Thoughts on video game ac stats versus tabletop?

[DevianID]

Howdy all.  Many have probably noticed that in the new video game the ac2 does 5 table top equivelent damage, the 5 does 10 tt damage, the 10 does 12 tt damage, and the 20 is unchanged.  To this they added a +1 refire penalty, which is like .5 of a modifier in normal battletech.  I personally really like this change, though I don't know how to implement the refire penalty.  What are your thoughts on these ac values?

[Geont]

Given that they also changed armor values, I don't think it is that much change. Given in what part of timeline it's based they needed to buff smaller AC as these are prominent on most of available chassis. On refire I can say that I don't see reasonable way to implement it into game (even as house rule).

[Moonsword]

Don't mind me, I'm just putting this into the right part of the boards.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

AC buff is more a no-brainer cure for an old screw-up in game balance. People say, that "not all weapons should be equal in effectiveness." But in a case of mainstay straightforward weapons I do not think it should apply. Such weapons should not outright suck, which was a case for AC/2 and AC/5. Trade-offs should be in details. Like, autocannon ammo explodes, but they are not hot and can use different types of ammo, energy weapons do not require ammo, but are hotter.

If you assume, that BV is a reasonably fair estimate of weapon effectiveness, then, by my calculations, BV per ton for ballistic weapons (with ammo) and energy weapons (with a proper amount of heat sinks) should be somewhere between 12 and 14. (With ML+2 heat sinks sticking out as being more effective.)

With this in mind, I think that AC's should have following damage values:

AC/2 -- 5 (or 4)
AC/5 -- 8
AC/10 -- 10 (yes, being a head-capper)
AC/20 -- dunno, could do a bit more damage as well.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

@Moonsword

I'll risk arguing with a moderator, but this thread is not really about fan rules and is relevant to the tabletop game. And particularly this section of the board is not the liveliest, while the topic is quite interesting.

[monbvol]

While it may not be fan rules it is about rules not originated by CGL and thus this is the correct place for them.

Personally I have never actually liked increasing the AC's damage.  It has far more subtle changes than many realize and it would force their BV to go up.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

Personally I have never actually liked increasing the AC's damage.  It has far more subtle changes than many realize and it would force their BV to go up.

I see no problem with their BV going up. Which subtle changes are you talking about? Cheesieness of vehicles?

The point is: AC's low damage makes them outright undesirable on 'Mechs. Who thinks that AC/5 is a good weapon? It's objectively not. One can replace it with a PPC or a LL. AC/2 on a 'Mech is simply a waste. One can't even spam them like on a carrier.

[monbvol]

Well for one there are a few introtech mechs where bumping the AC-5 to 8 damage becomes a much more serious threat and I'm not talking strictly bug mechs either.

Then there's the factor of increased damage means increased explosion from ammo or having to re-calculate shots per ton of ammo.

Even if it is doing 5 damage and AC-2 is still 6 tons+ammo.  Still can't put that on most light mechs without some serious compromise or advanced tech and if we're talking advanced tech the number of options to get comparable damage at comparable range without even having to invest that much tonnage also goes up.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

At 8 damage not everyone will immediately have an urge to swap AC/5 for a LL on Shadowhawk. In fact, at 8 damage they are more or less equally potent.

If AC/2 has a damage of 5, then you can compare to LRM-10. A ton heavier, but generates less heat and has a bit better range brackets as a consolation prize. Maybe not ideal, but not a waste anymore.

[monbvol]

I don't know if it really would stop that frankly as at least for me it is the sheer mass of the AC-5(or AC-8) that actually causes problems for the Shadow Hawk.  Yeah the extra punch would help give it more of an identity that I do feel like it lacks now but even with an AC-8 I'd still be inclined to swap for the Large Laser as it already has 12 heat sinks and 4 tons can do a lot to improve it's versatility while still having the same punch as a theoretical AC-8 armed version.

Also I am the kind of nutbar that would still think about swapping it for a PPC and see what I could do with the extra two tons.  Or one of the other various Shadow Hawk variants that I've made that were not swapping the AC-5 for a Large Laser.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

Well, yes. "AC-8" is comparable to a LL only if you have to add heat sinks. 8 ton + ammo may be equal to 5 ton + heat sinks. But at least, with such damage, it is less of a dead weight.

[Daryk]

AC/2s on 'mechs are not necessarily a waste.  Give me rolling map boards and I'll take a stock 3025 Vulcan against anything slower, regardless of tonnage.  I played in a campaign game where the GM made the mistake of throwing us against a fixed fortification that topped out at LRMs.  It took the Vulcan a while, but we reduced it with no damage to us.

As far AC/5s, there are plenty of things that are better.  So what?  There are plenty of things better than PPCs too (mostly clan, but that's not the point).  Just because there are better choices doesn't mean it has no place.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

AC/2s on 'mechs are not necessarily a waste.  Give me rolling map boards and I'll take a stock 3025 Vulcan against anything slower, regardless of tonnage.  I played in a campaign game where the GM made the mistake of throwing us against a fixed fortification that topped out at LRMs.  It took the Vulcan a while, but we reduced it with no damage to us.

As far AC/5s, there are plenty of things that are better.  So what?  There are plenty of things better than PPCs too (mostly clan, but that's not the point).  Just because there are better choices doesn't mean it has no place.

You do realize, that you are trying to make excuses for these weapons, finding them a suitable place in some particular situation? And not finding one for AC/5? Which, as mainstay weapons, should at least be a bit more universally effective.

The thing is with such tactics for AC/2 what you are going to use is its better (than LRM) range. But how many turns will it take to actually down something? You do admit, that "a while." This example actually builds a case for increasing damage. AC/2 (with damage of 5) is comparable to LRM-10 in mass, but cannot cause two clusters of damage. Instead, it has a better range.

BT is a game with its lore, and there can be worse weapons than others. But it is still a game and there should be some game balance. If there is no balance, then there there arise situations, when people artificially restrict the number of CL LPL's on the table (I remember reading this on this forum). In the case of AC's, they were just too ineffective from the beginning.

[Sartris]

i ran a grinder with random powerups and one was "all this mech's weapons do +3 damage". I got that with a JagerMech and was not displeased with the results.

[Daryk]

Not every weapon needs to be as good as the Medium Laser.  In one tournament I played in that was restricted to stock 3025 mechs, the top ranked players were all either in Hunchbacks or Wolverines, and #1 was in a Wolverine.  The AC/5 did just fine there.

Just because it's less than ideal doesn't mean it needs to be changed more than it already has been (alternate ammunition makes all ACs more useful).

The main reason I'm arguing is that you seem to be ignoring that the problems you describe only became acute after the introduction of clan tech and beyond (pointing to the actual problem lying elsewhere).  Both ACs worked just fine in 3025.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

Would these weapons be fine for 3025, there would not exist Jagermech jokes.

[monbvol]

*nod*

Even in the era of the single heat sink the sheer mass of ACs do cause some issues but to be fair there are some design choices that make the Jagermech subpar that while they are caused by being so AC heavy in weapon choice could be rectified a bit by being a bit wiser with which ACs had been chosen.

After all with the introduction of flak ammo for ACs and the Jagermech also qualifying for the AA targeting design quirk it is  actually pretty good for AA work but yeah the lack of durability because it just doesn't have the tonnage due to having those weapons does make it sub optimal for what does seem to be th most common way to play the game(purely mech on mech).

[Daryk]

The Jagermech has enough flaws that there would be jokes about it regardless of how it was armed.

[Netzilla]

Back in the days when it was still called BattleDroids and there was only a single AC (the 2, 10 and 20 classes not having been added), the AC was still considered sub-par compared to the LL and PPC.  Fan redesigns of the Rifleman, Shadowhawk and Marauder frequently traded those ACs for energy weapons and heat sinks.  I've still got an old SpaceGamer article from that era that talks about the AC being a bad choice (along with the SRM2 and LRM5).

[Sartris]

Not every weapon needs to be as good as the Medium Laser. 

including the medium laser

[ColBosch]

I think weapons should be balanced for their tech base. So Primitive < 3025 Standard < Star League < Clan < Jihad < "Fifth Generation." So, improving autocannon damage (and perhaps dropping medium lasers to 4 damage) are good first steps.

[abou]

It would be neat to see some sort of other balancing option rather than just increasing damage. Something more to do with the meta. ACs already quite cheaper than energy weapons to run and maintain, but that doesn't mean much in-game as most players don't go full out with campaign settings.

Perhaps a +1 penalty on rolling to avoid falling over from damage for the target?

Of course, that gets into the same problem of rules creep as so much else. And then what is the threshold? How much damage out of 20 needs to be from autocannons?

[Netzilla]

It would be neat to see some sort of other balancing option rather than just increasing damage. Something more to do with the meta. ACs already quite cheaper than energy weapons to run and maintain, but that doesn't mean much in-game as most players don't go full out with campaign settings.

Perhaps a +1 penalty on rolling to avoid falling over from damage for the target?

Of course, that gets into the same problem of rules creep as so much else. And then what is the threshold? How much damage out of 20 needs to be from autocannons?

If I were to go that route, I'd simply have AC damage count double (or maybe just +5 to keep the AC20 in check) for calculating knockdown.

[abou]

That would make sense. On a 2D6 system, +1 can make a big difference. Giving ACs a value bonus for determining whether to avoid a PSR for damage would work.

[abou]

What about this: +50% damage (round normally) for determining PSR check.

Example: Jagermech 6S that hits with all four autocannons will only do 12 damage (5+5+2+2); however, for determining the 20-point threshold, the Jagermech actually does 22 [(5+3)+(5+3)+(2+1)+(2+1)].

Therefore, each standard weapon class gets some sort of unique bonus. Lasers are the most weight and damage efficient; missiles are able to use the cluster table and gain advantages for critical hits; and autocannons gain benefits for forcing a PSR check.

[Sabelkatten]

My solution for ACs in 3025: +1 damage, no minimum range, TN-1 versus jumping/ -2 versus flying.

Also dropped AC/2 heat to 0 and changed ammo to 40/20/10/6.

Dropping minimum range means light ACs are equally useful up close (compared to PPCs and LRMs). TN-1 versus jumpers gives an "AA bonus" useful even if air units aren't used.

[Daemion]

With this in mind, I think that AC's should have following damage values:

AC/2 -- 5 (or 4)
AC/5 -- 8
AC/10 -- 10 (yes, being a head-capper)
AC/20 -- dunno, could do a bit more damage as well.

I actually find this kind of amusing, because a while back, there was a discussion on whether ACs really are rapid-fire or single shot.  I had concluded that you could get away with giving them randomized damage on the cluster chart, where the average result (7) is the class damage.

Your choice of AC/5 is spot on, though you could give clan AC/5 the 9 spot.

AC/2, by that standard, should actually be 3. (So close!)

10 would actually be closer to 16 or 17 by that standard, and the 20 should be between 30 and 40. (18 and 24, respectively.)

[Daemion]

BT is a game with its lore, and there can be worse weapons than others.

And that's the thing. BT does have lore. If this were back at the beginning, and the plan was to make Autocannons a technologically competitive weapon versus amplified light- and particle beams, then, sure. But, it seams that there has been a limit to explosively propelled shells, compared to magnetically propelled projectiles. There's only so much powder you can put behind a bullet before the barrel weighs so much in order to contain and funnel the blast.

So, the AC, while at one point in history was still a super weapon (versus primitive armors), it has seen a cap on its capacity in the form of LB-x and Ultra, and questionably Rotary, as well as alternate munition types.

Think of what the setting was as described for the second ed box.  The Succession Wars saw a lot of manufacturing slowed down, and Mech replacement weapons kind of dwindle to salvage. Guess what was around to salvage? Old autocannons!

With a construction ruleset for the game system, it becomes obvious that some weapons should be replaced, whether that was intentional from the start or not. It gives the universe some flavor.

The only counter to that is that most of the AC/5 toting designs seem to have been designed that way from the outset, with the AC/5 being a defining feature of the variant which 'sold it to the Quartermaster Corps.  There probably should have been 'more advanced' versions that quickly replaced the AC variant during the height of technology, before the old specs were brought back out.

The Jag is an exception because it was designed after the fall of the Star League, and by the Davions which have a personal love for Dakka.



So, if they re-worked the armor in the video game, did they play around with the tonnage for ACs? That, if anything, would be a good fix.

[Daemion]

Perhaps a +1 penalty on rolling to avoid falling over from damage for the target?

Of course, that gets into the same problem of rules creep as so much else. And then what is the threshold? How much damage out of 20 needs to be from autocannons?

Well, should this apply to all ballistic weapons? How do you handle PPCs? They're not simple lasers. They're flinging charged particles at the speed of light, doing both impact and burn, and electric, damage.

What about this: +50% damage (round normally) for determining PSR check.

Example: Jagermech 6S that hits with all four autocannons will only do 12 damage (5+5+2+2); however, for determining the 20-point threshold, the Jagermech actually does 22 [(5+3)+(5+3)+(2+1)+(2+1)].

Therefore, each standard weapon class gets some sort of unique bonus. Lasers are the most weight and damage efficient; missiles are able to use the cluster table and gain advantages for critical hits; and autocannons gain benefits for forcing a PSR check.

Too math intensive. I play with at least one person who has to do calculations with pen and paper, and another guy has to use his fingers at times. Both smart in other ways, but arithmetic isn't their strong suit.


No, I think a tweak in damage and tonnage is probably the better bet. For one, I noticed that once the BAR system was implemented, commercial armor got a BAR rating of 5, for simplicity. (I don't know if the rule's designer forgot that you have to beat, not meet, the BAR value to score the crit. Aero damage threshold is already the same way.)

That actually negates any potential crit damage something like the AC/5 or LRM cluster should be capable of doing. A mere bump to 6 damage would make the AC/5 the weapon of choice against primitive and civilian units. It would make it semi-competitive with the LRM-10, which does an average of 6, more or less.

This is one of the reasons why I wish they hadn't decided to make it a rule that fluff and rules don't mix. When I look at the lore, and then at the stats, the two don't support each other. I think the two should be kept in mind, because this game is tied strongly with the setting. While the system, sans special equipment, can be used at different scales or different settings, the weapons and interaction with technology really do boil down to being setting-specific.



 

[Psyckosama]

Howdy all.  Many have probably noticed that in the new video game the ac2 does 5 table top equivelent damage, the 5 does 10 tt damage, the 10 does 12 tt damage, and the 20 is unchanged.  To this they added a +1 refire penalty, which is like .5 of a modifier in normal battletech.  I personally really like this change, though I don't know how to implement the refire penalty.  What are your thoughts on these ac values?

I'd institute the recoil penalty by the weapon becoming less accurate until rested after the first shot. I'd say a +1 or +2 to hit modifier after the first shot that resets after they rest the gun.