Do you retcon the AC/5 in your SW-era games? If so, how?

[Paladin1]

You know, I get sick and tired of hearing how this weapon or that weapon sucks or how that rule or some other rule doesn't make sense.

Listen, I understand wanting to fix things that don't make sense or seem to defy logic and reason, but for God's sake people, if you don't like something enough that you're willing to change every design that makes use of that technology, then maybe this game isn't for you.  Either find a design that suits you and avoid the technology that bothers you or learn to deal with it.  It's just a game after all.

[tomaddamz]

You know, I get sick and tired of hearing how this weapon or that weapon sucks or how that rule or some other rule doesn't make sense.

Listen, I understand wanting to fix things that don't make sense or seem to defy logic and reason, but for God's sake people, if you don't like something enough that you're willing to change every design that makes use of that technology, then maybe this game isn't for you.  Either find a design that suits you and avoid the technology that bothers you or learn to deal with it.  It's just a game after all.

By that logic, nobody should complain about products that fail to function well or as advertised.  If that were the case my Great-Grandfathers Muzzle-loading smooth-bore musket would still be good enough, never mind that it is completely out classed by 100 year old technology.  When things no longer fulfill their function, we replace them or improve them.  The Incandescent Light Bulb started with a carbon filament, it was improved with a tungsten one; in a few years we may replace the incandescent light bulb with LED technology (to me CCFL is a dead end technology).

In the game, people still want boomsticks with ammo, so we are in the process of improving them and replacing them.  We are improving the Standard Autocannon with new ammunition that will, make it more likely to hit a moving target, ventilate infantry much better, Whack flying things with great dash; we are also replacing things, the AC/5 as we know it is gone as a viable option, much like a muzzle-loader is gone as a viable combat firearm.  The Light AC/5 is signifigantly lighter with all of the ammo choices standard autocannon, a slightly reduced range but now with no minimum range, the RAC/5 provides much more firepower per ton installed compared to the AC/5, the Light PPC does everything the Standard AC/5 did in 3025 and can do so in less mass, even on conventional vehicles.

We change things that do not work, when something does not suit us, we fix it until it does...it is our nature.

[JPArbiter]

yes but autocannon 5s do work as advertised, the deal 5 damage over PPC range for next to no heat with a respectable amount of ammunition per ton.

the ultra does more damage down range the the AC 5, the LBX improves over the fluffy Anti Aircraft capabilities.

the Light AC 5 improves the mass of the autocannon with only a moderate sacrifice in range.

the Light PPC matches the AC 5 in terms of damage and range, and removes ammunition dependancy, making it a much more efficent option then the standard or ER PPC

in a post clan period the autocannon 5 only really serves a purpose as a cheap gun on small tanks that need long reach


BUT  as this poll address the autocannon 5 in a succession war (presumably introtech) context, the AC 5 performs somewhere in between adequately and admirably.

[Paladin1]

I would post a reply, but really, what's the use.  JPA just said what I was going to say, but used less words to do it, so I don't see a reason to add anything else to his post.

[Demos]

Wouldn't change the AC/5 at all. Sure, it's not the best weapon, but I can live with it...

[Minemech]

The AC/5 is not a great weapon, but it is a functional weapon that can dish out low heat damage at PPC range. It also has a better chance than an AC/2 at thresholding an aerospace fighter, while being more accurate than a PPC, and inflicting the nominal control roll. On vehicles it can be an acceptable main gun, I sometimes throw the Merkava VIII out on the battlefield and it serves me just fine.

 To be honest I just don't like the LAC/5.

[tomaddamz]

The AC/5 is not a great weapon, but it is a functional weapon that can dish out low heat damage at PPC range. It also has a better chance than an AC/2 at thresholding an aerospace fighter, while being more accurate than a PPC, and inflicting the nominal control roll. On vehicles it can be an acceptable main gun, I sometimes throw the Merkava VIII out on the battlefield and it serves me just fine.

 To be honest I just don't like the LAC/5.

There is a lot I'd like to get to in all the preceeding posts, but I am under time pressure, I'm sorry if this seems terse.

The Standard AC/5 is a support weapon at best, and if you parse all the comments here you will come to the same conclusion.  By itself the Standard Autocannon /5 does not do enough "crunch" damage to intimidate anything heavier than a APC.  The vast majority of units are armored to withstand the damage output of the Standard Autocannon/5 and not be breached.  In isolation ( solely Standard AC/5 armed) any unit running ac/5s will be severely outclassed, specifically outgunned by a balanced force.

[Minemech]

There is a lot I'd like to get to in all the preceeding posts, but I am under time pressure, I'm sorry if this seems terse.

The Standard AC/5 is a support weapon at best, and if you parse all the comments here you will come to the same conclusion.  By itself the Standard Autocannon /5 does not do enough "crunch" damage to intimidate anything heavier than a APC.  The vast majority of units are armored to withstand the damage output of the Standard Autocannon/5 and not be breached.  In isolation ( solely Standard AC/5 armed) any unit running ac/5s will be severely outclassed, specifically outgunned by a balanced force.

I am not going to expect a HER-2S Hermes II to kill many mechs mechs on its own. If it had a PPC, or even a Large Laser instead, it probably would be a lot more dangerous. I don't entirely disagree with you, but some units have already shown they can make effective use of it as a main gun. The Merkava is a good example, and is a tank easily modified to mount an AC/10. The Jagermech and Rifleman make effective use of the autocannons for AAA.

[House Davie Merc]

I would love it had they dropped it to 6 tons..  What of the crits though?

Autocannon type          tons       crits

Autocannon  2                4             1
Autocannon  5                6             3
Autocannon 10              12            6
Autocannon 20              14            9

That's just a rough guess without any testing .

The AC/10 and AC/20 seem pretty balanced as is so
I'd leave them alone except for I would make them
1 crit smaller .
That would allow mechs like the Victor to carry an AC/20
entirely in the arm and still have a lower arm actuator .

Think about this result of reducing the weigth of the AC/5 by 2 tons :
The 3025 Rifleman rifleman could have carried 4 - AC/5s and 60 rounds
instead of the large laser / AC combo .
The stats  would actually match the art !

The mech would still have thin armor so it wouldn't be unbalancing
and it might just be far more useable  until it runs out of ammo .

[FedSunsBorn]

I don't like the AC-5 but the new ammo makes it useful again. Also, I like it's low heat which is big during the Succession Wars.

[iamfanboy]

BUT  as this poll address the autocannon 5 in a succession war (presumably introtech) context, the AC 5 performs somewhere in between adequately and admirably.

Mmm. Maybe I need to clarify my line of thought better.

In Battletech, there are several broad categories that weapons fit into - they can change based on the weight of the 'Mech, but are pretty firm.

1) Main Gun - the primary damage dealer of the 'Mech. Most of the weight and/or heatsink capability is dedicated to the weapon because it can punch holes through the armor of any weight-equivalent 'Mechs or support heavier 'Mechs. In SW-era, PPC, Large Laser, AC/10, AC/20 fit into this category - on lights, Medium Lasers are the main gun of choice.

2) Secondary Gun - Weapons capable of softening up enemy armor or widening holes caused by the main gun once it's run out of ammo or the heat burden is too high from firing it. Medium Lasers are the usual secondary gun.

3) Critseekers - Lots of little damage spread out looking for holes, preferably with an almost nonexistent heat burden. SRMs, MGs, and small lasers are all the critseekers of Battletech.

4) Ranged support/Indirect Fire - For softening up 'Mechs before the heavy hitters with main guns close in, and have the range to bring down aircraft as well. AC/2s and LRMs fit into this category.

The problem with the AC/5 is that it fits into none of those categories without being seriously outclassed by anything.

Main guns? PPCs and Large Lasers are unequivocally better at any weight over 20 tons - yes, the heat burden is higher, but as a primary weapon a 'Mech can naturally sink the heat from either with its primary heatsinks, and can't mount secondary weapons to take advantage of the AC/5's lower heat because of its greater weight.

Secondary gun? MLs outclass it until you get to the higher weights - but by the time you reach the upper tonnages, the large laser becomes competitive, and the AC/10 is almost as good.

Critseeker? No.

Ranged Support? Almost, but the problem is that the LRM-15 with 2 tons of ammo weighs the same, does slightly more heat, more damage, more range... There's a reason that the anti-air version of the Jagermech uses LRM-15s instead of AC/5s.

It does no job well, and all jobs badly.



And YES, if I DO find something wrong with my FAVORITE game and have found it wrong for twenty years now, I AM allowed to complain. Or have you never found anything wrong with the perfection that is Battletech?


And I like the idea of lowering the weight and crits... that might actually make it good. I wish I'd put THAT in the poll. the problem is that it involves retconning... 10 'Mechs?

Let me count that again. Clint, Hermes II, Sentinel, Shadow Hawk, Wolverine, Rifleman, Jagermech, Marauder, Zeus, Banshee. Oh, and a couple of vehicles, but w/e. Have I missed any AC/5 users out there?

Unfortunately, it also means doing SOMETHING to the UAC/5, and there are a LOT more designs out there with UAC/5s.

[majesticmoose]

2) Secondary Gun - Weapons capable of softening up enemy armor or widening holes caused by the main gun once it's run out of ammo or the heat burden is too high from firing it. Medium Lasers are the usual secondary gun.
...
Secondary gun? MLs outclass it until you get to the higher weights - but by the time you reach the upper tonnages, the large laser becomes competitive, and the AC/10 is almost as good.
...

And YES, if I DO find something wrong with my FAVORITE game and have found it wrong for twenty years now, I AM allowed to complain. Or have you never found anything wrong with the perfection that is Battletech?
...
Unfortunately, it also means doing SOMETHING to the UAC/5, and there are a LOT more designs out there with UAC/5s.

You absolutely have a right to complain.  No one is seriously questioning that.  It's jsut that this is a common complaint, so some people can get irritated that a solution needs to be found.

Now, and I posted up thread about this, I think you're wrong about the secondary weapon catagory.  On a lighter machine, they are a bit sub par, but AC5's have double the range of an ML.  that isn't something to be balked at.

I think you're examining this in the wrong sort of context.  For instance, an LRM mech, say 2 LRM 10's or a 20, could mount a LL/PPC and an AC5.  at ranges the AC5 can (optionally) be fired to alpha for a minor heat price.  if you get the tactical advantage, use it, hell if you have ammo, fire away all day.  Placing a bevy of ML's (pry 3-4) and you can still use the AC5 at medium to almost short ranges where your LRM is inaccurate and the PPC is inefficient.  It is very much a complimentary/secondary weapon system.

Is the AC5 always used this way, NOPE!. no way, but is every weapon used appropriately, NOPE.  It's just that the AC5 is easiest to see it's faults.

The AC5 is a low heat, secondary weapon for most all ranges, as long as the weight isn't an issue.

And no, ultras should be left alone.  Even if you droped the weight of an AC5 to 6 tons (which is a mistake, not just for the mechs, but think of all those vehicles... eeps!) the double fire rate of the ultra for a (at 6 ton) 50% increase in weight and no loss in heat efficiency is acceptable.

My opinion, AC5 is sub par, but not useless.  I think you just are expecting the weapons to all be best in their catagory, and as will always happen, some are #1, all others will be #2 or lower.

[Minemech]

 I think the LAC/5 is a secondary weapon. The AC/5 not so much, its just a weaker main gun than its competitors damage wise.

[JPArbiter]

Mmm. Maybe I need to clarify my line of thought better.

In Battletech, there are several broad categories that weapons fit into - they can change based on the weight of the 'Mech, but are pretty firm. *snip*

It does no job well, and all jobs badly.

And YES, if I DO find something wrong with my FAVORITE game and have found it wrong for twenty years now, I AM allowed to complain. Or have you never found anything wrong with the perfection that is Battletech?

1st of those are arbitrary roles place by you.  you ever look at introtech weapons and notice the statistical curve attached to them?

Energy weapons get more powerful and reach farther the heavier they get, but lose efficency too.  this is why so many "perfect" designs are ML spam like the Rattlesnake from battletechnolgy

Autocannons deal more damage at less range the heavier they get for much less heat, and get Drastically more efficent the heavier they get (on a damage/ton/heat comparision)

Missiles have consistent range and a sine curve damage value thanks to the cluster roles.

AC 5s have a place on the curve, and it is an acceptable place in the grand scheme of things.

2ndly yes you absolutly have the right to complain about things you find wrong in the game.  just as I have the right to disagree and logically refute them.

[mutantmagnet]

BUT  as this poll address the autocannon 5 in a succession war (presumably introtech) context, the AC 5 performs somewhere in between adequately and admirably.

*snorts* *chortles* Pray tell what weapons fall in the adequate camp and the admirable camps that AC 5 falls so neatly between them?

[majesticmoose]

I think the LAC/5 is a secondary weapon. The AC/5 not so much, its just a weaker main gun than its competitors damage wise.

Noted.  But this goes to show your bias.

I state, AC5 is a decent secondary weapon, for all the reasons stated above by many people.

your response is, AC5 is a bad primary weapon.

So, here is where we have an impasse.  I am not disagreeing with your statement about it being a sub par main gun (better than an AC2 though).  But you seem to just think it's un suitable as a secondary weapon.  I've given you several examples (and there are several canon examples) of where an AC5 is a suitable secondary weapon.  It fills a gap that ML can't fill, so it has a place.

just because it's a place you may not think is valuable, or think exists, I assure you it is.  And for it's heat, crit, and range, it offers something no other weapon (the LAC5 does now, and is leaps better, but that's not part of the SW discussion) can offer.

[Minemech]

 Actually my statement was responding to a notion that it could not sufficiently qualify to be a main gun. The main guns on mechs can be highly relative, it is easy to argue for instance that a King Crab's Large Laser is a support weapon, but that does not mean that it is not a fine main gun on other chassis. I should have quoted Iamfanboy to avoid this confusion. In the 3025 era AC/5s, AC/10s, AC/20s, Large Lasers(Technically binaries also) and PPCs are generally used as main guns, and Large Lasers and AC/5s are sometimes even used as secondaries.

[Fear Factory]

You can use anything you want as a main gun.  I've used a machine gun array.

[Minemech]

 That depends on how you define main gun, a 22 Rifle in place of all other weapons on the Abram tank would probably not be called a main gun even though it would be the most important it mounted and qualify in every other way thus fitting under that definition.

[Fear Factory]

That depends on how you define main gun, a 22 Rifle in place of all other weapons on the Abram tank would probably not be called a main gun even though it would be the most important it mounted and qualify in every other way thus fitting under that definition.

This is BattleTech, not RL.  If I want the bearhunter to be my Battle Armor's main gun I can do it.  If I want a bunch of machine guns as a main gun I can do it.

I mean, in 3025, the Assassin has one medium laser as its main gun.

[Kit deSummersville]

I bet dropping the damage output of energy weapons would be easier than a lot of other suggestions. I wonder if anyone has tried that.

[Xotl]

It's a terrible weapon, stories of how this one time at band camp I blew up the Star League with it notwithstanding.  At first, like others, I went with 6 tons, 3 crits, and no minimums, as part of a general rebalancing for autocannons in my house campaign, and that would be just fine.   That gives it a very slight superiority in damage/weight ratio to the PPC.  Later I went a bit further dropped it to 5 tons, so that ballistic weapons have a better damage/weight ratio, in exchange for the risks of running out of ammo or having it explode.  Of course, that's part of altering every single gun and adding light and heavy PPCs to my SW-era games as well.

[Frabby]

I'm in the "no change" camp and voted for option 1, though special ammunitions (experimental or SL era stuff) can add an interesting note in campaign play.

Most of what I wanted to say has already been said in this very good thread, so I'll sum it up thus:

- The AC/5 is not broken by itself, and had its place in 3025 era tech. It was "nerfed" by superior technology that got invented beginning with the Clan invasion.

- I don't quite understand how the usefulness of the AC/5 as a main gun can be decried. It has main gun range and in the light/medium 'Mech range 5 damage is adequate for a main gun - especially when factoring range into the equation. Keep in mind that it has a better range than a large laser.

- When comparing weapons, heat sink and ammo requirements must be taken into account. 10 free heat sinks mean that you don't usually need the AC/5's excellent damage/heat ratio but the Clint and Wolverine go to show that jump jets and AC/5's go well together, too.

- The AC/5 is a staple of vehicle construction (Scorpion/Vedette) for a reason. For campaign and roleplaying purposes I have always assumed the AC/5 to be among the cheapest and easiest-to-maintain and thus ultimately, most reliable and available guns that can be mounted on a 'Mech - for these reasons, it's oftentimes the only weapon you can actually get even on low-tech worlds. I'd rather mount an AC/5 that nothing at all.

[Xotl]

I'm in the "no change" camp and voted for option 1, though special ammunitions (experimental or SL era stuff) can add an interesting note in campaign play.

Most of what I wanted to say has already been said in this very good thread, so I'll sum it up thus:

- The AC/5 is not broken by itself, and had its place in 3025 era tech. It was "nerfed" by superior technology that got invented beginning with the Clan invasion.

It was nerfed by its companions in 3025.  In a straight-up comparison, all other things being equal the only weapon worse than it was the AC/2.

- I don't quite understand how the usefulness of the AC/5 as a main gun can be decried. It has main gun range and in the light/medium 'Mech range 5 damage is adequate for a main gun - especially when factoring range into the equation. Keep in mind that it has a better range than a large laser..

It sucks because its damage to weight ratio is terrible.  That alone would make it near-useless, but on top of that it requires ammo (which can in turn explode) and it has a minimum.  The large laser has a better total damage-to-weight ratio, doesn't need ammo, has no minimum, and has better damage concentration.  It's better in almost every way.

- When comparing weapons, heat sink and ammo requirements must be taken into account. 10 free heat sinks mean that you don't usually need the AC/5's excellent damage/heat ratio but the Clint and Wolverine go to show that jump jets and AC/5's go well together, too.

Damage-to-heat does matter from time to time, but damage-to-weight (which includes the tonnage from heat sinks and ammo) matters much more often.  Yes, there are occasions where an AC/5 isn't a totally crap option - this is not a roaring endorsement.

- The AC/5 is a staple of vehicle construction (Scorpion/Vedette) for a reason. For campaign and roleplaying purposes I have always assumed the AC/5 to be among the cheapest and easiest-to-maintain and thus ultimately, most reliable and available guns that can be mounted on a 'Mech - for these reasons, it's oftentimes the only weapon you can actually get even on low-tech worlds. I'd rather mount an AC/5 that nothing at all.

This is fluff you've invented for yourself - it has no bearing on how the weapon actually performs or is acquired/added to a mech.

I'm just baffled by how anyone can think 10 tons for 5 damage with ammo reqs and a minimum range is somehow a good idea.  Not "it has its uses once in a while," "this one time I killed an Atlas with it", "I like the fluff/idea of it", or "I'm not a fan of number crunching", but "Yes, this is a truly fine weapon with no problems".  There's just no reason why when it was being designed it shouldn't have been a couple of tons lighter and had the minimum tossed.  If a fellow has no problem with that, cool, but the math doesn't lie.

[mutantmagnet]

I bet dropping the damage output of energy weapons would be easier than a lot of other suggestions. I wonder if anyone has tried that.

No. I've tinkered with a rule where if you overheat energy weapons that aren't labeled small/micro or don't use ammo generate +1 heat.

Even then I still see a need to revise ballistics.

[tomaddamz]

[snip]

- The AC/5 is a staple of vehicle construction (Scorpion/Vedette) for a reason. For campaign and roleplaying purposes I have always assumed the AC/5 to be among the cheapest and easiest-to-maintain and thus ultimately, most reliable and available guns that can be mounted on a 'Mech - for these reasons, it's oftentimes the only weapon you can actually get even on low-tech worlds. I'd rather mount an AC/5 that nothing at all.

The only reason the Scorpion/Vedette use the AC/s because there isn't a better weapon I can get in there.  In 3065 and beyond I seriously consider replacing the AC/5 with an MML-7,  it does everything better except Cost Per Shot...and if you are not paying the bills, who cares.  Even in the Succession Wars era, and LRM-10 / SRM-4 combo outperforms the AC/5, it just costs more per shot .

[Dragon Cat]

Always liked the AC-5 hate the AC-2 though

[garhkal]

It sucks because its damage to weight ratio is terrible.  That alone would make it near-useless, but on top of that it requires ammo (which can in turn explode) and it has a minimum.  The large laser has a better total damage-to-weight ratio, doesn't need ammo, has no minimum, and has better damage concentration.  It's better in almost every way.

I'm just baffled by how anyone can think 10 tons for 5 damage with ammo reqs and a minimum range is somehow a good idea.  Not "it has its uses once in a while," "this one time I killed an Atlas with it", "I like the fluff/idea of it", or "I'm not a fan of number crunching", but "Yes, this is a truly fine weapon with no problems".  There's just no reason why when it was being designed it shouldn't have been a couple of tons lighter and had the minimum tossed.  If a fellow has no problem with that, cool, but the math doesn't lie.

So what would you offer as a solution??  Decrease the AC5s tonnage?  Up the damage/range?

[tomaddamz]

So what would you offer as a solution??  Decrease the AC5s tonnage?  Up the damage/range?

What Xotl said...

There's just no reason why when it was being designed it shouldn't have been a couple of tons lighter and had the minimum tossed.

Simply put 8 tons is too heavy, notice the only thing good about the weapon mentioned is the low heat, and it's good if you have the room, simply put nobody makes this a priority weapon to mount because of it's unimpressive damage to weight, and rightly so.

To really make this weapon competitive the AC/5 needs to lose 2 tons.  When you do this the AC/5 is finally competitive with the LRM for damage to weight.

[FedComGirl]

Um...if you have an ICE wouldn't a Large Laser with Heat Sinks and Power Amplifier weigh 13.8 tons? That's 4.3 tons heavier than an AC/5 and a ton of ammo and CASE. Yes the AC/5 does 3 points less damage but the AC/5 also has a greater range, so as long as they can stay out of the lasers range they can score hit after hit without being hit in return. If they enemy with a large laser gets to close enough to score hits on you and you're desperate enough, you can always go to rapid fire mode on the AC for a total of 10 points of damage over the large lasers 8. Of course by then your opponent would already have suffered hits so you'd still have the advantage over the large laser.

Overall I'd say the Large Laser only has two advantages over the AC/5. The first is that the laser doesn't require ammo, although that advantage isn't that great considering one can have 5 tons of ammo to bring it equal with the Large Laser's total weight. 100 shots is more than plenty for a battle I would think. The other advantage the large laser has is that it doesn't risk jamming at it's maximum rate of fire. That's about the only thing the AC/5 can't over come however. The only other advantage the large laser has depends on the engine that powers it. A fusion engine would lower the Large Laser's total weight to just itself but depending on what its mounted on that may still not be enough to prevent overheating. That being the case the AC still has an advantage of less heat.