech that pays for 4 guns.  However, thats not how BV works, as the 6 gun mech now costs 150% more offensive BV.  You cant say, in BV, the mech with the highest BV is the 'best' mech.

But yeah, if you just mount heavier guns or lighter guns with free space, your BV doesnt change.  BV only cares about your actual damage.  Thats why the 65 ton Jagermech and a 45 ton mech with equal, but lighter, weapons and a similiar armor/structure total are the same BV.  The fact that the Jagermechs guns are heavier doesnt matter at all r make it worse in any way, just pretend its a medium mech.

Think that logic is backwards.  The Jagermech is not "good" because it has the BV of a lighter weight class 'Mech, it's a bad 'Mech and it consequently ends up with a BV more aligned with a good medium 'Mech.

If BV efficiency is your exclusive measure of a good 'Mech then you basically need to avoid equipment options that overvalue their BV (Ultra ACs, ) and take options that undervalue their BV (LB-X ACs, MMLs).

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

It does matter because the "lost" mass when mounting these over-weight guns means you cannot be mounting other things like more guns, more Ammo, more Heat Sinks, or more Armor.  That throws things off with both BV AND tonnage variations.

Well doesn't it means it makes its BV cost lower, actually? Yes because it's inferior, but it seems that BV does represents its inferiority. And remember that clanner ACs are not only lighter, but have the longer arm as well, that is also counted for its BV.

-------------------------------------
That said I wonder why CASE isn't a starting point to begin with. I know it's not so easy to make it on the mech, but hey, AC groups are too penalized even with CASE II. Although it's cheaper in BV, but those are cheaper for a reason.

[Grand_dm]

I only brought up CASE because it's yet another thing you need to invest in when using ammunition fed weapons.

Weapon - Ammo - CASE

And using RAW, with no fan rules, ballistics still trail behind, BV or not.

All I know from a practical standpoint is that energy and DHS still rules the school. At least at the game tables I frequent.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

But even if DHS is banished for good I have no interest in using AC as the primary weapon. At least no for AC/2/5/10/20 and its kins. Not to mention that ACs are do need for the heat sink as well, not only its already heavy weight and big size, as well as ammunitions. Removing DHS is not a good news for the AC either.

[Charistoph]

Well doesn't it means it makes its BV cost lower, actually? Yes because it's inferior, but it seems that BV does represents its inferiority. And remember that clanner ACs are not only lighter, but have the longer arm as well, that is also counted for its BV.

Units with less equipment do have lower BV costs.  What BV savings you may gain by using a lighter weapon are lost when you add in more equipment that lighter equipment provides.

What the Improved Autocannons did was just reduce the mass of the gun.  The Range stays the same.  The Heat stays the same.  Obviously the Damage remains the same.

So while swapping out to Improved ACs doesn't change the BV of a Jagermech on its own, being able to add in 4 more tons of equipment will.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Units with less equipment do have lower BV costs.  What BV savings you may gain by using a lighter weapon are lost when you add in more equipment that lighter equipment provides.

What the Improved Autocannons did was just reduce the mass of the gun.  The Range stays the same.  The Heat stays the same.  Obviously the Damage remains the same.

So while swapping out to Improved ACs doesn't change the BV of a Jagermech on its own, being able to add in 4 more tons of equipment will.

Then,

Again though, the MASS being worse for autocannons doesnt matter, if you are not balancing your games with tonnage.  It doesnt matter that the ac5 is 'too heavy'... like, yes you need a 65 ton jaegermech to mount 4 ACs, and could mount a similar amount of firepower/armor/structure on a 4/6 45 ton energy only mech... but in the end, they cost the same BV so being 'heavier' didnt matter.  The fact that the jaegermech is 20 tons heavier then a 45 ton mech built with energy weapons doesnt matter if their capabilities are the same... but because Jaegmech's ACs provide BV discounts you get a tad bit more shooting value out of the 900ish BV, but have ammo risks to go with said non-energy discount.

And, when better ammo comes out, those ACs get a whole second lease on life.  Lots of post fedcom civil war era units switch back to standard autocannons to take advantage of the new ammo, and they are great because of it.  But even without precision ammo, just flak ammo alone, available in 3025, is enough of a reason to take ACs.

EDIT: I do want to say, like anything you shouldnt judge poorly optimized designs that mount an AC, and claim its cause of the ac5.  Thats like saying the clan ER medium laser is an overpriced bad gun, because the Nova is so poorly designed.  Like, its not the autocannon5s fault the designers of the marauder put the ammo alone in the side torso... Thats just a terrible place to stick ammo, not a reason never to take ammo.

...you should agreed on that reply earlier, isn't? I don't want to say who is correct and who is wrong. But... isn't 'adding more weapons actually raise BV' means balancing by BV is better and you shouldn't balancing by tonnage as DeviantID said? Because since it would be got expensive on BV, so you gonna take the less numbers of units... or at least less numbers of better units.

Well I do see both of you have some point. As a PoV of a war game player, I do understand that even the obviously inferior choice is actually handy for sometimes, due to its lower point makes its niche(literally). Sometimes even the discounted point due to the flaw can be mitiageted and you can legally cheat the cost too. But as a PoV of the individual pilot, the lance leader, or the commander? You want to pack as much as possible, so you will be thirst for the best of the best among what you can get. Neither of you are actually wrong. You just have the difference in the priority.

[Charistoph]

...you should agreed on that reply earlier, isn't? I don't want to say who is correct and who is wrong. But... isn't 'adding more weapons actually raise BV' means balancing by BV is better and you shouldn't balancing by tonnage as DeviantID said? Because since it would be got expensive on BV, so you gonna take the less numbers of units... or at least less numbers of better units.

It wasn't an argument of which balance system is better, just pointing out that lightening ACs will affect the current balance, over all, no matter which system you use.

Well I do see both of you have some point. As a PoV of a war game player, I do understand that even the obviously inferior choice is actually handy for sometimes, due to its lower point makes its niche(literally). Sometimes even the discounted point due to the flaw can be mitiageted and you can legally cheat the cost too. But as a PoV of the individual pilot, the lance leader, or the commander? You want to pack as much as possible, so you will be thirst for the best of the best among what you can get. Neither of you are actually wrong. You just have the difference in the priority.

And sometimes that better simply isn't available due to the scenario, unfortunately.  And if you're stuck with Introtech for "reasons", having access to that alternate Ammo available for Autcannons (and LRMs in Semi-Guided case) can go a very long way.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Oh, I understand.

[blueratel413]

I am happy to see such a response. I acknowledge that yes, reducing heat sinks don’t make energy weapons magically better than ballisticor missile ones (I just don’t think that is possible without major changes). Especially if the mechs used weapons with two different range brackets (classic PPC + 3 ML).  But I couldn’t stand all the canon mech designs that were oversinked to the point that there was no point in walking/running because jumping didn’t build enough heat to seriously have any drawbacks.

Now for my replies.

If you actively want mechs to feel more like titanic war machines that take alot of beating to finish off then fair enough, but historically alot of the advanced equipment introduced on both sides of the Clan invasion seems to have been designed to push things to be more lethal to speed games up.

Also, tweaking base heatsink numbers is one of those changes where you basically have to redesign most mechs if you want them to make sense and even if you don't you need to re-write every record sheet. That shouldn't stop you from doing it if that work will improve your game enough, but if you're at that point you're also at the point where you can do things like tweak tonnage values for weapons at the same time.

I did want the game to feel more like the lore, where duels are meant to last hours. Also some canonical designs are pretty garbage.

I don't think that would help as it would invalidate designs that were maxed out of crit space and weight. What would help is to make ballistics more competitive against energy weapons and I think the key to that resides in the old Solaris VII Override Delay rules. Basically rapid fire.

I agree, but adding Solaris rules is adding more math. Reducing the free heat sinks has no increased math, just different numbers.

Also I worry that it only makes the weaker units even worse.

Does the rule change affect light units more, yes. Free heat sinks allows light mechs to add pretty heavy energy weapons without drawbacks (I am of the opinion that light mechs should only ever have energy weapons). By reducing the free heat sinks it makes heat more of an issue, so light mechs are forced to choose between firing weapons or moving. DHS are supposed to be better than SHS. I don’t dispute that. It is why I haven’t included it my calculations.

edit: I have a suggestion for the alternative solution for this. What about to limit the free heat sink for DHS only, while you are need to have 10 heat sinks at least anyways? Although it doesn't do much for the superiority of DHS, and it still have the problem for weaken the lighter chassis with DHS so it needs more to fix those problems, but at least it doesn't harm the chassis with SHS.

I am a bit confused here. Are you suggesting that every mech can’t replace the free engine sinks with DHS? so with DHS, they have 10 free SHS + however many DHS they install?

HBS battletech, the video game, does not balance by BV, but instead balances by tonnage.  In that game, the strongest build is 4 100 ton mechs, and the game is coded to ramp up the players tonnage, trading fast light things for things with more tonnage as a clear upgrade, because tonnage is king in that system.  And in a tonnage balanced video game, they felt they had to buff AC weapons and make energy weapons hotter, due to tonnage balance reasons.  They also massively reduced visual LOS, making long range much weaker because the AI has a hard time dealing with sniping tactics, so the valid tactic of sniping with weak, but longer ranged guns like the ac2 doesnt exist in that video game.

I honestly agree. Balancing by tonnage feels more lore appropriate.

It will make most 3025 designs bad though.  Like, the Orion, which doesnt use energy weapons really, would get crippled with 5 less heat.  But a Davion Warhammer, with its 20 heat sinks, will only lose 25% effectiveness, still outputting most of its damage by nature of starting with more total heat sinks. 

I am of the opinion most introtech mechs are supposed to be bad. Especially compared with the later designs. As for the Orion, the canonical design is actually great. The canonical 6D is another one those mechs that are oversinked.

Same with a standard hunchback, which would now be at only 8 sinks, versus the 18 sink hunchback 4P.  The 4p will continue to do 10 more damage then the 4g, but you have cut 33% of the 4g's damage, and only 25% of the 4P, making the energy weapon version better with a rule designed to hurt energy weapons. 

are we not considering heat? Consider this, the 4G firing AC20 +2 ML = 13 Heat + run = 15 Heat - 8 SHS = 7 Heat. The 4P firing 8ML + run = 26 Heat - 18 SHS = 8 Heat (-1 MP). Yes, the ability to do 10 points of damage is still more powerful, but I think the ability to concentrate 20 points on a target is an acceptable tradeoff.

I agree that updating BV to closer to tonnage should happen. How it be done is beyond me, but it should be done.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Does the rule change affect light units more, yes. Free heat sinks allows light mechs to add pretty heavy energy weapons without drawbacks (I am of the opinion that light mechs should only ever have energy weapons). By reducing the free heat sinks it makes heat more of an issue, so light mechs are forced to choose between firing weapons or moving. DHS are supposed to be better than SHS. I don’t dispute that. It is why I haven’t included it my calculations.

Well, light mechs are already had the hard time to be viable. I don't think that vote for nerf them would be makes the game better.

Also running only requires 2 heat, only 1 more than walk, and it have nothing to do with the firing.

I am a bit confused here. Are you suggesting that every mech can’t replace the free engine sinks with DHS? so with DHS, they have 10 free SHS + however many DHS they install?

No, I mean;
Mechs with normal heat sink: have 10 heat sink for free.
Mechs with double heat sink: have 5 DHS for free, and also have to take 5 more DHS but the weight of those DHS are must be counted separately.