Is it actually bad to put ammo in the center torso?

[DevianID]

So Paul you got the raw damage numbers right. The 13% comes from the CT taking 100% damage versus 88.5.  100/88.5=1.13.  So standard crits are +13% more damage, floating crits conversely would be -12.5% less damage, both representing the same number.

Now, the 80% reduction in CT TACs comes from 100% of the TACs to the front hitting the CT, versus 19.44% with floating.  Now, here's my transcription error.  I put the 88.5% instead of 80.5%, probably cause the 88.5 was on the brain.  So yeah, its only an 80.5% reduction /414% increase in CT TACs, and a +13/-12.5% damage change, switching between floating and non-floating.

And to the OP, like the destructive analysis showed, at least in those conditions a 5 HS padded hunchback H is much more likely to die to ammo explosion then a rifleman with a CT bin, and thats with standard crits.  With 3050+ tech, like the Lbx pellets, TACs become much more of a factor, but at least in 3025 play you are more likely to die to CT damage before the ammo gets hit, and much more likely to die if the ammo is in a side torso.

Edit: for lols, the marauder gets its ammo exploded in 29.8% of the simulations.  It dies in only 40.4% of the 10k simulations, so the side torso ammo bin accounts for 74% of all deaths it suffered.  Moving that ammo bin the the CT would lower this number substantially.  Floating crits will raise the side torso ammo explosion% AND lower the total death %, making the ammo even more dangerous--the side torso gets hit more, and the CT is less likely to take damage, both of which raise the % of game the mech dies to ammo versus other causes.

[Frabby]

I'm not sure if I can follow that argument. I feel you are comparing apples to oranges there.

Obviously, a lone ammo crit in a side torso is an accident waiting to happen - it means you’re designing a hit location where a critical hit is both relatively likely to occur in the first place and highly deadly.
So it’s an even worse location than CT if there is no crit padding (like with the Crusader and Marauder.

But the fact that you can design side torsos to be yet worse doesn’t make the CT any better. The CT remains the objectively second-worse location to such otherwise empty side torsos that do not even exist on all 'Mechs, because the CT is already full of critical items to begin with. A crit there is already very likely to cripple your 'Mech and it’s a location that is highly likely to be hit. Unlike side torso ammo bombs that are a design choice, all 'Mechs are equally suffering from a CT section full of critical components where a crit is likely to be crippling.

The "padding" offered by engine and gyro crits isn’t really padding as they are only slightly slightly less bad than an ammo crit.
This is of course highly situational: The ammo may be mostly spent; or your 'Mech may be oversinked enough to shrug off an engine hit, or be designed as a 2/3/0 turret that has little use for a gyro.
But I maintain that the CT should preferably get padding crits installed to potentially protect the engine and gyro, versus getting ammo crits that make a very bad zone even deadlier when critted.

The arms, legs and even the head come with fixed non-lethal padding crits. That makes them vastly preferable to any torso section if you’re not installing much. On heavier 'Mechs with many crits, it might be viable to place ammo in the side torsos.

[DevianID]

The problem with the statement there is that you posit the CT is the second worse place to put ammo, but we dont have any data for that.  It sounds like most now agree that CT ammo is better then side torso ammo, so we are looking at head/arm/leg placement.

Full stop, I think head is everyone's favorite place.  Much to my surprise, head ammo does NOT transfer in to the CT... its the only place on the mech.  Further, you auto eject with ammo explosions, so in theory you survive the head ammo explosion with the pilot just fine.  So yeah, in a land with no case, the head ammo exploding is still a perfectly salvageable mech.  So in any example, the head is number 1 best location, but what is the second best location?

So side torsoss are worse then CT, but is the CT worse then the leg or arm?  Well, the leg can be targeted, so it feels sketchy to me to put ammo in a leg as long as kicks are a thing.  Arms are potentially more survivable then legs, as you can lose the arm from torso destruction so sometimes they never even go internal.

But with floating crits, the nice bonus to survivability the CT gets, and the extra damage to all other locations on top of random TACs, for sure makes it questionable to put ammo in the arms.  Again, im assuming you arnt able to fully crit pad anything--if you could crit pad then there is no point to the OPs topic, as its about using the crit padding of the CT in the absence of crit padding elsewhere.  So the arm would be 1 ammo and 4 arm actuators, and maybe like a medium laser.

Id rate Head, Arms, CT, Legs, Side Torso.  With Floating crits, Id rate Head, CT, Arms, Legs, Side Torso.  I think side torsos are worse then legs cause of the rear armor problem, and I think CT is better then Legs because kicks are such big deals in 3025.

Fully crit padding is always superior, no need to argue that... if you can fully crit pad something, well do that of course.  But a partial crit pad, like 5 heat sinks and 2 ac bins on the hunchback H, is worse then the CT bins, so you need more padding then that to sway the monte carlo simulation.

[Prospernia]

Statistically, the best place to keep ammo is in the head.

[abou]

Statistically, the best place to keep ammo is in the head.

So if there was a critical hit causing an ammo explosion, would you have to follow up with the phrase, "That's using your head"?

[Retry]

Indeed, but I consider that another advantage in favour of head ammo crits.

[phoenixalpha]

One issue with keeping ammo in the head is.... that there is only one crit space. Most mechs with ammo based weapons even in the 3025 era have multiple tons of ammo so you got to store the rest somewhere else increasing the chance of an explosion. Also on a non game basis can you imagine the ammo feed mechanism for ammo from the head to the, for example, arm? It'd be an absolute nightmare.

[Hellraiser]

It'd be an absolute nightmare. 

I can't disagree, and yet...

Check out the Warhawk-H & explain that one to me.  LOL.

Look at the fluff for the Enforcer-4R/5D? & trying to add more ammo where the Small Laser was.


I personally have no issue with having ammo fed weapons on a mech, but, the shear # of them sometimes makes me shake my head.

Crusader & Shadowhawk for example........... 4 weapon types...... only 1 type is energy on each.

I have a general rule when I'm making custom mechs, ammo limited to 2 types, and Energy is always the Primary or Secondary gun, not Tertiary or less, etc etc.
Exception being something like a Stealth Pillager concept that would mix LRMs & ACs like a Jagermech-6A, or the Mauler.

Something like a Warhammer could be just as effective, IMHO, if it kept the weapons load to 3 types, PPC, ML, MG instead of also having SRM & SL in the mix.