Balancing ACs, LRMs, and energy weapons in 3025. Or, justifying the AC/5.

[FedComGirl]

Page 62 of BMRr shows that SRM Infantry have a range of 2/4/6 though it does seem I was wrong about it being 1 point Clusters in BMRr days it was 5 point clusters.  So like I said it doesn't show the weight of the launcher but it does show that the range is different.  I guess I've been playing Liam's Ghost too much who's been using 1 point damage clusters for Infantry because even TW has 2 point clusters.

But they are not the same, at least not anymore and it is possible to have something weight as much as something else that does a similar job but be either more or less efficient at it.

If it isn't the same, why say it is? And if it isn't why not correct the previous statement? And true, things can weigh the same but have different results but again, if it's said to be the same and isn't, why isn't it?

All Infantry SRMs(Light, Standard, and Heavy) have 2/4/6 range in Tech Manual/Total Warfare.  All do less damage in Tech Manual/Total Warfare.  Page 352 if you need a reference.

True. Combat Equipment has Infantry SRMs being equal or equivalent to Vehicular ones on page 110. In fact it lists a lot of Infantry weapons being equivalent to vehicle versions.  They keep bouncing back and forth between they are and they aren't. It's frustrating.

I know the Heavy still needs some sort of adjusting beyond what I propose to distinguish it from the others but as it stands there is no reason to use the Heavy anyway at 0.57 damage per launcher using non-inferno rounds versus the Standard's 1.14 per launcher or the Light's 0.57 damage per launcher.

It does need something because like you said, there's no reason to use it.

When that statement in MW3ed was made there the best we had for construction rules was Citytech.  Mechwarrior 3rd Edition was first published in 1999 and the first usable Infantry construction rules we got were in Combat Operations in 2003.  Total Warfare and Tech Manual are obviously later then those.  So flat out Tech Manual and Total Warfare do say they have less range, less damage, and cost different.  To me that says that Infantry SRMs are different then vehicle SRMs.

And AToW has them being the same as those used by Battle Armor and it's rules are newer. So at the least we have a confusing mess.

[FedComGirl]

I don't really make a distinction between infantry, vehicular, and mech weapons.  An infantryman can lug around a .223 machine gun, it can be mounted on vehicle, or be put in a mech for anti-infantry work.  The base level of my rules would call it light MG, and all three get the same weight, range, and damage, and have few details.  The advanced rules could tweak it though, so maybe the mech version uses a longer barrel, uses a drum instead of belt-feed for ammo, or weighs a bit more to account for the mounting brackets and such.  And there would be 7 different models that differ a tiny bit, mostly just fluff.  They'd all use the same exact ammo though, and so the damage is the same.  So mechs could also have grenade launchers, or fire racks of rpgs, that are essentially the same as what the infantry use.  And the 88mm field gun, tank gun, and mech gun are all pretty much the same thing.  There would be good reasons why mechs use few weapons commonly used by infantry, but I wouldn't make that restriction within the rules.

I don't mind there being differences if there's reasons for them. But give the reasons, otherwise they should be the same. As far as I know the 88mm remains the same regardless of what is using it. And I can see mechs using infantry weapons too. In fact, I kind of expect it on some. When I first read about armed workmechs and farming mechs in the novels it was infantry weapons I pictured them using. They'd be much more obtainable than vehicle scale weaponry.

As for the laser, I haven't gotten deep into the details on that yet.  The idea I'm currently going with is that the damage drops by one at certain ranges.  Probably something like every 1000m damage goes down one to model losing focus, but I haven't decided just how far I want that to be.  It may end up having no deterioration at mech scale ranges, just at aerospace range.  And I don't have s/m/l lasers, instead have them doing from 1-8 damage in the standard ones, and then much bigger in the ones mounted on dropships, warships, and planetary defense bunkers.  For advanced rules, maybe one deteriorates at 1050m because of slightly better focus, and another at 900m because of age or battle damage.  Others would differ by using +/- 5% power, or being 50kg lighter.

I tend to go with the explanation that's been given for why they're heavier on Battle Armor. I like using the TacOps rule for ranges too.

Cannon can get hot barrels, but I'd prefer a rule that a gave an increasing chance of problems happening for every round after the 5th (to pull a number out of the air) in a row it is fired.  After all, firing a field gun doesn't cause the temp in the immediate area to skyrocket like it is often described in the fiction.  And while it wouldn't surprise me to find out that a tank gets uncomfortable after firing 10 rounds quickly, it isn't going to make the crew fall unconscious or the ammo explode.  And if it doesn't work that way for a tank, I refuse to implement it that way for a mech.  The gun works the same, regardless of where it is at.  So they can provide heat, maybe even enough to warm the immediate surrounding, but I don't see them having a game effect.  That said, my rewrite would focus more on tracking power than heat, and the amount of power drawn from the engine is the primary determinant of heat.  It's not laser barrels getting hot or missile exhaust warming the exterior, but the fusion reactor working harder.

I can see cannons only getting so hot but autocannons will get hotter as they generally fire more rounds faster. And I can see them generating heat in Mechs and fighters. That heat has to be taken care of some how or it'll cause damage. 

For SRMs, I'd like to see it where they are the same between infantry and Mech.  The difference is the launcher/launch platform.

On an infantryman, the ranges are 2/4/6
On Battlearmor, the ranges are 2/4/7
On ProtoMechs the ranges are 2/5/8
On a Battlemech (and larger platforms) the ranges are 3/6/9

For autocannons, I'd like to balance them using ammo, heat, and RoF.  This allows existing designers to still be used.  The bonus for cluster munitions (from LB-X) would be higher at short ranges, and go down at longer ranges.

Plus something like this.

The launcher doesn't determine the amount of fuel or explosive on the missile. Just how accurately it's launched.

I've received a few PMs requesting that I expand my earlier table to include Star League and Clan tech. Here's my whole vision (also, some errors corrected from the 3025 table):

snip

Looks cool.

[monbvol]

To me if it costs different, weights different, damages different, and ranges different it seems pretty clear you can't take an Infantry SRM and put it into a BA or Mech SRM launcher and have it do BA or Mech SRM damage at BA or Mech range but you can still call it an SRM and you can call them clearly related weapon systems.  Which is where I suspect a lot of the problem is.

But yeah infantry are just such a mess currently that there are a lot of things about them that need work and top of my list currently is figuring out what to do to that Heavy SRM launcher to make it worth taking versus the others.

[evilauthor]

To me if it costs different, weights different, damages different, and ranges different it seems pretty clear you can't take an Infantry SRM and put it into a BA or Mech SRM launcher and have it do BA or Mech SRM damage at BA or Mech range but you can still call it an SRM and you can call them clearly related weapon systems.  Which is where I suspect a lot of the problem is.

But yeah infantry are just such a mess currently that there are a lot of things about them that need work and top of my list currently is figuring out what to do to that Heavy SRM launcher to make it worth taking versus the others.

I'd think you'd get vastly improved performance from a mech SRM launcher if it includes literally tons of supporting equipment in the form of computerized aiming systems, launcher based guidance systems, sensors, etc etc that the infantry fired version doesn't have, even if both mech and infantry are technically firing the same kind of missile.

[monbvol]

I could understand launcher side systems making the difference in range but not damage, weight of the actual missiles, and cost of the missiles themselves.

[Orion]

Seems to me that different launchers could make a big difference in range on something like a gauss rifle.  But for the life of me, I can't see how a launcher makes any difference on the range of an SRM.  The rocket has the same amount of propellent regardless of what launches it, so the range should not be modified.  Depending on the guidance/targeting system, it may be a lot more accurate on some launchers than others, but that's not the same thing.

[evilauthor]

Seems to me that different launchers could make a big difference in range on something like a gauss rifle.  But for the life of me, I can't see how a launcher makes any difference on the range of an SRM.  The rocket has the same amount of propellent regardless of what launches it, so the range should not be modified.  Depending on the guidance/targeting system, it may be a lot more accurate on some launchers than others, but that's not the same thing.

In BT, Range = Accuracy. A less accurate weapon (or launcher) will have a shorter effective range even if the missile can technically fly farther than that simply because of the stacking TN penalties (which for some reason stop stacking at -4 and anything higher is treated as "impossible to hit"). If the missile doesn't hit because it's virtually guaranteed to fly wide of the target, then the launcher is as much not in range as if the missile ran out of fuel en route to the target and did a lawn dart.

[FedComGirl]

To me if it costs different, weights different, damages different, and ranges different it seems pretty clear you can't take an Infantry SRM and put it into a BA or Mech SRM launcher and have it do BA or Mech SRM damage at BA or Mech range but you can still call it an SRM and you can call them clearly related weapon systems.  Which is where I suspect a lot of the problem is.

I think that's a big part of the problem. If everything is different then it should be different. If its the same then it should be the same. If there's a few differences those differences should be explained.

The other big problem is that the RPG and BG don't have the same results.  Well, they did in Combat Equipment but now not only do the RPG and BG conflict on weapons, there's vehicles in the RPG that are impossible to build with TM and they're used by infantry. It's really frustrating.

I hope one day infantry will get a major rewrite. Even if the rules are optional to maintain the generic infantry units I think it'd be worth it.

But yeah infantry are just such a mess currently that there are a lot of things about them that need work and top of my list currently is figuring out what to do to that Heavy SRM launcher to make it worth taking versus the others.

I totally agree. The recent errata made it better but it still isn't worth taking.

I'd think you'd get vastly improved performance from a mech SRM launcher if it includes literally tons of supporting equipment in the form of computerized aiming systems, launcher based guidance systems, sensors, etc etc that the infantry fired version doesn't have, even if both mech and infantry are technically firing the same kind of missile.

It does by increasing the accuracy.

In BT, Range = Accuracy. A less accurate weapon (or launcher) will have a shorter effective range even if the missile can technically fly farther than that simply because of the stacking TN penalties (which for some reason stop stacking at -4 and anything higher is treated as "impossible to hit"). If the missile doesn't hit because it's virtually guaranteed to fly wide of the target, then the launcher is as much not in range as if the missile ran out of fuel en route to the target and did a lawn dart.

That isn't always true though.  SRMs only get increased range using the extreme range rule or by using Clan Improved SRMs which use more advanced fuels. Otherwise range does not improve. Only accuracy improves. For example Streak SRMs are more accurate than standard SRMs, as are those guided by Artemis. They're range doesn't increase. They get more missiles hitting the target. The same should be true for infantry SRMs as well. Especially since there are optional rules allowing missed shots to hit other targets in the area. They may not hit accurately at that range but they could hit something.

[idea weenie]

That isn't always true though.  SRMs only get increased range using the extreme range rule or by using Clan Improved SRMs which use more advanced fuels. Otherwise range does not improve. Only accuracy improves. For example Streak SRMs are more accurate than standard SRMs, as are those guided by Artemis. They're range doesn't increase. They get more missiles hitting the target. The same should be true for infantry SRMs as well. Especially since there are optional rules allowing missed shots to hit other targets in the area. They may not hit accurately at that range but they could hit something.

The fun part with increasing range due to launcher, is Aerospace fighters.  An SRM has a short range of 90 meters when mounted on a BattleMech, 1.5 km when on an ASF (each Aerotech low altitude hex is 1 mapsheet aka half a km IIRC), and 54 km when on the space map (each hex is 18 km).

For the Aerospace fighters, these are identical SRMs fired from the same ton of ammo, through the same launcher.  The only difference is environment.

So we could use that as a precedent for different firing platforms having different ranges for the same ammo.

[FedComGirl]

The fun part with increasing range due to launcher, is Aerospace fighters.  An SRM has a short range of 90 meters when mounted on a BattleMech, 1.5 km when on an ASF (each Aerotech low altitude hex is 1 mapsheet aka half a km IIRC), and 54 km when on the space map (each hex is 18 km).

For the Aerospace fighters, these are identical SRMs fired from the same ton of ammo, through the same launcher.  The only difference is environment.

So we could use that as a precedent for different firing platforms having different ranges for the same ammo.

I suppose we could but then there's LAMs. Change modes and ranges increase or decrease vastly.

Aerospace rules really make things even worse. I can understand the long ranges in space with no gravity or air to mess with the shots. I can also see increased range based on altitude when firing on ground units. But it should apply to everything, not just aerospace units. As it is now who needs tanks? A grounded fighter can out range everything else with only a +2 penalty. Considering even the fastest ground units would be under fire for over a minute before they even return fire. And that's using MASC, Superchargers, and Sprinting Movement or Superchargers, VTOL Jet Boosters and Overdrive. If they live to get into firing range they're going to be already hurting when they do. And the slow units? Unless they have lots of armor or artillery forget it.

It's pretty game breaking really. Aerospace integration along with Infantry rules really need a thorough going over. It's beyond absurd. Imagine a grounded Messerschmidt taking out a Sherman before the Sherman ever gets into firing range. Or a Boomerang with a machine gun taking out a Wasp.

[ialdabaoth]

It's pretty game breaking really. Aerospace integration along with Infantry rules really need a thorough going over. It's beyond absurd. Imagine a grounded Messerschmidt taking out a Sherman before the Sherman ever gets into firing range. Or a Boomerang with a machine gun taking out a Wasp.

Very much so. I have a proposal for an integrated Infantry and Aerospace system, but I think I'd need to wait until the next major edition change to propose it.

[monbvol]

Even I have to admit all things flying and space are much higher on my wish list for getting fixed then helping the poor old ACs.

[FedComGirl]

Very much so. I have a proposal for an integrated Infantry and Aerospace system, but I think I'd need to wait until the next major edition change to propose it.

That's cool. I hope there will be one and TPTB will be open to changing them. Unfortunately, I think it'd take a lot to get them too. The last errata they nerfed VTOLs just so they couldn't fight Aerospace craft.

Even I have to admit all things flying and space are much higher on my wish list for getting fixed then helping the poor old ACs.

Yeah. ACs problems are trivial compared to Aerospace problems. ACs are at the bottom of my list of things I'd like changed and it's only an additional optional rule.

[Zyllos]

I know I am late to this thread (and first post!)...but isn't a good way to balance Energy/Ballistic/Missile is to make a simple rule of making each projectile type follow unique rules? Forgive me, I don't know exact numbers of many things below:

Energy -
Descriptive: Energy weapons are more accurate at longer ranges as their projectile type is electromagnetic energy, thus travels much faster. But the power of the weapon is reduced at longer ranges.

Mechanical:
Short Range: No Change
Medium Range: No Change
Long Range: 50% range penalty but 50% damage (rounded up)

Ballistic -
Descriptive: Ballistic weapons require leading at longer ranges as their projectile type is kinetic energy, thus travel slower. But the damage of such weapons are retained over their specified ranges.

Mechanical:
Make each ton of ammo higher.
Smaller caliber AC ammo is more efficient per ton. (AC/2 = 180 points per ton/90 shots, AC/5 = 150 points per ton/30 shots, AC/10 = 120 points per ton/12 shots, AC/20 = 120 points per ton/6 shots)
Make the AC/2 actually fire off two (2) AC/2 shots per firing of the weapon, producing 1 heat. (while not 3025, UAC/2s and RAC/2s might be a bit overpowered with this rule, not sure).
Ammo rules for explosions only happening 50% of the time (might already exist).
Gauss Rifle is unchanged.

Missile -
Descriptive: Missile weapons use on-board avionics to guide the explosive warhead to it's target, thus retain the same accuracy of actually reaching the target but become inefficient when fired at extreme ranges.

Mechanical:
Short Range: No Change
Medium Range: -1 on Cluster Hit Table
Long Range: -2 on Cluster Hit Table, No Long Range Penalty

This is something I am thinking about doing for rules change for these types of weapons to feel a bit more balanced between them.

What do you guys and gals think?

[monbvol]

Eh...

Not thrilled to be honest.

It'd really hurt the IS pulse lasers with that range based damage reduction and with their short range...  So applying that to higher tech level versions is not very realistic and makes the Small Laser a very questionable weapon to mount.

ACs...  I do somewhat agree that there probably should be an ammunition re-adjustment to help them out but even I am not keen on going as far as you suggest for the AC-2 and AC-5.  As far as the double tap there are already rules for doing that with ACs in TacOps and while I'll admit that I'm not entirely convinced the benefit is worth the risk under those rules I'm also not convinced AC-2s should get a free pass for double firing.

ATMs, LRMs and SRMs are self guided and thus I really can't see justifying a cluster hit penalty for farther out and to be honest missile weapons don't need anymore drawbacks.  MRMs I'm not against a range based cluster table modifier due to the fact that they are explicitly stated to be unguided.  My house rule for MRMs are +1 cluster for Short Range -1 Medium Range, and -3 Long Range.

[Zyllos]

Eh...

Not thrilled to be honest.

It'd really hurt the IS pulse lasers with that range based damage reduction and with their short range...  So applying that to higher tech level versions is not very realistic and makes the Small Laser a very questionable weapon to mount.

ACs...  I do somewhat agree that there probably should be an ammunition re-adjustment to help them out but even I am not keen on going as far as you suggest for the AC-2 and AC-5.  As far as the double tap there are already rules for doing that with ACs in TacOps and while I'll admit that I'm not entirely convinced the benefit is worth the risk under those rules I'm also not convinced AC-2s should get a free pass for double firing.

ATMs, LRMs and SRMs are self guided and thus I really can't see justifying a cluster hit penalty for farther out and to be honest missile weapons don't need anymore drawbacks.  MRMs I'm not against a range based cluster table modifier due to the fact that they are explicitly stated to be unguided.  My house rule for MRMs are +1 cluster for Short Range -1 Medium Range, and -3 Long Range.

Thank you for your reply.

As a FYI, I have finally read deeper into the rules and have some better understanding of the numbers now.

I actually felt Pulse Lasers were better now at longer ranges due to +2 bonus to hit, along with 50% less range penalties. At Medium Range, the range penalty is -2, but for Energy weapons, it is -1. But with the Pulse Laser, this becomes +1. Also, I updated the granularity of the damage to be 25% for Medium Range and 50% for Long Range for Energy weapons.

The Small Laser's damage would basically be 3/2/2, which considering now the range penalties would be 0/-1/-2, making the weapon more accurate with little damage reduction.

The Small Pulse Laser also deals 3/2/2, but the range penalties would be +2/+1/0, which seems pretty good to me.

PPCs feel more balanced when compared with AC/5s and AC/10s by dealing a bit less damage, 10/8/5. I also would say PPCs still follow the same rules of Ballistics for hitting (basically normal rules) but have the downsides of less damage over range for Energy weapons.

As your statements on Ballistics, I wholly agree that the ammo efficiency needs to be looked at.

The main reason why I think the AC/2 should basically "double tap" for free is to explain it's more small caliber but higher rate of fire style of weapon to make up for it's weight. The balance between the AC/2 basically dealing 4 damage with separate To-Hit rolls for 6t while the AC/5 dealing 5 damage with a single To-Hit roll for 8t seems right to me.

Moving on to Missiles, I can understand that the Missile is guided, so it should not have any lowered cluster at range. But with Missiles having no penalties for reaching their target, they generally almost always get some Missiles to the target. So there has to be some drawback for range. This is where I think less missiles would reach the target. It's just less of them actually deal damage at further ranges.

Also, I think the number of LRMs and SRMs per ton would need a slight increase, just like Ballistic weapons.

[massey]

There isn't going to be an answer that makes everybody happy.  For my games (since I really only play 3025, it's easier), I'd consider something like this:

1)  Autocannons and machine guns have an improved rate of fire.  AC 2s and MGs can fire 4 times per round, just like Solaris rules.  AC 5s can fire twice per round.
2) Use the weight and crits for Light ACs for the AC 5 and AC 2.  Extra weight goes to extra ammo, since they'll be firing more often.
3) Rebalance specialty ammo so they're either more effective or don't give 1/2 shots per ton.

Those changes will make the smaller ACs much more effective.  The larger ACs might not be mathematically the most efficient weapons in the game, but with better specialty ammo they'll be okay.

[Amlop]

I just use the advanced rapid fire AC rules from TacOps pg. 100.

They go a long way to making ACs worth their weight.  Personally I think this rule should be made standard/default, but that's just my opinion.

[SCC]

Took me a while to track down a Mechwarrior 3ed to check the reference.  While the reference does indeed indicate it uses the same ammunition there are still four problems with it.

1.  It is Mechwarrior 3red.  It got a lot of things wrong frankly and it isn't terribly surprising to me that it makes such an obviously incorrect/contradictory with all other available information assertion.

2. Even in the days of the BMRr Infantry SRMs had less range and did less damage per missile then their vehicular counter parts.

3. Launchers(which are not talked about in the reference at all) are a totally separate piece of gear and can do a lot to explain the range differences in a BMRr or TW game but I'll admit I can't fathom how they'd change the damage.

4. New publications directly contradict the reference and since new beats old it is no longer the case.

Even Tech Manual's most damning entry talks about Infantry SRMs being so effective that it was a natural progression to put SRMs on Battlearmor and that both systems are the same in that you could describe a Ford Focus and a Ferrari 458 both as cars but both are clearly different cars with drastically different capabilities.

AToW Infantry SRMs have different ranges then their vehicular counterparts(converting to TW ranges if using that combat resolution method), do not do the same damage on a per missile basis(as an ordinance weapon you never get MoS/4 bonus damage so they will always calculate out to 1 TW/Tactical damage versus most TW units even with the best Armor Piercing warhead), and don't cost the same(non-infantry SRMs cost 270 cbills per missile while AToW indicates Infantry SRMs vary in cost depending on warhead with the most expensive being 400 cbills).

Unfortunately AToW seems to back it up, the weight of infantry SRMs reloads dovetails with 'Mech ones, and the reason they don't have the range is because of the way the conversation works, along with the really short ranges they seem to have for some strange reason (The standard SRM launcher, which does use 'Mech rounds by weight [the others are slightly lighter], has the same medium and long ranges as the 'Mech weapon)

[monbvol]

Actually no they don't have the same weight for missiles as vehicular counterparts for AToW infantry SRMs, at least not all of them.

Light and Heavy Infantry SRMs weight 9kg each.  Just as they do in Tech Manual.

Only Standard Infantry SRMs weight as much but every implication is that they are a related but clearly different system.  Less range, less damage, and different costs.  If they were the exact same those three factors would not be different.

[FixDis]

This is an interesting problem because everyone approaches it from certain base ideas that lock in their possible approaches.  For example, a lot of people don't want to change the existing weapon weight and crits, so as not to invalidate existing designs.

I started out with the idea that "if it was 1984 and I was sitting down to make a set of weapons from the game from scratch, how would I do it?"  I didn't care at all about requiring a redesign of existing mechs (I rewrote all of TR 3025/3039 to accommodate the following).

Attached is what I use.  I decided that ballistic weapons simply kilo for kilo must be better than energy weapons, in all situations, since even if equal they would lose out due to ammo requirements and the risk of explosion.  So they are plain-old the better choice, if all you care about is damage-to-weight ratios.

Fixing the AC/5 meant that the AC/2 was impossible to make work without inventing wonky rules for it, and that was my personal no-go area.  So instead I added in a Light PPC to fill its ultra-long-range niche.  While I was at it, a Heavy PPC fit in as well.

The Medium Laser goes up to 2 crits, simply to help reduce the number you can spam (and to make the laser chart progress nicely in terms of crits).  I really tried for nice even progressions in terms of numbers - heat, crits, tonnage - for all weapons, with the idea of making things easy for a player to grasp and remember.

SRMs drop in ammo amounts in order to have the same payload as LRMs, and because I always felt SRMs had too much ammo, making it pointless to sweat over whether or not to take an extra ton with them like so many other weapons require.  However, they go up in range.  The missile chart I use also produces statistically higher damage for the "2" column than the rest of the results.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/357573/Record%20Sheet%20-%20Mech.docx

Xotl, if you're allowed to repost that rebalance document, could you do so? The dropbox link has rotted.

[Cannonshop]

Going back to the OP, it's 1984, and I need weapons to have specific roles. 

Simply put, I'd incorporate armor thresholds vs. Autocannons (and at the time, ONLY Autocannons.)

Thus, for anything with less than 20 points of armor, there's a critical hit chance that if it's positive, hits something INTERNAL-aka in the 'roll again' space you mark off a box of internal structure if there's nothing else there.

That makes dog-designs like the Blackjack or Shadowhawk into genuine threats.  The other weapons scrape off armor plate, but the Autocannons on these guys can GUT you.

which nicely makes up for the chance of ammo explosions, limited shots, and massive weight.

The thresholding would be 1/10th round to the nearest tenth.  (aka an armor of 21 thresholds to an AC.2, but 28 you need an AC/5 for that critical threshold check)

it's a little more math, but, it provides the worst weapons in the game (by mass, vulnerability and ammo dependence) a specific ROLE.

[Retry]

Well, yes, it would make those into genuine threats, but it would also make vehicles and infantry field guns with AC/2s and AC/5s actually terrifying.  As far as 'Mechs go, AC/2s are penning lights and most locations on mediums, AC/5s are penning everything else.  I think with this sort of pen mechanic it might actually shift things the other direction and make AC/2s and AC/5s the effective meta due to their long-range and auto-crit on the appropiate 'Mech target (possibly supplemented by medium lasers simply because they're insanely light).  They're not quite rocket tag, but it's pretty dang close.

I genuinely don't know if I'd run 'Mechs with such a mechanic.  Even something like a Scorpion tank is carrying an auto-crit gun, and stuff like Pikes and Partisans are carrying multiples.  Probably the most interesting things to field in such a paradigm is cheap AC units like the Scorpion, AC array vehicles like the Partisan, fast AC-carrying VTOLs or hovercraft like Warriors and Condor, and possibly heavy AC vehicles that have enough armor to actually resist thresholding from an AC/5 (Only intro-tech option for that is the Behemoth Armor iirc).

I do think ACs could use some sort of buff, but man, thresholding ACs sounds like an absolutely brutal mechanic.

[Cannonshop]

Well, yes, it would make those into genuine threats, but it would also make vehicles and infantry field guns with AC/2s and AC/5s actually terrifying.  As far as 'Mechs go, AC/2s are penning lights and most locations on mediums, AC/5s are penning everything else.  I think with this sort of pen mechanic it might actually shift things the other direction and make AC/2s and AC/5s the effective meta due to their long-range and auto-crit on the appropiate 'Mech target (possibly supplemented by medium lasers simply because they're insanely light).  They're not quite rocket tag, but it's pretty dang close.

I genuinely don't know if I'd run 'Mechs with such a mechanic.  Even something like a Scorpion tank is carrying an auto-crit gun, and stuff like Pikes and Partisans are carrying multiples.  Probably the most interesting things to field in such a paradigm is cheap AC units like the Scorpion, AC array vehicles like the Partisan, fast AC-carrying VTOLs or hovercraft like Warriors and Condor, and possibly heavy AC vehicles that have enough armor to actually resist thresholding from an AC/5 (Only intro-tech option for that is the Behemoth Armor iirc).

I do think ACs could use some sort of buff, but man, thresholding ACs sounds like an absolutely brutal mechanic.

Brutality is kinda the point.   Eight tons for an AC/5 without ammo, then you add ammo.  That's going to be nine or ten tons, compare with a PPC that does twice the damage at seven tons, doesn't need ammo, never runs out, and against lighter machines effectively does the same thing.

at the same range, just without the penetration.

But, we're talking about 1984, which was before there were autocannons that weren't 5s.  Something like that mechanic? butterflies, because 'in the beginning, there was only THE autocannon!'

the variations started after someone told FASA 'no, George Lucas will sue your underwear off for using the word 'Droid'."

Hence, Battletech.

[Mechanis]

Honestly the best fix for Autocannons as we have the things is to properly call them primitive Autocannons -because they are,  going straight from Primitive Prototype to standard without a pitstop at Primitive first- and release Autocannons that are exactly the same performance but, say, 3/5/8/12 tons in mass for the 2/5/10/20. And shave two crits off the latter two. Then have appropriate Light/LB/Ultra/Rotary variants of *those,* with the same calcs applied, properly relegating the old primitive stuff to Succwars SuckTech and early Age of War where they belong.

But of course that should have happened when Star League tech was being designed.


Edit: Honestly what I would really like is to have the range and damage identical across all types of the same size, with the difference being entirely in size/mass and special rules, to better drive home the way ACs are supposed to be performance classes.

[RifleMech]

I still like the Solaris VII rapid fire rules. Weapons could fire so many times per turn before risking damage. The lighter the weapon the more times it could fire. This favored Autocannons with their lower heat per shot. It also made the AC/5 very competitive to the PPC.