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

[tomaddamz]

Um...if you have an ICE wouldn't a Large Laser with Heat Sinks and Power Amplifier weigh 13.8 tons?

13.5 tons for conventional Large Laser install.

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.

The AC/5 also lacks crunch, very few units are intimidated by 5 point hits, it takes a lot of them to get your attention.  You are also counting on a optional rule to (rapid fire) to overcome the low damage per ton, and even then the Large Laser does it's damage to a single area.  To use the example of a Commando COM-2D can take a LRM-20 worth of damage at full cluster and so long as it hits different sections not go internal, the Large Laser will punch side torso, arms and head and go internal. 

[FedComGirl]

Oops! You're right. My mistake. I think the rest added up right though

[JPArbiter]

The AC/5 also lacks crunch, very few units are intimidated by 5 point hits

and yet the 5 point hit is the very foundation of weapons technology its the median, top of the bell curve.

[arcangelS7]

I'm torn on the AC-5. I can find a use of it in 3025 as complimentary main gun, supporting LLs & PPCs, but never by itself. Usage of standard autocannons disappears with the introduction of Lostech, with an ERLL+DHS being a typical replacement until the arrival of LPPC.

I've toyed with rewriting the 3025 weapon set completely and tend to increase the damage on the low-grade autocannons while reducing the damage on the low-grade lasers.

[tomaddamz]

and yet the 5 point hit is the very foundation of weapons technology its the median, top of the bell curve.

I think if you look at 3025, you will see that the median for weapon damage is probably closer to 7 or 8 (Edit:it is actually 6)and not 5.  What makes most 5 point attacks is the number of 5 point attacks hitting, most 5 point hits come in groups, 5 point hits are sandblasting, they are overkill for crit-seeking, and do not crunch like big weapons like Large Lasers or PPCs do on Mechs ( vees are a different matter).

Things to help the AC/5, double tapping would help to not be optional, you already have a large amount of ammo per ton.  Losing minimum range would also help.

[Kit deSummersville]

I think if you look at 3025, you will see that the median for weapon damage is probably closer to 7 or 8 and not 5.

Code: [Select]

Machine Gun 2
Flamer 2
AC/2         2
Small Laser 3
LRM-5 3
SRM-2 3
Medium Laser 5
AC/5         5
SRM-4 6
LRM-10 6
SRM-6 8
Large Laser 8
LRM-15 9
AC/10 10
PPC         10
LRM-20 12
AC/20 20
Median             6

[tomaddamz]

Thank you Kit.  I am corrected.

[Kit deSummersville]

Assuming those missile damages are correct.

[tomaddamz]

The SRM-2 is the only one that may be argued , using the 7 line it's 2 (single missile) but I am inclined to use the 3 value as the SRM-2 is either one missile or two, so the three makes more sense.

[Xotl]

Assuming those missile damages are correct.

They're pretty close approximations.  The actual average damages are:

LRM 5: 3.167
LRM 10: 6.3062
LRM 15: 9.501
LRM 20: 12.6957


SRM 2: 2.8376
SRM 4: 5.2904
SRM 6: 8.0168

[Schottenjaeger]

I'd add an option: Use TacOps rapid fire &c. rules to make it more worthwhile. That's what I usually do; I leave it vanilla for games where that's not an option. They're a ML with the range of an LRM - other than the tonnage, that's straight awesome.

[FedComGirl]

The AC/5 also lacks crunch, very few units are intimidated by 5 point hits, it takes a lot of them to get your attention.  You are also counting on a optional rule to (rapid fire) to overcome the low damage per ton, and even then the Large Laser does it's damage to a single area.  To use the example of a Commando COM-2D can take a LRM-20 worth of damage at full cluster and so long as it hits different sections not go internal, the Large Laser will punch side torso, arms and head and go internal. 

True but the the opponent would already be suffering damage by the time it can get it's large laser into range. Depending on the speed of both it might not ever get into range. Armor piercing ammo would also improve the AC/s performance.

[Frabby]

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'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.[...] math doesn't lie.

That's a matter of opinion, based on how you weight the factors of damage, range/min range, heat, ammo, crits and tonnage. Math doesn't lie, but what does it say? Its application is arbitrary.
Imho, the flamer is the most useless weapon in the game and the MG and small laser are bordering on useless, too, because of their range limit (though they are actually useful within that limit). I'm not saying that you're right or wrong, only that I have a different opinion.

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.

The OP asked how we handle the AC/5 on the game board. My answer was that we don't change its stats and give it some roleplaying advantages to make it more attractive than its otherwise admittedly non-optimal game stats suggest.

[Rorke]

I don't quite see what the fuss is all about here.  If the weight is that much of an issue, use a light or lbx.  Or something completely different.  Meh i guess i'm old, Davion and touch traditional.

[mutantmagnet]

I don't quite see what the fuss is all about here.  If the weight is that much of an issue, use a light or lbx.  Or something completely different.  Meh i guess i'm old, Davion and touch traditional.

Well one of the fundamental issues is that battletech doesn't just revolve around canon designs but the customization options as well. The weapons at the introductory level are not balanced and the the autocannon family especially the lighter two exemplify how poorly constructed the game mechanics are.

That's a matter of opinion, based on how you weight the factors of damage, range/min range, heat, ammo, crits and tonnage. Math doesn't lie, but what does it say? Its application is arbitrary.

The AC 5 either performs or it doesn't. You touched on a good point that how you apply the weapon can dictate performance and ruined it by saying it was arbitrary. It is not and never will be. The AC 5 has to perform by the metric you set or it fails and you do the math to test it out and then use another metric to see if it can perform there instead.

There is one niche the AC 5 can fill other weapon combinations don't overcome which is the 15 damage long range pairing with the PPC. But this set up is confined to a tiny amount of speed/weight class combinations.

[JPArbiter]

I don't quite see what the fuss is all about here.  If the weight is that much of an issue, use a light or lbx.  Or something completely different.  Meh i guess i'm old, Davion and touch traditional.

first of the context of the thread is succession war era games so LACs and LBX are mot an option.

second off it is just another round of hating on autocannons for people who do not use them to thier fullest extent.

[mutantmagnet]

second off it is just another round of hating on autocannons for people who do not use them to thier fullest extent.

Want a few matches in Megamek? Most with canon only designs and one or two with designs identical except one side takes out the AC 5 and replaces it with anything else they want? *whistles*

[Wanderer]

Although it's outclassed by a lot of modern weapons, I agree with the previous posters that the AC5 can be a useful weapon in the 3025/SW era.  More than any other piece of equipment, I think the DHS has contributed the most to the decline of the AC5, as one of it big advantages (heat efficiency) is nerfed.  The advent of advanced munitions (especially precision rounds) has helped slightly as the AC5's 20 shots per ton allows it to still carry useful loads of specialty ammo.

Cheers,
LCC

The double sink was, is, and always will be the defining step from the original Succession-era combat system to the "norm" of every other part of the game. Without it, the AC/5 had plenty of reasons to back up another gun or even act as a cool-running main gun for lighter machines. Now, even the lightest designs can generally afford the heat load to mount even an ERLL or ER PPC.

[Xotl]

The OP asked how we handle the AC/5 on the game board. My answer was that we don't change its stats and give it some roleplaying advantages to make it more attractive than its otherwise admittedly non-optimal game stats suggest.

Fair enough.

second off it is just another round of hating on autocannons for people who do not use them to thier fullest extent.

Hey, if you've got the secret magic formula to turn the AC/5 into some kind of good weapon (or even an average one), by all means post it.  It's a gun and it shoots - you either use it or you don't - what "full extent" is there? Its damage to weight ratio is garbage - it's pretty hard to get around that.

"You know, the phalanx really doesn't cut it against mechanized infantry."

"You're obviously not using it to its full extent."

[Marwynn]

I'm guessing he means double-tapping the ACs? The AC5 is perfect for that role, and of course the special ammo as well.

But yes, the AC5 is one of the worst weapons in the game sadly. I think it's cool because it's on my favourite 3025 'Mechs, but that's about it.

[Cannon_Fodder]

I don't have them handy but our group has custom Auto-Fire rules that gives AC/2 and AC/5 a boost. However if you fumble the rolls to keep from jamming there is risk of the round blowing up in the gun. If the round goes it also has a risk to "chain" into the bin and set all the ammo off.

[bsmart]

In SW era games I leave it alone. No reason to change anything. I'll still take just about any variant that removes the AC/5 for something useful though.

[Beukeboom Fan]

in a succession war game, an autocannon 5 can hold its own, it is when the clans come that it loses it's purpose.

people tend to undervalue 5 damage dealing weapons, despite the fact that the fall back, the medium laser, is still to this date the number one damage dealer in the game.  for an energy weapon to do more then five damage you pay through the nose in mass and heat.  Seriously, a 400% increase in tonnage for 3 more damage to upgrade a large laser. 600% for a PPC. 

if you want an example of a well thought out AC 5 packing desgin, look no further then the CLNT-2-3T Clint.  this little 40 ton 6/9/6 jumper packs two medium lasers for up close work, and even though it could swap the auto cannon 5 for a PPC it would be unwise.  Why?  because the 6 heat from the jump jets and 10 heat from a PPC CRIPPLE the machine's heat burden, particularly if things get close enough for the medium lasers to come into play.  load balancing the mass savings from the AC-5 to PPC conversion does little to alleviate this.  the autocannon permits continuous long range fire at high maneuverability.

if anything I am of the mind that PPCs are overstated, over used, and almost not worth their time.  the PPCs main advocate machines, the Marauder and Warhammer, are better served with large lasers due to the reduced heat load and just how much armor they sacrifice to use such weapons

I'll strongly disagree on the Clint.   Replacing the AC/5 with a PPC doubles your damage output at range, and frees up sufficent tonnage to add armor, or armor & a heatsink.  If you're jumping - you'll probably miss with what-ever you're shooting regardless, so it's not the HUGE burden to not be able to jump + shoot the main gun.  Add in easier logistics, no explosions, and no reliance on ammo, and the PPC Clint would be a significant upgrade IMO. 

Comparing a ML to a large laser or PPC solely based on tonnage is misleading.  The real difference is the range factor, which you don't even mention. 

I think that if you look at the WHM/MAD D variants - it's not the PPC that's the issue - it's the other issues (the sacrifice of armor or HS for secondary armorment).  I do agree that the PPC's get overused, but that's because it's among the most efficient weapons in the game, especially after the introduction of the DHS.

And on the AC/5 - I'd think the most appropriate modification would be to allow for the early introduction of the speciality ammo's (precision).

[Paladin1]

I'm guessing he means double-tapping the ACs? The AC5 is perfect for that role, and of course the special ammo as well.

But yes, the AC5 is one of the worst weapons in the game sadly. I think it's cool because it's on my favourite 3025 'Mechs, but that's about it.

It may be one of the worst weapons in the game now, according to you, but how did it hold up to the other weapons back in the day when you didn't have the heat dissapation capabilities that you do now and heat build up was such a threat?  Under that situation, it becomes quite a bit more desireable.

[Paladin1]

I'll strongly disagree on the Clint.   Replacing the AC/5 with a PPC doubles your damage output at range, and frees up sufficent tonnage to add armor, or armor & a heatsink.  If you're jumping - you'll probably miss with what-ever you're shooting regardless, so it's not the HUGE burden to not be able to jump + shoot the main gun.  Add in easier logistics, no explosions, and no reliance on ammo, and the PPC Clint would be a significant upgrade IMO.

So, you'd like to see the Clint replace the AC/5 with a weapon that has double the damage at range, doesn't have severe heat problems, maintains the same movement profile, adds a bit of armor and is capable of doing without the jumpjets?

Congratulations, you just reinvented the Sentinel.   #P

[Beukeboom Fan]

So, you'd like to see the Clint replace the AC/5 with a weapon that has double the damage at range, doesn't have severe heat problems, maintains the same movement profile, adds a bit of armor and is capable of doing without the jumpjets?

Congratulations, you just reinvented the Sentinel.   #P

Not sure what point your making - as I wasn't trying to design a mech.  I was responding to JP's original point which was that the Clint didn't "improve" if you replaced the AC/5 with a PPC.   My point is that on a "single main gun" type of mech (most mediums)- you're almost always better with a PPC or LL.  On heavies - the negligible heat for the AC/5 makes for a nice "add on" when you've got tonnage available, but are at the high end of the heat scale already. 

I think the "early introduction" of the speciality ammo's is an easy fix for a 3025 type game.  No mech/vehicle redesigns necessary, and a nice bonus to an otherwise ineffecient weapon system that IMO really needs a boost to be even remotely competitive.

[Reaver]

One point that hasn't been mentioned yet, but should be included in any discussion of the AC-5, is its added flexibility and psychological value.  It's important to remember that AC-5s can be used much more effectively against infantry than a large laser or PPC, they can crit a vehicle just as well, and there fairly few instances where a large laser or PPC can force an aerospace fighter's control roll where an AC-5 cannot.

Further, AC-5's have an added psychological value in that they can usually plink away without being seen as a threat.  There have been a few times in my life when a Clint or Shadow Hawk ultimately did more damage than an Enforcer or a Phoenix Hawk simply because when people see a P-Hawk, they think "must drop the Phoenix Hawk!" where they look at the Clint and say "Eh, I can wait until next turn".

[Hellraiser]

I'll strongly disagree on the Clint.   Replacing the AC/5 with a PPC doubles your damage output at range, and frees up sufficent tonnage to add armor, or armor & a heatsink.  If you're jumping - you'll probably miss with what-ever you're shooting regardless, so it's not the HUGE burden to not be able to jump + shoot the main gun.  Add in easier logistics, no explosions, and no reliance on ammo, and the PPC Clint would be a significant upgrade IMO. 

So, You've just taken a mech that can Alpha on a run and cool off by 1, and downgraded it to a mech that can only walk while firing its main gun.  (Assuming 1 ton armor/1 heatsink on that swap)
You overheat by 5 on a jump w/ main gun.  You overheat by 7 on a running Alpha.
None of this even touches on the major problem w/ said refit and that is using it in a balanced game, see below.

Comparing a ML to a large laser or PPC solely based on tonnage is misleading.

Comparing two weapons w/o comparing there BV is also quite misleading.
Your swap above kicks up the BV of the Clint from 770 to 981, over 27% higher cost.
For that I can pay for a better gunner AND have enough left over for an Infantry Platoon.
Or I can just field 5 Clints to your 4 instead.


None of these even brings in the ammo that some mention or how some of it is 3025 usable even if more of it is 3060+.

[mutantmagnet]

Not sure what point your making - as I wasn't trying to design a mech.  I was responding to JP's original point which was that the Clint didn't "improve" if you replaced the AC/5 with a PPC.   My point is that on a "single main gun" type of mech (most mediums)- you're almost always better with a PPC or LL.

You are ignoring the playstyle the Clint is trying to cater to. It was an attempt with 3025 tech what the Wraith ended up being with post Invasion tech. The failings of the trying to say the AC 5 is the best weapon for that design specification is that the LRM 10 and medium laser has it beat in every category.

That exchange gives you significantly better armor, slightly better range, moderately better damage and significantly greater sustainability.

It may be one of the worst weapons in the game now, according to you, but how did it hold up to the other weapons back in the day when you didn't have the heat dissapation capabilities that you do now and heat build up was such a threat?  Under that situation, it becomes quite a bit more desireable.

No. Try playing with AC 5 mechs and then come back to us. BV obscures some of their issues since it is a good balancing system but the performance difference is still going to be noticeable over a series of games.

[Stormforge]

I have never modified them in games but looking at the AC series of weapons I always wondered why the damage wasnt 5/10/15/20, instead of 2/5/10/20.