Why Tweak the Autocannon?

[Retry]

If they all have jump jets, it's not hard at all.

If they all have jump jets, I think I'd rather have pulse lasers.

[Daryk]

Fair point...

[RifleMech]

It solves a heat problem but reduces overall average sustained damage slightly and involves throwing the baby out of the bathwater, since the PPC is the primary system and the AC/5 is the unnecessary secondary system.  Removing the AC/5 for a few heat sinks, on the other hand, solves the heat problem while keeping the same damage on average, and solves another problem at the same time (explodey ammo bits). Ditching the AC/5 is simply a far better approach.

That doesn't work for every unit. And the rule change is what turned a primary weapon into a secondary one. Remember all heat sinks used to take crits. So every heat sink destroyed the worse things got for energy weapons. The AC on the other hand wasn't effected by the loss of a few heat sinks.

If you don't have enough tonnage or space for more missiles, you're not going to have enough tonnage for an Autocannon.

That would depend on the unit, the engine, the amount of heat sinks, and the range you want to hit it at.

I presume you mean the Partisan, not the Scorpion.

You're not replacing 1 AC/5 with a PPC.  You're replacing 2 AC/5s and 1 ton of ammo with a PPC.  As independent weapon systems, 2 AC/5s cost 50,000 C-Bills more than the PPC.  Heat sinks bring the advantage down slightly but still not enough to make the AC/5 system cheaper, and the PPC has cheaper "ammo" (ICE fuel).

No fusion engine is involved in the conversion.  I never said anything about a fusion engine.  I said exactly how I modified the Partisan further back in the thread, enough information to go through and do it yourself.  But I've also posted the combat vee in the appropiate thread now.  And yes, I've looked at Techmanual too to double check, and it checks out.

I was talking the Scorpion not the Partisan. Although I did just see where you did. A PPC Scorpion is more expensive as it has to have a fusion engine.

And sorry that doesn't work. 2 AC/5s and 1 ton of ammo is 17 tons. 1 PPC, 10 heat sinks and a Power Amplifier is 18 tons. The PPC doesn't fit. You need to remove more ammo or something. Also the Power Amplifier costs 20,000. That's on top of the 20,000 for Heat sinks. That's only a difference of 20,000 if you remove 2 tons of ammo. A little more expensive but not that much.

LRM-5 deals ~>3 damage on average, 1 is extremely rare (1/36), you're much more likely to hit with your full salvo (1/12) than to hit with exactly one missile.  And in fact the "dice gods" DO care about probability, unless you're straight-up using loaded dice.  In either case, the Autocannon will not save you from bad luck.

I could calculate the probability that the twin LRM-5 system deals as much damage or more than an AC/5 as well as the average damage output of twin LRM-5s, but I get the feeling you really don't care.

Since I have played games with only 1 missile hitting you would be right. Average doesn't mean a certain amount of damage will be done all the time. It's just an idea of how much might be done but it not a sure thing.

I see absolutely no references to iACs in TRO:3050.  Which page number?

Page 214. It's in the section Weapons.

It weighs less than a PPC with heat sinks and power amplifiers.  It should, since the PPC doesn't have ammo requirements and deals 2x more damage outside of an optional rule that can be vetoed by your group.  But the PPC still weighs less than 2 AC/5s with heat sinks and ammo, which is damage equivalent.

True the PPC doesn't have ammo requirements. It does however have Power and Heat Sink requirements far in excess of the AC/5. And if going with a ICE the PPC, weighs only 1 ton less than 2 AC/5s, 2 heat sinks, and ammo.

That really isn't the head-scratcher you think it is.

Energy Weapons: No explosive Ammo, no Ammo Consumption/Unlimited Shots and therefore cheaper operational costs, makes use of "free" heat sinks on vehicles, Heavier energy weapons can put a big hole at a significantly longer distance than the big ACs, the Medium laser is still the medium laser, Anti-Infantry effectiveness of SPLs/Plasma/Flamers, Fire-starting shenanigans of Flamers/Plasma.

Missile Weapons: Indirect Fire capable (LRM, ELRM, NLRM), very flexible and useful ammunition types (Smoke, Inferno, Mine-Laying, Mine-Clearing, acid, tandem-charge), can take advantage of technologies such as NARC or TAG, Generally lighter and more compact launchers than ACs, Damage is good for their weight and bulk (esp. Clan versions, and on Vees).

There's already a ton of reasons to use the other two classes of weapons even if you axe some of the AC's pointless chains.

Autocannons: Are very low heat for their damage. Not all unit gets "free" heat sinks. They weigh less than energy weapons for those units. The total weight of some energy weapons preclude their installation on some units. The Medium laser has half the range of the AC/5. Alternate ammo make the AC/s more effective against a variety of targets. Without having to resort to additional systems that take up more weight and crits. Autocannons do more consistent damage than Missiles (outside use on aerospace), weigh less if going by average damage (except for Clan systems) again with less heat. Autocannons can be used by infantry. Few things beat an AC/20 for shear damage.

Let me put it another way.

If tomorrow there was an announcement that the regular, Vanilla ACs were going to be retconned with the following improvements:
1. The AC/2's heat would be reduced to 0
2. The AC/2's and AC/5s minimum range would be reduced to 0
3. The AC/2's ammunition supply would be standardized to 50 to fit with the rest of the autocannons
4. The Vanilla AC would have a heavily modified version of "Rapid Fire Autocannons" from Tac Ops now as a standard rule: The ability to double-tap as though it were a UAC (Jamming only on a 2) at the cost of a +1 penalty to the to-hit modifier

Do you truly believe that the standard vanilla Autocannon would all of the sudden become so powerful such that all the AC-toting Mechs like the Blackjack and the Jagermech would completely dominate its peers fit with missile and energy weapons, that a "competitive" and competent design must have an Autocannon on top, and that the forums will be filled with cries to nerf the Autocannon?No.

The first 3 probably wouldn't change things at all. The fourth eliminates the reason for the Ultra so you'd need to improve it. And no I don't believe they would dominate. Although I can see complaints about the Ultra and Rotary ACs in comparison to the "improved" AC.

There's not a single Battlemech design that cannot be improved by replacing the Autocannons with something else, even in 3025.

The PPC Blackjack needs DHS to be workable. Even if it has DHS the energy boat Rifleman would still be a failure do to overheating. The LRM Jagermech is a maybe, however it can overheat easier than the AC variant. And again, random missile hits. I wouldn't call it better, just alternative. The medium laser Swayback is ammo independent but lacks the solid punch of the AC/20 that makes the Hunchback scary.

There's a been many multi-page threads complaining about the Autocannon, and there will be many more.  Not just this forum, but other BT-related forums as well.  It becomes very clear when you've extensively designed customs and fielded regular 'Mechs that the Autocannons are lemons, especially for the Clans since their autocannons don't improve to such a degree as their missiles and lasers.

Of course there will be. Those complaining generally, only see just the damage, range, and tonnage. When you factor in everything else Autocannons are not lemons. In fact they're far from it when you look at how they were originally. And there's a good deal of threads for complaints about the Clan Missiles being broken.

Of course, none of us can agree what specifically they'd want to change to improve the autocannon, hence we got FF's idea of the +2 damage on a MoS, my idea to make non-ultras "Ultra-Lite" and scrapping some of the more pointless crutches on the AC/2 and /5, other's ideas to just make ACs lighter.  But there's general agreement that the autocannon is not competitive in general, and that side has much more convincing arguments.

I don't think some of the "crutches" would be noticed if they went away. Start playing with the other things and they'll be arguments. Like why not use the MoS to increase the number of missiles that hit? Having an additional missile or two hitting is always a good thing. Probably the easiest thing would be to make the optional rules standard. It still wouldn't change things to much but does make the AC/s a little more different.

[RifleMech]

1 - They don't need it.
2 - This mechanic makes Autocannons feel different from the other weapons.
3 - Just a side note: MoS is kind of intimidating to some players, even if this is a MoS of 1+. This takes no thought/time.

Why not? They have margins of success also.
They already do.

[Daryk]

*snip*
A PPC Scorpion is more expensive as it has to have a fusion engine.
*snip*

Even at 2:1, I think my PPC Scorpion would be worth it.  It has more speed and more armor, and the fractional accounting version even crams in an extra MG.

[RifleMech]

Even at 2:1, I think my PPC Scorpion would be worth it.  It has more speed and more armor, and the fractional accounting version even crams in an extra MG.

Is this the fusion powered Scorpion? Sure. Of course its no longer a cheap light tank. You also make all the tanks the same. And since money is no longer a factor I'm gonna go with reflective armor to counter your PPCs.





Thinking about it, I don't think the solution is to tweak autocannons but to have more of them. I know they're put in classes to simplify the game but reading the fluff there's a wide degree of sizes just in one class of Autocannon. What if the game reflected that? What if, there was an optional way for the Marauder's 120mm AC/5 to do more damage with less range than the Rifleman's 80mm? AC/5s? Or the Hetzer's 150mm AC/20 has a greater range than the Demolisher's 185mm AC/20?

[Apocal]

Is this the fusion powered Scorpion? Sure. Of course its no longer a cheap light tank. You also make all the tanks the same. And since money is no longer a factor I'm gonna go with reflective armor to counter your PPCs.

You have access to reflective armor and still consider using an AC/5? By time that armor is available, the era-relevant battlefield has moved far beyond AC/5's being useful in their stated niche.

[Daryk]

I provided a link to my Scorpion up thread, and it's 3025 tech.  Does Reflective Armor actually work against particle cannons?  I thought it was only lasers...  ???

[Retry]

That doesn't work for every unit. And the rule change is what turned a primary weapon into a secondary one. Remember all heat sinks used to take crits. So every heat sink destroyed the worse things got for energy weapons. The AC on the other hand wasn't effected by the loss of a few heat sinks.

Autocannons produce heat, and are most certainly effected by a lost heat sink or damaged engine, especially AC/20s and UAC/20s.  If you go full AC and somehow manage to use all your heat sinks effectively (which would be impressive given how heavy bloody ACs are, but possible on AC/20 boats with SHS), you will be more effected by heat sink losses, engine crits, and inferno rounds.

An Extreme case: The Hellstar that loses several DHS and gets an engine crit would simply have to either bracket fire with 4/3/4/3 ERPPCs and keeps most of its firepower.  A King Crab that loses several HS and gets an engine crit has to completely withhold an entire AC/20 at short range.

I had iATM and SRM boats that made very good use of this, engulfing other 'Mechs with Infernos.  Ballistic boats and LRM boats with minimal Heat Sinks (like 10 DHS) would have to withhold most or all their firepower to avoid frying.  A 3025 era mech with only a few SHS could feasibly be fried out of the cockpit by Inferno fire alone (and the iATM boat was fluffed to have done so to a poor pirate on one occasion).  Energy boats like Hellstars would only have to withhold 1 or 2 primary weapons.

That would depend on the unit, the engine, the amount of heat sinks, and the range you want to hit it at.

It really doesn't.  At 1 ton for the SRM-2 and 2 tons for the LRM-5, there's always a missile solution that ends up lighter than the Autocannon solution.  The edge cases ("Oh, I absolutely need to hit that target at exactly 24 hexes and not 22 that an ER PPC or Gauss Rifle can reach!) really don't matter.

I was talking the Scorpion not the Partisan. Although I did just see where you did. A PPC Scorpion is more expensive as it has to have a fusion engine.

Why are you talking about the Scorpion being more expensive when I'm talking about the Partisan?

And sorry that doesn't work. 2 AC/5s and 1 ton of ammo is 17 tons. 1 PPC, 10 heat sinks and a Power Amplifier is 18 tons. The PPC doesn't fit. You need to remove more ammo or something. Also the Power Amplifier costs 20,000. That's on top of the 20,000 for Heat sinks. That's only a difference of 20,000 if you remove 2 tons of ammo. A little more expensive but not that much.

Incorrect.  You didn't account for turret weight.

4 AC/5s is 32 tons, mounted on a turret increases the mechanism weight by +3.5 tons.  Add 2 tons of ammo (which is rather limited) for a total weapon system weight of 37.5 tons.

2 PPCs is 14 tons, mounted on a turret increases the mechanism weight by +1.5 tons.  Requires an additional +1.5 tons for Power Amps (10% of 14 tons of energy weapons rounded up) and +20 tons worth of Heat Sinks.  Net weapon system weight is 37.0 tons, .5 tons lighter than the AC/5 system.

The PPC array is lighter than the AC/5 array on a Partisan.

The cost for the PPC option is [400,000(PPCs)+30,000(Amps)+40,000(HS)+7,500(turret)]*1.8(Vehicle Weight Multiplier)=859,500 C-Bills.

The cost for the AC/5 option is [500,000(AC5)+17,500(turret)]*1.8(Vehicle Weight Multiplier)=931,500 C-Bills.  The difference in cost, before considering ammo, is 72k in the PPC configuration's favour.

The PPC array is cheaper than the AC/5 array on a Partisan.

I have a (legal) design in Customs posted very recently that showcases this.  I have done it.  It's verified as legal through TechManual.  When you actually get into the nitty-gritty of calculating everything, the numbers line up.

It is exactly as I said.  The PPC array is as light or lighter than arrays of AC/5s while remaining a cheaper option, even on an ICE vehicle.

Page 214. It's in the section Weapons.

There's no "weapons" section in my copy.  The Magi is on my Pg.214.

True the PPC doesn't have ammo requirements. It does however have Power and Heat Sink requirements far in excess of the AC/5. And if going with a ICE the PPC, weighs only 1 ton less than 2 AC/5s, 2 heat sinks, and ammo.

You do realize that "only" being lighter and cheaper while also not having any of the big disadvantages associated with ammo weapons even in the worst-case scenario of running an ICE (the whole "needing a logistical trail for ammo" thing, plus the "running out of ammo in the middle of the battlefield" issue, and the "explodium trap in a torso" problem) is kind of a big deal?

Autocannons: Are very low heat for their damage.

You mis-spelled Gauss Rifles.
The AC/2 requires 1 hit, giving it a heat/damage ratio of .5.  A "hot" Medium Laser is only .6.  A LRM-20 is around .47, and a SRM-6 is .5.  Missiles become further heat efficient if they mount Artemis or Streak.  The AC/2 is rather "middling" than low heat for its damage.

Only the AC/5 is impressively cool for its heat at a ratio of .2.  AC/10s and AC/20s are somewhere in between the other autocannons at .3 and .35, respectively.  Colder than a Large Laser or a PPC, certainly, but they don't have a huge edge over missiles or the regular medium laser.  The heat-to-damage ratio of ACs become worse when double-tapping an ultra-autocannon as well.

If you want very low heat for the damage you have to look for the Autocannon's buffer brothers: the Gauss Rifles.  The LGR manages a good .125 and the regular Gauss Rifle boasts a truly impressive .067.

Not all unit gets "free" heat sinks. They weigh less than energy weapons for those units.

Despite your first statement being technically true, your second statement is not.  In practice, even ICE designs can trade in Autocannons for energy weapons for a similar, even lighter weight, without sacrificing effectiveness.  Depending on the energy weapon and the AC being traded, the energy replacement often ends up costing less.

The (PPC) Partisan is one example of a design replacing an energy weapon to get better results for less cost.  The Demolisher is another.  Simply swapping the two AC/20s for 8 Medium Lasers (Baby Ontos) results in equivalent damage and range brackets for nearly 400,000 less C-Bills.  That swap gives you an extra ton to boot for more armor or a MG.

The total weight of some energy weapons preclude their installation on some units.

The total weight of Autocannons preclude their installation on some units.  Then you either make a bigger unit or change up your armament.  So what?

Alternate ammo make the AC/s more effective against a variety of targets.

Your suggested loadouts haven't had enough space to make good use of alternate ammo loadouts.  SRM Ammo and LRM Ammo has more generally useful alternative options.

(autocannons) weigh less (than missiles) if going by average damage (except for Clan systems) again with less heat. 

The heat is only extrinsically relevant (It only really matters in the design phase in such a sense that you have to spend crits and weight in order to accommodate the heat production.  Weight would be the intrinsically relevant metric.

As for the autocannons weighing less than missiles by average damage, that's wrong.  Blatantly wrong.

Going with heat sink adjusted weights (weapon system with heat sinks all added to completely cover the heat production), we get the following weights for the LRM-5 and SRM-6:
LRM-5: 4 tons
SRM-6: 7 tons

Average damage can be computed from the Cluster Hits Table as the following:
LRM-5: ~3.167 damage
SRM-6: 8 damage

Hence, the average damage per unit weight for these systems can be computed simply by dividing damage by weight:
LRM-5: .792 Damage/ton
SRM-6: 1.143 Damage/ton

The average damage per unit weight for standard ACs can be computed in a similar way very easily:
AC2: .286
AC5: .555
AC10: .667
AC20: .952

(Damage is computed pre-ammo in all cases.  Obviously, allocating for ammo will reduce the damage per ton.)

Both missile systems beat the AC/2 quite handily.  The LRM-5 beats the AC/5 and AC/10 convincingly.  The AC/20 does beat the LRM, but at that point we're in the SRM's territory, which beats all four autocannons

So yeah, that's false.  By the numbers, the Missile systems weigh less than autocannons when going by average damage, not the other way around.

Really.  This is pretty common knowledge as far as BT goes.  Have you actually done any number crunching on this before making your claims?

The first 3 probably wouldn't change things at all. The fourth eliminates the reason for the Ultra so you'd need to improve it. And no I don't believe they would dominate. Although I can see complaints about the Ultra and Rotary ACs in comparison to the "improved" AC.

The Ultra is more accurate when double-tapping.  So no, they're not pointless (though I did change how they work in my AC rework anyways).

So you don't think getting rid of their individual maluses (min range, AC/2 heat) and allowing them to act as miniature UACs at the same time is going overboard?  And you still defend ACs as-is as if they're competitive?  That's rather telling.

The PPC Blackjack needs DHS to be workable. Even if it has DHS the energy boat Rifleman would still be a failure do to overheating. The LRM Jagermech is a maybe, however it can overheat easier than the AC variant. And again, random missile hits. I wouldn't call it better, just alternative. The medium laser Swayback is ammo independent but lacks the solid punch of the AC/20 that makes the Hunchback scary.

I'm not really talking canon designs.  Those hit so many dumb pitfalls anyways it's not even funny.

I really don't care if a Swayback's 8 medium lasers isn't as "scary" as an AC/20.  It does the job.  If an opponent ignores the swayback because it's not as "scary" as an AC/20 he's going to get blown to bits by a backside shot.  If anything, not being "scary" is an advantage in that sense.

Of course there will be. Those complaining generally, only see just the damage, range, and tonnage. When you factor in everything else Autocannons are not lemons. In fact they're far from it when you look at how they were originally. And there's a good deal of threads for complaints about the Clan Missiles being broken.

I have factored everything (as have others) and we are telling you they're lemons.  You really need to look at the things again.  There have been several obvious flaws in your arguments that are easily disproved by simple algebra.

Don't bring the Clans into this.  We're not talking about the Clans.

I don't think some of the "crutches" would be noticed if they went away.

I did.  I noticed right away.

When I house-ruled away the AC/2 and AC/5 minimum range brackets, and the heat of the AC/2, they felt significantly better than they used to be.  They still weren't good, but being able to plink something close range with an AC/2 without the heat or accuracy penalty (from minimum range) without any real penalty felt nice.  My 'mech paid 7+ tons for such a weak weapon, at least let me use the bloody thing!

House-ruling the "Mini Ultra" things finally got them to feel competitive in 3025, and unique as a weapon system in general.  But the crutch-removal was still nice.

Start playing with the other things and they'll be arguments. Like why not use the MoS to increase the number of missiles that hit? Having an additional missile or two hitting is always a good thing.

FF has already made his reasoning clear as to "why not".  I won't repeat it.

Probably the easiest thing would be to make the optional rules standard. It still wouldn't change things to much but does make the AC/s a little more different.

Easy, sure.  Good, no.  There's been much better ideas on improving the Autocannon, some of which have been tested on the Tabletop already.

Is this the fusion powered Scorpion? Sure. Of course its no longer a cheap light tank. You also make all the tanks the same. And since money is no longer a factor I'm gonna go with reflective armor to counter your PPCs.

"Cheap" is relative.  An "expensive" Fusion Scorpion can still be built cheaper than the Hetzer.

It's kind of noteworthy that using Reflective to "counter" the PPC just makes it a lighter AC/5 in this case.  But since we're playing that game: I bid 2 Boeing Jump Bombers with HE bombs against your Reflective Armor Scorpion!  ;)

Thinking about it, I don't think the solution is to tweak autocannons but to have more of them. I know they're put in classes to simplify the game but reading the fluff there's a wide degree of sizes just in one class of Autocannon. What if the game reflected that? What if, there was an optional way for the Marauder's 120mm AC/5 to do more damage with less range than the Rifleman's 80mm? AC/5s? Or the Hetzer's 150mm AC/20 has a greater range than the Demolisher's 185mm AC/20?

There's the Quirk system.  Presumably you could do the same for other weapons.  There's plenty of brands for SRMs and lasers.

I provided a link to my Scorpion up thread, and it's 3025 tech.  Does Reflective Armor actually work against particle cannons?  I thought it was only lasers...  ???

Reflective works against all energy weapons, basically.  It even reduces heat from Flamers and Plasma weapons, curiously enough.

[RifleMech]

You have access to reflective armor and still consider using an AC/5? By time that armor is available, the era-relevant battlefield has moved far beyond AC/5's being useful in their stated niche.

Yes because I don't agree that the AC/5 isn't useful.

I provided a link to my Scorpion up thread, and it's 3025 tech.  Does Reflective Armor actually work against particle cannons?  I thought it was only lasers...  ???

It does. It was the original "prototype" version that only worked against lasers. It can be found in Tactical Handbook.

[Apocal]

Yes because I don't agree that the AC/5 isn't useful.

A rapid-fire AC/5 still does worse damage (on average) than a PPC firing against reflective armor though, because it rolls clusters and probably jams mid-way through a match.

[RifleMech]

Autocannons produce heat, and are most certainly effected by a lost heat sink or damaged engine, especially AC/20s and UAC/20s.  If you go full AC and somehow manage to use all your heat sinks effectively (which would be impressive given how heavy bloody ACs are, but possible on AC/20 boats with SHS), you will be more effected by heat sink losses, engine crits, and inferno rounds.

Autocannons don't generate heat in all units. Energy weapons do. 

An Extreme case: The Hellstar that loses several DHS and gets an engine crit would simply have to either bracket fire with 4/3/4/3 ERPPCs and keeps most of its firepower.  A King Crab that loses several HS and gets an engine crit has to completely withhold an entire AC/20 at short range.

That might be true but wouldn't the King Crab also have DHSs? Give the King Crag DHS and it wouldn't need to worry.

I had iATM and SRM boats that made very good use of this, engulfing other 'Mechs with Infernos.  Ballistic boats and LRM boats with minimal Heat Sinks (like 10 DHS) would have to withhold most or all their firepower to avoid frying.  A 3025 era mech with only a few SHS could feasibly be fried out of the cockpit by Inferno fire alone (and the iATM boat was fluffed to have done so to a poor pirate on one occasion).  Energy boats like Hellstars would only have to withhold 1 or 2 primary weapons.

You will note that you're using fire against a minimum of 10 SHS. DHS give mechs a huge advantage. That's why some claim they're broken. Would the Hellstar even function with SHS?

It really doesn't.  At 1 ton for the SRM-2 and 2 tons for the LRM-5, there's always a missile solution that ends up lighter than the Autocannon solution.  The edge cases ("Oh, I absolutely need to hit that target at exactly 24 hexes and not 22 that an ER PPC or Gauss Rifle can reach!) really don't matter.

Comparing the SRM-2 and LRM-5 to the AC/5 nets 1 ton. The SRM doesn't help if you can get in range and both systems depend on good rolls on the chart for max damage.

Why are you talking about the Scorpion being more expensive when I'm talking about the Partisan?

Without going back to see who said what: I said you couldn't swap the AC/5 for a PPC, heat sinks, and power amplifier. Someone said you could if you replaced the engine. I said that would work but it is more expensive.

Incorrect.  You didn't account for turret weight.

4 AC/5s is 32 tons, mounted on a turret increases the mechanism weight by +3.5 tons.  Add 2 tons of ammo (which is rather limited) for a total weapon system weight of 37.5 tons.

2 PPCs is 14 tons, mounted on a turret increases the mechanism weight by +1.5 tons.  Requires an additional +1.5 tons for Power Amps (10% of 14 tons of energy weapons rounded up) and +20 tons worth of Heat Sinks.  Net weapon system weight is 37.0 tons, .5 tons lighter than the AC/5 system.

The PPC array is lighter than the AC/5 array on a Partisan.
The cost for the PPC option is [400,000(PPCs)+30,000(Amps)+40,000(HS)+7,500(turret)]*1.8(Vehicle Weight Multiplier)=859,500 C-Bills.

The cost for the AC/5 option is [500,000(AC5)+17,500(turret)]*1.8(Vehicle Weight Multiplier)=931,500 C-Bills.  The difference in cost, before considering ammo, is 72k in the PPC configuration's favour.

The PPC array is cheaper than the AC/5 array on a Partisan.

I have a (legal) design in Customs posted very recently that showcases this.  I have done it.  It's verified as legal through TechManual.  When you actually get into the nitty-gritty of calculating everything, the numbers line up.

It is exactly as I said.  The PPC array is as light or lighter than arrays of AC/5s while remaining a cheaper option, even on an ICE vehicle.

Earlier you were also just replacing 2 AC/5s for 1 PPC. Now you're replacing the entire turret and all the weapons. That's a big difference.  You're also working on a 80 ton vehicle. Try the 25 ton Scorpion. It doesn't work. PPC + 10 heat sinks + Power Amplifier = 18 tons. The AC/5 only weights 9 tons with ammo. The only way it'd work is if you change the Scorpion's engine. And it will never work on a Support Vehicle no matter what size it is. They don't get free heat sinks.

There's no "weapons" section in my copy.  The Magi is on my Pg.214.

That would be the revised edition of TRO:3050 that removed the Unseen and the Engineer's Test section and replaced them with TRO:2750's vehicles. The original TRO:3050 had the Unseen and an Engineering section that gave rules for the new weapons and rules on outfitting OMNI Mechs, and how to use Battle Armor.

You do realize that "only" being lighter and cheaper while also not having any of the big disadvantages associated with ammo weapons even in the worst-case scenario of running an ICE (the whole "needing a logistical trail for ammo" thing, plus the "running out of ammo in the middle of the battlefield" issue, and the "explodium trap in a torso" problem) is kind of a big deal?

That should have been 1 ton lighter with a combat fusion engine. Energy weapons being "lighter" depends a good deal on the engine. ICE are going to have a logistics trail anyway. A lot of these tanks are meant for defense so the trail shouldn't be that big anyway. And yes ammo can explode and that's a bad thing. Energy boats also overheat. Overheating can cause the fuel to explode in a mech. Never a good thing. Overheating also adversely effects the pilot, and the mech's performance. Running out of ammo is also a bad thing. So is having heat shut your mech down.

You mis-spelled Gauss Rifles.
The AC/2 requires 1 hit, giving it a heat/damage ratio of .5.  A "hot" Medium Laser is only .6.  A LRM-20 is around .47, and a SRM-6 is .5.  Missiles become further heat efficient if they mount Artemis or Streak.  The AC/2 is rather "middling" than low heat for its damage.

Only the AC/5 is impressively cool for its heat at a ratio of .2.  AC/10s and AC/20s are somewhere in between the other autocannons at .3 and .35, respectively.  Colder than a Large Laser or a PPC, certainly, but they don't have a huge edge over missiles or the regular medium laser.  The heat-to-damage ratio of ACs become worse when double-tapping an ultra-autocannon as well.

If you want very low heat for the damage you have to look for the Autocannon's buffer brothers: the Gauss Rifles.  The LGR manages a good .125 and the regular Gauss Rifle boasts a truly impressive .067.

No I did not.
Medium Laser generate 3 heat for 5 damage. That's 3 times the heat of an AC/5.
LRM-5 generate 2 heat for 1-5 points of damage. That's 2 times that of the AC/5 with a varying amount of damage.

Gauss Rifles are the only weapons that better AC/s when comparing heat to damage. And they're not available all the time. They also have other factors where autocannons are superior.

Despite your first statement being technically true, your second statement is not.  In practice, even ICE designs can trade in Autocannons for energy weapons for a similar, even lighter weight, without sacrificing effectiveness.  Depending on the energy weapon and the AC being traded, the energy replacement often ends up costing less.

That doesn't work for all units.

The (PPC) Partisan is one example of a design replacing an energy weapon to get better results for less cost.  The Demolisher is another.  Simply swapping the two AC/20s for 8 Medium Lasers (Baby Ontos) results in equivalent damage and range brackets for nearly 400,000 less C-Bills.  That swap gives you an extra ton to boot for more armor or a MG.

True but then you miss the solid punch of the AC/20 and the intimidation factor that gives. And should double tapping be allowed, the lasers would only do half the damage.

The total weight of Autocannons preclude their installation on some units. Then you either make a bigger unit or change up your armament.  So what?

True but you can get longer range on a lighter unit with an AC than you could an energy weapon. Below a certain size your limited to missiles or small energy weapons, or the LRC.

Your suggested loadouts haven't had enough space to make good use of alternate ammo loadouts.  SRM Ammo and LRM Ammo has more generally useful alternative options.

Depends on the unit and units I'm facing.

The heat is only extrinsically relevant (It only really matters in the design phase in such a sense that you have to spend crits and weight in order to accommodate the heat production.  Weight would be the intrinsically relevant metric.

And energy weapons generate more heat and thus need more heat sinks.

As for the autocannons weighing less than missiles by average damage, that's wrong.  Blatantly wrong.

Going with heat sink adjusted weights (weapon system with heat sinks all added to completely cover the heat production), we get the following weights for the LRM-5 and SRM-6:
LRM-5: 4 tons
SRM-6: 7 tons

Average damage can be computed from the Cluster Hits Table as the following:
LRM-5: ~3.167 damage
SRM-6: 8 damage

Hence, the average damage per unit weight for these systems can be computed simply by dividing damage by weight:
LRM-5: .792 Damage/ton
SRM-6: 1.143 Damage/ton

The average damage per unit weight for standard ACs can be computed in a similar way very easily:
AC2: .286
AC5: .555
AC10: .667
AC20: .952

(Damage is computed pre-ammo in all cases.  Obviously, allocating for ammo will reduce the damage per ton.)

Both missile systems beat the AC/2 quite handily.  The LRM-5 beats the AC/5 and AC/10 convincingly.  The AC/20 does beat the LRM, but at that point we're in the SRM's territory, which beats all four autocannons

So yeah, that's false.  By the numbers, the Missile systems weigh less than autocannons when going by average damage, not the other way around.

If you go by "average" I do not. Average doesn't mean anything since even average changes. Take the LRM-5. It will do 1 point of damage for 5 tons. Unless its on an aerospace unit. Then its 3 points of damage for 5 tons. You'd need an LRM-10 to be close to equaling an AC/5. The LRM-10 will do 3 points of damage (6 for aerospace). At that point both the AC/5 and LRM-10 weigh 10 tons.

Now yes the LRM-10 does have the possibility of doing 10 points of damage. So does the AC/5. And like I said before, "If the Dice gods are favoring me with max LRM hits, I might as well double tap the AC."

Really.  This is pretty common knowledge as far as BT goes.  Have you actually done any number crunching on this before making your claims?

All kinds of number crunching doesn't mean a thing on the table. What matters there is how you roll. I've played games where I've consistently rolled below average for missiles. I can see how "average" makes missiles look good and sometimes they are. However, experience has me look at the for sure damage number because that is what I can count on.

The Ultra is more accurate when double-tapping.  So no, they're not pointless (though I did change how they work in my AC rework anyways).

Heavier bulkier weapon that does the same damage or a +1 modifier? hmm, More ammo or more armor? Back up weapon maybe?

So you don't think getting rid of their individual maluses (min range, AC/2 heat) and allowing them to act as miniature UACs at the same time is going overboard?  And you still defend ACs as-is as if they're competitive?  That's rather telling.

That wasn't what was asked. The question was whether or not I thought the changes would cause the autocannons to be dominate. Not that they were going overboard.

Do you truly believe that the standard vanilla Autocannon would all of the sudden become so powerful such that all the AC-toting Mechs like the Blackjack and the Jagermech would completely dominate its peers fit with missile and energy weapons, that a "competitive" and competent design must have an Autocannon on top, and that the forums will be filled with cries to nerf the Autocannon?No.

My answer to that was

The first 3 probably wouldn't change things at all. The fourth eliminates the reason for the Ultra so you'd need to improve it. And no I don't believe they would dominate. Although I can see complaints about the Ultra and Rotary ACs in comparison to the "improved" AC.

So, again, not only do I not believe such changes would cause autocannons to dominate other weapons, I questioned whether or not they could cause problems for other types of autocannons.

I'm not really talking canon designs.  Those hit so many dumb pitfalls anyways it's not even funny.

You said, "

There's not a single Battlemech design that cannot be improved by replacing the Autocannons with something else, even in 3025.

"

I listed some 3025 designs that I did not believe were improved. You didn't say anything about maxed out custom designs or how I'm to look at them to determine if they were improved or not.

I really don't care if a Swayback's 8 medium lasers isn't as "scary" as an AC/20.  It does the job.  If an opponent ignores the swayback because it's not as "scary" as an AC/20 he's going to get blown to bits by a backside shot.  If anything, not being "scary" is an advantage in that sense.

Not being feared means I can send lighter units against it that it'd have a difficult time against. It also lacks the solid punch to make it worth trying to close into range of a heavier opponent and the speed to close against a faster one. 

I have factored everything (as have others) and we are telling you they're lemons.  You really need to look at the things again.  There have been several obvious flaws in your arguments that are easily disproved by simple algebra.

Don't bring the Clans into this.  We're not talking about the Clans.

No you keep telling me that ACs suck when compared to a BattleMech with a SFE and DHS. You tell me they suck on large tanks with plenty of tonnage. You have not convinced me that autocannons are lemons on all units.

Clans are a part of the universe and I am looking at the whole universe. I'm also looking at the history of the game rules.

As for algebra, it doesn't help me roll 12s on the cluster chart. It never has so bringing it up won't convince me.

I did.  I noticed right away.

When I house-ruled away the AC/2 and AC/5 minimum range brackets, and the heat of the AC/2, they felt significantly better than they used to be.  They still weren't good, but being able to plink something close range with an AC/2 without the heat or accuracy penalty (from minimum range) without any real penalty felt nice.  My 'mech paid 7+ tons for such a weak weapon, at least let me use the bloody thing!

House-ruling the "Mini Ultra" things finally got them to feel competitive in 3025, and unique as a weapon system in general.  But the crutch-removal was still nice.

And I would ask why you were using such a weapon at close range. It's a miss-use of the weapon. The AC/2 is meant for plinking at long range not up close.

FF has already made his reasoning clear as to "why not".  I won't repeat it.

And I questioned why other weapons shouldn't have the same MoS.

Easy, sure.  Good, no.  There's been much better ideas on improving the Autocannon, some of which have been tested on the Tabletop already.

Better defined by who? The ones I've seen, and even sort of liked, could apply to all weapons or cause other to be questioned if not invalidated.

"Cheap" is relative.  An "expensive" Fusion Scorpion can still be built cheaper than the Hetzer.

Possibly but they also have different functions.

It's kind of noteworthy that using Reflective to "counter" the PPC just makes it a lighter AC/5 in this case.  But since we're playing that game: I bid 2 Boeing Jump Bombers with HE bombs against your Reflective Armor Scorpion!  ;)

And my Scorpion has platoons of field artillery infantry with arrow IVs with anti-defense arrows.
So your bombers never got close to my tank.  ;D

There's the Quirk system.  Presumably you could do the same for other weapons. There's plenty of brands for SRMs and lasers.

Yes, something like that. There's already quirks for accuracy and heat. Why not damage and range too?

[RifleMech]

A rapid-fire AC/5 still does worse damage (on average) than a PPC firing against reflective armor though, because it rolls clusters and probably jams mid-way through a match.

Actually, a rapid-fire AC/5 could do 10 point of damage to reflectve armor. The PPC will only do 5 points of damage. Even if the AC/5 didn't rapid fire at all damage from both would still be 5.

[Apocal]

Actually, a rapid-fire AC/5 could do 10 point of damage to reflectve armor. The PPC will only do 5 points of damage. Even if the AC/5 didn't rapid fire at all damage from both would still be 5.

It can put out a pair of 5 points hits, sure. But it can also jam, which is why I said "average." Average damage under rapid-fire rules is actually less than five for anything longer than about 13 rounds (I might be off on the math of that) and that is before accounting for the cluster table misses. That's why I said that the AC/5 was straight-up outclassed in the era when you might take reflective armor; the improved version (UAC/5) exists and is common, with few downsides if you're looking for damage output.

[RifleMech]

It can put out a pair of 5 points hits, sure. But it can also jam, which is why I said "average." Average damage under rapid-fire rules is actually less than five for anything longer than about 13 rounds (I might be off on the math of that) and that is before accounting for the cluster table misses. That's why I said that the AC/5 was straight-up outclassed in the era when you might take reflective armor; the improved version (UAC/5) exists and is common, with few downsides if you're looking for damage output.

Can doesn't mean will. You're presuming the AC would be rapid firing in the first place. The PPC can miss as well. And I said that I didn't believe the AC/5 wasn't useful. Not that it wasn't outclassed. And it isn't the other weapons that outclass the Autocannon. It's the DHS that outclasses them. The rule change mounting heat sinks in the engine was bad enough. DHS made it even worse. That's why people complain that they're broken. I understand why it was done but it's caused problems ever since.

[dgorsman]

One very minor point: the vulnerability of reflective armor to armor piercing effects makes the AC5 AP ammo somewhat attractive.

[TigerShark]

Can doesn't mean will. You're presuming the AC would be rapid firing in the first place. The PPC can miss as well. And I said that I didn't believe the AC/5 wasn't useful. Not that it wasn't outclassed. And it isn't the other weapons that outclass the Autocannon. It's the DHS that outclasses them. The rule change mounting heat sinks in the engine was bad enough. DHS made it even worse. That's why people complain that they're broken. I understand why it was done but it's caused problems ever since.

That was really a bad move, IMO. The way "Prototype DHS" are handled from Historical: Reunification War are how DHS should have worked all along.

[Retry]

I'm only going to touch on a few points, as it's become increasingly obvious this is going nowhere.

Autocannons don't generate heat in all units. Energy weapons do. 

The units that Autocannons don't generate heat in also don't have to worry about the heat sinks being damaged, so "not having to worry about lost heat sinks compared to energy weapons" is compeltely irrelevant.

That might be true but wouldn't the King Crab also have DHSs?

No, the regular KGC-0000 does not have DHS.  If it did it would be hideously oversinked so of course it wouldn't have to worry.

Comparing the SRM-2 and LRM-5 to the AC/5 nets 1 ton. The SRM doesn't help if you can get in range and both systems depend on good rolls on the chart for max damage.

No.  That nets 3 tons on a bracket-fire paradigm on a Battlemech.  Mounting the two is just asking for bracket fire.  And I wasn't specifically comparing only a 1 SRM-2 + 1 LRM-5 configuration, there's far more ways to mount things than that depending on your needs.

Earlier you were also just replacing 2 AC/5s for 1 PPC. Now you're replacing the entire turret and all the weapons. That's a big difference.

No.

My earliest post mentioning the Partisan was in response to Tigershark on September 13, Page 4, Reply #106 on reference of his post in regards to reducing Autocannon costs:

...Just to support your point: Swapping the quad AC/5s for 2 PPCs on the Partisan Heavy Tank results in identical firepower for a lower C-Bill cost by about 90k C-Bills, before ammo is accounted for, with an additional bonus of a half-ton of armor to spend.

I was very explicit in what modifications I had done to the original.

In fact, for the rest of Page 4, you initially agreed that it was the case and instead argued that it would make it a cheaper Schreck (which isn't a bad thing).

Then on Page 5 you forgot about the PPC Partisan entirely.

You argued that my PPC Partisan mod made the vehicle more expensive in Reply #137.  (It didn't).

Then in Reply #144 you argued that it can't possibly be cheaper because 1 PPC costs more than 1 AC/5, apparently neglecting that the PPC Partisan replaces 4 AC/5s for 2 PPCs (a 1:2 PPC/AC ratio).  You mentioned a Scorpion in that post, which is curious because the very post you quoted had me explicitly say Partisan 3 times.

Then in Reply #182, you argued that the PPC change doesn't fit.  (It does.)

In Reply #188 I went through, step by step, the process of comparing the difference in costs and weight between the two setups.  It debunked both your Weight claim and your Cost claim.

Now you're claiming that I've changed just 2 AC/5s for a PPC (wrong, as per Reply #106) and now I'm changing my story to entire turret assembly (because that's what you're supposed to do as per TechManual's construction rules) and all the weapons (False, again as per Reply #106: The MGs stay in place).

This is getting tiresome.  I've explicitly worked out the design and posted it to the combat vehicle thread.  Either go to that thread, find something wrong with its cost or weight calculations that make it illegal (which you won't find), or just admit you're wrong.

(Oh, and the vehicle still works out to be valid and cheaper if you only replace 1 ton of ammo and 2 AC/5s with a PPC.)

ICE are going to have a logistics trail anyway. A lot of these tanks are meant for defense so the trail shouldn't be that big anyway. And yes ammo can explode and that's a bad thing. Energy boats also overheat. Overheating can cause the fuel to explode in a mech. Never a good thing. Overheating also adversely effects the pilot, and the mech's performance. Running out of ammo is also a bad thing. So is having heat shut your mech down.

Vehicles can go through several tons of ammo in a few scenarios.  ICE Vehicles have 10% of their engine weight as fuel and a 1,000 km range.  Sipping a bit of fuel you're already carrying as your "ammunition" to fire a laser is far easier on logistics than having to keep track of half a dozen different AC ammunition suppliers.

Energy boats don't have to overheat.  The Hellstar has virtually no heat issues.

Overheating doesn't cause the fuel to explode in a Mech.  Overheating causes an ammunition explosion.  That's your Autocannon danger bits.  Unless you're not carrying any ammunition because you're an energy boat, then obviously your non-existent ammunition will not be exploding.

No I did not.

You did.

Medium Laser generate 3 heat for 5 damage. That's 3 times the heat of an AC/5.
LRM-5 generate 2 heat for 1-5 points of damage. That's 2 times that of the AC/5 with a varying amount of damage.

Exactly what do you get by repeating everything that I've already said, but in different words?  I've already tabulated the heat-to-damage ratio of the autocannons (and a few others that I haven't posted here).

I already said that the AC/5 is the a relatively "cold" autocannon, which you've cherry picked.  The AC/2 is not "cold" for the weight and is middling, while the AC/10 and /20 are in between.

Gauss Rifles are the only weapons that better AC/s when comparing heat to damage.

There's more Autocannons than the AC/5.

This is also false.  Machine Guns beat all of the Autocannons and the Gauss Rifle.  The Small Laser (.33 heat/damage) beats the AC/20 and AC/2 and is close to the AC/10.  The Streak SRM 6 is not usually considered to be a "cold" weapon but in fact has the same heat/damage ratio as the Small Laser (and so beats the AC/2 and AC/20).  Several other weapons match or beat the AC/2 in terms of heat/damage.  On the Clan side we have the iATM-3 with HE missiles doing .222 heat/damage, matching the AC/5, and the Micro Pulse Laser which is like the Small Laser but better.

Low Heat is the name of the Gauss Rifle, more so than the Autocannons.  Presumably they should have been more effected by double heat sinks and free sinks than autocannons, but they're still well liked and used even in the era of DHS.

If you go by "average" I do not.

Actually, you did.

From Reply #182:

Autocannons: Are very low heat for their damage. Not all unit gets "free" heat sinks. They weigh less than energy weapons for those units. The total weight of some energy weapons preclude their installation on some units. The Medium laser has half the range of the AC/5. Alternate ammo make the AC/s more effective against a variety of targets. Without having to resort to additional systems that take up more weight and crits. Autocannons do more consistent damage than Missiles (outside use on aerospace), weigh less if going by average damage (except for Clan systems) again with less heat. Autocannons can be used by infantry. Few things beat an AC/20 for shear damage.

Emphasis mine.  You explicitly claimed that autocannons weigh less if going by average damage.

I fact-checked you and now you're running back and saying "Oh, I don't do Average Damage."

Average doesn't mean anything since even average changes.

The average value doesn't change.  Both the values of the cluster hits table and the probability of a 2D6 roll is static.

Take the LRM-5. It will do 1 point of damage for 5 tons.

Blatantly wrong.

Heavier bulkier weapon that does the same damage or a +1 modifier?

UACs if I can get them.  More favourable range brackets, reduced minimum range, better accuracy.

I listed some 3025 designs that I did not believe were improved. You didn't say anything about maxed out custom designs or how I'm to look at them to determine if they were improved or not.

"Can" be improved, not "will" be improved.  Brainlessly shoving PPCs all over the place doesn't do it, and lots of the Canon mechs are intentionally designed sub-par.

I don't need to say "how" to improve them.  Plenty of people can and do.

Not being feared means I can send lighter units against it that it'd have a difficult time against. It also lacks the solid punch to make it worth trying to close into range of a heavier opponent and the speed to close against a faster one. 

It does not lack a "solid punch".  It has more close-range firepower than the regular Hunchback.  It's perfectly worthwhile to get to CQC with a Swayback.  I have done so.  In fact it often does significantly better than the AC/20 Hunchback.

There's nothing stopping you from throwing a few Savannah Masters or Cavalries at an AC/20 Hunchback.

No you keep telling me that ACs suck when compared to a BattleMech with a SFE and DHS.  You tell me they suck on large tanks with plenty of tonnage.

I haven't added those qualifiers.  "On a BM with DHS" or "On large tanks".  I just said they suck, period.

And I would ask why you were using such a weapon at close range. It's a miss-use of the weapon. The AC/2 is meant for plinking at long range not up close.

Because you sometimes lose initiative and their faster VTOLs, Hovercraft, or Jumping Battlemechs decides nuzzling up a hex away from your AC2 equipped 'Mech or vehicle would be a great use of their time.  Obviously I'd rather make use of the range advantage but your opponent gets a vote too.

[Sartris]

When I can take a Valkyrie and replace it's LRMs with an AC without having to slow it down, use advanced tech, or any other shenanigans is when I'll be happy.

isn't that kind of how we got stuck with the garm?  :D

[Retry]

It can put out a pair of 5 points hits, sure. But it can also jam, which is why I said "average." Average damage under rapid-fire rules is actually less than five for anything longer than about 13 rounds (I might be off on the math of that) and that is before accounting for the cluster table misses.

In fact, it's even worse.
A rapid-fire autocannon hits for 2 hits on a 8+ and 1 hit otherwise, making the average number of shots 1.41667.  For an AC/5 that ends up with an average damage of 7.08333 in rapid-fire mode.

If the to-hit roll is lower than 4, the Autocannon jams anyway (or explodes) while another weapon could have still made the shot.

Thus, there's a 1-in-36 chance to explode, 5-in-36 chance to jam, and 5-in-6 chance to hit.  The average damage over 1 turn of the AC/5 in rapid fire mode in these conditions is (7.0833)*(5/6)=5.90277 damage.

The average damage of the 2nd turn of a rapid-firing autocannon is (7.0833)*(5/6)^2=4.91898 damage.  Essentially, this adjusts for the probability that the Autocannon jammed or exploded on Turn 1.  The damage is already below the rated autocannon damage.

The average damage of the 3rd turn of a rapid-firing autocannon is (7.0833)*(5/6)^3=4.099151 damage.

4th turn 3.415959, 5th turn 2.846632, 6th turn 2.372194, and so on.

The average damage per turn the rapid-fire autocannon has inflicted is the sum of the average damages dealt divided by the number of turns, or 5.90277+4.91898+4.099151=14.9209/3=4.9736 damage.

This neglects accuracy so it holds for rapid-fire ACs when THNs range from 2 to 5.

If the THN happened to be a 2 somehow (and thus single-firing an AC/5 has a guaranteed hit each turn, an average damage/turn of 5), you would deal more damage on average by just single-firing an AC/5 (or any Autocannon for that matter) than by constantly rapid-firing it.
A Rapid Firing Autocannon has its sweet spot at a to-hit roll of exactly 5.  In that case a single-firing Autocannon will miss sometimes and the Rapid Fire Autocannon, if it jams, wasn't going to hit anyways.

Then the average damage per turn for a single-firing autocannon just becomes the probability of getting a hit at 5+ times the average damage resulting from a hit: 5*(5/6)=4.16667.  Now the Rapid-fire Autocannon can fire for 5 turns while besting the single-fire Autocannon in average damage, but by the 6th turn the non-rapid autocannon starts to pull out ahead of the rapid-fire autocannon (which has managed an average of 3.92595 damage over the 6 turns)

Thus, at most, a Rapid-fire autocannon will be capable of dealing more damage on average for the course of only 6 turns.
Of course we didn't account for Rapid fire autocannon explosions.  We could do that very roughly by having a penalty subtracted to the rapid-fire autocannon, which would look like this:

P1=(1/36)*5=0.13888
P2=(1/36)*5*(5/6)=0.1157
P3=(1/36)*5*(5/6)^2=0.09645

1/36 is the probability in that given round of an explosion, 5 is the damage of the explosion, and the (5/6)^N accounts for the chance that the autocannon hasn't jammed or exploded yet.  Essentially, the Penalty is "negative damage" (the damage you accidentally inflict on yourself instead of your opponent) and does not depend on the target to-hit number, so it's constant regardless.

So you just subtract the penalty from the calculated average damage in that turn to get your "corrected" value.  The first turn in the first example would be (5.90277-.13888)=5.76389 corrected damage for instance.

It's fairly small but keep in mind it's enough to get the single-fire Autocannon to come out ahead at the "magic THN" of 5+ in only 5 turns instead of 6, so the Rapid-Fire Autocannon effectively only comes out ahead in average damage for 4 turns.  Which is, of course, way under 13.

The influence of the penalty becomes oversized at high THNs.  At a THN of 12, you'll just as frequently damage yourself as you will damage your target!  When correcting for the penalty, the single-fire autocannon deals more damage per turn than the Rapid-Fire Autocannon on Turn 1.
Keep in mind this is a pretty limited analysis.  In reality, the catastrophic Autocannon explosion is way more important than the "damage penalty" makes it seem.  Earning yourself free 2 pilot hits and thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of C-Bills of broken military hardware isn't exactly nothing!

[Apocal]

Can doesn't mean will. You're presuming the AC would be rapid firing in the first place.

Of course I'm presuming that; your claim to the AC/5 doing more damage than a PPC requires it. Without rapid-fire, the AC/5 never out-damages a PPC, even if the later is firing at specialized armor designed to defeat it.

The PPC can miss as well.

So? Why is this a mark against the PPC? Everything can miss, but neither the AC/5 or PPC have a bonus or penalty to accuracy and both have the same ranges. If we're accounting for typical game accuracy, the energy-anything usually pulls ahead in 20+ round matches unless the weight of the AC/5 goes up to supply more ammo.

And I said that I didn't believe the AC/5 wasn't useful. Not that it wasn't outclassed. And it isn't the other weapons that outclass the Autocannon. It's the DHS that outclasses them. The rule change mounting heat sinks in the engine was bad enough. DHS made it even worse. That's why people complain that they're broken. I understand why it was done but it's caused problems ever since.

...except almost all my remarks in this thread have been referring to introtech? No double heatsinks, no special armor. I don't understand why you focus on external engine sinks as a cure for the AC/5's sub-par performance when the biggest issue is that it weighs so much, being low heat doesn't matter -- you get as much or more damage out of slapping any number of alternatives + heat sinks on a unit. External single heat sinks don't make other weapons heavier, lower their damage or add more heat to their firing in 3025. And even an Awesome-8Q still has spare crit space for its engine sinks to be mounted externally.

Also, I'm not arguing that autocannons overall are bad, only the AC/5. The AC/2 retains utility for anti-aircraft work, the AC/10 is only suboptimal and the AC/20 is still a PSR every time it hits.

In fact, it's even worse.
...
Now the Rapid-fire Autocannon can fire for 5 turns while besting the single-fire Autocannon in average damage, but by the 6th turn the non-rapid autocannon starts to pull out ahead of the rapid-fire autocannon (which has managed an average of 3.92595 damage over the 6 turns)

Thus, at most, a Rapid-fire autocannon will be capable of dealing more damage on average for the course of only 6 turns.
...
It's fairly small but keep in mind it's enough to get the single-fire Autocannon to come out ahead at the "magic THN" of 5+ in only 5 turns instead of 6, so the Rapid-Fire Autocannon effectively only comes out ahead in average damage for 4 turns.  Which is, of course, way under 13.

Yeah, I was napkin-mathing without accounting for cluster table, just jam probabilities with the second-hit assumed... but this is worse than even I thought it would be. Yeesh. I already knew the rapid-fire rules were not meant for sustained damage but this is just dire.

[RifleMech]

One very minor point: the vulnerability of reflective armor to armor piercing effects makes the AC5 AP ammo somewhat attractive.

True but the opponent doesn't use the AC/5 because they believe the AC/5 to be crap so I'm safe from AP ammo.

That was really a bad move, IMO. The way "Prototype DHS" are handled from Historical: Reunification War are how DHS should have worked all along.

It certainly changed the game and harmed the autocannon.  I do like how DHS-P are handled. I even like the original DSHS from one of the Black Widow books. I can also see time marching on to what we have now with DHS in the engine. There's some mechs that can't exist otherwise. But if feels like too much technical advancement too fast. There's twice the cooling but also 3 times what can fit into the engine. A 400 engine can hold 16 heat sinks. With DHS that's 32 heat. It's also the equal of 48 crits. I know there's some magic involved in Battletech so I ignore a lot of things but that's gotten harder to ignore over the years. And it happens so fast there's barely time to deploy the DHS-Ps.

[Maingunnery]

On a slightly different matter, how should the ratios/roles be between the autocannons and the gauss rifle?

[Apocal]

On a slightly different matter, how should the ratios/roles be between the autocannons and the gauss rifle?

Do you mean how often should one be fielded vs. the other?

Gauss rifles should be favored over ACs due to stats, even with their extra weight and fitting in an era when fitting actually becomes tight. As near as I can tell, this is already the way things are.

[RifleMech]

I'm only going to touch on a few points, as it's become increasingly obvious this is going nowhere.

The units that Autocannons don't generate heat in also don't have to worry about the heat sinks being damaged, so "not having to worry about lost heat sinks compared to energy weapons" is compeltely irrelevant.

False.  That same advantage also applies to units using energy weapons.

No, the regular KGC-0000 does not have DHS.  If it did it would be hideously oversinked so of course it wouldn't have to worry.

Exactly my point.

No.  That nets 3 tons on a bracket-fire paradigm on a Battlemech.  Mounting the two is just asking for bracket fire.  And I wasn't specifically comparing only a 1 SRM-2 + 1 LRM-5 configuration, there's far more ways to mount things than that depending on your needs.No.

Bracket fire doesn't meant anything if you can't get the weapons in range. And true you could use other configurations.

My earliest post mentioning the Partisan was in response to Tigershark on September 13, Page 4, Reply #106 on reference of his post in regards to reducing Autocannon costs:I was very explicit in what modifications I had done to the original.

In fact, for the rest of Page 4, you initially agreed that it was the case and instead argued that it would make it a cheaper Schreck (which isn't a bad thing).

2 PPCs instead of 3, 10 few heat sinks, 1.5 tons less armor, smaller turret. That's going to lower the price.

Then on Page 5 you forgot about the PPC Partisan entirely.

You argued that my PPC Partisan mod made the vehicle more expensive in Reply #137.  (It didn't).

Then in Reply #144 you argued that it can't possibly be cheaper because 1 PPC costs more than 1 AC/5, apparently neglecting that the PPC Partisan replaces 4 AC/5s for 2 PPCs (a 1:2 PPC/AC ratio).  You mentioned a Scorpion in that post, which is curious because the very post you quoted had me explicitly say Partisan 3 times.

Then in Reply #182, you argued that the PPC change doesn't fit.  (It does.)

In Reply #188 I went through, step by step, the process of comparing the difference in costs and weight between the two setups.  It debunked both your Weight claim and your Cost claim

Now you're claiming that I've changed just 2 AC/5s for a PPC (wrong, as per Reply #106) and now I'm changing my story to entire turret assembly (because that's what you're supposed to do as per TechManual's construction rules) and all the weapons (False, again as per Reply #106: The MGs stay in place).

This is getting tiresome.  I've explicitly worked out the design and posted it to the combat vehicle thread.  Either go to that thread, find something wrong with its cost or weight calculations that make it illegal (which you won't find), or just admit you're wrong.

No. I won't admit I'm wrong. I just went through it all. And I said your changes to one tank, "the Partisan" wouldn't fit on another" the Scorpion." You ignored that. I've also gone through the numbers for weight and cost. My numbers weren't wrong.

And from your post on Sept 21,2019.

You're not replacing 1 AC/5 with a PPC.  You're replacing 2 AC/5s and 1 ton of ammo with a PPC.  As independent weapon systems, 2 AC/5s cost 50,000 C-Bills more than the PPC.  Heat sinks bring the advantage down slightly but still not enough to make the AC/5 system cheaper, and the PPC has cheaper "ammo" (ICE fuel).

(Oh, and the vehicle still works out to be valid and cheaper if you only replace 1 ton of ammo and 2 AC/5s with a PPC.)

Now you're arguing that the tank is cheaper when you were arguing I was wrong?  ???

Vehicles can go through several tons of ammo in a few scenarios.  ICE Vehicles have 10% of their engine weight as fuel and a 1,000 km range.  Sipping a bit of fuel you're already carrying as your "ammunition" to fire a laser is far easier on logistics than having to keep track of half a dozen different AC ammunition suppliers.

Applies to all units. And Coolant can wear out. Why are there a half dozen AC ammo suppliers?  ???

Energy boats don't have to overheat.  The Hellstar has virtually no heat issues.

True but many do. And even those that don't do need to worry about losing heat sinks or they will.  Plus it also shows how much the original rule changes have favored energy weapons. You cant' fit 30 clan DHS into a mech's critical slots. The best I get is 21. That's 42 heat so the Hellstar would be in trouble under the original rules. The King Crab wouldn't have a problem. 

Overheating doesn't cause the fuel to explode in a Mech.  Overheating causes an ammunition explosion.  That's your Autocannon danger bits.  Unless you're not carrying any ammunition because you're an energy boat, then obviously your non-existent ammunition will not be exploding.

Total Warfare page 160 says otherwise.

edit
So does Tactical Operations page 308.

You did.

I did not. If I had meant Gauss Rifle. I would have said Gauss Rifle.

Exactly what do you get by repeating everything that I've already said, but in different words?  I've already tabulated the heat-to-damage ratio of the autocannons (and a few others that I haven't posted here).

I already said that the AC/5 is the a relatively "cold" autocannon, which you've cherry picked.  The AC/2 is not "cold" for the weight and is middling, while the AC/10 and /20 are in between.

There's more Autocannons than the AC/5.

Because you keep saying they're better than the AC/5. Yet the AC/5 is still cooler and does as much or more damage.
I didn't say for weight. I said Damage and Heat.
True. And yet Gauss Rifles are far heavier and have less ammo than Autocannons.

This is also false.  Machine Guns beat all of the Autocannons and the Gauss Rifle.  The Small Laser (.33 heat/damage) beats the AC/20 and AC/2 and is close to the AC/10.  The Streak SRM 6 is not usually considered to be a "cold" weapon but in fact has the same heat/damage ratio as the Small Laser (and so beats the AC/2 and AC/20).  Several other weapons match or beat the AC/2 in terms of heat/damage.  On the Clan side we have the iATM-3 with HE missiles doing .222 heat/damage, matching the AC/5, and the Micro Pulse Laser which is like the Small Laser but better.

Low Heat is the name of the Gauss Rifle, more so than the Autocannons.  Presumably they should have been more effected by double heat sinks and free sinks than autocannons, but they're still well liked and used even in the era of DHS.Actually, you did.

Machine guns have a range of 3. Why would I chose a Machine gun over an AC? I might choose it over a small laser but an AC? Don't think so.
You'd need 7 small lasers do do as much damage as an AC/20 they'd do the same heat. They have 1/3 the range and damage is scattered. Should I be impressed by damage/heat ratio?
The Streak SRM-6 generates 4 heat. That's 4 times that of the AC/2. Less than the AC/20 but then you'd a Streak SRM-4 in addition to equal the damage and heat.
Who was it who didn't want to bring up Clan Weapons? The iATM-3 does 1 more heat and 1 more damage than the AC/5 but has less range.
As to the ER Micro Laser being better than the ER Small Laser, that's debatable. In some ways yes. In others, no. I wouldn't say either are better than an AC/5, except in a vehicle that's too small for an AC/5.

From Reply #182:Emphasis mine.  You explicitly claimed that autocannons weigh less if going by average damage.

I fact-checked you and now you're running back and saying "Oh, I don't do Average Damage."

If you go by average damage you need more missile systems to equal autocannons. That makes them heavier. I've also consistently said that I do not go by averages as you can't count on rolling average. I've said that I go by the minimum damage as that's all you can count on. That makes missile systems even heavier.

The average value doesn't change.  Both the values of the cluster hits table and the probability of a 2D6 roll is static.

That doesn't work out in my games.

Blatantly wrong.

Correct. I'm not going back to find the context. You wouldn't care anyway. I will say that if I want to be sure if I want 5 LRMs to connect I'm installing a LRM-15. That's as much as an AC/5 if you include ammo. More than if you include heat sinks.

UACs if I can get them.  More favourable range brackets, reduced minimum range, better accuracy.

Maybe.

"Can" be improved, not "will" be improved. Brainlessly shoving PPCs all over the place doesn't do it, and lots of the Canon mechs are intentionally designed sub-par.

You said,

There's not a single Battlemech design that cannot be improved by replacing the Autocannons with something else, even in 3025.

If you don't like the PPCs how about Missiles then? There's the Jagermech-A with LRM-15s instead of AC/5s. It has more armor and can do possibly do more damage at greater range. However, it only has 10 heat sinks so it can quickly overheat. It also only has 8 rounds for each LRM so it's combat endurance is far less. I don't think I'd call that an improvement. A compliment maybe but not an improvement. Maybe if it had more ammo.

And "improvement" doesn't necessarily mean changing weapon systems. Improvement could be anything. Just putting in a better pilot is an improvement.

I don't need to say "how" to improve them. Plenty of people can and do.

Again, you said,

There's not a single Battlemech design that cannot be improved by replacing the Autocannons with something else, even in 3025.

I listed some I didn't believe were improved. You complained about my finding canon designs that weren't improved but gave no customs for me to look at.
 

I'm not really talking canon designs.  Those hit so many dumb pitfalls anyways it's not even funny.

So I can't use canon designs and I don't have any custom designs to look at, what designs am I suppose to look at to prove replacing AC/s with energy weapons isn't an improvement?

A bigger question is if I can't use all the rules to look at the universe as a whole why am I having to look at, non provided customs that aren't canon? At least the rules are canon.

It does not lack a "solid punch".  It has more close-range firepower than the regular Hunchback.  It's perfectly worthwhile to get to CQC with a Swayback.  I have done so.  In fact it often does significantly better than the AC/20 Hunchback.

There's nothing stopping you from throwing a few Savannah Masters or Cavalries at an AC/20 Hunchback.

A solid 20 point hit or a possibility of a scattering of 5 point hits? Loss of body location or some armor points. I think I'd stick with the AC/20. I'm not saying Swaybacks are bad. They'd make good escorts but if I want a mech killer, especially in 3025, I want an AC/20.

Beyond the fact that they're banned by other players for just that reason?

I haven't added those qualifiers.  "On a BM with DHS" or "On large tanks".  I just said they suck, period.

And I disagree. Autocannon on their own, don't suck.

Because you sometimes lose initiative and their faster VTOLs, Hovercraft, or Jumping Battlemechs decides nuzzling up a hex away from your AC2 equipped 'Mech or vehicle would be a great use of their time.  Obviously I'd rather make use of the range advantage but your opponent gets a vote too.

Yes, an opponent can end up next to you. It can do that if you has LRMs or a PPC. I don't see how that makes the AC/2 bad.

[Maingunnery]

Do you mean how often should one be fielded vs. the other?

Gauss rifles should be favored over ACs due to stats, even with their extra weight and fitting in an era when fitting actually becomes tight. As near as I can tell, this is already the way things are.

More like the role of each weapon type on the battlefield, and how theirs stats should relate to each other.
In my view on their roles, the gauss rifle should be a pure damage weapon, while the AC should be focused on using various munitions and other advanced options. 
Now I do admit that I am not sure what the right stats should be for the gauss rifle in comparison to the AC.

[RifleMech]

Of course I'm presuming that; your claim to the AC/5 doing more damage than a PPC requires it. Without rapid-fire, the AC/5 never out-damages a PPC, even if the later is firing at specialized armor designed to defeat it.

Quote from: RifleMech on 25 September 2019, 04:11:17
Actually, a rapid-fire AC/5 could do 10 point of damage to reflectve armor. The PPC will only do 5 points of damage. Even if the AC/5 didn't rapid fire at all damage from both would still be 5.

I said can do. Not that it must. I also said even if it doesn't rapid fire the AC/5 is going to be equal to the PPC against Relective Armor.

So? Why is this a mark against the PPC? Everything can miss, but neither the AC/5 or PPC have a bonus or penalty to accuracy and both have the same ranges. If we're accounting for typical game accuracy, the energy-anything usually pulls ahead in 20+ round matches unless the weight of the AC/5 goes up to supply more ammo.

It isn't. If looking at total damage though the PPC and AC are equals. Can jam and can miss is outside of that. The AC/5 could miss with every round even with successful rapid firing. The PPC could miss every turn as well. It's outside of the fact that both can do 10 points of damage.

...except almost all my remarks in this thread have been referring to introtech? No double heatsinks, no special armor. I don't understand why you focus on external engine sinks as a cure for the AC/5's sub-par performance when the biggest issue is that it weighs so much, being low heat doesn't matter -- you get as much or more damage out of slapping any number of alternatives + heat sinks on a unit. External single heat sinks don't make other weapons heavier, lower their damage or add more heat to their firing in 3025. And even an Awesome-8Q still has spare crit space for its engine sinks to be mounted externally.

I'm looking at the universe, not just introtech.

Originally, all the heat sinks were external. When that changed mechs gained ammo bombs and a reason for AC/s being bad. DHS just amplify that. And it isn't just external heat sinks. It's free weight heat sinks. Just changing the engine from a ICE to a Fusion gains 10 tons of heat sinks plus a ton of Power Amplifier for the PPC. That's something Autocannons can't compete with.

Also, I'm not arguing that autocannons overall are bad, only the AC/5. The AC/2 retains utility for anti-aircraft work, the AC/10 is only suboptimal and the AC/20 is still a PSR every time it hits.

I don't think the AC/5 is bad at all. If anything I'd say that the AC/10 and AC/20 are too heavy. I might also the ranges for them all are kind of weird. The AC/2 is 6 hexes more than the AC/5. The AC/10 is 6 hexes more than the AC/20. The AC/5 though is only 3 hexes more than the AC/10. Why not have a 5 hex difference between them all?
AC/2=24 hexes
AC/5=19 hexes
AC/10=14 hexes
AC/20=9 hexes

[Daryk]

That range thing's not a bad idea...

[Retry]

If you go by average damage you need more missile systems to equal autocannons. That makes them heavier.

I have calculated and posted the mathematics of average damage/weight ratio in this thread.  You are objectively wrong.

I've also consistently said that I do not go by averages as you can't count on rolling average.

You should have thought about that before you claimed the Autocannons weight less than LRMs when going by average damage.

Now you're arguing that the tank is cheaper when you were arguing I was wrong?  ???

I've always been arguing that the PPC Partisan works out cheaper.

Applies to all units. And Coolant can wear out. Why are there a half dozen AC ammo suppliers?  ???

There's more than a half-dozen AC variants even within a "standardized" model like the AC/5.  Sarna counts at least 8 "variants" on the AC/5, 11 on the AC/10, 5 on the AC/2, and a dozen different AC/20 models.

An 80mm AC/5 shell from a Marauder will not fire from an 120mm AC/5 from a Clint.

This is not rocket science.

Total Warfare page 160 says otherwise.

So does Tactical Operations page 308.

The heat effects outlined in pg.160 TW are movement, engine shutdown (NOT explosions), and ammo explosions, and weapon attacks, and mechwarrior damage.  The only fuel explosion related to heat levels is with ICE engines, which are essentially restricted to Industrialmechs and not Battlemechs.  An energy boat Battlemech sure as hell won't mount an ICE (or basically any canon Battlemech, ever).  Tac Ops Pg.308 once again only has fuel explosions for ICE engines in a footnote.  There's no explosion check for Fusion fuel, Fission fuel, or even Fuel Cell fuel.

You have to be truly obtuse to count a special case, which isn't even on the Heat Scale, that never happens outside of joke customs and Industrialmechs (which, as implied by the name, are also not battlemechs).

The Streak SRM-6 generates 4 heat. That's 4 times that of the AC/2. Less than the AC/20 but then you'd a Streak SRM-4 in addition to equal the damage and heat.

4x the heat of an AC/2 but 6x the damage and thus has a better damage/heat ratio.  This is in reference to you claiming the AC's heat values are low for their heat buildup (Hence a ratio between the two is the relevant metric).

Whether or not the Streak SRM-6 is actually a good or bad weapon compared to the AC/2 or AC/20 because it lacks the range or the 20-point bowling ball has absolutely no effect on its heat-damage ratio.

Who was it who didn't want to bring up Clan Weapons? The iATM-3 does 1 more heat and 1 more damage than the AC/5 but has less range.

As to the ER Micro Laser being better than the ER Small Laser, that's debatable.

No.

No no no no no.

I said Micro Pulse Laser and Small Laser.  You go to the ER Micro Laser and ER Small Laser immediately afterwards.  You did this same garbage with the Partisan & Scorpion.

I'm done with this bait-and-switch nonsense.  You're not arguing against what I'm arguing, you're just creating strawmen and dismantling those.

[dgorsman]

More like the role of each weapon type on the battlefield, and how theirs stats should relate to each other.
In my view on their roles, the gauss rifle should be a pure damage weapon, while the AC should be focused on using various munitions and other advanced options. 
Now I do admit that I am not sure what the right stats should be for the gauss rifle in comparison to the AC.

I agree.  The light/medium/heavy gauss rifles are pure anti-armor weapons.  This and the cost slots them for the "tier 1" high tempo forces, which would be seeing that kind of combat.

Autocannons are less capable in the anti-armor role, but better in others with appropriate ammunition.  Along with the lower cost, they're more for the lower rated and militia forces.