If a weapon that's lightweight and reaches at least 18 hexes is your design criteria, the LPPC, Mech Mortar 1, LRM-5, MML-3, MML-5, Thunderbolt-5, and NLRM-5 all accomplish the goal for less weight. All but the LPPC has a lower up-front cost. Most of them are more effective weapon systems in-general (MMLs, LPPC, NLRMs). Some have a tech level that is the same (MML-3, -5) or even lower (LRM-5, MM-1) and are thus easier to maintain on the field.
The thing that's been bugging me more & more in the whole "autocannons suck, energy weapons rule!" debate is that everything is working off of the "they're an island unto themselves". That is, when people look at the weapons (damage, slots, tonnage, etc.), they only consider the weapons themselves...& not the heat they're generating.
...No?
When I said "The Partisan can replace the AC5s with PPCs and become cheaper", "The Annihilator can replace the AC10s with LLs and be as effective with a massive armor bonus", and other such examples, I was in fact considering the weapon systems
as a whole: With all those necessary accessories like ammunition, heat sinks, and power amplifiers.
I'm not too interested in going through yet another 10 pages of arguing about the ACs, so hopefully this can be kept brief.
Even on BattleMechs & other units that track heat for every weapon, though, it's as if everyone ignores that particular aspect of it. "Well, I've already decided how many heat sinks I'm going to have on it, so I'll just load up a ton of MLs & other energy weapons anyway to maximize my tonnage". That kind of attitude, though, gets you the Clan Nova Prime. Yes, 12 Clan EMLs are a nasty weapons load to face...but if the Clanner jumps & Alpha Strikes, he's sitting at 29 heat (with a good chance of being shut down for a turn). If she manages to maintain fire discipline, she can fire 7 of those on 1 turn (still a nasty combo) & only go up 4 on the scale, but then she's limited to only firing 6 of them for 4 straight turns before hitting 0 on the scale. That means those unfired 6 EMLs are at best "backup" weapons; at worst, they're wasted tonnage.
I agree that the Clan Nova Prime is a poor design. Poor designs are not unique to energy weapons (see any design with those so-called "torso bombs"). That machine's flaws is particularly easy to fix: Throw out 4 of the lasers for heat sinks for continuous firing. The new machine is actually more useful and BV goes
down by nearly 400 points. (C-Bills also sees a slight discount)
This seems like a bit of a side-show though. I don't really see how a bad design that happens to use energy weapons is a point in favor of the autocannon.
"But wait!"(you say), "BattleMechs come with free heat sinks anyway, so you don't have to worry about those first ones!" Well, that's partially correct. Sure, you can take those heat sinks into account for comparisons, but you have certain issues. But which weapon do you pick first to use those "free" heat sinks: the weapon that uses the most heat? highest BV? highest max damage? longest range? That can make a big difference. And trying to compare based on a specific design or model gets deep into the weeds, given the myriad of configurations out there.
Which is why, when I usually compare the different weapons, I consider both how much ammo the ballistic & missile weapons need to meet 'legal' design requirements (i.e. 10 shots/salvos, 20 for Ultras, etc.), & how many extra tons/slots they need for the heat sinks needed to fire them. I also look at how you can pair up some of the ammo-dependent weapons, particularly the ones with more than 10 shots/salvos per ton of ammo.
We're in agreement here. When doing a comparison between the two, I generally go for "worst case" or "near worst case" scenarios where the new weapon needs to arrive fully sinked.
Example 1: the "horrible" AC/5 vs. the PPC. Both weapons happen to be installed on the BNC-3C Banshee, & both have the same range envelope, so they're fairly easy to compare. The standard comparison would say the AC/5 is weak compared to the PPC because it's "heavier" & "takes up more space". Once you factor in the heat sinks, though, it becomes quite a different story. A PPC generates 10 heat, so it needs 10 heat sinks added on. That raises its tonnage to 17 (7 tons PPC + 10 tons SHS) & its slots to 13 (3 PPC + 10 SHS). The AC/5, however, requires 10 tons (8 tons AC + 1 ton SHS + 1 ton ammo) & 6 slots (4 AC + 1 SHS + 1 ammo). So, the AC/5 takes up 59% of the tonnage & 46% of the slots of a PPC, while dealing half the damage. Since that ton of ammo provided 20 shots, however, we can also evaluate a "double AC" installation with 2 AC/5s. That takes up 19 tons (16 tons ACs + 2 tons SHS + 1 ton ammo) & 11 slots (8 AC + 2 SHS + 1 ammo). In this case, it takes 112% of the tonnage & 85% of the slots for twin AC/5s to deal the same damage as a PPC.
We're looking at the same data and coming to two fundamentally different conclusions. While you think this shows that the AC/5 is not so bad after all, I'm seeing my position verified.
Since I do a lot of things with campaigns, I'll put it another way.
Let's say I'm some sort of big wig who manages the supplies and military hardware of my nation-state, Chief quartermaster or whatever. A significant proportion of my supply line consists of logistical support for the AC/5; not just the ammunition but the infrastructure such as the supply dumps and ammunition trucks necessary to keep the autocannons stocked in the field.
A weapons manufacturing company with a new weapon in the works has requested a meeting with me to discuss the future of my nation-state's next-generation military hardware. IOW, he's selling his product to me. He's aiming to overthrow the AC/5's niche so he can sell his weapon and presents the following bullet-points in favour of it:
- Almost every 2 instance of the AC/5 can be replaced with the new weapon for equivalent effectiveness (range & overall damage).
Applies vehicles like the Pike AC5 and the Partisan, as well as mechs like the Cataphract 4X and Emperor 5A - Certain existing single-AC/5 designs may still be capable of accepting a PPC + some heat sinks as a replacement and come out ahead as an overall weapon system. (Hunchback 4N, Sentinel 3K, Shadow Hawks, Wolverine 6R all come to mind)
- Replacing the two AC/5 weapon system in this fashion will reduce the effective weapon system's weight by 2 tons or more (depending on the original's ammo load)
- Replacing the two AC/5 weapon system in this fashion will reduce the up-front C-Bill cost of next-generation battlemechs
- Replacing the two AC/5 weapon system in this fashion will reduce the operational cost of the next-generation battlemechs since the new weapon uses fuel as "ammunition".
- Replacing the two AC/5 weapon system in this fashion will reduce the size of the infrastructure required to support the machine, reducing costs and weight of the logistical elements the Dropships must carry to support the vehicles on the ground.
- Replacing the two AC/5 weapon system in this fashion will effectively make the unit's combat endurance indefinite regardless of the original AC/5 system's ammo load (especially fusion engines, no magazines to deplete)
- Replacing the two AC/5 weapon system in this fashion will reduce downtime due to Re-arming (see above)
- In the event of critical damage, the next-gen mechs with the new equipment is significantly more likely to take much less devastating damage than the AC/5 platform. (Single heat sinks act as "crit soaks" and only reduce dissipation by -1. The AC/5s are far more likely to get a weapon hit or even an ammunition detonation.)
The "next-generation" weapon in question is the humble Inner Sphere PPC.
Every single one of those claims are true.
I'm the Quartermaster. From my perspective at the national grand strategy scale, there's a verifiable avalanche of benefits of replacing 2 AC/5s with an equivalent PPC system whenever possible. Reduced acquisition cost. Reduced operational cost. Reduced logistical footprint (which results in reduced transportation cost).
The commanders on the ground managing campaigns also have significant benefits going Energy here. Their mechs have less down-time as they don't have to spend extra time re-arming their AC/5s (this applies even if they mount other ammo-dependent weapons), their warships and dropships have to dedicate less weight to ammunition.
From the perspective of the individual mechwarrior in the cockpit, the PPC's performance is very similar to two AC/5s, but it weighs a tad less on a Battlemech, won't run out of ammo, and it won't explode on you as long as you don't do anything stupid.
So why shouldn't I, the Quartermaster, have our next-generation Battlemechs use PPCs in place of 2 AC5s whenever feasible? Heck, why shouldn't I refit much of our current AC/5 platforms with PPCs and throw the spare autocannons to the Infantry garrisons as field guns? Maybe if I had a sizable stock in autocannon manufacturers and loved money more than country...
I mean, what's the AC5 manufacturer's play here? "If you ignore all the logistical and fiscal advantages of the PPC, two AC/5s are
almost as good!"
Okay, that's too silly. But it's not far from the truth. Despite the appearance I'm not here just to dunk on the ACs, so I'll give some advantages.
- AC/5s can be field guns.
That's a solid advantage. There's not too much competition in its range bracket as a field gun until Ultras, LB-Xs and Gauss come out.
Still, being a decent field gun is of little consolation to Battlemechs and Vehicles fielding the weapon. - AC/5s are tech level C, slightly easier to maintain.
This is true, but the regular PPC is only tech level D, same as Standard Armor, fusion engines, and a whole slew of standard Battlemech components (Gyros, structure, jump jets, heat sinks...). If you can maintain those, you can maintain the PPC. - Alternative Ammo
It's an advantage... if you can get them. The availability of non-standard ammunition is rather poor in most eras despite their simplicity for some reason (Flak ammo is F during the succession wars?!). Their ammunition types are not quite as interesting as LRM's unfortunately. Precision is almost always useful, and AP can have its moments, but both are high-tech (yes, more advanced than the PPC), low-availability, and are introduced during the Clan Invasion. At that point there's a whole lot more options than the vanilla Autocannons. - It's sometimes more space efficient.
As your calculations show, the 2 AC/5s have a bit less crit space for the same amount of damage. Sometimes an AC/5 system might be able to just fit when a PPC system would not. However, this doesn't apply in 3025: you need those fancy DHS, Endo-Steel, or Ferro-Fibrous armors to actually hit that crit cap. It's also somewhat of a mixed blessing, as there's less "crit sponges" and proportionately more high-value crits on the AC configuration (Weapon and ammo). This advantage is further offset if you want to add more ammo (either for special munition use or just so you don't run out during a campaign) or CASE/CASE II. - It's not a PPC
I'm serious. That's an advantage. PPCs are an energy weapon, so they deal half damage to Reflective Armor. PPCs are also PPCs (obviously), so they also deal half damage to active Blue Shield Particle Field Dampers. Of course, both of those are rather rare. The former because that armor simply melts in the face of artillery weapons and certain ammunition, and the latter because the PFD is rather over-specialized for PPCs, bulky, heavy, unreliable after a minute of operation, and prone to exploding...
Hey, I never said it was a good advantage! - It's an Autocannon
Yep. It's an advantage. Autocannons are cool.
I just wish they were good too...
Do note when I say something like "Autocannons are not useful" or "Autocannons suck", I don't mean in the sense that it is interchangeable with some squirt gun. Any Battlemech-scale weapon is very much capable of flattening puny humans or knocking down an Atlas given enough time and luck, and such weapons need respect from Mechwarriors in the sense that they
can kill you.
But, they are not necessarily useful in the sense in the sense that "This weapon is highly effective and good in its niche, and I don't feel I would gain much if I were to pick an alternative loadout for my 'Mech or vehicle fleet." That just isn't there. That's why this topic was posted, and why variants of that topic keep getting posted over and over.