Anyway To Enhance the Effectiveness of Small LRM Launchers?

[Dayton3]

I was wondering if there was any new technology from the 32nd century era that would help enhance the effectiveness of relatively small LRM launchers like the LRM-5s on my Grasshopper.   I suppose I could add an Artemis FCS but it seems like a waste to add a one ton fire control system to a launcher and ammo set up that mass only 3 tons combined.

I was hoping there were something like new types of warheads that could enhance the LRM effectiveness without increasing mass.   

I'm not familiar with anything after the Jihad era (and barely it).

[Kit deSummersville]

Mines are a great way to tell the enemy where you want them to go...and not to go.

People will freak out about the potential of taking 5 points of damage to the leg of their assault 'Mech for some reason.

[JadeHellbringer]

Mines are a great way to tell the enemy where you want them to go...and not to go.

People will freak out about the potential of taking 5 points of damage to the leg of their assault 'Mech for some reason.

And if they show up with vehicles, they'll have legitimate reason to panic about five-point minefield-spam. There aren't many things that ruin a Demolisher's day like a Sling loaded with T-Augs.  ;D

[Weirdo]

Smoke rounds are also fun, especially if that tiny rack is your only long-range weapon, like on the aforementioned Grasshopper. You can use the smoke to cover your approach, reducing the amount of damage you take before getting into your own weapons range. If you're in range but facing multiple enemies, you can lay the smoke to shield you from some of them, leaving clear LOS to the target you want to shoot at.

Be careful about moving directly into your smoke, though. Do that often enough, and people will get the hint that the smoke is telegraphing your planned move for the next turn. Good way to start eating more than your daily recommended allowance of artillery.

If your opponent likes to use indirect LRM fire, dropping smoke in front of a spotter can be a good way to force him to move, vacating a perfectly good spot or degrading the to-hit numbers.

If you play with fire rules and your opponent likes to use conventional units, a mech-heavy force can use incendiary LRMs to flush non-mech units out of woods or buildings.

[Daryk]

And best of all, Smoke LRMs are available in 3025...  ^-^

[Nightsong]

A teammate with a NARC beacon is always a lot of fun when it comes to LRMs.

[Hellraiser]

As mentioned above, the best use for an LRM-5 sniping is to load them with T-Aug or Smoke.

Those 2 ammo types are VERY good at changing the flow of a battle with their "terrain modification" abilities.

[garhkal]

And if they show up with vehicles, they'll have legitimate reason to panic about five-point minefield-spam. There aren't many things that ruin a Demolisher's day like a Sling loaded with T-Augs.  ;D

OR use swarm ammo.

[AJC46]

the best enhancement is to replace it if possible with MML-5 so many more options open up with a MML-5 in place of a LRM-5.  ;D

[Dayton3]

the best enhancement is to replace it if possible with MML-5 so many more options open up with a MML-5 in place of a LRM-5.  ;D

MML's are a piece of hardware that I'm not overly familiar with.

[RoundTop]

MML's are a piece of hardware that I'm not overly familiar with.

MMLs can fire LRM or SRM ammo. So they are great on light designs which normally choose one or the other.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Multi-Missile_Launcher

The MML3 is only 1.5t (vs 2t for LRM5), but budget for having 1 more ton of ammo to carry both.
MML5 is 3t.  So as a quick replacement for LRM5+1t ammo, MML3+2t ammo, and find .5t to free up.

MMLs can also carry any LRM or SRM specialty ammo (eg: inferno, semi-guided, smoke, etc).  MML3s with smoke LRMs can do the same as the LRM5 with smoke, but up close use SRMs as well.

[Weirdo]

Not really going to fit in his Grasshopper without extra modding, though. MMLs really need multiple tons of ammo to get the most use it of them. I'd stick to ammo options that work with the existing LRM rack.

There aren't any new ammo types in the Dark Age, your best bet would be to browse Total War and TacOps for ideas.

[monbvol]

If you need some extra anti infantry capability fragmentation would help there, especially on a Grasshopper.

But yeah the real game changers for a LRM-5 have already been mentioned.

[mbear]

MML's are a piece of hardware that I'm not overly familiar with.

You didn't ask, but IMHO the best use of an MML is on designs that have mixed LRM & SRM launchers. If you have a unit with an LRM5 and SRM2, you can drop in an MML5 at no cost in tonnage. Replacing the SRMs with similar MMLs adds just that extra little bit of long range firepower, or alternative munitions if you don't want to give up a lot of firepower. (An MML-5 laid smokescreen is just as effective as a smokescreen from an LRM-15.) One of the best examples of using MMLs to support LRMs is found on the HawkWolf. Two LRM-15s supported by two MML-5s. At short range, the ability to send out some SRMs is useful, but IMHO not really something I'd rely on.

The really nice thing about the MML is that it can use any enhancement available to stock LRM/SRM launchers, and any ammunition type available to them (except torpedoes). So if you want to have an Artemis FCS attached to your MML, you can. Narc compatible ammo? No problem.

The downside is the relatively small size of the racks (largest one has 9 missiles), their weight, and their critical slot requirements. To get the best use out of them you'll need at least two ammo bins, which means two tons and critical slots. (You don't have to do that though, there's at least one design that has a single ton ammo bin. Havoc? Gambit?) The MML-5 seems to be the best in terms of size and weight; As I mentioned earlier you can drop a single MML-5 in any unit that has an LRM-5 and an SRM-2 at no weight penalty.

[Sabelkatten]

I was wondering if there was any new technology from the 32nd century era that would help enhance the effectiveness of relatively small LRM launchers like the LRM-5s on my Grasshopper.   I suppose I could add an Artemis FCS but it seems like a waste to add a one ton fire control system to a launcher and ammo set up that mass only 3 tons combined.

I was hoping there were something like new types of warheads that could enhance the LRM effectiveness without increasing mass.   

I'm not familiar with anything after the Jihad era (and barely it).

Why would you need that? The LRM5 is already the most effective LRM rack unless you really want Artemis on it...

[Dayton3]

Why would you need that? The LRM5 is already the most effective LRM rack unless you really want Artemis on it...

Because the ability to inflict a mere 5 pts. of damage per shot seems rather paltry.  Little more than two medium laser hits.

[Weirdo]

I believe his idea is that many folks who build customs prefer massed LRM-5s over larger racks, since you do the same damage, but at a slight tonnage efficiency.

Also, that five-point group is a lot less than two medium laser hits, since a single laser is also a five-point hit.

[Dayton3]

I believe his idea is that many folks who build customs prefer massed LRM-5s over larger racks, since you do the same damage, but at a slight tonnage efficiency.

Also, that five-point group is a lot less than two medium laser hits, since a single laser is also a five-point hit.

I thought a medium laser was a two point damage per hit?

[Daryk]

Mediums are 5 points of damage and 3 heat... Smalls are 3 damage and 1 heat... not sure where you got 2 damage from.  SRMs do that per missile, and Machine Guns too...

[monbvol]

Multiple smaller racks versus one bigger rack:

Pros:

-Thanks to the volume of fire it does improve the odds of at least one of them hitting thus increasing the minimum damage.
-With Inner Sphere LRMs you do save weight and even criticals
-The ammo works out the same for total number of vollies
-You can not fire some to help control heat
-Lucky criticals are not as big of a deal

Cons:

-You do have to roll more in TW, each one is it's own to hit roll and a cluster hit roll after that so getting the same average damage or maximum damage
-The larger LRM racks are more heat efficient
-Artemis must be applied to all valid launchers or none unless that's been reversed on me again

[CrossfirePilot]

In 3025 I actually like modding mechs that have 1 large rack with multiples of LRM5s.  It usually doesn't create heat problems and for the Atlas it matches the original fluff.  It also allows you to tailor your deliveries. So you don't have to launch an entire salvo of 15 or 20 at that long range light, but you can do 5 or 10 just to let them know you are thinking about them.  The downside is that it does produce more rolling and I have also feel (read no statistical evidence to back that) that you tend to hit with less missiles.

[monbvol]

That is because some of your launchers will miss.

Let's take that Light Mech you just mentioned at Long Range.  Right off we're talking a +4 from range.  Being a Light a +2 seems reasonable.  And you're already at a +6 which means you need to have a pretty good gunner already to even get half of your launchers to hit.  Then each one that does hit still has to roll on the cluster chart.  The most likely outcome is for 3 missiles.  Compared to a 20 rack's 12 that means you'd have to get a bit lucky to match that damage.

[CrossfirePilot]

Yeah except its more likely than not to miss.  But even up close.  The damage probably evens out. But instead of missing one turn and hitting the next it is more likely to be hitting 2/4 launchers every turn.

[RunandFindOut]

It's all statistics really, the more rolls you make the more chances you have.  You're doing about the same amount of damage overall between the two, one is just doing the damage as a steady stream of more small hits.  While the other does more damage when it hits but hits or misses once in the same time the other option gives you four chances to do so. 

[monbvol]

There are a lot of variables involved in this to be sure but the important thing to remember is it takes big rack/LRM-5 hits to keep damage the same.  That pretty well assures for the same to hit numbers the bigger rack will actually have a better average damage over time.

[Colt Ward]

NARC is the biggest thing, after DHS IMO its the best upgrade to forces running 3025 tech after 3050.  It can make the Archers, Catapults and Crusaders that you have put out more damage without having to do any sort of upgrade work on those machines- problem is canon NARC launchers are rather limited.  For some reason its a piece of equipment TPTB sort of forgot as time went on.  IMO it honestly should have gone on Jenners and other 30-40 ton scout/electronics mechs.  For the 3050s before the proliferation of ECM the Jihad encouraged it would have been extremely useful.  But its not just mechs, its also neglected on the wheeled/hovercraft scouts.

[Alsadius]

I think semi-guided rounds are in many ways the natural evolution of Narc. They serve the same purpose, are equally compatible, but the TAG is lighter than the Narc launcher and compatible with more other weapon types, and SG rounds get better bonuses. Narc is a bit of a dead end, even with the alternate ammo types(because tbh, none of them are very impressive).

[Colt Ward]

Except Semi-G is not as widely available as NARC capable munitions, or available at all when NARC comes on the scene.  Nor does Semi-G work for SRMs.

[Alsadius]

Except Semi-G is not as widely available as NARC capable munitions, or available at all when NARC comes on the scene.  Nor does Semi-G work for SRMs.

I know Narc comes on the scene sooner, which is why I refer to SG as the evolution of it, not as something that's purely better. I do agree that the SRM side is better served by Narc, but in practice, Streak is better still. Most people will just go Streak if they want to boost their SRMs. Narc SRMs would mostly be used in MML tubes in 3080, I'd wager, because there's no Streak MMLs.

[Colt Ward]

See, I am one of the people that prefer regular SRMs for the simple reason that I can vary the ammo type- inferno being the key difference IMO.  You can also get more SRM launchers for the weight of SSRM launchers.

Additionally Semi-G ammunition is three times the cost of regular LRM ammo while NARC is just twice the cost.  The cost for not being in the League after the Jihad trying to get that ammo is going to ratchet the cost up even more.  Before the Jihad, to get Semi-G you had to be a unit with good standing in the FWLM or a Blakist . . . after the Jihad its still going to be harder to find and cost way more than NARC ammo.

Finally, as pointed out that NARC launcher is going to make your LRM AND SRM launchers more effective which is why I said after DHS for 3025 designs makes it ideal for force improvement.

[RoundTop]

See, I am one of the people that prefer regular SRMs for the simple reason that I can vary the ammo type- inferno being the key difference IMO.  You can also get more SRM launchers for the weight of SSRM launchers.

Additionally Semi-G ammunition is three times the cost of regular LRM ammo while NARC is just twice the cost.  The cost for not being in the League after the Jihad trying to get that ammo is going to ratchet the cost up even more.  Before the Jihad, to get Semi-G you had to be a unit with good standing in the FWLM or a Blakist . . . after the Jihad its still going to be harder to find and cost way more than NARC ammo.

Finally, as pointed out that NARC launcher is going to make your LRM AND SRM launchers more effective which is why I said after DHS for 3025 designs makes it ideal for force improvement.

I agree with you, but oh man a pair of SSRM6s is just fun. Great as "overheat" weapons. If you hit, great! If not, you are fine.  And 12 SRMs is always good.

[Colt Ward]

Sure, one of my favorite mechs is the Arcas . . . 2 cERLL which are the best gun in the game, and then if something is close you can give them SSRM4s- overheat too much from actually making the roll and you can jump away.

But improving those 3025 designs generally does not mean SSRMs, which we saw to the detriment of several mechs in TRO3050.

[Sartris]

the problem with NARC was that it never proliferated in any serious way. You have, at max, three dozen units to choose from vs SG compatibility with hundreds of units mounting various flavors of TAG

[Colt Ward]

Yes, which is why I said it seemed abandoned by TPTB.  And NARC's story gets worse when you consider how many of those units are faction specific- like the Raven or later Tufana.

[Alsadius]

Fair. The other big advantage you didn't mention is that you also only need to hit once with the Narc, instead of hitting every round. But I like the bonuses on SG rounds more, especially when engaging in IDF hell - you can easily negate +3 or +4 of to-hit penalties, which beats the heck out of +2 on the cluster hit table IMO. Also, the mass difference between SSRM and Narc SRM is fairly small, once you remember to include Narc launcher mass.

I think this is one where our preferences vary. But hearing you talk about it, I can see the argument that Narc is under-used for sure.

[Kit deSummersville]

The best part about the NARC is when the guy panics, tries to brush it off and ends up punching himself in the face.

Extra double bonus if he takes out the cockpit!

[grimlock1]

It's all statistics really, the more rolls you make the more chances you have.  You're doing about the same amount of damage overall between the two, one is just doing the damage as a steady stream of more small hits.  While the other does more damage when it hits but hits or misses once in the same time the other option gives you four chances to do so.

I modeled this in an excel sheet, comparing 250 salvos from an LRM 20 and 1000 salvos with LRM 5s.  Based on that sampling the average damage from a single LRM 20 is +/-1 point, when compared to 4 LRM 5's

The LRMs are smaller and lighter so you could take that free tonnage and use it to bring some different ammo options.

The best part about the NARC is when the guy panics, tries to brush it off and ends up punching himself in the face.

Extra double bonus if he takes out the cockpit!

I though you had to wait until after the battle to remove NARC beacons... iNARC could be brushed off, but not regular.

[Alsadius]

You do lose on heat, though - 4x LRM-5 is 8 heat, 1x LRM-20 is 6 heat. If you want to fix that difference with extra heat sinks, it'll cancel out the mass advantage with SHS(and leave you 1 slot worse), and it'll leave you 1 ton better but two slots worse with DHS.

Also, because they'll tend to hit in blocks of less than 5 damage, the LRM-5s are slightly better at crit-seeking as well, though correspondingly worse at hole-punching.

[Sartris]

I though you had to wait until after the battle to remove NARC beacons... iNARC could be brushed off, but not regular.

TW pg 139 seems to indicate that. I couldn’t find an explicit reference saying you CAN'T brush off regular NARC pods

The improved pods launched by the iNarc are larger than standard Narc pods, and can be brushed off in the same way as swarming anti-’Mech infantry (see p. 220).

edit: not on mobile now so I could add the relevant rules text

[Weirdo]

TW pg 139 seems to indicate that. I couldn’t find an explicit reference saying you CAN'T brush off regular NARC pods

If game rulebooks tried to work that way, they would have to be tomes of such immensity as to make the entire set of current core boss look like an abridged pocket edition.

The way you know you can't do something is if you can't find anything in the book saying you can.

The rules mention brushing off iNARC pods, but do not mention NARC pods in that context. Therefore, you can brush off iNARC pods, but not NARC pods.

[Colt Ward]

What does BMM say since that is supposed to incorporate all the errata?

[Weirdo]

It says NARC is only destroyed if the location it attached to is destroyed. iNARC pods may be brushed off, and it specifically notes their larger size being three reason for this.

[Sartris]

If game rulebooks tried to work that way, they would have to be tomes of such immensity as to make the entire set of current core boss look like an abridged pocket edition.

The way you know you can't do something is if you can't find anything in the book saying you can.

The rules mention brushing off iNARC pods, but do not mention NARC pods in that context. Therefore, you can brush off iNARC pods, but not NARC pods.

I wasn't taking a rules lawyer technicality stance here, just that i couldn't find anything about NARC (thereby implicitly inviting anyone who knew of such a theoretical reference to chime in).

[Colt Ward]

Its a weird change from BMR but eh . . . I guess its an advantage to go with the 'lower' tech NARC over the iNARC.

[Weirdo]

I don't believe it's a change.

[(SMD)MadCow]

Speaking of iNarc, the other options were great, especially Haywire. I wonder where we can get that kind of stuff in universe now that the ComGuard are kaput; RAF maybe?

[Colt Ward]

Regulans put iNARC on one of the Tufana at the request of the Cappies (so its a export version?) in 3083.  I like it over the standard which has a bigger MML rack.

Its honestly the type of vehicle we should have been getting back in the '50s.

[mbear]

The best part about the NARC is when the guy panics, tries to brush it off and ends up punching himself in the face.

Extra double bonus if he takes out the cockpit!

Even better if your friend tries to help you out by brushing off the pod and punches you in the face. Or two of your friends try to do it and you end up with a Three Stooges situation.

[grimlock1]

You do lose on heat, though - 4x LRM-5 is 8 heat, 1x LRM-20 is 6 heat. If you want to fix that difference with extra heat sinks, it'll cancel out the mass advantage with SHS(and leave you 1 slot worse), and it'll leave you 1 ton better but two slots worse with DHS.

Also, because they'll tend to hit in blocks of less than 5 damage, the LRM-5s are slightly better at crit-seeking as well, though correspondingly worse at hole-punching.

True, but on the heat.

With the exception of Thunderbolts, I tend to use missiles for crit seeking over hole punching anyway.

[Kit deSummersville]

Regulans put iNARC on one of the Tufana at the request of the Cappies (so its a export version?) in 3083.  I like it over the standard which has a bigger MML rack.

Its honestly the type of vehicle we should have been getting back in the '50s.

They didn't let me design vehicles back then....

[grimlock1]

They didn't let me design vehicles back then....

I miss NARC and iNARC.  My inner child would smile if one or both started to show up in new material.  :)
My outer child would smile if Nemesis pods were tweaked so they could signal  friendly Arrow IV.  :D

[Weirdo]

Given how much FWLM forces love guided missiles, Capellans love TAG Arrows, and Clanners use ATMs, I wonder how often Regulan Tufanas run Nemesis pods, same once it enters FWL service.

[Sartris]

modern iNarc options also include the Bardiche (FWL, Wolf, and Mercs) and Scapha D (Republic). The Tessen 1Cr and C3 are also available to the Combine and Republic.

The other limited deployment... not so great an outlook. All kaput by ca. 3085

Longshot 3C
C* Battle Cobra C
Hermes II 5C
Phoenix Hawk 7CS
Tessen 1C
Kintaro 21
Scorpion 12C
Champion 3P
Exterminator 5E

[mbear]

modern iNarc options also include the Bardiche (FWL, Wolf, and Mercs) and Scapha D (Republic). The Tessen 1Cr and C3 are also available to the Combine and Republic.

The other limited deployment... not so great an outlook. All kaput by ca. 3085

Longshot 3C
C* Battle Cobra C
Hermes II 5C
Phoenix Hawk 7CS
Tessen 1C
Kintaro 21
Scorpion 12C
Champion 3P
Exterminator 5E

True, but all the militaries of the Inner Sphere have OmniMechs that can mount Narcs and iNarcs. I just had a flash of "Wow" because I imagined the Stalker II's ELRMs using Narc guidance from a Tufana or custom Perseus config. Too bad ELRMs aren't Narc compatible.  :'(

[Sartris]

problematic if you only play with canon designs.

much like NARC, iNarc never caught on. Despite its merits, it's dead end tech. there might be a glut of until now unknown designs in the unreleased RS: Prototypes and 3150 NTNUs but I don't see it.

[Iceweb]

Too bad ELRMs aren't Narc compatible.  :'(

I hate that ELRMs can't have different payloads. 
My dream of C3 linked semi-guided ELRMs being lobbed from two mapsheets away is so far away.

[Alsadius]

I hate that ELRMs can't have different payloads. 
My dream of C3 linked semi-guided ELRMs being lobbed from two mapsheets away is so far away.

"TAG, you're it!

...

Oh, wait, you're not it any more."

[Col Toda]

For an LRM 5 ARRAD ammo . It reduces the number of shots from 25 to 12 but it is -2 to hit and + 1 to cluster against any target with an ECM suite or C3 slave or master. Not available until about 3066 or so but after 3062 you will not be short on targets

[grimlock1]

For an LRM 5 ARRAD ammo . It reduces the number of shots from 25 to 12 but it is -2 to hit and + 1 to cluster against any target with an ECM suite or C3 slave or master. Not available until about 3066 or so but after 3062 you will not be short on targets

If you replace big racks with arrays of 5's, then you can use the extra space to squeeze in more bins, offsetting that fact that ARRAD bins only half the capacity....  That reduced capacity really makes ARRAD unappealing for use with 20's and even 15's.

[Dayton3]

Has anyone taken out a NARC by having a friendly "scratch your back"?.     That is you get a NARC pod attached to your mech,  have a friendly mech target you with a blast of friendly fire?    Ideally low enough to take out the location and not do severe damage.     A medium laser seems good for that.

[Colt Ward]

Damage does not take out the NARC beacon, sorry I said launcher at first.

[Weirdo]

Yeah, Beacons are only gone when the location they're mounted on is destroyed.

Note, the rules do say "location", not "location's armor". You want to lose that NARC stuck to your elbow, the whole arm's gotta come off at the shoulder.

[garhkal]

In 3025 I actually like modding mechs that have 1 large rack with multiples of LRM5s.  It usually doesn't create heat problems and for the Atlas it matches the original fluff.  It also allows you to tailor your deliveries. So you don't have to launch an entire salvo of 15 or 20 at that long range light, but you can do 5 or 10 just to let them know you are thinking about them.  The downside is that it does produce more rolling and I have also feel (read no statistical evidence to back that) that you tend to hit with less missiles.

Well an average hit from an LRM-5 is 3 missiles..  Where as its 9 or 12 for a 15 or 20 pack..  so essentially they are 'averaging' the same.

[grimlock1]

In 3025 I actually like modding mechs that have 1 large rack with multiples of LRM5s.  It usually doesn't create heat problems and for the Atlas it matches the original fluff.  It also allows you to tailor your deliveries. So you don't have to launch an entire salvo of 15 or 20 at that long range light, but you can do 5 or 10 just to let them know you are thinking about them.  The downside is that it does produce more rolling and I have also feel (read no statistical evidence to back that) that you tend to hit with less missiles.

I don't have an analytical solution, but I have a simulation that shows 4xlrm 5's to be +/- 1 point of damage compared to lrm 20's, over several thousand comparisons.

[RunandFindOut]

yep I did basically the same thing several years ago.  You end up with effectively the same amount of damage over time.  The only real difference is that one is a stream of more smaller hits with less variation.  The other has more variation but averages out to the same over time.

[Alsadius]

The analytical solution is actually really easy - just multiply the cluster hits table by the probability of each roll.

The averages are as follows.

LRM-5: 3.17 (3.83 w/Artemis IV)
LRM-10: 6.31 (7.67 w/Artemis IV)
LRM-15: 9.50 (11.50 w/Artemis IV)
LRM-20: 12.69 (15.36 w/Artemis IV)

If you factor in launcher size, they're almost precisely equal - all of them average 63% of the theoretical max, or 77% with Artemis equipped.

[grimlock1]

The analytical solution is actually really easy - just multiply the cluster hits table by the probability of each roll.

The averages are as follows.

LRM-5: 3.17 (3.83 w/Artemis IV)
LRM-10: 6.31 (7.67 w/Artemis IV)
LRM-15: 9.50 (11.50 w/Artemis IV)
LRM-20: 12.69 (15.36 w/Artemis IV)

If you factor in launcher size, they're almost precisely equal - all of them average 63% of the theoretical max, or 77% with Artemis equipped.

My model factors in the difference of 4 TH rolls versus 1.  I expected LRM 5's would start to suffer when you get to TH numbers of 10-12.  Oddly enough, they don't.

You know what they say about statistics and bikinis?  On a whim, I reduced my sample from hundreds of lrm 20 firings to just 6, or 1 ton, and lowered the LRM 5 set to match.  Under those conditions there is a LOT more variability.  When limited to a single ton of ammo, the difference between the 2 sets could be +/- 5 damage points, but that's extreme.  There's no bias towards either launcher setup.

[monbvol]

Hmmm...  Still seems off to me but I'm not sure how I could make anything more accurate or know enough to properly refute those findings.

[(SMD)MadCow]

My model factors in the difference of 4 TH rolls versus 1.  I expected LRM 5's would start to suffer when you get to TH numbers of 10-12.  Oddly enough, they don't.

Seems a bit superfluous to attempt to account for "to hit" rolls, the data should only be concerned with assuming you hit since that's what triggers a roll on the cluster table. Really, the only thing that accounting for "to hit" will do is generate a 0 result which you're not measuring anyway.

[monbvol]

Well you do need to track that too for a fair comparison to account for the times where you only hit with say three LRM-5s but the LRM-20 does hit.

[garhkal]

yep I did basically the same thing several years ago.  You end up with effectively the same amount of damage over time.  The only real difference is that one is a stream of more smaller hits with less variation.  The other has more variation but averages out to the same over time.

Plus 4 lrm-5s do NOT weigh the same as a LRM-20.  So technically to get a proper comparison you'd have to do 5 lrm-5s (same weight)..

[Alsadius]

If you're looking at the variance, then it matters greatly. But if you're looking at the averages, it's so close as to be meaningless.

And yes, 4 LRM-5 don't weigh the same as 1 LRM-20, but they also don't have the same heat. So really you should use 3 LRM-5, to have the same heat balance. /s

[monbvol]

Personally that is where I would probably say the 4xLRM-5s = 1xLRM-20 makes the most sense.  You save enough weight and critical slots to add in some heat sinks to cover the added heat or add more ammo while also having the ability to voluntarily fire fewer LRM-5s if the variables of the combat situation have it make sense instead of firing all 4.

[(SMD)MadCow]

So there needs to be 3 different sets then?
5/20 Heat - 3 LRM5 to 1 LRM20 based on heat generated
5/20 Damage - 4 LRM5 to 1 LRM20 based on total damage
5/20 Weight - 5 LRM5 to 1 LRM20 based on with of the systems

What information do we stand to gain by measuring the variance of each set and between each set?
The averages are expected to remain the same, yes?

[monbvol]

Those three tests would reveal different spreads, thus resulting in different variances.

Just as a super simplistic example 3xLRM-5s if they all hit will tend to average out to 9 total damage applied in 3 clusters of 3 for the same heat as a LRM-20 but the LRM-20 assuming it hits will average out to 12 damage applied in two clusters of 5 and a cluster of 2.  As you can see that is a fairly substantial jump in damage you could reasonably expect and is the same number of hit locations.

[Dayton3]

The analytical solution is actually really easy - just multiply the cluster hits table by the probability of each roll.

The averages are as follows.

LRM-5: 3.17 (3.83 w/Artemis IV)
LRM-10: 6.31 (7.67 w/Artemis IV)
LRM-15: 9.50 (11.50 w/Artemis IV)
LRM-20: 12.69 (15.36 w/Artemis IV)

If you factor in launcher size, they're almost precisely equal - all of them average 63% of the theoretical max, or 77% with Artemis equipped.

I never knew Artemis increased your number of hits by only 14% on average?

How much do Streak's increase your number of SRM hits?

[(SMD)MadCow]

I never knew Artemis increased your number of hits by only 14% on average?

How much do Streak's increase your number of SRM hits?

100%, if you hit with a streak launcher all missiles hit.

[Alsadius]

Artemis is +2 on the cluster hits table, which works out to that bump. It's fairly substantial, though - it's 14 percentage points, but that's a 22 percent increase in damage done(because 77/63 = 1.22). In weight efficiency terms, anything LRM-10 or larger is improved by adding Artemis IV. (Artemis V is harder to calculate, as it gives a to-hit buff as well, but I suspect it's similar in the end).

[Iceweb]

I also wonder how much a +2 cluster helps when you throw in anti missile systems and glancing blows which can each put a -4 on the cluster table. 
There the +2 can mean getting a few missiles on target as opposed to having the whole salvo knocked out. 
I would love to see some mathcraft on that.

[Colt Ward]

AMS only gets to go against a single missile launch.  I think you can pick it . . .

[Dave Talley]

the problem with NARC was that it never proliferated in any serious way. You have, at max, three dozen units to choose from vs SG compatibility with hundreds of units mounting various flavors of TAG

but in a unit that is mostly L1 tech, you only need modify one mech to make every launcher in the unit better
ie swap a SRM6 on a hovercraft for a NARC and every other SRM/LRM in the company is improved when firing at that target

[Sartris]

but in a unit that is mostly L1 tech, you only need modify one mech to make every launcher in the unit better
ie swap a SRM6 on a hovercraft for a NARC and every other SRM/LRM in the company is improved when firing at that target

Indeed, at the top of the thread I mentioned that I was most successful with narc in this situation. The awkward paucity of in-universe deployment makes it a tough thing to wedge into forces sometimes if you don’t play customs.

[Luciora]

Part of me thinks all that was needed is a line in the NARC text saying it was a common refit for units that carried an SRM6, but on the other hand, we would end up with a glut of designs needing record sheets and designations for a single weapon swap for a canon sheet.

[grimlock1]

Part of me thinks all that was needed is a line in the NARC text saying it was a common refit for units that carried an SRM6, but on the other hand, we would end up with a glut of designs needing record sheets and designations for a single weapon swap for a canon sheet.

I like the idea of fluffing that in, and bearing it in mind going forward, but if it's just a SRM 6-->Narc swap, that can easily be added by hand to sheet.

Consider the CN9-D to CN9-D3, or SCB-9A to SCB-9T.  The only change to the record sheets are penciling in the new walk/run speeds and writing six "TSM" crits. The DCMS's C3 upgrades warranted a change because not every mech had a medium laser to swap out. Sometimes it was a heatsink, or some ammo.

[Iceweb]

AMS only gets to go against a single missile launch.  I think you can pick it . . .

 

Once you are into using AMS and the -4 you are in optional rules and I think there are some rules to let AMS fire multiple times. 
Also you get to target one flight (that hits) per AMS you have some mechs have more than one like the Komodo. 
Any attack roll can be exact and glance and get the -4 result so that is not limited. 

Some math would be nice to see.

[Colt Ward]

Well, glancing blows are option rules and the only time I remember seeing that used was in a novel.

[monbvol]

AMS applying -4 is a standard rule.

AMS being able to shoot down all missiles in a flight is an optional rule, or any other method causing all clusters to miss.

Glancing Blows is an optional rule.

This actually gives us multiple conditions to test.

Artemis vs AMS under standard rules which will also give us the same results as testing for just Glancing Blows without the optional rule for all missiles missing.

Artemis vs AMS with optional rule where all missiles can miss which will also give the same results as Glancing Blows with the optional rule in play as well.

Artemis vs AMS and Glancing Blows but not with the optional rule for all missiles to miss.

Artemis vs AMS and Glancing Blows with the optional rule for all missiles to miss in play.

Each requires a slightly different methodology which I think I will leave to others to go through because I'm getting some really funky numbers.