Why Tweak the Autocannon?

[Hptm. Streiger]

as for the damage what happens if you HeavyGaussifise the AC damage?
for example:

• LAC 5-3-1
• MAC 9-6-3
• HAC 12-10-8
• VHAC 24-20-16

there is no need to use the same base damage for the Light or Rotary ACs. So a L-LAC (LAC2) might deal 3-2-1 or 3-2-2

[Apocal]

as for the damage what happens if you HeavyGaussifise the AC damage?
for example:

• LAC 5-3-1
• MAC 9-6-3
• HAC 12-10-8
• VHAC 24-20-16

there is no need to use the same base damage for the Light or Rotary ACs. So a L-LAC (LAC2) might deal 3-2-1 or 3-2-2

That would be another way of doing things for sure, especially making autocannons stand out in some way. But the idea (my idea at least, not speaking for everyone) was to find a change to make ACs not just viable but preferred in some ways in an introtech environment, with a minimum of rules changes or cruft. No need to touch tonnage or crits, no special rules. A name change, maybe, and that is it.

edit:
Actually, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense; the lower-end ACs get bigger value from their damage boosts, while the HAC (as you term it) has its headcapper nature somewhat neutered by needing to be within 5 hexes (or hit a double Direct Blow in the medium range bracket) and thereby leaving the GR's niche as a headcapper mostly intact. The only issue I have is that I would prefer not increase the highest-tier autocannon's damage though; an AC/20 is already very, very strong when played correctly and adding even more damage is not what I would call good balancing.

[Retry]

Measured by?

As measured by heat/damage ratio, with lower numbers being more efficient.  In a way, it's a measure of "thermal efficiency" of a weapon.

Yeah. I can see maybe one or two things but not everything. It ends up invalidating fluff. For simplicity one thing I'd do is apply the field gun rules to everything. Basically, no jamming or exploding. If I wanted more complicated I'd have a quirk allowing the AC, IAC, LAC, or PAC to rapid fire as an UAC.

What fluff is invalidated if applying the four changes, specifically?  Is it something a minor ret-con can't fix?

The no-jamming thing is a nice idea.  That might be appropriate, especially for an intro-tech weapon.

[TigerShark]

Rapid Fire
Any standard Autocannon may, if the player wishes, be switched to/from Rapid Fire mode during the firing phase. While using Rapid Fire, Autocannons fire an additional burst at the target, generating additional heat for the second attack. If the to-hit roll succeeds, the attacking player rolls in the "2" column of the Cluster Hits table to determine how many rounds hit. Note that, if the second round hits, it does not automatically strike the same location as the first and another roll on the Hit Location Table must be made. If a roll of 2 occurs when rolling to determine a hit, the Autocannon jams for the remainder of the scenario.

Ultra Autocannons may also Rapid Fire and receive a +2 bonus when rolling on the Cluster Hits table when doing so. Unlike standard Autocannons, Ultra Autocannons do not jam on a roll of 2.

[Daryk]

That works for me...

[RifleMech]

Because not everyone agrees with that. I, for one, think they just need a raw damage boost: AC2->5, AC5->9, AC10->12. Without changing anything else, the AC/5 would become a more credible primary weapon to justify its tonnage without eating twice as much ammo and an unacceptably high risk of jamming. The AC2 would still be a niche weapon and the AC10 would carve out its own niche as a low-heat headcapper/holepuncher in 3025. Of course, it would take away from the impact of the Gauss Rifle's re-discovery but so what? Having a headcapping autocannon analog for the GR in 3025 isn't doing a disservice to the table, unless you're firmly in the camp that there should be only one outright headcapper in Introtech, maybe two at standard tech level.

True. Not everyone agrees. I don't agree that they need a damage boost. I also don't think that AC/s need to justify their tonnage. I don't have a problem with a headcapping autocannon. We've got the AC/20. I wouldn't have a problem with an AC/15. I'd also redo the AC/10 so any retcons would simply replace the AC/10 with AC/15. Something like this.

AC/10 Heat 3, Damage 10, Range 0/5/10/15 (Medium) Ammo 10 Weight 10 Crits 6
AC/15 Heat 5, Damage 15, Range 0/4/8/12   (Medium) Ammo 7   Weight 12 Crits 7

I also think AC/s are good for intro/low tech games. Especially when one is using units without SFE or DHS. I also wouldn't mind having Rail Guns as low tech replacements for Gauss Rifles.

As measured by heat/damage ratio, with lower numbers being more efficient.  In a way, it's a measure of "thermal efficiency" of a weapon.What fluff is invalidated if applying the four changes, specifically?  Is it something a minor ret-con can't fix?

But that ratio can change depending on the unit. Autocannons don't generate heat on vehicles.    Lower Tech mechs also aren't going to have the free heat sinks.

How about the fluff from TRO:2750 for the KWI AC/5 Ultra Autocannon and the SLT-3L? It says that the UAC/5 isn't as accurate as a pair of AC/5s. It also says that the vibrations caused at max fire damage the arming circuitry disables the mech's weapon arm. It also says that they were modified but still had a 3% chance of failing. TRO:3039 also talks about the UAC/5 jamming.

Now I can see the first part of the fluff applying to the prototype UAC/5 and the fix being the production UAC/5. Difference in stats could be a Comstar error. Thing is if you make it so the UAC doesn't jam all that fluff is invalidated. I'm also not sure how to do a 3% chance of failure with 2D6. It does seem far less than the rules give us.

The no-jamming thing is a nice idea.  That might be appropriate, especially for an intro-tech weapon.

Thanks. I don't know about it being appropriate for an intro-tech weapon. I do think there could be a layering of the rules so intro games don't worry about all the details but later games do.

I also wouldn't mind some fluff explanation for why autocannons don't jam or explode when used as field guns. Probably something about their more open nature compared to other unit types.

[Greatclub]

How about the fluff from TRO:2750 for the KWI AC/5 Ultra Autocannon and the SLT-3L? It says that the UAC/5 isn't as accurate as a pair of AC/5s. It also says that the vibrations caused at max fire damage the arming circuitry disables the mech's weapon arm. It also says that they were modified but still had a 3% chance of failing. TRO:3039 also talks about the UAC/5 jamming.

Now I can see the first part of the fluff applying to the prototype UAC/5 and the fix being the production UAC/5. Difference in stats could be a Comstar error. Thing is if you make it so the UAC doesn't jam all that fluff is invalidated. I'm also not sure how to do a 3% chance of failure with 2D6. It does seem far less than the rules give us.

a one in 36 chance (2 on 2d6) is 3%  (2.778, but why split hairs)

RAC in 2 or 3 shot, mode, 2.8%
RAC in 4 or 5 shot mode, 8.3%
RAC in 6 shot mode, 16.7%

Five shots is worth the chance on good to-hits. full auto is desperation only.


Yeah, the current UAC line needs to be designated primitive and a new version made. Problem is the UAC/20 - removing the drawback from that monster would necessitate a drawback, as it is balanced. 20 depth hits cover a legion of flaws.


as for boosting damage, 2 -> 4, 5 -> 7, 10 -> 11, and 20 kept where it is. Any more than that tilts the balance in their flavor excessively in the introtech era, IMHO. In a DHS environment the math changes, but by the 3060s why are you using basic ACs? (Besides alternate ammo, which is a different math bend.)

[RifleMech]

a one in 36 chance (2 on 2d6) is 3%  (2.778, but why split hairs)

RAC in 2 or 3 shot, mode, 2.8%
RAC in 4 or 5 shot mode, 8.3%
RAC in 6 shot mode, 16.7%

Five shots is worth the chance on good to-hits. full auto is desperation only.

Thanks :)
So in other words. The Rules. I don't know if I should be happy about that or not. One would think rolling a 2 wouldn't be that easy but then again... :-\

Yeah, the current UAC line needs to be designated primitive and a new version made. Problem is the UAC/20 - removing the drawback from that monster would necessitate a drawback, as it is balanced. 20 depth hits cover a legion of flaws.

The UAC/5-P jams on a 4, same as the rapid fire rules. You'd think it'd be better even as a prototype. But then it would jam on a 3 same as the Clan UAC-Ps so that wouldn't really work. At the same time though you can't make other rapid fire weapons worse without increasing animosity against them.  :-\

as for boosting damage, 2 -> 4, 5 -> 7, 10 -> 11, and 20 kept where it is. Any more than that tilts the balance in their flavor excessively in the introtech era, IMHO. In a DHS environment the math changes, but by the 3060s why are you using basic ACs? (Besides alternate ammo, which is a different math bend.)

I'm not in favor of "boosting" damage like that. The boost should be consistent. I think it'd just be easier to use the Direct Blow/Glancing Blow Rules.

[Apocal]

as for boosting damage, 2 -> 4, 5 -> 7, 10 -> 11, and 20 kept where it is. Any more than that tilts the balance in their flavor excessively in the introtech era, IMHO.

With damage boosts, including 1 ton of ammo:
AC5 (former AC2), 0.71 damage per ton, 5 damage/heat (or infinity, if taking the heat down to 0)
AC9, 1 damage per ton, 9 damage per heat
AC12, 0.92 dpt, 4dph
AC20, as before.

Damage per tonnage isn't wildly out of line, damage per heat is, but ACs are supposed to be low-heat alternatives to deal consistent, pinpoint damage. Bloating their tonnage while restraining their damage did a serious disservice to the early game, one that may or may not have been noticed at the time (I wasn't playing in the 80s) but is abundantly clear nowadays. Damage boosted autocannons merely stop being a case of wasted tonnage that could be put to better use as heatsinks to run more PPCs or MLs, like the OG Marauder's AC/5, and instead become a respectable set of low-heat alternatives.

The change still leaves ML boating as uniquely strong with paired or triplet PPCs being favorable as well, much of the time.

I'm not in favor of "boosting" damage like that. The boost should be consistent. I think it'd just be easier to use the Direct Blow/Glancing Blow Rules.

Glancing Blow rules are a severe nerf. They takes all the gains of playing with Direct Blow rules and trash them. Playing the range game against standard pilots means you can ensure something like 50-80% of the hits against you are glancing blows -- regular IS pilot (4), walking (1), long-range bracket (4), and TMM (2) = 11.

[Retry]

But that ratio can change depending on the unit. Autocannons don't generate heat on vehicles.    Lower Tech mechs also aren't going to have the free heat sinks.

Then the ratio doesn't matter for vehicles and whatnot.  The ratio still matters for Aerospace & Battlemechs, which is what the change is for.

How about the fluff from TRO:2750 for the KWI AC/5 Ultra Autocannon and the SLT-3L? It says that the UAC/5 isn't as accurate as a pair of AC/5s. It also says that the vibrations caused at max fire damage the arming circuitry disables the mech's weapon arm. It also says that they were modified but still had a 3% chance of failing. TRO:3039 also talks about the UAC/5 jamming.

Now I can see the first part of the fluff applying to the prototype UAC/5 and the fix being the production UAC/5. Difference in stats could be a Comstar error. Thing is if you make it so the UAC doesn't jam all that fluff is invalidated. I'm also not sure how to do a 3% chance of failure with 2D6. It does seem far less than the rules give us.

That fluff exists because of the game rules, does it not?  Basically a way to explain in words what happens on tabletop?  I'm not too worried about that, that could be retconned as bad intel or something.  I'm more concerned if there's, like a plot-relevant situation in fiction where one jamming UAC turns the entire tide of a war somehow.

[Daryk]

Range matters more than damage, always.  No amount of damage matters if you can't hit.  Boosting the AC/2 to 5 damage without altering its range makes it a "go to" weapon in almost every case.  Don't think about long range... think about an 8-hex short range...

[Apocal]

Range matters more than damage, always.  No amount of damage matters if you can't hit.  Boosting the AC/2 to 5 damage without altering its range makes it a "go to" weapon in almost every case.  Don't think about long range... think about an 8-hex short range...

That's a snub nose PPC, with more weight and half the damage.

A damage-boosted AC/2 wouldn't become a go-to in every case because it still weighs seven tons, including ammo. A lot of introtech mechs would struggle to find the tonnage for one of them, let alone a brace of three or four.

[Daryk]

I must have missed the tonnage increase for the damage boosted ACs... A normal AC/2 only weighs 6 tons.

[Retry]

I must have missed the tonnage increase for the damage boosted ACs... A normal AC/2 only weighs 6 tons.

Ammo.

[Daryk]

Ah, right... I'm blind...

[RifleMech]

Glancing Blow rules are a severe nerf. They takes all the gains of playing with Direct Blow rules and trash them. Playing the range game against standard pilots means you can ensure something like 50-80% of the hits against you are glancing blows -- regular IS pilot (4), walking (1), long-range bracket (4), and TMM (2) = 11.

It makes sense to me that glancing blows would happen more at a distance and direct blows up close.

Maybe I'm missing it but looking at the rules I do wonder why there isn't a bonus to hits up close. Damage get reduced at Extreme Range by x.75. Why not add x.25 damage at short range? With rounding the AC/2 would do 3, AC/5 would do 6, AC/10 would do 13, and AC/20 would do 25.

Then the ratio doesn't matter for vehicles and whatnot.  The ratio still matters for Aerospace & Battlemechs, which is what the change is for.

That fluff exists because of the game rules, does it not?  Basically a way to explain in words what happens on tabletop?  I'm not too worried about that, that could be retconned as bad intel or something.  I'm more concerned if there's, like a plot-relevant situation in fiction where one jamming UAC turns the entire tide of a war somehow.

Not all Battlemechs are equal. Heat can change radically depending on engine type and heat sink type. It varies a little for Aerospace but Mechs are most effected.

It could go either way. Fluff does tell the story of what happens on the battlefield. The fluff give lots of abilities to units that we don't have any rules for. For example the Partisan AA Tank has C3I, remote control, and it's ammo functions both as standard and as flak.

That's a snub nose PPC, with more weight and half the damage.

A damage-boosted AC/2 wouldn't become a go-to in every case because it still weighs seven tons, including ammo. A lot of introtech mechs would struggle to find the tonnage for one of them, let alone a brace of three or four.

The Snub PPC also generates ten heat over the AC/2's one. And it can also become a 17 ton weapon if you have to add things. Even the light PPC can be heavier. The weight depends on the unit, engine type, and heat sinks.

[Apocal]

It makes sense to me that glancing blows would happen more at a distance and direct blows up close.

Maybe I'm missing it but looking at the rules I do wonder why there isn't a bonus to hits up close. Damage get reduced at Extreme Range by x.75. Why not add x.25 damage at short range? With rounding the AC/2 would do 3, AC/5 would do 6, AC/10 would do 13, and AC/20 would do 25.

It makes sense but it also means a solid nerf to autocannon damage in the case you made that their special "thing." You say that autocannon damage is fine and they don't need to justify their tonnage but do they really need a nerf? Especially at long-range?

As for a direct damage increase based on brackets, there is already a similar mechanic in the game, but only for lowering damage with certain weapons (SNPPCs, HGRs, one of the off-brand pulse type lasers), probably for simplicity' sake.

The Snub PPC also generates ten heat over the AC/2's one. And it can also become a 17 ton weapon if you have to add things. Even the light PPC can be heavier. The weight depends on the unit, engine type, and heat sinks.

I'm saying a generous 8 hex short-range bracket is no more unbalancing than the SNPPC's 9 hexes, especially considering that it is half damage. Really, I'm just in firm disagreement with Daryk's statement: "Range matters more than damage, always.  No amount of damage matters if you can't hit." If that were true, AC/5s would be revered over AC/20s and AC/2s would be god-tier.
 
The other point was that its damage per ton isn't out of line with other weapons in the game. The damage per heat certainly improves but I think I've been fairly clear that I don't consider ACs (for their tonnage) low-heat. By keeping the lighter ACs at 6 and 8 tons, they are heavy enough that nothing but an assault or top-end heavy mech could boat them; a Mauler carries the most AC/2s in introtech, and it would be a scorcher with or without.

Sure, you could design an introtech custom assault, 100 tons, 2/3 and boating like ten of them for fifty damage at 18 hexes using nothing more than engine sinks, but you can build a lot of goofball customs that warp game balance.

[Retry]

Not all Battlemechs are equal. Heat can change radically depending on engine type and heat sink type. It varies a little for Aerospace but Mechs are most effected.

Yes, a Battlemech is most effected by a change in heat.  Changing an AC/2s heat from 1->0 was a nice bonus for the 'Mechs using it, but didn't "break" anything from my experience with it.

[Daryk]

A snub-nosed PPC is always 10 heat, even when it's only 5 damage.  As far as range, you may need rolling map boards, but the AC/2 will win, statistically, as long as its on a relatively fast platform that can keep the range open.  Boosting its damage to 5 just accelerates that process.

[Apocal]

A snub-nosed PPC is always 10 heat, even when it's only 5 damage.  As far as range, you may need rolling map boards, but the AC/2 will win, statistically, as long as its on a relatively fast platform that can keep the range open.  Boosting its damage to 5 just accelerates that process.

Stock mechs that are fast and equipped with an AC/2: Commando, Sentinel, Vulcan, Clint. Did I miss any? Because none of those are exactly stand-out performers, despite having a decent range advantage and speed to keep range open. Partially because terrain neuters the range advantage at times and also because the tonnage is prohibitive on anything fast. For the same reason, the SNPPC is not a plague upon the FCCW games of BT; it is difficult to boat very many of them, just with heat instead of tonnage directly.

That's why I don't consider boosting damage to 5 to actually hurt anything.

[Daryk]

I don't see any variant of the Sentinel with an AC/2, but the others all do.  They should all be fast enough to keep the range open when facing a 4/6 force (and maybe 5/8 if they're lucky).  Terrain absolutely matters.  That's why rolling maps are key.  If the OPFOR doesn't want to move out of the terrain, that gives the AC/2 force the advantage... at the very least they're pinning the other force in place.

[RifleMech]

It makes sense but it also means a solid nerf to autocannon damage in the case you made that their special "thing." You say that autocannon damage is fine and they don't need to justify their tonnage but do they really need a nerf? Especially at long-range?

As for a direct damage increase based on brackets, there is already a similar mechanic in the game, but only for lowering damage with certain weapons (SNPPCs, HGRs, one of the off-brand pulse type lasers), probably for simplicity' sake.

Thing is the Extreme range rule reduces damage for all weapons. So it isn't specifically nerfing autocannons.  I also wasn't referring to a specific weapon's game mechanic but something for a class over all.  For example the "Altered Energy Weapon Damage" rule from page 83 in TacOps. Why apply that to just Energy Weapons?

I'm saying a generous 8 hex short-range bracket is no more unbalancing than the SNPPC's 9 hexes, especially considering that it is half damage. Really, I'm just in firm disagreement with Daryk's statement: "Range matters more than damage, always.  No amount of damage matters if you can't hit." If that were true, AC/5s would be revered over AC/20s and AC/2s would be god-tier.

True you have to hit before you can damage but the AC/2s range and ammo amount allows them to reach out and touch someone more often than other weapons. I don't think the AC/5 would be revered over the AC/20 as the AC/20 can kill with one shot. I do think if range were only considered the AC/5 would get less grief than it does now.
 

The other point was that its damage per ton isn't out of line with other weapons in the game. The damage per heat certainly improves but I think I've been fairly clear that I don't consider ACs (for their tonnage) low-heat. By keeping the lighter ACs at 6 and 8 tons, they are heavy enough that nothing but an assault or top-end heavy mech could boat them; a Mauler carries the most AC/2s in introtech, and it would be a scorcher with or without.

Sure, you could design an introtech custom assault, 100 tons, 2/3 and boating like ten of them for fifty damage at 18 hexes using nothing more than engine sinks, but you can build a lot of goofball customs that warp game balance.

Sounds like a fun custom.  >:D  With the Mauler though it's 2 large lasers with only 12 heat sinks that make it a scorcher. The 4 AC/2s only generate 4 heat, 8 double tapping. The Mauler can still run and not run and not max out its heat sinks. It's the lasers that generate all the heat.

As for weight I don't think a unit needs to boat them but energy weapons have limits too because of their high heat. They have to have more heat sinks which ups the weapons weight.
The ER PPC is very close to the AC/2 in range. Both weigh 7 tons, with AC ammo. The AC/2 only generates 1 heat, maybe 2. The ER PPC generates 15 heat. That's another 8-16 tons +/- the weight of a power amplifier. Looking at that I see AC/s as being low heat for their tonnage.

Yes, a Battlemech is most effected by a change in heat.  Changing an AC/2s heat from 1->0 was a nice bonus for the 'Mechs using it, but didn't "break" anything from my experience with it.

It would seem to break lowtech mechs and armed industrial mechs. Being able to boat them and not generate any heat? Seems broken to me.

Stock mechs that are fast and equipped with an AC/2: Commando, Sentinel, Vulcan, Clint. Did I miss any? Because none of those are exactly stand-out performers, despite having a decent range advantage and speed to keep range open. Partially because terrain neuters the range advantage at times and also because the tonnage is prohibitive on anything fast. For the same reason, the SNPPC is not a plague upon the FCCW games of BT; it is difficult to boat very many of them, just with heat instead of tonnage directly.

That's why I don't consider boosting damage to 5 to actually hurt anything.

Jackrabbit?

[Retry]

It would seem to break lowtech mechs and armed industrial mechs. Being able to boat them and not generate any heat? Seems broken to me.

From experience, it is not.  The change was a small but positive bonus for the AC/2 and helped it stand out from its peers.  Just 1 point of heat isn't all that's between the AC/2 and world domination.

You should consider trying it.  Chances are you won't notice a huge difference one way or the other, but you might be pleasantly surprised.

EDIT:

Thing is the Extreme range rule reduces damage for all weapons. So it isn't specifically nerfing autocannons.

The ACs are hit a tad harder at extreme ranges than energy weapons.  Direct fire ballistics multiply their damage by .75x and round down.  Direct fire energy (except pulse) is just a flat -1 damage.  So an AC/10 slug reduces to 7 damage, but a PPC still weighs in at 9 damage, despite starting at the same damage value.

[Apocal]

I don't see any variant of the Sentinel with an AC/2, but the others all do.

STN-1S? Off the top of my head, I couldn't recall any fast mechs with an AC/2 except the Commando and Vulcan, so I just searched through MegaMek.

Thing is the Extreme range rule reduces damage for all weapons. So it isn't specifically nerfing autocannons.  I also wasn't referring to a specific weapon's game mechanic but something for a class over all.  For example the "Altered Energy Weapon Damage" rule from page 83 in TacOps. Why apply that to just Energy Weapons?

You mentioned Direct/Glancing Blow rules, not Extreme Range, as the rules that should be applied to autocannons. Even paired together, those are a solid damage nerf. Running Direct Blow alone would be a boost, but not much of one except in the sense that crits are easier to come by.

I've never played with Extreme Range rules because actually getting the opportunity to land a shot at extreme range (for any weapon) rarely comes up. Maybe if I had a campaign with some 1 gunnery, weapon spec uber-mechwarrior or what have you, but (almost) all my live table games are skirmishes, usually without objectives, played with IS standard pilots on a fairly strict timetable. Same story with Altered Energy Weapon Damage, although that is more because I didn't see much of a point in it, unless someone really dislikes small lasers?
 

Sounds like a fun custom.  >:D  With the Mauler though it's 2 large lasers with only 12 heat sinks that make it a scorcher. The 4 AC/2s only generate 4 heat, 8 double tapping. The Mauler can still run and not run and not max out its heat sinks. It's the lasers that generate all the heat.

As for weight I don't think a unit needs to boat them but energy weapons have limits too because of their high heat. They have to have more heat sinks which ups the weapons weight.

The ER PPC is very close to the AC/2 in range. Both weigh 7 tons, with AC ammo. The AC/2 only generates 1 heat, maybe 2. The ER PPC generates 15 heat. That's another 8-16 tons +/- the weight of a power amplifier. Looking at that I see AC/s as being low heat for their tonnage.

It isn't really a fun custom: you basically just stand in cover (or waddle around) and while 20 damage per turn might sound like a lot, but it isn't when you scatter it over every possible surface of a mech. It might take you three turns to kill something like a Locust at short range. Meanwhile, a Panther is probably out-damaging you in the practical sense of chewing through armor, then critting out important components. That's why I suggested the damage boost. It still wouldn't be good, but it would be less offensive

As for ERPPC vs. AC/2
AC/2 damage per ton (including ammo): 0.28
ER PPC damage per ton (including 5 single heat sinks): 0.83
ER PPC damage per ton (including 15 single heat sinks): 0.47
Boosted AC/2 -> AC/5 damage per ton (including ammo): 0.71

In the first case, you have 2 damage. The second, you have ten damage, heat-neutral due to (single) engine heat sinks. In the third case, your hypothetical mech has no engine sinks (this is not really reasonable, I know) and you bite the bullet for 21 tons. The low-heat aspect of the AC/2 is irrelevant when heat neutral energy weapons out-perform them in a direct damage comparison, thanks to the former's weight. That's why I put the final case up there. That damage per ton is more in line with other long-range weapons and even if it falls short of the ER PPC as commonly fit, it at least beats out an ER PPC with 15 single heat sinks around it.

That's before you get into deeper aspects of more heat sinks on a mech being better: engine-sink only (SHS) mechs have trouble shrugging off a pair of engine hits and keeping up the damage, even with an AC/2. Meanwhile, an Awesome is only moderately inconvenienced. Hot environment that adds to the heat? Hurts mechs with limited external sinks more than those loaded to the gills with them. The threat of infernos? Abundance of heat sinks counter them and cushion the heat burden. And that mass of heat sinks have inherently graceful degradation vs. an ammo bin going up and taking almost half your mech with it or a single LB-X pellet nicking your AC thereby rendering it completely useless.

It would seem to break lowtech mechs and armed industrial mechs. Being able to boat them and not generate any heat? Seems broken to me.

You're not explaining how it is broken and, again, the AC/2 itself weighs 6 tons. You can't boat them on anything but the upper-end of heavies or assaults.

(Just so we're clear, something "broken" would be like a hypothetical SuperGun (SPG) at 40 damage, 15 hexes downrange for 3 heat and 8 tons/4 crits, because it would clearly be wildly out of line with everything else and reduce meaningful weapon choices to "What do I back up my SPG with?" while mech design was solely of measure of how well a mech could get a SPG into position to clap cheeks.)

Jackrabbit?

I'd only ever seen or heard of that mech in MM so I'd assumed it was one of those non-canonical units like the Sidewinder. But I guess it is real.

[Hptm. Streiger]

If I may add something to the discussion. For me, it looks you are rotating over the simple question: would you keep an Light or Medium AC instead of a Large Laser.
Let's take a look -> Vulcan what does the AC2 offers in comparison with the Large Laser? Range - sure you can keep the distance thanks to its movement profile and stay invulnerable for 45rounds while plinging your target. But 45 rounds - even when all of them hit will have a hard time to defeat everything but the lightest armored target.

Same stands true for the AC 5 - although I feel the AC 5 would be a great AC 2 - range damage heat is a nice addition to your Mechs loadout but its not a killer. Even with rapid fire rules - a PPC or a Large Laser will always beat the option for AC 5 or AC 2. When you think about it you have the same issue with SRM2 vs MLAS, a MLAS with heatsink is the better option, almost.

And there you get to the core of the issue. You have the same damage and fire mechanic for all different kinds of weapons.
You can circumvent the SRM2 vs MLAS by using the "advanced SRM" mechanic of the Gnome - so the shot is only fired when its a hit and you get a +2 on the cluster table.

And for the ACs well it might be a little bit more complex but with just another value (RoF) you can turn them into multifunctional weapons.
RoF stands for the ammunitions spend.

• LAC - ROF 3
• MAC - ROF 2
• HAC - ROF 1

For each RoF point spend you waste another clip - so a LAC firing with RoF of 3 spends 4 rounds. Those rounds can be used for either - better to Hit modification, splitting damage over multiple targets or concentrated damage.

Damage Concentratrion
To Hit Modificator like Bombast: (Dialed Damge - Minimum Damage) / 2 - so for the AC 2 4 rounds = 8 damage, (8-2)/2 = +3

I think it looks bad only at the first glance. A +3 or in case of the AC5 going full Auto (+5) - no Mech not even a heavy armored Awesome might park his Mech unmoving in front of a Shadow Hawk because he can take that 5 damage to get a better to Hit modification.
I'm not so sure if you should be allowed to combine different modifications - or if the damage should always be applied in groups of 5 (but this would remove the dread) - incase of combination the mode used mostly for the AC 5 would be 10 damage and a toHit Mod of +2 - 3 rounds spend and 3 heat. (Makes sense only for Mechs like the Dragon) 

[RifleMech]

From experience, it is not.  The change was a small but positive bonus for the AC/2 and helped it stand out from its peers.  Just 1 point of heat isn't all that's between the AC/2 and world domination.

You should consider trying it.  Chances are you won't notice a huge difference one way or the other, but you might be pleasantly surprised.

Oh, I'm sure it plays nice but to me that would seem to be a problem. It isn't just 1 point of heat.  I can load up a unit with AC/2s and hit at 24 hexes and never worry about heat when that unit should be crippled by it. Especially, if I double tap all of them.  That seems to break things for me.

EDIT:The ACs are hit a tad harder at extreme ranges than energy weapons.  Direct fire ballistics multiply their damage by .75x and round down.  Direct fire energy (except pulse) is just a flat -1 damage.  So an AC/10 slug reduces to 7 damage, but a PPC still weighs in at 9 damage, despite starting at the same damage value.

True but then they are more effected by things like gravity than energy weapons. My question though was why they don't get a bonus to hit up close like energy weapons and what would happen if they had a x.25 bonus up close?

You mentioned Direct/Glancing Blow rules, not Extreme Range, as the rules that should be applied to autocannons. Even paired together, those are a solid damage nerf. Running Direct Blow alone would be a boost, but not much of one except in the sense that crits are easier to come by.

I've never played with Extreme Range rules because actually getting the opportunity to land a shot at extreme range (for any weapon) rarely comes up. Maybe if I had a campaign with some 1 gunnery, weapon spec uber-mechwarrior or what have you, but (almost) all my live table games are skirmishes, usually without objectives, played with IS standard pilots on a fairly strict timetable. Same story with Altered Energy Weapon Damage, although that is more because I didn't see much of a point in it, unless someone really dislikes small lasers?

I had mentioned it and you missed my point. Why is it energy weapons are the only ones to get a bonus up close? Give ballistic cannons a .x25 bonus up close (opposite the x.75 penalty at extreme range) and even the Light Rifle Cannon would benefit.


 

It isn't really a fun custom: you basically just stand in cover (or waddle around) and while 20 damage per turn might sound like a lot, but it isn't when you scatter it over every possible surface of a mech. It might take you three turns to kill something like a Locust at short range. Meanwhile, a Panther is probably out-damaging you in the practical sense of chewing through armor, then critting out important components. That's why I suggested the damage boost. It still wouldn't be good, but it would be less offensive

True it would take a while to kill a mech and a Panther would be punching holes instead of sandpapering  but the AC/2 has a range advantage. Plus there's the missed shots. The Panther's got 1. The custom has 10. So it could still be damaging the enemy even with some missed shots.

As for ERPPC vs. AC/2
AC/2 damage per ton (including ammo): 0.28
ER PPC damage per ton (including 5 single heat sinks): 0.83
ER PPC damage per ton (including 15 single heat sinks): 0.47
Boosted AC/2 -> AC/5 damage per ton (including ammo): 0.71


In the first case, you have 2 damage. The second, you have ten damage, heat-neutral due to (single) engine heat sinks. In the third case, your hypothetical mech has no engine sinks (this is not really reasonable, I know) and you bite the bullet for 21 tons. The low-heat aspect of the AC/2 is irrelevant when heat neutral energy weapons out-perform them in a direct damage comparison, thanks to the former's weight. That's why I put the final case up there. That damage per ton is more in line with other long-range weapons and even if it falls short of the ER PPC as commonly fit, it at least beats out an ER PPC with 15 single heat sinks around it.

Now you're changing things. Those figures are damage per weight. We were talking heat per weight.
AC/2: .28 heat
AC/2 with 2 SHS: .22 heat
ERPPC: .46 heat
ERPPC with 5 heat sinks: .8 heat
ERPPC with 15 SHS: 1.46 heat
ERPPP with 15 SHS and PA: 1.53 heat

That's before you get into deeper aspects of more heat sinks on a mech being better: engine-sink only (SHS) mechs have trouble shrugging off a pair of engine hits and keeping up the damage, even with an AC/2. Meanwhile, an Awesome is only moderately inconvenienced. Hot environment that adds to the heat? Hurts mechs with limited external sinks more than those loaded to the gills with them. The threat of infernos? Abundance of heat sinks counter them and cushion the heat burden. And that mass of heat sinks have inherently graceful degradation vs. an ammo bin going up and taking almost half your mech with it or a single LB-X pellet nicking your AC thereby rendering it completely useless.

Sure an engine hit is going to hurt a mech with SHS more than DHS. And true a BattleMech with no heat sinks isn't reasonable. It'd eventually overheat just walking. On the other hand IndustrialMechs don't generate heat while walking. They'd only need heat sinks to deal with weapon, or environmental heat. Support Vehicles, even with Fusion engines don't come with heat sinks so they'd need them. Are they outside the norm? Sure, but it does illustrate how unit, engine, and heat sink type can change things.

And again, yes, a mech with relying only on the 10 engine heat sinks is going to be at a disadvantage than one mounting extra heat sinks. Then again the unit that has to spend tonnage on extra heat sinks. The other mech can use that tonnage as they see fit, including the same amount of heat sinks. That mech also isn't as effected by crits to heat sinks.

You're not explaining how it is broken and, again, the AC/2 itself weighs 6 tons. You can't boat them on anything but the upper-end of heavies or assaults.

Define boat.
You can put 3 AC/2s on a Blackjack or 4 IAC/2s/

(Just so we're clear, something "broken" would be like a hypothetical SuperGun (SPG) at 40 damage, 15 hexes downrange for 3 heat and 8 tons/4 crits, because it would clearly be wildly out of line with everything else and reduce meaningful weapon choices to "What do I back up my SPG with?" while mech design was solely of measure of how well a mech could get a SPG into position to clap cheeks.)

That's beyond broken. But I don't think an AC/2 boat generating zero heat is just a crack either.

I'd only ever seen or heard of that mech in MM so I'd assumed it was one of those non-canonical units like the Sidewinder. But I guess it is real.

Yep. Real.

If I may add something to the discussion. For me, it looks you are rotating over the simple question: would you keep an Light or Medium AC instead of a Large Laser.
Let's take a look -> Vulcan what does the AC2 offers in comparison with the Large Laser? Range - sure you can keep the distance thanks to its movement profile and stay invulnerable for 45rounds while plinging your target. But 45 rounds - even when all of them hit will have a hard time to defeat everything but the lightest armored target.

Same stands true for the AC 5 - although I feel the AC 5 would be a great AC 2 - range damage heat is a nice addition to your Mechs loadout but its not a killer. Even with rapid fire rules - a PPC or a Large Laser will always beat the option for AC 5 or AC 2. When you think about it you have the same issue with SRM2 vs MLAS, a MLAS with heatsink is the better option, almost.

And there you get to the core of the issue. You have the same damage and fire mechanic for all different kinds of weapons.
You can circumvent the SRM2 vs MLAS by using the "advanced SRM" mechanic of the Gnome - so the shot is only fired when its a hit and you get a +2 on the cluster table.

And for the ACs well it might be a little bit more complex but with just another value (RoF) you can turn them into multifunctional weapons.
RoF stands for the ammunitions spend.

• LAC - ROF 3
• MAC - ROF 2
• HAC - ROF 1

For each RoF point spend you waste another clip - so a LAC firing with RoF of 3 spends 4 rounds. Those rounds can be used for either - better to Hit modification, splitting damage over multiple targets or concentrated damage.

Damage Concentratrion
To Hit Modificator like Bombast: (Dialed Damge - Minimum Damage) / 2 - so for the AC 2 4 rounds = 8 damage, (8-2)/2 = +3

I think it looks bad only at the first glance. A +3 or in case of the AC5 going full Auto (+5) - no Mech not even a heavy armored Awesome might park his Mech unmoving in front of a Shadow Hawk because he can take that 5 damage to get a better to Hit modification.
I'm not so sure if you should be allowed to combine different modifications - or if the damage should always be applied in groups of 5 (but this would remove the dread) - incase of combination the mode used mostly for the AC 5 would be 10 damage and a toHit Mod of +2 - 3 rounds spend and 3 heat. (Makes sense only for Mechs like the Dragon) 

Sure :) Feel free to add away.

Depending on various things, yes I would take the AC/2 over the Large Laser. I'd prefer both though. The AC/2 might not do much damage but it does out rage the Large Laser. That's hits outside most other units range. And sometimes its not about the actual damage but about the distraction. Plinkers can be annoying, especially fast ones.

As for the Rate of Fire, there used to be rules like that in Solaris 7. They really benefited the lighter Autocannons. I don't remember all the details but the AC/2 could fire 4 times. I think the PPC could only fire once.

[Retry]

Oh, I'm sure it plays nice but to me that would seem to be a problem. It isn't just 1 point of heat.  I can load up a unit with AC/2s and hit at 24 hexes and never worry about heat when that unit should be crippled by it. Especially, if I double tap all of them.  That seems to break things for me.

It wasn't, really.  We had tried a stock Bane with the new rules, and it was capable, even a bit stand-out in its very specific niche of pretending it's a long-range SRM boat, but the heat change was somewhat minor even in that case of a legitimate autocannon boat (it was already almost heat-neutral, so not "crippled" to begin with).  A good companion to a Hellstar, but not brokenly so.

The Bane has *10* Clan UAC/2s, so longer ranged, lighter and more effective than an IS AC/2.  If the heat change didn't break the cUAC/2, I really don't think it'll break a regular one.

Now you're changing things. Those figures are damage per weight. We were talking heat per weight.

That was me, actually.  I'm talking about the damage/heat.  Apocal's been focused on damage/ton.

(I mean, I'm concerned about damage/ton too, but I've felt improving the rapid-fire rules to get to there is sufficient enough of a solution so I've been focused on justifying dropping the AC/2's heat).

[RifleMech]

It wasn't, really.  We had tried a stock Bane with the new rules, and it was capable, even a bit stand-out in its very specific niche of pretending it's a long-range SRM boat, but the heat change was somewhat minor even in that case of a legitimate autocannon boat (it was already almost heat-neutral, so not "crippled" to begin with).  A good companion to a Hellstar, but not brokenly so.

The Bane has *10* Clan UAC/2s, so longer ranged, lighter and more effective than an IS AC/2.  If the heat change didn't break the cUAC/2, I really don't think it'll break a regular one.

The Bane has 10 DHS to handle the 20 heat generated by the 10 rapid firing UAC/2s. If it isn't rapid firing or suffered damage it can run and fire and not worry about heat. Take away the heat generated by the UACs and it so over heat sinked. It could have 2 engine hits, run and be hit with infernos and not have a problem. That seems broken to me.

That was me, actually.  I'm talking about the damage/heat.  Apocal's been focused on damage/ton.

(I mean, I'm concerned about damage/ton too, but I've felt improving the rapid-fire rules to get to there is sufficient enough of a solution so I've been focused on justifying dropping the AC/2's heat).

Okay.

It just seems to be breaking things to remove the heat. The way the Bane is built no longer makes sense. Why give it DHS? It'd be a second line mech that only generates heat when it moves. It doesn't need DHS.

I am wondering if the Solaris 7/Rate of Fire rules should be more standard. Then the humble AC/2 can be firing up to 4 shots down range, 8 rapid firing. That's up to 16 points of damage and 8 heat, for 1 AC/2.

[Daryk]

Re DHS: Because they're the cheapest bang for the buck improved technology-wise?  ???

[Retry]

The Bane has 10 DHS to handle the 20 heat generated by the 10 rapid firing UAC/2s. If it isn't rapid firing or suffered damage it can run and fire and not worry about heat. Take away the heat generated by the UACs and it so over heat sinked. It could have 2 engine hits, run and be hit with infernos and not have a problem. That seems broken to me.

So the Bane becomes a mech that is designed in such a way that simply throwing more infernos at it is not an efficient way to deal with the Bane.  That's not any more broken than trying to throw LRMs and SRMs and artillery at a 'Mech with reactive armor and AMS, or throwing Tandem-Charge SRMs and LB-X pellets and infantry at a vehicle with Ferro-Lamellor armor, or tossing Inferno Bombs at Salamander BA.

If your hammer isn't doing much to the screw it's not because the screw is broken, it's because you should be using a screwdriver.

Okay.

It just seems to be breaking things to remove the heat. The way the Bane is built no longer makes sense. Why give it DHS? It'd be a second line mech that only generates heat when it moves. It doesn't need DHS.

I half agree with you.  Specifically, the "gaming" half of me.  That half tells me the modified Bane is hilariously oversinked and could easily get away with SHS.

The other half, the "practical/engineer" half, tells me it's actually very reasonable:

• Going with SHS would reduce the Bane's cost by 100,000 but that is chump change for a futuristic fighting vehicle that already costs 22 million C-Bills.  Standardizing to a more powerful, light-weight crystalline polymer heat sink (IOW DHS) may be worth phasing out the traditional graphite model (IE SHS) for the logistical benefits of not having to carry around both, even in cases where DHS are not strictly necessary.  As such, that may be good design.
• Even then, DHS is not completely a vestigial structure for the Bane.  There are situations where the excessive dissipation is useful, or even vital.  This won't be when a Bane is 100% healthy, but good design needs to take into account what could happen when things go wrong (in this case, when the shooting starts)
• The DHS allows a Bane to survive a side torso loss, which is good design.
  Note that the Bane has ammo in both side torsos.  A crit to the left torso has a 1-in-2 chance to detonate ammo, and a crit to the right torso has a 1-in-3 chance.  Even with Clan Mech's automatic CASE, a hit to the ammo most likely will result in the loss of a torso, which also means 2 engine hits (due to the XL engine).  With SHS, that means you can only remain heat neutral while stationary.  Not so great, and sometimes some environments are naturally hot which adds even more heat.  In other words, that pilot is... well, toast.
  With DHS, you have a nice safety margin, you still have the dissipation can still walk, run, or sprint away to repair (or continue the fight if your pilot is a masochist), and so for only 100,000 C-Bills extra in investment the Battlemech and Mechwarrior is not a complete write-off and will likely live to fight another day.
• The DHS increases resistance to heat-adding weapons and environments, which is good design.
  This is arguably more situational than the last point but there's reasons you might want that.  Those reasons are called the Plasma Cannon, Plasma Rifle, Inferno Missiles, Flamers, and Inferno Bombs.  Even if none of your weapons generate heat themselves, DHS is an easy, fairly cheap, usually available method to mitigate the impact of an Arctic Wolf going full ham with infernos.  Even if you don't need the spare dissipation, why make your opponent's job easier?
• Micro-note: If you use rapid-fire MG rules from Tac Ops, they produce heat which can be a factor.  I don't use it much at all, but it's a thing.

So ultimately, I have to yield to my more practical half and claim that the Bane makes sense even with a "zero-heat" autocannon, one simply needs to view it through a lense that's more complete than simply an undamaged 'Mech's heat production minus heat sinking.  (Though I'd prefer switching some of the MGs for lasers)