3025: Is the PPC the finger of god?

[Kobold]

So I was screwing around in skunkworks with a 3025 Centurion variant.  I wanted to get more armor on it, and I was trying to save some weight.  Short version, it switched the LRM and AC10 for a PPC and SRM6, plus more heat sinks, and I was able to nearly max the armor.  Yay.

But that got me thinking: How many units can be improved by adding a PPC?

Anything with an AC 5?  Check.
Anything with an AC 10?  Check.
Some things with large lasers?  Ok, semi-check.

So I ask you, fellow forum goers (particularly those of you who have spent more time thinking about math than I have), is the PPC the bestestest 3025 weapon with a max range greater than 9 hexes?

[ApokalypseTest]

Large Lasers might be on par with it.

[gooseman]

Back when 3025 WAS Battletech, PPC's were a very respected weapon.

[Nahuris]

Back in 3025, the PPC was one of the best weapons on the field.... and like the AC/10 and AC/20 (which were added to the game later... the AC/5 was originally just the Autocannon), was in the rare class of being a "headcapper" --- as in, it was guaranteed to go internal, and for each critical, there was a one in six chance of killing the pilot. Again, note that for a while, the PPC was the ONLY weapon that could do that.......

However, on any battlefield where there was a possibility of fire or infernos, that 10 heat per shot was something you had to constantly factor into your calculations. Even without those, and depending on the mech design, is it worth the heat to try for the shot at long range?  So, while yes, the PPC is a great weapon, depending on the type of fight, it may not be the best....

Nahuris

[bakija]

So I ask you, fellow forum goers (particularly those of you who have spent more time thinking about math than I have), is the PPC the bestestest 3025 weapon with a max range greater than 9 hexes?

Uh, yes?

Medium Lasers are the most efficient weapon in the 3025 era, but their short range makes them difficult to fully maximize much of the time.

PPCs are the best heavy gun in the 3025 era by a, ahem, long shot. Excellent range, 10 damage in one pop (which makes big holes and might shoot someone in the cockpit unexpectedly which the 8 point LL can't reliably do). It has the minimum range, but you can often circumvent that (i.e. back up or shoot around the guy that is punching you in the head to his buddy that is a few hexes away).

Virtually all mechs with AC10s will be better off replacing them with a PPC and 7 heat sinks (AC10+2 tons of ammo=14 tons, 3 net heat; PPC+7 heat sinks=14 tons, 3 net heat; if you only have 1 ton of AC10 ammo, you gain some net heat in the trade, but an AC10 with only 10 rounds of ammo is generally debilitating anyway). It is harder to make that trade with an AC5 as you start running into heat problems (although, really, probably worth it anyway). Same with LLs, although less worth the trade, usually, unless you can tweak things (i.e. if the Thunderbolt turned the LL and SRM2 and MGs into a PPC and 2 more heat sinks, that is pure awesomeness; often a 1 for 1 swap will work badly, however).

The PPC has an optimal range, does a lot of damage, doesn't run out of ammo, doesn't make you blow up. Yes. PPC=Win.

In later technology eras, other guns play catch up--better ACs with specialty ammo help them some, LRMs get all sorts of guidance and electronics to help them out, Gauss Rifles are insanely good too, etc. But in basic 3025 era mechs, pretty much all guns should be either a Medium Laser or a PPC*

[ * ] I'll certainly make allowances for other guns in specific instances--MG/Flamers for fighting infantry; AC2s for aircraft; LRMs for indirect fire opportunity. But in general, I'll stick by that statement.

[monbvol]

The PPC is a great weapon but it can't do everything.

There are situations where you'll want the indirect fire capabilities of the LRM series of weapons or the exploiting thin armor of the SRMs but for the weight there are few weapons that truly compete.  The SRMs also have Inferno rounds in 3025 Total Warfare rules level play.  So they also make great vehicle and infantry hunters.

Where the AC-10 really has the advantage though is on ICE Combat Vehicles.  PPCs cut into the available weight way too fast to consider more than one or two.  Fusion powered combat vehicles are still actually better off looking at an AC-10 and ammo than adding a second PPC.

So not finger of god but pretty dang close.

[HavocTheWarDog]

I'm still a BIG fan of the standard ppc...even in the modern era, no ammo, good damage, decent range. just a couple mls will cover your minimum range...leaves plenty of weight for better armor or more heat sinks.(possibly both)

[bakija]

The PPC is a great weapon but it can't do everything.

Oh, sure. But it can do most of what you need to do most of the time most effectively.

There are situations where you'll want the indirect fire capabilities of the LRM series of weapons

Oh, absolutely, but pre-TAG and semi-guided missiles, this is generally less effective than not. I mean, not horrible if you have a good terrain situation, but hard to really pull off a lot of the time. Once you have access to TAG and semi-guided missiles (i.e. around the same time you can get DHS, Gauss, and Pulse Lasers), indirect LRM fire is very effective and PPCs are just good.

or the exploiting thin armor of the SRMs but for the weight there are few weapons that truly compete.  The SRMs also have Inferno rounds in 3025 Total Warfare rules level play.  So they also make great vehicle and infantry hunters.

I'll certainly defend SRMs as a good backup for heavy guns in that era (i.e. the SRM4 on the Panthro is a good PPC backup), and infernos make SRMs certainly much more attractive, but infernos don't come in the basic rules set (they are listed as level D, rare, in all time periods, in the tech manual) so it isn't readily apparent that they show up in all time periods--I'd argue that infernos should show up in all levels of SRM rules (i.e. in the intro rules set). But yeah. Infernos certainly make SRMs worth using.

[LordChaos]

The only 3025 era AC-10 carrying mech that springs to mind that wouldn't be "improved" by a swap to a PPC is the Enforcer.  Since it only has 1 ton of ammo, it comes out hotter with a PPC.  It's current weapon load is perfectly designed around walking and firing both long guns, or jumping and firing just the LL.  While the 10 rounds of ammo is short, it's armor is nearing "sucking chest wound" territory when it runs out of ammo if it's been in the thick of the fight, so you don't really want any more.  At best, it's a wash, at worst, a slight (ever so slight) downgrade in bang for your buck (or BV).

[JPArbiter]

Regarding the OP

Customizing mechs devolved into "lets cram either a PPC or AC20 in here" for the 3025 era.

[Orin J.]

the basic, stock 3025-era PPC's a beast even in later eras that demands respect. back in it's day, it was pretty much the weapon to have, although "finger of god" may be overhyping it.

The only 3025 era AC-10 carrying mech that springs to mind that wouldn't be "improved" by a swap to a PPC is the Enforcer.

Orion by me, the heat load's run too fine to handle the change.

[Minemech]

 The Hatchetman, Orion and Centurion are examples of mechs I would not take a PPC over an AC/10 in.

[monbvol]

Oh, absolutely, but pre-TAG and semi-guided missiles, this is generally less effective than not. I mean, not horrible if you have a good terrain situation, but hard to really pull off a lot of the time. Once you have access to TAG and semi-guided missiles (i.e. around the same time you can get DHS, Gauss, and Pulse Lasers), indirect LRM fire is very effective and PPCs are just good.

I'll certainly defend SRMs as a good backup for heavy guns in that era (i.e. the SRM4 on the Panthro is a good PPC backup), and infernos make SRMs certainly much more attractive, but infernos don't come in the basic rules set (they are listed as level D, rare, in all time periods, in the tech manual) so it isn't readily apparent that they show up in all time periods--I'd argue that infernos should show up in all levels of SRM rules (i.e. in the intro rules set). But yeah. Infernos certainly make SRMs worth using.

I've gotten a lot of milage out that Indirect fire capability of LRMs even in 3025.  So maybe I'm a bit biased but I respect the LRM in any era.

As to the SRM I'm fairly content with the Infernos being in Total Warfare rather than Intro.  It could add too much too quick to have it be in the Intro Rules but that varies with the player so much already that it could easily lead into endless debate.

The Hatchetman, Orion and Centurion are examples of mechs I would not take a PPC over an AC/10 in.

Let's see what actually happens with those mechs if we do make that switch*

HCT-3F Hatchetman  Heat Generated Before Mod/Dissipated:13/11 After:20/18.  Same net heat.  In this case you may be right and it might be better to take the Large Laser route.  Hell you can even improve the firepower or armor going that way since this machine is about getting in close, might as well make it more able to do it.

CN9-A Centurian 15/10 vs 22/17.  Again same net heat.  In this case I think I'd go straight for the PPC since the Centurian has always served me better as a stand off design rather than a close combatant.  It overlaps better with the LRM-10 and because it bracket fires better than the Hatchetman the extra heatsinks may actually be turned down for more armor and/or firepower in this case.

ENF-4R Enforcer 16/12 vs 23/18.  Heat is a little worse but I might consider it worth it for the extra range for no damage drop off until in real close because of the minimum.  Still since Jump is not reduced by heat I may use it a bit like a PHX-1 Phoenix Hawk.  Get into position, unload, then asses if I need to jump to cover or if I should skirmish.  Still for the squimish that do not like overheating or retreating from combat even for one turn there is still the Large Laser and extra Firepower through Medium Lasers or what have you.

ON1-K Orion 19/10 vs 26/17.  Again here I find because of the principal of bracket firing the PPC works much better with the LRM-15.  Sure it makes the Orion a bit more of a stand off/skirmisher but in this case I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.  My experience with this model of the Orion tells me it only works well in close on paper but in practice it doesn't always perform so well.

ON1-V Orion 22/10 vs 29/17.  Since only the Orion has variants also mounting AC-10s I thought for the sake of completeness I should cover them too.  Here again I think I really favor the PPC.  The extra SRM-4 actually handles nicely the minimum range and with the extra range of the PPC the target is actually more likely to have holes in it for the SRM-4s to exploit.

ON1-VA Orion 17/16 vs 24/23.  With the loss of the LRM I'm actually more inclined to go for the extra range of the PPC over the AC-10.  I already have plenty of close range firepower so the only place I'm laking is at range.  Three hexes may not look like much but it can mean the difference between not having a shot at all and having one.

ON1-V-DC Orion 22/10 vs 29/16.  Command Console.  I see that and I see something that should be hanging back and not getting too close.  That makes the PPC a better choice again.

*adding the Enforcer just for the fun of it since someone else mentioned it

[Zombyra]

But that got me thinking: How many units can be improved by adding a PPC?

Anything with an AC 5?  Check.
Anything with an AC 10?  Check.
Some things with large lasers?  Ok, semi-check.

So I ask you, fellow forum goers (particularly those of you who have spent more time thinking about math than I have), is the PPC the bestestest 3025 weapon with a max range greater than 9 hexes?

On several levels, it depends on what you mean by "bestestest" or "improved".

Do you mean in a duel?  For a small engagement?  In a company setting? And that's just for starters.  It's like running an election against "generic candidates".  Yea, it sounds ok until you start getting real specific with the voters.

The PPC's got alot going for it, but the biggest thing the PPC has got going for it in 3025 is that it doesn't blow up.  There's only two choices for a reaching weapon that doesn't do that in 3025.  That's pretty strict scrutiny, but if that's your measure, what you gonna do?

Does best mean you're paying as much BV as you possibly can for each unit?  PPC is probably one of your go-to weapons, then.  Prefer your eggs in a slightly larger number of baskets?  Want a cheaper specialist mech?  PPC probably not the greatest choice. 

In designing for a purpose, not every situation calls for a swap.  The Wolverine-6M is a good example of the kind of designs that are better off with the laser, for instance.  I.E. it's best at close range, and already designed to overheat a little.

And weight is a huge issue, too.  Filling up those first 10 HS in your long range bracket is pretty important, and the PPC does that with good efficiency, which makes it a good first round draft pick for that particular job.  But when it comes to the next gun you put on after that, what if you don't have the 14 tons?  On the classic Jagermech, Rifleman, and Marauder, straight swapping out ALL their AC5's for PPC's doesn't get you anything but a lot of expensive unwanted heat troubles and dead weight.  I'm not saying they couldn't use some redesign, just that weighing a mech down with PPC's when you can't afford the heat sinks is counterproductive.  The 2 medium autocannons make way better secondary weapons than primary ones, but they get used so often as the primary if not only long range weapons that the number of situations in which it seems they should be replaced leads, I think, to the exaggerated association that they ought always to be replaced regardless.

And then there's the specialty ammos both LRM and AC and optional rules that add both utility and heat into the game on various levels.  Which have already been talked about, I guess, but it bears reiterating.

On top of which is the custom or canon problem.  Swapping means playing custom.  Which generally means--we're going to ignore BV scoring and (ironically) inadvertently build for the biggest BV/ton we can reasonably get.  You can decide for yourself if the incumbent results make for the "best" way to play the game.

PPC is a great gun, but I think it's situationally over-scored for being the more powerful choice of a first-10-heat weapon that also doesn't blow-up.  The effectiveness of a swap is a reasonable consideration, and likely to be marginal when scored effectively (you pay for the good you get).  Irresponsibly, my final measure of whether it's a swap for the better is: does this make the mech more fun?  Because if I had to play PPC's and medium lasers all the time, I'd just pack up my dice in the attic.

[mutantmagnet]

The PPC isn't the finger of god.

It is the best general purpose weapon for battlemechs.

The finger of god are inferno missiles.

There are very few custom designs that allows you to compete with an inferno build. Any design that can compete carries a lot of energy weapons and enough heatsinks to use them such that when you are prevented from using 15 heat sinks you can use the remaining to out DPS the inferno config.


Also LRMs have their place. It is far easier to reach long range knock down potential with LRMs than PPCs as you go down in tonnage and increase speed. LRMs also change the paradigm of combat that makes them worthwhile when using large numbers of troops that would get in each others way if they had stuck to PPCs.


While PPCs are mechs as someone mentioned already, ACs are the general purpose weapon for vehicles.

[Desert Raider]

Maybe not the "finger of God" but a dang good weapon none the less, and the favorite of my chosen House, Kurita. The argument for improved Mechs...TheGrand Dragon
 and Shadow Hawk-K Certainly fit the bill. AC/5s in both cases ,swapped out for PPCs and extra heatsinks and you have some a marked improvement in long range firepower, although the Hawk loses its close-combat ability when it loses its SRM-2 and Medium Laser in the trade.

[monbvol]

Let's look at the specialty ammos of the ACs.

Precision- Only negates up to 2 of Target Movement Modifier and only half ammo.  Thunder has already been re-introduced for 10 years, can be fired at the hex, and doesn't cut ammo in half.  Hell Thunder Active for jumping designs has been around for 4 years.  Looking at the rarity codes both are just as common, if not more so.

AP- Egads I'm still trying to figure out why I'd willingly take this with the +1 to hit and half ammo.  The possibility of a critical isn't all that great and the double damage against hardened armor would be nicer if the ammo wasn't half.  It doesn't have to be full but half is too much for too little.

Tracer- -1 To Hit if using Dusk/Dawn or Night fighting rules.  I suppose it is better than nothing but I'm still rather unimpressed since I can have better illumination options elsewhere.

Flechette- Despite the errata I'm still confused on how this actually works.  The current wording implies I should be rolling on some sort of troopers hit table to determine how much damage is actually done.  Either way give me some SRMs and Infernos.  Better utility and kill Infantry a lot faster for less weight.

Flak- -2 To Hit against flying targets?  Yes please.  Once LB-X Cluster munitions roll around for a total of -3 against the same targets for greater utility it does go to the sideline.

So end of the day it seems AA work is the only place that ACs can keep some semblance of relevance.

[Minemech]

CN9-A Centurion 15/10 vs 22/17.  Again same net heat.  In this case I think I'd go straight for the PPC since the Centurian has always served me better as a stand off design rather than a close combatant.  It overlaps better with the LRM-10 and because it bracket fires better than the Hatchetman the extra heatsinks may actually be turned down for more armor and/or firepower in this case.

ON1-K Orion 19/10 vs 26/17.  Again here I find because of the principal of bracket firing the PPC works much better with the LRM-15.  Sure it makes the Orion a bit more of a stand off/skirmisher but in this case I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.  My experience with this model of the Orion tells me it only works well in close on paper but in practice it doesn't always perform so well.

ON1-V Orion 22/10 vs 29/17.  Since only the Orion has variants also mounting AC-10s I thought for the sake of completeness I should cover them too.  Here again I think I really favor the PPC.  The extra SRM-4 actually handles nicely the minimum range and with the extra range of the PPC the target is actually more likely to have holes in it for the SRM-4s to exploit.

ON1-VA Orion 17/16 vs 24/23.  With the loss of the LRM I'm actually more inclined to go for the extra range of the PPC over the AC-10.  I already have plenty of close range firepower so the only place I'm laking is at range.  Three hexes may not look like much but it can mean the difference between not having a shot at all and having one.

Here is the thing, the minimum range really does hurt those designs. They do not have mobility offsets like jump jets to make keeping enemies out of that zone easy either.

[Nahuris]

The PPC does look great, when playing the basic tabletop game.... but you have to look beyond that to see the value of the AC. Per fluff, AC's have a much higher rate of fire than PPC's --- That's why the Solaris dueling rules were put in play... and I'd MUCH rather have an AC/5 than a PPC for that....

If they came up with a good way to simulate the advantages that AC's have in the Solaris rules on the standard tabletop game, then people would see that there is a logic to the AC's

It's one of the reasons that the Clan Wolf source book mentions "Assault Loads" as being heavy on autocannons..... The Wolves were wanting to deal heavy damage fast....  Logically, if AC's were so inefficient, why would the Clans have bothered keeping them? Especially when the 4 ton Large laser has a range of 25, and their medium lasers are pretty much equivelent to the IS weapon that is 5 times the weight....

I wish that there was a way to use the rapid rate of fire for AC's as described, because (if I remember correctly) the AC/5 gets to fire 2 and a half times faster than the PPC.... and I'd LOVE to be able to just keep firing at that speed at people running around with the "more efficient" PPC.

Nahuris

[monbvol]

Here is the thing, the minimum range really does hurt those designs. They do not have mobility offsets like jump jets to make keeping enemies out of that zone easy either.

See I don't consider that too much of a problem.

Some of those Orion variants still have a great deal of close in firepower that has the bonus of being more Inferno tolerant after making the switch and as noted one is a Command Mech.  If the minimum range proves to be a persistent problem then frankly my battle plan has already gone so far south that it doesn't matter anyway, either because my body guards are not doing their job or I'm being far too reckless.  Though I do take your point so because of the principle of bracket firing I might actually cut out two SHS for two more Medium Lasers on the ON1-K.  The others are fine doing the straight swap because any firepower drop off will more often than not be made up for by there being more holes in the opponent.

Again I'll repeat that staying back and providing support is where I've had the most success with the CN9-A.  I'm noticing how the lack of Jump Jets doesn't seem to bother it none there and it is certainly weaker close in even without a minimum range.  So I might as well get the more complimentry range brackets and the little bit of extra range.  Hell as I noted it actually feels over sinked swapping for a PPC and 7 SHS.  I'd seriously consider stopping at 4 SHS, slapping in two more MLs, and adding another ton of armor.  Or if not having Jump Jets bothers you that much skip the two Medium Lasers and slap those in.  Either way it becomes a much better machine.

[deathfrombeyond]

The PPC does look great, when playing the basic tabletop game.... but you have to look beyond that to see the value of the AC. Per fluff, AC's have a much higher rate of fire than PPC's --- That's why the Solaris dueling rules were put in play... and I'd MUCH rather have an AC/5 than a PPC for that....

If they came up with a good way to simulate the advantages that AC's have in the Solaris rules on the standard tabletop game, then people would see that there is a logic to the AC's

It's one of the reasons that the Clan Wolf source book mentions "Assault Loads" as being heavy on autocannons..... The Wolves were wanting to deal heavy damage fast....  Logically, if AC's were so inefficient, why would the Clans have bothered keeping them? Especially when the 4 ton Large laser has a range of 25, and their medium lasers are pretty much equivelent to the IS weapon that is 5 times the weight....

Because the Clans don't use standard single fire autocannon any more?

I mean, in context, "autocannon heavy designs that deal heavy damage quickly" is a pretty good indication that those designs rely on double firing Ultra autocannon, not single firing standard or Lubalin Ballistics autocannon.

[Minemech]

 I think the problem is your seeing the Orion like a Thug and not seeing what it truly is. The Orion very often is a bodyguard. It performs many roles quite well and many Free Worlds League players anchor their lines around the mechs. As a brawler the ON1-VA is a beautiful machine and the difference between a single ten point punch and two 5 point ones would be noticed by users at point blank range. Now the command mech could go either way depending on the commander's style so contesting that is not really something I will do. The only thing I will add is that dual cockpits do not always equate to command mech, they have a lot of non-commander specific advantages.

 As for the Centurion, I think we should discuss that mech after the Orion to simplify our posts.

[Nahuris]

Because the Clans don't use standard single fire autocannon any more?

I mean, in context, "autocannon heavy designs that deal heavy damage quickly" is a pretty good indication that those designs rely on double firing Ultra autocannon, not single firing standard or Lubalin Ballistics autocannon.

Yes, but if you look at the Solaris rules, you will find that AC's recycle quite a bit faster than PPC's ---- unfortunately, for the tabletop game, the rules on weapons are simplified --- each weapon fires once a round --- but when you run them with the Solaris rules, the AC/5 fires (if I remember correctly) 2.5 times in the same amount of overall time, as the PPC fires once.... or more simply, in the amount of time it takes for the PPC to fire, recharge, fire and again recharge, the AC will have fired 5 times, and be recharged.... Machine guns are even more deadly, in that they actually can fire every segment (one second of real time)....  which is why you see so many Solaris Designs with multiple machine guns and smaller weapons...

If there had been a way to put that into the rules, without using the Solaris dueling rules, then we'd see a lot more people willing to use AC's due to the rapid fire nature of the weapon.

That's why mechs with AC's tend to be fluffed as high intensity brawlers... because in theory, they get on you and keep rocking you with shells faster than your energy weapons can return the volleys... so while the energy weapon has the edge in one shot damage, the AC has more chances to hammer away at you.

If you ever try out the Solaris Rules, you will find that the "normal" methods of play do not work quite as well as they do on the standard tabletop --- thinking and plotting are a LOT more necessary.... you need to plan your fire and seriously watch your heat.... because your heat also doesn't just go away because it's the end of a round, but also has to slowly dissapate as well... meaning that the 10 heat you get from a PPC is also something you have to account for, even if you have the heatsinks to handle it.

Nahuris

[deathfrombeyond]

Yes, but if you look at the Solaris rules, you will find that AC's recycle quite a bit faster than PPC's ---- unfortunately, for the tabletop game, the rules on weapons are simplified --- each weapon fires once a round --- but when you run them with the Solaris rules, the AC/5 fires (if I remember correctly) 2.5 times in the same amount of overall time, as the PPC fires once.... or more simply, in the amount of time it takes for the PPC to fire, recharge, fire and again recharge, the AC will have fired 5 times, and be recharged.... Machine guns are even more deadly, in that they actually can fire every segment (one second of real time)....  which is why you see so many Solaris Designs with multiple machine guns and smaller weapons...

No disrespect, but I'm not a big fan of perfectly functioning undamaged equipment that can have multiple states depending on its previous state.

Ugh. I prefer my functioning equipment behavior to be binary, thank you very much. I prefer not to have to remember what happened the previous round. :D

Yes, I am aware that MASC falls into this category, but I'm not a fan of that either. ;D

[monbvol]

I'm still not convinced.

I can be convinced.  I have actually found uses for certain weapons people do consider substandard.

Oh I did figure out what has been nagging me about part of your stance.  I don't consider it fair to mark down the proposed refits for having a minimum range and no jump jets when the stock version doesn't have Jump Jets to begin with.  Anything that can consistently exploit the minimum range of the PPC will be able to avoid the AC-10 outright more often than not and even when it can't the shot will more often than not be harder for the AC-10 than the PPC.  Sure putting the PPC in the same place on the Orion still has some of that same problem but by making the engagement area bigger it makes it harder to avoid on the way in.

As to concentrated versus volume, with the existing firepower of the Orion in any of the versions I'd actually prefer the volume.  More than once I've had a backstabber get in behind an Orion and crit that AC-10 while my bins were near full.  Can't think of a time I've seen one go up due to ammo explosion.  The PPC being smaller is harder to crit in this fashion and having the extra Medium Lasers in case it is doesn't hurt none.  Standing off from an enemy force helps this problem too and again the extra range becomes noticeable when fighting like this.  I've also had the AC-10 miss anyway too many times to not appreciate having extra chances to hit.

[Nahuris]

No disrespect, but I'm not a big fan of perfectly functioning undamaged equipment that can have multiple states depending on its previous state.

Ugh. I prefer my functioning equipment behavior to be binary, thank you very much. I prefer not to have to remember what happened the previous round. :D

Yes, I am aware that MASC falls into this category, but I'm not a fan of that either. ;D

Trust me, I hated (and still do) the Solaris rules --- but when the group I played with got enamoured with them for a while, I kept playing, as it was still btech with friends......

However, it did teach me a lot about the design ideas behind mechs.... and again, if there was a way to simulate the advantages that some weapons should have, but that cannot be adequately expressed in the current rules, you'd see a lot of changes from the flashbulb zombie type playstyles.

What I am trying to state, and probably not doing it well, is that there is a valid in universe reason that some mechs are designed with AC's.... and it's not just because some game designer decided to put in some arbitrary flaw for game balance.... this isn't old school dungeon & dragons where a wizard's arm fails to function if it's holding a sword, rather than a stick.
The mechs that carry AC's, in universe, have a higher rate of fire than those with beam weapons. While the capacitors on your PPC or Large Laser are charging back up for their shot, and your missiles are being loaded into their launch tubes, all the AC is doing is either feeding off a belt of ammo, or having a new cartridge drop into place. Cartridge ejects, next one drops into place, and the cannon is good to go..... 
That means that the AC carrying mechs are supposedly getting more shots, and more chances to hit you and cause damage..... it's just too bad that with the move, then fire, type rule system, that there isn't really a way to simulate that while avoiding huge amounts of either die rolls, or other options that would bog the game down.

It's been years, so if I am wrong, please someone correct it, but I believe that the recycle rate of the AC/5 was 3, while the the recycle rate of the PPC was 10.
Turns are divided into segments of one second each...... so both weapons fire on segment one of a round.
Segment 1 - AC Fires, PPC fires
Segment 2 Both recharge
Segment 3 both recharge
Segment 4 both recharge
segment 5 AC Fires, PPC recharge
Segment 6 Both recharge
Segment 7 both recharge
segment 8 both recharge
segment 9 AC Fires, PPC recharge
segment 10 both recharge
-- New round
segment 1 both recharge
segment 2 AC recharge PPC Fires
Segment 3 AC Fires, PPC recharge
and so on --- the recharge rate was the number of segments between firing 

I might be wrong on the recycle number, as I no longer have a copy of the rules, although someone with them can correct this... but that's how it tended to work out.

Like I said, after playing this way, though... you learn the advantages of the AC, and why it would be a weapon of choice in the game..... it would just add too many rules to try and simulate this in the normal tabletop game.

Nahuris
 

[monbvol]

Yeah those Solaris Rules were wonky and would make an already complicated game even more so.

Anymore though I'm pretty well convinced that the only way to give ACs any true legitimacy is to drop their weight by two tons, reduce critical by one to a minimum of 1, remove the minimums, and rework the ammo to 60/24/12/6 with the appropriate specialties being 40/16/8/4.  I've actually tried these changes out against myself and they seem to be almost at the perfect point of making the AC a valid choice without making it too good.

[willydstyle]

I really like AC10s for the ability to reach out to 15 hexes, do 10 damage reliably, and also have no minimum range.  It's a very versatile weapon, and it's a shame we don't see it as the "main gun" on more designs, especially ones that have already reached capacity for their 10 heat sinks.

For example: a mech with 2 PPCs and the 10 additional heat sinks required to fire them without heating up, has allocated 24 tons to these weapon systems.

A mech with a PPC, an AC10, one ton of ammo, and the three heat sinks to make this weapons load heat efficient, has allocated 23 tons to these weapons systems.

That is actually slightly more weight-efficient, at the cost of including an explosive component.  The extra ton can be dedicated to a medium laser to give the mech a sub-3-hex bracket-firing solution.

[deathfrombeyond]

What I am trying to state, and probably not doing it well, is that there is a valid in universe reason that some mechs are designed with AC's....

No, I understood what you were trying to say, because it's very similar to arguments that I make about Why The BattleTech Universe Is The Way It Is.

I'm just not a fan of rulesets that will bog down a game that is already prone to being bogged down.

As I understand them, the primary difference between the Solaris VII ruleset and the BattleTech ruleset is the difference in elapsed "inuniverse" time between turns in their respective rulesets. I think it's something like 2 Solaris turns take up a single BattleTech turn, and it means that certain weapons and equipment have significant differences in operation once turns start to get more and more granular.

All well and good, but I don't see how it will do anything other than bog the game down. The behavior of armor is unchanged, right? It still has to be shorn off. The way I view the Solaris ruleset is that it takes a longer amount of real world time (relative to BattleTech) to describe a shorter amount of inuniverse time. Turns take roughly the same amount of realworld time to resolve in both systems, right?

If there were rulesets that balanced weapons more effectively without making games last longer to play out, I'd be in favor of them. :: shrugs ::

YMMV.

[deathfrombeyond]

Yeah those Solaris Rules were wonky and would make an already complicated game even more so.

Anymore though I'm pretty well convinced that the only way to give ACs any true legitimacy is to drop their weight by two tons, reduce critical by one to a minimum of 1, remove the minimums, and rework the ammo to 60/24/12/6 with the appropriate specialties being 40/16/8/4.

There are other ways to level the playing field for autocannon. Most of my ideas to balance autocannon don't even touch the stats of autocannon themselves.

One idea I had was penalizing the use of double heat sinks (and indirectly penalizing the energy weapon dependence on double heat sinks) by causing them to generate persistent heat after being critically hit, to mirror the threat of having ammunition critically hit for autocannon and missile launchers. Single heat sinks weren't affected, because balance issues aren't as blatant with single heat sinks.

Now, granted, that double heat sink radiator house rule doesn't help us for the purposes of 3025 era weaponry, but we can use some of the general motivations to make something that would. My suggestion: move the negative effects due to heat down on the heat scale and make the negative effects even MORE negative than they are. Except for the ammunition based ones. Those can stay where they are.

For example, instead of the first negative heat based threshhold happening at +5, perhaps this balanced heat scale will have the first threshhold at 2 or 3, and the first negative targeting penalty at 4 or 5. Hard to say what the net outcome would be by offsetting the heat scale in such a way, but I'm pretty sure it would make energy weapons (and overheating) less attractive than they are right now. It would definitely make players less prone to the whole "I'm going to fire all three PPC on my AWS-8Q on 10+, because I've got no ammunition to worry about".