So HVACs...any use for them?

[wundergoat]

Now that there are some cannon vees and ASF using the singularly terrible HVAC/10 (for 2 more long range than the lb-10x and UAC/10, with less ammo, more heat, more weight, and built in explosion chance), what are people's experience with them?  I can see the HVAC/2 and /5 having at least some usage due to their range and the smoke can be used to ones advantage but overall they just seem heavy, hot, and risky.

[Red Pins]

...They made a Warrior VTOL variant, HV-2AC, stealth armor...  Damn thing is an evil, evil harrasser.  Off-hand, I can't think of any other redeeming feature. 

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

The HVAC-10 is especially awful when you realize that for 1 more ton, you could have gotten a Gauss Rifle instead.

[wundergoat]

Or one less ton for a UAC/10

[Moonsword]

Or two less for an LGR.  Or three less for an LB 10-X.  Depending on what else is on the 'Mech or tank, the HPPC isn't out of the running take its place, either.  HVAC/5s compete directly with the LGR and other class 10 autocannons.

The HVAC/2 manages to distinguish itself mainly by the lack of other weapons that reach out that far, although the relative commonality of the LB 2-X and slightly longer reach of the ELRM keep things interesting.

[Kobold]

As long as the weapons are priced appropriately via BV, I am more than happy for there to be "better" and "worse" choices out there.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I can somewhat agree with that statement, but there are some weapons that are such boondoggles that they fail to perform even as a niche weapon it becomes a case of "why did that ever get used for a general deployment mech/tank/ASF?" and that's really where the HVAC 10 falls.  There's just too much in the way of commonly used, easy to build equipment that matches or nearly matches its performance while possessing none of its liabilities.  And even the other HVACs have a serious risk of dipping into that as well, with the "explodes on a 2" threat.

[George_Labour]

Pretty sure the answer is no, but HVACs can't use the specialty autocannon munitions right? so no HVAC precision rounds.

[wundergoat]

Interesting point, the Po HVAC lacks CASE, so 1/36 of the time the tank explodes when it fires.

[Ian Sharpe]

Awful, awful weapon.  The mech-grade equivalent of the Bearhunter? #P

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Naw, Bearhunters you just can't hit with, your opponent still hast to kill you himself.  HVACs allow you to bypass the part where your enemy has to shoot you and just blow yourself up.

[Drasius]

Their one redeeming feature is to make regular AC's look good by comparison?

[Moonsword]

I can somewhat agree with that statement, but there are some weapons that are such boondoggles that they fail to perform even as a niche weapon it becomes a case of "why did that ever get used for a general deployment mech/tank/ASF?" and that's really where the HVAC 10 falls.  There's just too much in the way of commonly used, easy to build equipment that matches or nearly matches its performance while possessing none of its liabilities.  And even the other HVACs have a serious risk of dipping into that as well, with the "explodes on a 2" threat.

MASC and superchargers have a similar effect... but I'd rather be able to gamble a bit for some more speed when I think it's necessary than be obliged to take my chances every time I pull the trigger on a gun that's sucking up a considerable amount of my available tonnage.

Interesting point, the Po HVAC lacks CASE, so 1/36 of the time the tank explodes when it fires.

Yeah, I devoted some caustic remarks to that little "feature" in the Po article.  Think about it this way: Every time an HVAC Po battalion fires, they lose a tank.  The one that really ticks me off is the HVAC Rapier.  Gauss rifles would actually be lighter because of the heat sink requirement and hit harder.

[bakija]

Now that there are some cannon vees and ASF using the singularly terrible HVAC/10 (for 2 more long range than the lb-10x and UAC/10, with less ammo, more heat, more weight, and built in explosion chance), what are people's experience with them?  I can see the HVAC/2 and /5 having at least some usage due to their range and the smoke can be used to ones advantage but overall they just seem heavy, hot, and risky.

They generally seem horrible. As noted, the HVAC10 could be, by scrounging up 1 more ton, a Gauss Rifle, which has better range, does more damage, generates less heat, and the explosion is less of an issue as the Gauss Rifle only blows up when it is getting destroyed anyway where the HVAC blows up, ya know, whenever.

HVACs have a very significant range, true, but that is all they have going for them. And this is balanced out by being weight inefficient, generating significant heat for being auto-canons, and, ya know, blowing up whenever you roll a 2. Which is simply too risky to justify using.

I mean, they probably have a reasonable BV (I haven't checked. Although considering how BV is simply a function of damage and range, they probably have a stupidly high BV if the extra heat and chance to explode isn't factored in) [edit: It turns out that they *don't* have a reasonable BV], but weapons that give you the opportunity to blow up the first time you shoot them in the game just aren't good. Especially if all you get for it is the chance to miss at an exceptionally long range (where you need to fire *a lot* to make it worth using, and the more you fire an HVAC, the more likely it is to blow up).

[bakija]

As long as the weapons are priced appropriately via BV, I am more than happy for there to be "better" and "worse" choices out there.

Oh, sure--I'm a big fan of BV as a balancing factor (as it works reasonably well, all things being equal), but as weapon BV is just a function of damage and range, and apparently doesn't take into account things like heat (although BV as a whole does kinda, just not on an individual weapon basis) and blowing up on a "2", it doesn't always work out. The HVAC10 has a weapon BV of 158; LBXAC10 has a weapon BV of 148. The HVAC10 generates more than 3 times the heat of the LBXAC10, only has 2 extra hexes of range, less ammo, and, ya know, blows up. And for this, you get to pay *more* BV for the HVAC10 than for the LBXAC10.

So again, in the grand scheme, BV is a generally effective balancing mechanism as a whole, but when comparing guns to guns, it doesn't always work out the way you hope it will.

[willydstyle]

I can somewhat agree with that statement, but there are some weapons that are such boondoggles that they fail to perform even as a niche weapon it becomes a case of "why did that ever get used for a general deployment mech/tank/ASF?" and that's really where the HVAC 10 falls.  There's just too much in the way of commonly used, easy to build equipment that matches or nearly matches its performance while possessing none of its liabilities.  And even the other HVACs have a serious risk of dipping into that as well, with the "explodes on a 2" threat.

Considering these designs are from TRO: Prototypes, *are* they units that are used in general deployment, or could the HVAC simply be another case of "tried something, it didn't work, so now we're moving on" in-universe?

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

TRO: Prototypes represents production level units.  It's the XTROs that represent experimental prototype designs that may or may not see actual combat.

[willydstyle]

Why is it called "prototypes" then?

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Probably because it has a lot of stuff from the XTROs or because it's got a lot of newly put into production technology in it.

You have read it, right?

[willydstyle]

Probably because it has a lot of stuff from the XTROs or because it's got a lot of newly put into production technology in it.

You have read it, right?

Not thoroughly. Which is why I initially asked a question about them being production-level units, rather than making a statement   ;D

[Maelwys]

That's something the rest of the fanbase is wondering as well. I've seen Cray try to explain it, and all I could think of after seeing his post was "So uh, why is it called Prototypes then?"

[iamfanboy]

That's something the rest of the fanbase is wondering as well. I've seen Cray try to explain it, and all I could think of after seeing his post was "So uh, why is it called Prototypes then?"

Because it's a big, cool word?

It's BIIIIG and COOOOL....

On the other hand, I used to think regular ACs were bad, then I took an HVAC explosion to the knee.

[willydstyle]

I assume that the 1/36 failure rate is meant to represent the minor chance of exploding they have in-universe, but I hope that in-universe a piece of equipment with a 1/36 failure rate would not actually see production.

[Looter]

I assume that the 1/36 failure rate is meant to represent the minor chance of exploding they have in-universe, but I hope that in-universe a piece of equipment with a 1/36 failure rate would not actually see production.

Yeah that is one of the strangest things I have thought of regarding the HVAC's.  Who would make a weapon that when equipped on a vehicle, (or person for that matter) would find it acceptable to potentially suicide just by using it as designed in under 50 uses? Can you imagine if one of every 50 shots with an M-1A1 Abrams main gun it blew up and killed the crew what the uproar would be and what its reputation would be?  Hell if I were in an Abrams at that point I would just try and ram things instead of firing the gun. 

[StCptMara]

I, personally, see some tactical advantages for the HVACs. This does require one of two things being the case:
either you have LRMs on your HVAC 'mech, or are using the Opportunity Fire: Fire while moving rule for a battle
of One or two 'mechs, or that you have 4+ HVAC equiped 'mechs in a company.

You fire the HVAC, and step behind the smoke the next round(Inidrect firing the LRMs, or Fire While Moveing
before you go behind the smoke). For a lance as part of a company, you have that lance move to all next to
each other, fire their HVAcs, and thus screen the rest of the company as they soften up the enemy.

[bakija]

I assume that the 1/36 failure rate is meant to represent the minor chance of exploding they have in-universe, but I hope that in-universe a piece of equipment with a 1/36 failure rate would not actually see production.

And yet the RAC and AC Ultra see actual play...

Yeah, 1/36 chance of failure (and by "failure", I mean "catastrophic destruction") is really debilitating--like, a HVAC2 will likely fail and explode on one ton of ammo use. An HVAC10 will probably blow up after firing through 4 tons of ammo (i.e. in a couple engagements).

They could have jiggered the odds to a more realistic level by saying something like "If you roll a 2, roll 2 more dice, and on a [roll of X], it blows up...", but at that point, you add extra verbiage/complication for something that is completely insignificant (i.e. roll a 2 and then roll another 2) or not much less likely than on rolling a 2. So they went with the "roll a 2", which in a single game isn't *that* likely (you'll probably fire 10-15 times, and as such, you probably *won't* blow up in a single game with a single HVAC), and as you might not ever use the HVAC again ('cause you aren't an actual mechwarrior in an actual military), the odds are not actually that unreasonable. But when you stop and think about it, it is all completely preposterous.

To be fair, the HVAC is totally optional and experimental technology. And apparently, an experiment that failed. So really, it is fine that HVACs blow up on a 2. It just means that no one will ever choose to use them. I suspect that they are most often seen as a way for some campaign GM to punish players. 

[Nahuris]

And yet the RAC and AC Ultra see actual play...

Yeah, 1/36 chance of failure (and by "failure", I mean "catastrophic destruction") is really debilitating--like, a HVAC2 will likely fail and explode on one ton of ammo use. An HVAC10 will probably blow up after firing through 4 tons of ammo (i.e. in a couple engagements).

They could have jiggered the odds to a more realistic level by saying something like "If you roll a 2, roll 2 more dice, and on a [roll of X], it blows up...", but at that point, you add extra verbiage/complication for something that is completely insignificant (i.e. roll a 2 and then roll another 2) or not much less likely than on rolling a 2. So they went with the "roll a 2", which in a single game isn't *that* likely (you'll probably fire 10-15 times, and as such, you probably *won't* blow up in a single game with a single HVAC), and as you might not ever use the HVAC again ('cause you aren't an actual mechwarrior in an actual military), the odds are not actually that unreasonable. But when you stop and think about it, it is all completely preposterous.

To be fair, the HVAC is totally optional and experimental technology. And apparently, an experiment that failed. So really, it is fine that HVACs blow up on a 2. It just means that no one will ever choose to use them. I suspect that they are most often seen as a way for some campaign GM to punish players.

This makes sense to a point --- the one in 36 chance of explosion isn't that bad for a game where you are only going to make 8 to 12 rolls, and the battle is over. I've seen entire games go by without a single double one roll... so for a one off battle, it's not necessarily so bad... as it actually gives the chance of exploding an effect in the one off game..... honestly, a good number of the weapons are designed for the one off, rather than logic.
The mentioned, Ultra AC's and RAC's fit that bill nicely.

Nahuris
 

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

The biggest difference is that with Ultra and Rotary ACs, you can choose whether or not you wish to add the risk of jamming, so you can take a low-odds potshot without that possibility.  HVACs don't give you an option, ever time you fire you risk an explosion.

[willydstyle]

Yes, with the other weapons that fail on a 2, you can see an instructor telling a new pilot "this autocannon is effective at wrecking about 2/3 a ton of armor at up to 540 meters range.  If you're really in the s--- you can over-ride the rate of fire limiter, but recoil will mess up targeting a bit [out-of-game: second shot only hits on an 8+ cluster roll], and you might fry the firing circuit."

[mbear]

That's something the rest of the fanbase is wondering as well. I've seen Cray try to explain it, and all I could think of after seeing his post was "So uh, why is it called Prototypes then?"

I thought it was the difference between truly experimental stuff (that is, "we have absolutely no freaking idea if it'll work") and what the US military calls Low Rate Initial Production (which is more "we've got it working right 98% of the time in the lab/on the test range, now we need to find out how it works in the field before we actually deploy it to everyone").

Or the difference between a plane with an X designator and a plane with a Y designator.