Wolverine II

[Colt Ward]

SRM6 shorts you 10 rounds on the SRM ammo bin, 6*15=90 vs 2*50 or 4*25, and I seem to remember one of those long rambling threads about efficiency per weight/crit/heat made it worse than the SRM4 . . . not LRM15 bad, but still not good.

The Wolverine II, during the Star League, DID get a upgrade to every single gun the standard WVR-6R mounted.  The problem is your looking at them in chronological order from when IRL they came out rather than in universe.  WVR-6R to WVR-7H to WVR-7D it fits into the evolution.  You also chopped a important part of Scotty's statement, its actual BV.  Opinions come down to how you feel about rolling a 2 on any Ultra . . . some folks do not want to push their luck and resent the greater mass, others have no problem going for that double-tap.

I understand your last statement, when my merc campaign gets to the point I can place a Plasma Rifle on the salvaged Wolverine 7D's UAC/5, but its also going to require heat sink conversion.

[Scotty]

I dunno, for such an excellent weapon my group is rather quick to field mod UAC/5s away during campaigns whenever they can.

Unfortunately, I can't force your group to respect the efficiency of the UAC/5.  It absolutely suffers from not 'looking' good on paper without considering the second or third order effects of its stats.  Replacing the UAC/5 with basically any kind of energy weapon on the Wolverine II cranks the BV of the machine up by at least a hundred points.

PPC, MPL, 2x DHS -> 1449
Plasma Rifle, 2x DHS, 2 tons ammo, 1 ton ??? -> 1516
Snub-nose PPC, MPL, 2x DHS, 1 ton ??? -> 1430
Heavy PPC, 1x DHS -> 1613
LRM-15 w/Artemis, 2 tons ammo, ML -> 1483

Every single one of them is 130+ extra BV, for marginal improvement in performance (and typically a massive hit in heat efficiency).

[Empyrus]

Every single one of them is 130+ extra BV, for marginal improvement in performance (and typically a massive hit in heat efficiency).

The Snubby has unmatched short range bracket. The Plasma Rifle heats the target (and murders conventional units). The Heavy PPC is a headcapper.
Other options aren't perhaps that attractive, to be sure. But these are worth their BV.

[Scotty]

Three extra points of damage on average at short range, one at medium for the Snubbie, with heat that actually requires management.  The Plasma Rifle is over 15% more expensive (and has the same heat as above).  The HPPC is almost 25% more expensive and has genuine heat issues at short range.

It's not surprising that those weapons individually perform better, that's what BV does.  They are, however, expensive.  The UAC/5 puts up marginally worse damage numbers at superbly lower BV, and it does so with the built in capability to never have to give a shit about heat.  They are excellent weapons.

[Colt Ward]

Yeah, what I was intending for the mercs was a SHS to DHS and UAC to Plasma with the rest of the left over weight going into RL10s for alpha strike abilities.

But yeah, a new Wolverine II 7H variant for the SLDF Royals to me screams to use the new Snub that the Star League had just developed before Aramis went on a murder spree.  I just try to resist the 'make them all better by giving them a Snub PPC' inclination.

[TigerShark]

Three extra points of damage on average at short range, one at medium for the Snubbie, with heat that actually requires management.  The Plasma Rifle is over 15% more expensive (and has the same heat as above).  The HPPC is almost 25% more expensive and has genuine heat issues at short range.

It's not surprising that those weapons individually perform better, that's what BV does.  They are, however, expensive.  The UAC/5 puts up marginally worse damage numbers at superbly lower BV, and it does so with the built in capability to never have to give a shit about heat.  They are excellent weapons.

BV is, unfortunately, still punishing jump-capable units. The Wolverine II has a hideous value for its actual usage, IMO. The UAC/5 performs alright, although BV hamstrings it again by not accounting for jamming decreasing its in-game value.

Case-in-point: The unit is good. BV is not.

[Colt Ward]

Jump penalties are ok . . . because jumping means, I can always get a movement mod no matter the heat unless shut down . . . I can always get around terrain for that move mod- IE cannot be pinned against impassable terrain . . . gains mobility for a small construction cost on most units.

[TigerShark]

Jump penalties are ok . . . because jumping means, I can always get a movement mod no matter the heat unless shut down . . . I can always get around terrain for that move mod- IE cannot be pinned against impassable terrain . . . gains mobility for a small construction cost on most units.

Jump penalties are ok. There should be a BV associated with it, of course. But with the current state of BV, it's too much. The WVR-7H has never performed well in games in which I've used it. It just ends up becoming a kick machine, which could really be any WVR-.

[Colt Ward]

Any piece of equipment in BTU faces a triangle like the designs themselves and it simply-  mass/crit, heat effects, and BV . . . like mech or vehicle designs, you can generally be good in two and you end up penalized in the 3rd- except the ML and later ERMLs.  The med lasers are squarely in the middle of that triangle.

[Retry]

SRM6 shorts you 10 rounds on the SRM ammo bin, 6*15=90 vs 2*50 or 4*25, and I seem to remember one of those long rambling threads about efficiency per weight/crit/heat made it worse than the SRM4 . . . not LRM15 bad, but still not good.

I'll grant that the SRM6 does short a bit on ammo, but 90 SRMs is still 180 potential damage per ton of ammo which is still obscene for ammo weapons (Regular ACs are 100/ton, LRMs and Gauss are 120/ton).  The 6-pack is actually the best per unit heat (1.5 missiles/heat, vs 1 missile/heat for the 2-pack and 1.333 missile/heat for the 4-pack), each has the same # tubes per unit weight, and the 6-pack is middling in # tubes/crit (3 tubes/crit, vs 4 for the 4-pack and 2 for the 2-pack).  In terms of average cluster hit accuracy, SRM-6 is middling at ~66.7% (SRM-4 66.0%, SRM-2 an impressive 70.8%).  That and big packs have an advantage over small packs when it comes to Art IV (not that I'd ever recommend SRM packs + Art IV).  Also, Smoke SRMs are more potent from a 6-pack than the smaller packs due to the peculiarities of how they work.  So even with the missing SRM rounds, the SRM-6 is very competitive with the smaller launchers.

You also chopped a important part of Scotty's statement, its actual BV.  Opinions come down to how you feel about rolling a 2 on any Ultra . . . some folks do not want to push their luck and resent the greater mass, others have no problem going for that double-tap.

I chopped off the BV part because if I take that into account it gets worse, not better.  Last time I checked, the Ultra ACs had their BV calculated as though they're rapid firing at all times, but the BV also doesn't take into account the jamming chance.  So you either use your UAC/5 as if it was a slightly longer ranged AC/5, and your gun's BV is over-valued since you're not taking advantage of the rapid-fire mode, or you're rapid firing consistently, and your gun's BV is over-valued since the gun's BV doesn't account for the nontrivial possibility that the gun simply jams into uselessness for the rest of the scenario.

1.3k BV is not a small amount to pay for a 'Mech whose only long-range weapon is the UAC/5 and only has a rather mediocre short-range backup suite.

Unfortunately, I can't force your group to respect the efficiency of the UAC/5.  It absolutely suffers from not 'looking' good on paper without considering the second or third order effects of its stats.

It's the other way around.  The UAC/5 looked good on paper until we started using it.

It's an AC/5, except it has slightly improved range brackets and the ability to fire twice in one turn.  What's not to like?  Well, once we actually began to use it, it was not all that seemed to be promised.  The ones who liked the flexibility of the AC's ammo types like Flak and Flechettes (and especially Precision, but that's post-clan invasion IIRC) really started to miss the flexibility.  More often than not, rapid-fire mode only seemed to accomplish eating up ammo real quick and spiking heat production. (Mostly relevant to the big -10 and -20 ACs though).  It seemed to jam at the most inopportune times, leaving hundreds of BVs of dead weight on the unfortunate unit, which was especially painful when running fights back-to-back.  Our group transitioned from the UAC craze to LB-X for their first choice in ACs for normal play

I'm not sure what you mean by "efficient".  It's not efficient per unit of tonnage.  It's not all that efficient per BV either: the lack of accounting for jam chance really hurts it.  The effectiveness per C-Bill is not there either: the ER LL costs just as much but deals more damage on average except at range 20 (its arbitrary cutoff at 19 is one of my bugbears), and doesn't have to worry about ongoing logistical costs from consuming ammunition (not to mention no explodey bits).

Sorry, that "efficiency" discussion is a tad off track.  I'm a mathematically-inclined engineer-in-training, gotta have all the requirements well-defined and all that.  Yes, I'm fun at parties.

Replacing the UAC/5 with basically any kind of energy weapon on the Wolverine II cranks the BV of the machine up by at least a hundred points.

PPC, MPL, 2x DHS -> 1449
Plasma Rifle, 2x DHS, 2 tons ammo, 1 ton ??? -> 1516
Snub-nose PPC, MPL, 2x DHS, 1 ton ??? -> 1430
Heavy PPC, 1x DHS -> 1613
LRM-15 w/Artemis, 2 tons ammo, ML -> 1483

Every single one of them is 130+ extra BV, for marginal improvement in performance (and typically a massive hit in heat efficiency).

The one I did was a UAC+Ammo+Right Side CASE replacement for 1 ERLL, 3x DHS (1 in engine) -> 1342 BV.

About a 40 point BV hike, or roughly 3% BV increase.  In exchange for 40 BV and a single hex at long range, you get an average of 3 points of damage vs a non-rapid firing UAC5, 1 point of damage vs a rapid-firing UAC/5, better short and medium range brackets, no explodey ammo bits on the right side, a slightly cheaper combat platform (C-Bills), and no jamming concerns.  Oh, and the extra DHS keeps the the 'Mech "Alpha-strike while Jump-Jet Disco Dancing" levels of cool (by either definition).  That would be a worthy Wolverine successor, IMO.  Albeit more along the style of the LL Wolverines like the 6M, but still.

Oh, and that change is actually underweight.  While there's nothing wrong with that legality-wise, you could further change the design for either tactical effectiveness (armor or something) or for strategic considerations (regular structure/armor, so you don't have to depend on orbital endo-steel factories).

[Scotty]

I've always found the Ultra's jam chance to be a ridiculously overblown risk.  If you're firing double at every opportunity, over the course of 10 turns you have a less than 25% chance of having jammed.  There's an argument for that being non-trivial, but it's one I don't agree with.  Over twenty turns of double firing (which seems mildly excessive in most games), it's 44% which is understandably more intimidating but also arguably less likely to happen unless you've been playing an entire game and not getting shot.

It seemed to jam at the most inopportune times, leaving hundreds of BVs of dead weight on the unfortunate unit, which was especially painful when running fights back-to-back.  Our group transitioned from the UAC craze to LB-X for their first choice in ACs for normal play

This part in particular shows exactly how much players tend to over-emphasize the jamming results.  A single UAC/5 on a unit with a single ton of UAC/5 ammo is sporting 126 BV in 'dead weight' assuming it jams on the first shot and you don't get a penny out of the ammo.  The Wolverine II is at 140.  "Hundreds" only in the strictest possible definition of "more than exactly one hundred".

Oh, and that change is actually underweight.  While there's nothing wrong with that legality-wise, you could further change the design for either tactical effectiveness (armor or something) or for strategic considerations (regular structure/armor, so you don't have to depend on orbital endo-steel factories).

It's not merely underweight, it's underweight by three and a half tons. :o  And completely crit-packed, so there's no room to add... anything.  I don't normally enjoy ER LLs in the first place, but if you're concerned about 'efficiency' in any sense of the word, that's a lot of wasted payload.

[Nastyogre]

Err.... what are you suggesting then?  That's exactly how it works right now.Now I'm really confused.  Your suggestion for "fixing" the UAC is to change the failure mode from jamming itself to uselessness to a failure mode of catastrophic weapon destruction + internal damage + pilot injury?  Is the UAC too good?

The point is if you are going to let it unjam and make it jam at such a low rate (2 and 3 only) balance that with another negative. Treating it like a Gauss hit is pretty reasonable. So a weapon that IF you do the dangerous thing can blow itself up 2ish% of the time? Not a big negative. The point being to still improve the situation of "I jammed and only shot this thing once" and keep Rotary ACs, which are specifically stipulated to have been derived of research into Ultra's, to keep them "better" than the Ultra. Ultras can unjam then, but they can still permanently jam and do bad things.

Think of disengaging the field inhibitors on PPC's that have a minimum range to get rid of the negative. Then they can go "TZAP" on you.

[Retry]

I've always found the Ultra's jam chance to be a ridiculously overblown risk.  If you're firing double at every opportunity, over the course of 10 turns you have a less than 25% chance of having jammed.  There's an argument for that being non-trivial, but it's one I don't agree with.  Over twenty turns of double firing (which seems mildly excessive in most games), it's 44% which is understandably more intimidating but also arguably less likely to happen unless you've been playing an entire game and not getting shot.

That's the chance for one Ultra.

How about a lance of Wolverine IIs?  11% chance of having at least one gun jam.  One Bane?    24.6% chance of jamming at least one gun per turn.  A whole Lance of Banes?  At least something's going to jam 2 out of 3 times, and likely multiple somethings.

We frequently run company-size formations and larger, and usually persistent battles on top of that: There may or may not be time to refuel, re-arm, and unjam weapons between fights.  At scales larger than Solaris brawls and Lance-on-Lance duels, the question isn't "Will my Ultras jam?", it's "How many?".

A 3% failure rate (per gun, per turn) for a Solaris gladiator is a perfectly acceptable risk.  A 3% failure rate for a Lance commander is a gamble.  A 3% failure rate for a Company commander is a disaster-in-waiting.  A 3% failure rate for a Battalion commander is wholly unacceptable.

Put another way: for a Wolverine II pilot, ten rounds of continuous firing means there's "only" a quarter chance that he's lost his UAC.  For the 36-mech strong Wolverine II battalion commander, it means about 9 of his 'Mechs just lost their long-range firepower.

That is not an overblown risk, that's the House winning in the long run.  These little probabilities add up, and when the field gets bigger than a Lance or so they add up fast.  And it's the reason they just won't (voluntarily) lay their hands on a UAC that isn't the /20 unless I break out house rules.

(The one exception is the UAC/20 which is often more of a cannon-in-being, a keep-away stick.)

This part in particular shows exactly how much players tend to over-emphasize the jamming results.  A single UAC/5 on a unit with a single ton of UAC/5 ammo is sporting 126 BV in 'dead weight' assuming it jams on the first shot and you don't get a penny out of the ammo.  The Wolverine II is at 140.  "Hundreds" only in the strictest possible definition of "more than exactly one hundred".

There's more UACs than just the /5.  A UAC/20 jamming scuttles >300 BV from that scenario and possibly the next scenarios.  A UAC/10 jamming is in the mid-high 200s.

That's also much too simple of an analysis to look at the raw BV of the gun and say that's what's being lost, as the Battlemech's offensive BV is multiplied by its speed factor.  Remove the UAC/5 + ammo from the Wolverine II and the BV drops to 1055; the delta (IOW "Change in") BV due to the the UAC/5 is effectively 246, which easily qualifies as in the hundreds.

It's not merely underweight, it's underweight by three and a half tons. :o  And completely crit-packed, so there's no room to add... anything.  I don't normally enjoy ER LLs in the first place, but if you're concerned about 'efficiency' in any sense of the word, that's a lot of wasted payload.

It was an example to show how changing the UAC/5 system (and nothing else) can get you something as good or better, for not much BV.  It's not intended to be efficient, but the fact that it can do so while leaving a whole bunch of weight left over is a fault of the UAC, not the laser.

There's things you can do like removing some of the fancy high-tech weight-saving techs and adding armor, but that borders on fan designs so I won't elaborate further.

The point is if you are going to let it unjam and make it jam at such a low rate (2 and 3 only) balance that with another negative. Treating it like a Gauss hit is pretty reasonable. So a weapon that IF you do the dangerous thing can blow itself up 2ish% of the time? Not a big negative. The point being to still improve the situation of "I jammed and only shot this thing once" and keep Rotary ACs, which are specifically stipulated to have been derived of research into Ultra's, to keep them "better" than the Ultra. Ultras can unjam then, but they can still permanently jam and do bad things.

Think of disengaging the field inhibitors on PPC's that have a minimum range to get rid of the negative. Then they can go "TZAP" on you.

Oh, I think I get it now.  It's adding an ability to unjam like RACs, but with a chance of the unjam to go terribly wrong.

My question is: Why have that extra catastrophe chance?  RAC's advantage is having 3x the fire rate of the UAC, pretty substantial by itself.

I ask because I've experimented with unjammable UACs in the past, and that type of add-on sounds like one of those overbalanced extra things that my group tends to either forget or "forget".

[Crimson Dawn]

SRM6 shorts you 10 rounds on the SRM ammo bin, 6*15=90 vs 2*50 or 4*25, and I seem to remember one of those long rambling threads about efficiency per weight/crit/heat made it worse than the SRM4 . . . not LRM15 bad, but still not good.

The Wolverine II, during the Star League, DID get a upgrade to every single gun the standard WVR-6R mounted.  The problem is your looking at them in chronological order from when IRL they came out rather than in universe.  WVR-6R to WVR-7H to WVR-7D it fits into the evolution.  You also chopped a important part of Scotty's statement, its actual BV.  Opinions come down to how you feel about rolling a 2 on any Ultra . . . some folks do not want to push their luck and resent the greater mass, others have no problem going for that double-tap.

I understand your last statement, when my merc campaign gets to the point I can place a Plasma Rifle on the salvaged Wolverine 7D's UAC/5, but its also going to require heat sink conversion.

How is the 15 rack the "bad" LRM rack?  They all have the same number of missiles.  The LRM 5 wins in terms of weight.  The LRM 20 has the best heat per missile ratio but it weighs 2 tons more than 4 LRM 5s.  The LRM 15 is better on weight than the LRM 20 but not as good as the 5.  It also has a better heat ratio than the 5 or 10 but is less heat efficient than the 20.

As far as I can the "bad" LRM rack is the 10.  It weighs more than 2 LRM 5s and is less heat efficient than the LRM 15 or 20 while having the same exact heat as two LRM 5s (the LRM 15 is more heat efficient than 3 LRM 5s).

The LRM 15 is the happy medium launcher with a decent overall damage profile as far as I can tell with decent weight and heat.  The LRM 5 is best in weight and the LRM 20 is best in heat.  The 10 does not seem to be best or even decent at anything as it can be replaced by 2 LRM 5s in every way.

[TigerShark]

I ask because I've experimented with unjammable UACs in the past, and that type of add-on sounds like one of those overbalanced extra things that my group tends to either forget or "forget".

Yeah. I refuse to allow them to jam in a game. It's just silly anyhow and hamstrings an already so-so weapon. Clan ER PPC for 15 damage with unlimited shots? Totally fine. An extra 5 damage from an AC/5 that only has a 40% chance of landing, even if you hit? GOTTA nerf that. ;-)

[Colt Ward]

I do prefer the double TH rolls when playing MM . . . but the ERPPC is already compensated for because of its higher heat- its the triangle.

[Euphonium]

Is double-tapping with a uAC two seperate to-hit rolls or is it one to-hit then roll on the 2 column of the cluster table?

My dislike of uACs comes from thinking it's the latter, as on the cluster table you have a ~60% chance that your second shot misses, so not only do you have a bigger, heavier weapon that runs out of ammo faster that feels like it jams more often than the statistics say it should, but also you second shot usually misses!

[Colt Ward]

Its the later- must roll 8 or better to get the 2nd hit.  BUT 2 TH rolls is a common house rule and a option in MM b/c of that . . . which is why I said I used it in MM play.

[Euphonium]

Thanks! My books are all deeply packed away right now so it's nice to know that my dislike of uAC-carrying units isn't based on me getting the rules wrong!

[Colt Ward]

Np, I finally bought TW pdf- DriveThru had it for $15 b/c of CGL's corona sale.

[TigerShark]

I do prefer the double TH rolls when playing MM . . . but the ERPPC is already compensated for because of its higher heat- its the triangle.

Heat has no BV. The "balance" is not numerical. You may consider it so, but that's subjective observation. Mine is likewise subjective, but differs. Since the BV doesn't account for jamming in an Ultra AC, it shouldn't jam, IMO.

[Colt Ward]

You missed the point, every piece of equipment that goes into a mech balances heat, mass/crits, and BV just like a mech design balances speed, armor and firepower.  Comparing to the IS ERPPC is better b/c they are from the same tech base, the jamming is accounted for in the BV of the weapon itself otherwise it would be closer to the BV of a AC/10 or LB-10X.  Both have the same 10 points max damage potential though the range bands to not match up.

[Retry]

You missed the point, every piece of equipment that goes into a mech balances heat, mass/crits, and BV just like a mech design balances speed, armor and firepower.

I don't believe that is the case.  The influence of heat is largely a secondary variable (and totally irrelevant on vehicles for most weapons), and BV is a dependent variable based on range brackets, damage, and to some extent accuracy.  You don't really say "this gun is light and cool but its BV is too small, let's crank it up".  IOW a 500 BV gun would still be a 500 BV gun even if you chopped the weight to a half-ton and the heat to 0.  (Not that I'm advocating for such a thing)

Comparing to the IS ERPPC is better b/c they are from the same tech base, the jamming is accounted for in the BV of the weapon itself otherwise it would be closer to the BV of a AC/10 or LB-10X.  Both have the same 10 points max damage potential though the range bands to not match up.

No, that is not true.  Heavy Metal Pro has a weapon BV calculator on its website.  It's an empirical formula (since no official rules actually exists) but it matches the canon weapon BVs to the letter.  If you plug in the stats for the UAC/5, the formula gives you exactly the canonical stats.  The formula holds for all other conventional (non-weird, like the TSEMPs or Plasma) canon weapons, and there is no correction factor for jamming anywhere in the formula, so clearly the UAC/5 jam chance is not accounted for.

[TigerShark]

You missed the point, every piece of equipment that goes into a mech balances heat, mass/crits, and BV just like a mech design balances speed, armor and firepower.  Comparing to the IS ERPPC is better b/c they are from the same tech base, the jamming is accounted for in the BV of the weapon itself otherwise it would be closer to the BV of a AC/10 or LB-10X.  Both have the same 10 points max damage potential though the range bands to not match up.

You may wish to check the formula. Heat, tonnage, and critical slots are not accounted for in BV, whatsoever. For example, the Primitive PPC is 15 heat and 10 damage, while the standard PPC is 10 heat and 10 damage. These two weapons have the exact, same BV. (re.: Banshee BNC-1E)

One could make the argument that weight and critical slots have no affect in actual combat; only during the construction process. So no "battle value" (i.e.: affect during battle) could be assigned. But heat definitely has an effect. And, to bring this back on topic, the WVR-7H has a less-than-sterling reputation due to this factor. Its main armament can and will be taken out of the fight at some point during its use if you use it as-intended. So you have to turn down the rate of fire just to avoid that pitfall (firing at single rate until a good TN is presented). And, unfortunately, its damage is calculated as an average of the two shots. i.e.: its BV assumes you're using Ultra mode 100% of the time. So it's a problem of the rules and the BV system that hamstrings the Wolverine II, IMO. If it never jammed, it would be worth it. If it jammed but the BV had a "penalty" to balance this out, it would be worth it. But neither is the case.

[SCC]

We frequently run company-size formations and larger, and usually persistent battles on top of that: There may or may not be time to refuel, re-arm, and unjam weapons between fights.  At scales larger than Solaris brawls and Lance-on-Lance duels, the question isn't "Will my Ultras jam?", it's "How many?".

StratOps says you get one Maintenance/Repair Cycle, that is eight hours, to effect repairs between battles, if your not following this that's your fault, not the games.

Yeah. I refuse to allow them to jam in a game. It's just silly anyhow and hamstrings an already so-so weapon. Clan ER PPC for 15 damage with unlimited shots? Totally fine. An extra 5 damage from an AC/5 that only has a 40% chance of landing, even if you hit? GOTTA nerf that. ;-)

Because then people might stop using the AC/5, that's why

And heat does factor into BV, it's just a second order effect.

[Retry]

StratOps says you get one Maintenance/Repair Cycle, that is eight hours, to effect repairs between battles, if your not following this that's your fault, not the games.

Actually, Strat Ops, pg.166 says:

Unless agreed otherwise (or dictated by the conditions of a specific scenario), players have eight hours between each scenario during which they can carry out maintenance and repairs.

Our scenarios include persistent battles, in which you go from one fight immediately to the next fight without the time for a maintenance cycle (the alternative would be to try to chain all the objectives in one truly massive map).  That's one of those "dictated by the conditions of a specific scenario" things.  Until one of us nabs a TARDIS as salvage, we're doing it right.

And heat does factor into BV, it's just a second order effect.

It's not an any-order effect for weapon BV because heat does not appear whatsoever in HMP's empirical BV formula.

[Euphonium]

It's not an any-order effect for weapon BV because heat does not appear whatsoever in HMP's empirical BV formula.

I was surprised to see this so I popped HMP open to have a play, and this is what I found:

Heat:

stock IS ERPPRC - BV = 229
ERPPC that only generates 1 heat - BV = 228

Jamming:

stock uAC/5 - BV = 112
non-jamming uAC/5 - BV = 112

I understand that TPTB may use something different, but HMP's BV calculations work for all cannon weapons and they appear not to account for heat or jamming risk in the weapon BV

Similarly, changing the mass or crits of a weapon does not appear to affect it's BV either. Only damage and range seem to matter.

[TigerShark]

I understand that TPTB may use something different, but HMP's BV calculations work for all cannon weapons and they appear not to account for heat or jamming risk in the weapon BV

They don't. HMP is still (as far as I know) the "official" design software. The theory is that heat is managed during the unit's BV calculations, specifically in the OBV calculation. But this is bunk and doesn't take into account generating heat, but just shy of the movement penalty. For example, a THG-11E is virtually the same BV whether it has 18 double heat sinks or 18 single heat sinks. 1640 with DHS and 1607 with SHS. I don't have to tell you just how invaluable an additional -18 heat is every turn, but apparently being able to take 2 engine hits and still alpha, vs generating +4 heat every turn, is only worth 33 BV? lol That's obviously "wrong."

Relating this back to the WVR-7H, the UAC/5 is just as valuable whether it jams or not. And I would say that a main gun costing 11 tons (9 + 2 tons ammo) is quite an investment for something that can be completely useless for the rest of a scenario after 1 turn of use. "Jamming" absolutely has an effect in combat and should be accounted for on some level. But it isn't. And that hamstrings the WVR-7H. Just ignore the rule, IMO. Nothing changes in-game because the BV already "pays" for a weapon that doesn't jam. ::shrug::

[Colt Ward]

UAC/5 costs less BV than the AC/10 and LB-10X which has the same damage potential even with shorter ranges, and I never said it factored into the mech's use design but rather the weapons qualities.

Besides, the UAC/5 should not be used double the whole time . . . with the SRMs and UAC ammo, you have something like 15 or so turns of combat.  The design is built to last rather than surge firepower.

[Retry]

UAC/5 costs less BV than the AC/10 and LB-10X which has the same damage potential even with shorter ranges

Damage "potential" isn't nearly as relevant as average damage.  UAC/5 costs less BV because its damage in rapid-fire mode averages out to a smidge over 7, so of course what's basically an AC/7 with marginally higher range brackets than an LB-10X is going to have a lower BV.

A more obvious example: The Streak SRM-6 and the regular SRM-6 have the same damage per missile, same range brackets, same damage "potential", but the Streak clearly has a higher BV.

Besides, the UAC/5 should not be used double the whole time . . . with the SRMs and UAC ammo, you have something like 15 or so turns of combat.  The design is built to last rather than surge firepower.

Sure, but you still pay the BV for it as if you were.  Also, if it was built for endurance then UAC/5 is definitively the wrong way to go: Neither explosive ammo nor a jam-prone main gun is good for that.  If endurance is the goal, the Wolverine II would be far better served with an ER LL.