Curbing the power of energy weapons

[mutantmagnet]

One of the baseline issues with 3025 play is the power of energy weapons against everything else.

I have a suggestion for one rule change that would fix almost everything.

When a heat tracking unit overheats, in the subsequent turn, any energy weapon that doesn't use ammo or is designated as "small" or "micro" generates an additional +1 heat when used. This effect persists as long as the unit has overheated in the previous turn.

Non-heat tracking units do not have to account for this overheat principle when allocating heatsinks.

With this change several issues are addressed.

Ammo based weapons are more dps efficient when running up the heat scale.
Small energy weapons have a place in fitting considerations.
SRMs and the AC 20 compare a lot better with medium lasers.
Fitting considerations for heavier energy weapons and lighter energy weapons is more nuanced.
Vehicle flamers aren't an automatic joke.

And for those who don't like the sub-rule about non heat tracking units keep in mind I'm doing that because every energy carrying design would become broken otherwise. No point in making a suggestion that forces people to buy new sheets and TROs.

[Stormfury]

I can only assume this is in response to custom energy boats, because canon designs and single heat sinks rarely cause problems.

If energy weapons are really problematic in custom play, surely by now someone will have deployed an SRM spam machine with Infernos to make a point?

[evilauthor]

Reflec armor halves the damage of all energy weapons, but comes with a few disadvantages that prevent widespread adoption. If you remove the disadvantages, call it "Improved Reflec", and then spread it as widely as DHS, you'll have effectively nerfed energy weapons without having to change any stats or rules.

[Kit deSummersville]

I have a suggestion for one rule change that would fix almost everything.

When a heat tracking unit overheats any energy weapon that doesn't use ammo or is designated as "small" or "micro" generates an additional +1 heat when used.

What does this mean? You can't overheat a weapon.

[A. Lurker]

What does this mean? You can't overheat a weapon.

I think he means "When a heat tracking unit overheats, any energy weapon [...]"; that is, the original sentence is missing a comma in a key spot. In other words, eligible energy weapons kick out +1 heat apiece when the unit they're mounted on already runs hot...though some clarification on just what that means in turn might be nice. Is this supposed to happen when there's positive heat left over from the last turn? When the current turn's heat buildup exceeds capacity? Inquiring minds want to know! :)

[mutantmagnet]

Reflec armor halves the damage of all energy weapons, but comes with a few disadvantages that prevent widespread adoption. If you remove the disadvantages, call it "Improved Reflec", and then spread it as widely as DHS, you'll have effectively nerfed energy weapons without having to change any stats or rules.

[rhetorical]Why do people bring up post-Invasion experimental solutions for pre-Memory Core combat?

Please. Stop doing that.

I think he means "When a heat tracking unit overheats, any energy weapon [...]"; that is, the original sentence is missing a comma in a key spot. In other words, eligible energy weapons kick out +1 heat apiece when the unit they're mounted on already runs hot...though some clarification on just what that means in turn might be nice.

Bingo. Each energy weapon generates an additional +1 heat until the unit stops developing excess heat that persists into the next turn.

The exception to this are energy weapons that use ammo and energy weapons counted as small or micro weapons.

[Ian Sharpe]

What about the optional rule for coolant effectiveness?  That will limit how often and how much players overheat or neglect to bring some cool-running ACs.

(My own solution rules-wise is to drastically cut back on how much heat ACs and LRMs generate.  They already are heavy and have explosive ammo, I don't like them generating heat as well.)

[Kit deSummersville]

[rhetorical]Why do people bring up post-Invasion experimental solutions for pre-Memory Core combat?

Please. Stop doing that.

Bingo. Each energy weapon generates an additional +1 heat until the unit stops developing excess heat that persists into the next turn.

The exception to this are energy weapons that use ammo and energy weapons counted as small or micro weapons.

You know, you if you want people to not offer post-Invasion solutions for pre-Memory Core combat, you should probably not bring up weapons that don't exist in that era. I think that's adding to the confusion.

So, if my Archer fires both his LRMs, if I want to add in a medium laser it would cost me 4 heat to do so?

[NightmareSteel]

[rhetorical]Why do people bring up post-Invasion experimental solutions for pre-Memory Core combat?

Please. Stop doing that.

snip

Snip

When a heat tracking unit overheats any energy weapon that doesn't use ammo or is designated as "small" or "micro" generates an additional +1 heat when used.

snip

 ::)

Do you mean Medium?

Alternative rule: rewrite the heat table, so that each ammo explosion line reads "Ammo explosion/cooling failure," cooling failure defined as +1 heat from a small laser, +2 heat from a medium, and +3 heat from a large.  Suddenly you risk dramatic overheating on laser boats.

Edit: Bah.  Kit caught it first- That's what I get for taking time to confirm suspicions.

[niall78]

Ban silly custom all energy mechs for your games? I find customs in any era can badly unbalance play. Or add a custom build rule that all energy weapons are not allowed.

[evilauthor]

[rhetorical]Why do people bring up post-Invasion experimental solutions for pre-Memory Core combat?

Please. Stop doing that.

Oh, 3025 era? Isn't being forced to use Single Heat Sinks a big enough nerf all by itself?  :D

How about a rule where you can't fire energy weapons if your total heat exceeds the heat sink capacity of your mech? Or you can, but you have to make a roll to see if your energy weapon fries itself with the penalty being based on how much overheat is generated. Take a Warhammer for example; it has 2 PPCs and 18 heat sinks. It can fire one PPC with no problem. Firing both PPCs at a standstill generates 2 overheat, so at the end of the turn, roll against the number 2 for each PPC to see if one of them "burns out" and becomes dead weight for the rest of the battle. If the Warhammer walked, it's 3 or less to get a burn out. If the Warhammer ran, it's 4 or less.

[mutantmagnet]

So, if my Archer fires both his LRMs, if I want to add in a medium laser it would cost me 4 heat to do so?

If you overheated in the previous turn yes. If this is your first time firing the LRMs then no.

All that matters is if you overheated in the prior turn.

If energy weapons are really problematic in custom play, surely by now someone will have deployed an SRM spam machine with Infernos to make a point?

This is about both. Besides SRM spam isn't just effective against energy boats it is useful against any design that rides the heat scale in an efficient manner.

[Kit deSummersville]

If you overheated in the previous turn yes. If this is your first time firing the LRMs then no.

All that matters is if you overheated in the prior turn.

Uff, I think you need to reword your rule before discussing things further.

[Wanderer]

One of the baseline issues with 3025 play is the power of energy weapons against everything else.

Energy weapons are superior in any sense of the word, regardless of era. That's why the most hideous designs in the game are all PPC boats- the Awesome, later the Clan Hellstar for example. Or pulse laser boats. And so on. 'Mechs fear energy weapons most of all, especially as they moved into the range of headcapping levels of damage.

They didn't put a decent anti-energy weapon in until plasma rifles, and flamers are a joke for heating up targets. Infernos at least make a decent defensive weapon in that they'll force most sane opponents to cut a few guns out of their barrage lest you heat them to the point of crippling targeting or worse.

Fortunately, ballistic and missile weapons get some decent options later....and energy weapons can stink against non 'Mech units in 3025 play.

There's nothing more amusing than watching an Awesome go down against a pack of cheapo infantry that it can barely fry three at a time on a good day, and a barrage of missiles is generally better at crippling vehicles than spraying them with a large laser. That's the truth, even in non-3025 play. Energy weapons are the best brute-force damage sources, while ballistic and missile weapons do the jobs for everything else.

[faraday77]

@ OP: Honestly? There's no need to nerf energy weapons, especially not in SW tech eras with single heat sinks. [T1 energy weapons combined with double heat sinks are the exception to this, but the status quo will return after the whole range of ER weapons becomes available.]

Lasers and PPCs are good hard target killers because they were designed to do that. Ballistic and missile weapons were made to be more effective against both hard and soft targets.

So, don't clutter up the game further with additional rules - just introduce most of the various special ammunitions from later eras earlier and you're done.

[evilauthor]

There's nothing more amusing than watching an Awesome go down against a pack of cheapo infantry that it can barely fry three at a time on a good day, and a barrage of missiles is generally better at crippling vehicles than spraying them with a large laser. That's the truth, even in non-3025 play. Energy weapons are the best brute-force damage sources, while ballistic and missile weapons do the jobs for everything else.

And to solve that problem, replace one or more of those PPCs with Plasma Rifles.

Of course, getting smacked with 3 or 4 plasma rifles is no picnic for a mech either...  }:)

[Onisuzume]

Reflec armor halves the damage of all energy weapons, but comes with a few disadvantages that prevent widespread adoption. If you remove the disadvantages, call it "Improved Reflec", and then spread it as widely as DHS, you'll have effectively nerfed energy weapons without having to change any stats or rules.

Then I demand that Reactive Armour is given the same treatment.

[A. Lurker]

So, don't clutter up the game further with additional rules - just introduce most of the various special ammunitions from later eras earlier and you're done.

For that matter, TacOps flak and tracer autocannon ammo date back to the 24th century and never seem to have gone entirely away. So if one doesn't mind dipping into the 'advanced' rules just one tiny bit -- and if we're in house rule country in the first place, why not? --, there are canon 3025-era special-purpose munitions for ACs, in addition to whatever one might want to back-date. (Flechette would probably be a good candidate for showing up early, and AP could IMO be justified if anybody actually wants it. No Precision without a really good excuse, tho.)

I'm personally not all that convinced that energy weapons are particularly unbalanced as long as all you disallow double heat sinks, either; but that's just me, and I tend to look down on pure 'flashbulb' designs a bit in the first place because I just find them somewhat boring. So, not the most unbiased of sources here. :)

[Wanderer]

And to solve that problem, replace one or more of those PPCs with Plasma Rifles.

Of course, getting smacked with 3 or 4 plasma rifles is no picnic for a mech either...  }:)

Yep. And you don't have plasma rifles until the late 3060's anyway.

[Kit deSummersville]

Then I demand that Reactive Armour is given the same treatment.

No way, it's too moody. Poke it a little bit and it blows up at you. Until it behaves better it's stuck as it is.

[massey]

Use the old rules for Infernos.  Most custom energy boats are designed to make the most of their heat sinks.  They don't have any to spare.  So you hit a guy with an (old rules) Inferno SRM 2, and he's got an extra 6 heat for 3 rounds (or 6 rounds, if both hit).  The next turn, he'll take an additional 2 because he moved through a fire hex (presuming he moves out of it).

They REALLY nerfed Infernos in TW.

[Stormfury]

I dunno about that. It's now possible to deliver 15 damage from Infernos in a single turn. They're great against Battle Armour now, too.

The only downside is that vehicles don't take pop tests.

[mutantmagnet]

Lasers and PPCs are good hard target killers because they were designed to do that. Ballistic and missile weapons were made to be more effective against both hard and soft targets.

So, don't clutter up the game further with additional rules - just introduce most of the various special ammunitions from later eras earlier and you're done.

*shrug* So you do agree energy weapons are out of hand. Retconning history to make solutions is just as sensible as cluttering up the rules with something as simple as most energy weapons overheat after a heat tracking unit overheats.

Use the old rules for Infernos.  Most custom energy boats are designed to make the most of their heat sinks.  They don't have any to spare.  So you hit a guy with an (old rules) Inferno SRM 2, and he's got an extra 6 heat for 3 rounds (or 6 rounds, if both hit).  The next turn, he'll take an additional 2 because he moved through a fire hex (presuming he moves out of it).

They REALLY nerfed Infernos in TW.

Infernos should stay as is. The live or die coin flip for non-heat tracking units was obnoxious. Besides with no limit to the heat that can be poured on ammo dependent mechs were prone to ammo explosions unlike what we have now.

[faraday77]

*shrug* So you do agree energy weapons are out of hand. Retconning history to make solutions is just as sensible as cluttering up the rules with something as simple as most energy weapons overheat after a heat tracking unit overheats.

See also A.Lurker's post above.

I'm saying that a) energy weapons were designed with a very specific/narrow range of targets in mind compared to ballistic and missile weapons, and b) the 'retcon' is far more simpler/elegant than even more rules and tracking yet another fiddly bit for dubious rewards. I rather prefer the KISS approach when it comes to the TTG. YMMV.

[massey]

I dunno about that. It's now possible to deliver 15 damage from Infernos in a single turn. They're great against Battle Armour now, too.

The only downside is that vehicles don't take pop tests.

They were good against Battle Armor before, too.  I don't care for a lot of the changes that were made in TW, and still generally play by the Master Rules set.  I think most of the changes neutered 'mechs, and acted as a buff to vehicles and infantry.  In my mind that's like giving the guy Arnold Schwarzenegger kills in the opening scene more screen time.  The movie isn't about Terrorist #6.  Infernos now may allow for a good one-turn heat spike, but I don't think they're worth it under the new rules.

[willydstyle]

I was thinking of this yesterday, but would take things in a different direction:

When taking the piloting test for 20+ damage at the end of the shooting phase, if the largest portion of the damage was from laser weapons, the test is at straight piloting skill.

If the largest portion of the damage was non-laser energy weapons, the test is at the normal +1.

If the largest portion of the damage was from missile or ballistic weapons, the test is at +2.

In event of a tie between damage types, use the normal +1 penalty.

[Wanderer]

Considering you can actually roast a target with single heat sinks to death, oh yes that 15-point heatup vs. the constant six is very, very useful.

I managed to catch a Rifleman by surprise in a 3025-era match with a Whitworth-S.

He hit me with both AC's and a large laser + walked. +1 overheat.

I pasted him with both SRM racks full of inferno rounds. Eight hit, +15 more heat, shuts down but otherwise completely undamaged.

I then stood there and napalmed his helpless machine repeatedly until the ammo cooked off, which actually took two turns (failed to restart, succeeded on ammo explosion roll turn 2, failed ammo roll turn 3 and *BOOM*).  Not quite as satisfying as shoving a virgin Axman off a cliff to it's death, but the look on that guy's face was worth every second when he realized what I was doing. If he'd been smart enough to dump ammo I would have just added in the medium lasers + kick every turn until he stopped twitching, but the idea of someone baking his machine till it popped just made the idea leave his mind.

It won't stop an energy boat, but it'll sure as heck make it slow down greatly- even a single hot SRM-6 salvo is enough for that.  People just don't use heat effects cause they're conditioned to believe that double sinks make it ineffective. Not at all. All your opponent has to do is push their sinks, which most intelligent opponents will do. If he drops firing weapons for fear of being flamed, you win either way- a heat crippled opponent, or less firepower incoming.

[Dread Moores]

They were good against Battle Armor before, too.

They're still effective against battle armor under TW.

[willydstyle]

Are infernos available in early eras?

[Peter Smith]

Are infernos available in early eras?

Yes. Somebody figured out how to make 'em ten years after SRMs were introduced (2370 and 2380) and they've stayed in use ever since.

[willydstyle]

What do people think about my idea that missile and ballistic weapons will knock you over better than energy weapons will?

[A. Lurker]

What do people think about my idea that missile and ballistic weapons will knock you over better than energy weapons will?

A bit too complicated for my taste, to be honest. Besides, the notion that weapons-grade energy beams should have less 'impact' than shells and missiles may actually fail the plausibility check -- with the amounts of power they obviously have to be pouring into destroying hundreds of kilograms of armor in the blink of an eye with each hit, I'd personally expect to see proper vapor-and-superheated-fragments explosions happen wherever they touch. I mean, we're not exactly talking about just taking a blowtorch to helpless pewter here. :D

[Kiesel]

Yeah... People forget all the time about the expansion inherent in "Vaporizing" a target. 
I.E. that gas takes up 22 times the volume of a solid or liquid.

Although realistically, Battletech lasers aren't actually vaporizing more than a surface layer of the target, most of the actual damage is through melting effects.

This is the whole rational of pulse lasers, because the "pulse" serves to clear away the vapor cloud, and allow the laser to inflict greater heating directly to the surface.

[willydstyle]

There's no way that the explosion that results from a laser hit is going to have any where *near* the same kinetic energy that a ballistic weapon impact is going to impart on its target, *especially* if the ballistic weapon does not penetrate the target.

Also, it's not a complicated rule at all. For example, if you take an 8 point hit from a large laser, a 10 point hit from an AC/10, and a 2 point hit from a machine gun, then the largest part of damage taken that turn is from ballistic weapons, therefore an additional +1 on your piloting roll.

[Onisuzume]

What do people think about my idea that missile and ballistic weapons will knock you over better than energy weapons will?

PPCs should be at +1 since they also deliver kinetic damage.
And if you believe MechWarrior 4: Mercenaries, then they also screw up the electronics for a moment.

[A. Lurker]

There's no way that the explosion that results from a laser hit is going to have any where *near* the same kinetic energy that a ballistic weapon impact is going to impart on its target, *especially* if the ballistic weapon does not penetrate the target.

Well, that's the problem with weapons that don't exist yet in real life. Everybody thinks they know how they should work, but not everybody agrees with what everybody else is thinking...and unlike with weapons that do exist in real life, there's a certain dearth of cold hard first-hand experience to draw upon. ;)

(As for the kinetic energy of missiles and shells, keep in mind that those typically used in BT aren't actually all that heavy. Even a full AC/20 burst only works out to 200 kilograms, and that's presumably in the form of multiple and thus individually lighter shots. 'Mechs start at 20 tons. A case could probably be made that what forces the PSR here is really primarily the shift in weight distribution and thus balance from suddenly losing over a ton of armor, not the raw impact of a bunch of explosive pebbles as such.)

Also, it's not a complicated rule at all. For example, if you take an 8 point hit from a large laser, a 10 point hit from an AC/10, and a 2 point hit from a machine gun, then the largest part of damage taken that turn is from ballistic weapons, therefore an additional +1 on your piloting roll.

Well, your mileage obviously varies there. I'll freely admit that these days BattleTech is already a bit too crunchy for me right out of the box, and I count myself lucky that I have MegaMek to do much of the heavy lifting; at the actual gaming table, having to remember "okay, how much damage to this, that, and the other 'Mech came from what again?" turn after turn as appropriate would just add another detail to keep track of that I can just as well do without.

No, if I felt that ballistic weapons needed a serious boost, I'd consider allowing at least some of them to use the same indirect fire rules that LRMs already do. I mean, we call them ballistic weapons for a reason, right? :)

[willydstyle]

Remember that kinetic energy increases at the *square* of velocity.  Sure, that AC/20 shot is only 200 kilos, but traveling how fast?

Lets work under the assumption that two weapons that do the same amount of damage have the same amount of energy transfer to the target.  The laser weapon is going to be transferring most of its energy in the form of vaporization, as it takes a *huge* amount of energy to turn a solid with a high melting point (armor and internal structure) into gas.

As far as PPCs having a better chance to knock the target over than lasers, that is taken into account in that it is a non-laser (so no bonus to the piloting check) but non-ballistic as well, so no penalty to the piloting check.

[evilauthor]

Ooh! Idea!

Energy weapons draw alot of power right? How about instead of nerfing their performance, you increase the penalty for carrying them? Make them like Gauss Rifles; if you crit one, they EXPLODE, inflicting the damage they normally put out on the mech carrying them.

Now you have a damn good reason not to carry 10 Medium Lasers...

[deathfrombeyond]

I'm still not understanding how energy weapons are overpowered in 3025 compared to non energy weapons in the same era.

While 3025 era custom designs using energy weapons certainly lend themselves to be overpowered compared to 3025 era custom designs that don't, the most glaring game imbalance for energy weapons sure isn't in 3025.

It's the double heat sink, plain and simple. With double heat sinks, a BattleMech's firepower can be effectively doubled for a pittance in critical spaces. Additionally, double heat sinks take away the one disadvantage energy weapons previously had: namely, the higher amount of tonnage and crit space allocated to heat sinks for energy weapons compared to non energy weapons.

I proposed a house rule that nerfs double heat sinks by causing them to generate 4 points of heat every turn after it is critically hit until the critical hit is repaired or the double heat sink is removed.

[deathfrombeyond]

Ooh! Idea!

Energy weapons draw alot of power right? How about instead of nerfing their performance, you increase the penalty for carrying them? Make them like Gauss Rifles; if you crit one, they EXPLODE, inflicting the damage they normally put out on the mech carrying them.

What would the pilot damage be?

[evilauthor]

What would the pilot damage be?

Same for any other explosion?

[Kiesel]

Making lasers and PPCs explode would only make sense if the lasers/PPCs were drawing from a capacitor bank in the same way as a gauss rifle or PPC+capacitor.

The internal capacitor would only explode when full, so it would not explode during any weapon phase where the laser was fired.
Thus only exploding on turns in which they were not fired.

If you wanted, you could also have keeping the weapon capacitor charged might generate a point of heat from a trickle charger. (0 from a small, 1 from a medium, 2 from a large, 3 from a PPC)  The charging heat would already be included in the normal heat from firing the weapon, so this would only add extra heat on turns that the weapon was not fired.
This would however impair canon mechs designed for bracket fire, or with backup lasers.
It would probably be best to allow the mechs to de-activate their energy weapons when not in use.  If de-activated, the weapon would not generate any heat, but would not be able to fire on the same turn that they re-activated their weapons.

Only the first of these changes is really feasible without utterly re-balancing the entire weapon list thougjh.

The energy weapons are well enough balanced by tonnage as long as you stick to 3025 tech.  And the BV system does a decent enough job of balancing stuff afterwards. 
And if you are trying to balance everything by tonnage over an in game period of 50+ years of technological advances and an invading army of advanced uber-mensch, you are missing the point.

(the medium laser is more efficient than the both the SRM and AC-20 by the same amount, but they are better crit-seekers and hole punchers, meanwhile the large laser is nearly identical in damage/ton to the AC-10.  The only odd men out are the AC-5 and AC-2 which are ineffective compared to the PPC and LRM, and that is more a problem with the light ACs than with the PPC or LRM system.)

[Nebfer]

One could always have energy weapons require power to function. I.e. All reactors have a set amount of energy capacity for their energy weapons. The more they have the more they use up their available energy capacity. once reached they can not mount any more energy weapons, or at the lest not be able to fire all of them at the same time...

[Peter Smith]

One could always have energy weapons require power to function. I.e. All reactors have a set amount of energy capacity for their energy weapons. The more they have the more they use up their available energy capacity. once reached they can not mount any more energy weapons, or at the lest not be able to fire all of them at the same time...

CAV had this mechanic, I believe.

[evilauthor]

Making lasers and PPCs explode would only make sense if the lasers/PPCs were drawing from a capacitor bank in the same way as a gauss rifle or PPC+capacitor.

The internal capacitor would only explode when full, so it would not explode during any weapon phase where the laser was fired.
Thus only exploding on turns in which they were not fired.

But don't Gauss Rifles explode whether they fired or not? Why not treat energy weapons the same way?

[A. Lurker]

It's the double heat sink, plain and simple.

Oh, I quite agree. Which is why what I've been tinkering with lately have been mostly notional "alternate universe" designs allowed to freely use any and all Inner Sphere tech, no matter how rare and/or experimental the canon sources normally make it out to be...except double heat sinks, which by designer fiat simply don't work "over there".

It's been a breath of fresh air to me, although I suppose some of the pilots of the resulting designs might not put it quite the same way. ;)

[A. Lurker]

Remember that kinetic energy increases at the *square* of velocity.  Sure, that AC/20 shot is only 200 kilos, but traveling how fast?

Lets work under the assumption that two weapons that do the same amount of damage have the same amount of energy transfer to the target.  The laser weapon is going to be transferring most of its energy in the form of vaporization, as it takes a *huge* amount of energy to turn a solid with a high melting point (armor and internal structure) into gas.

Emphasis mine. Yes, it takes a huge amount of energy to spontaneously convert a solid into gas. And BT energy weapons clearly can provide that energy -- even at the target point, after all the losses and inefficiencies involved in getting it there and properly absorbed by said target. Which to me suggests that you may still be underestimating just how powerful they 'really' are.

The notion that energy weapons do most of their damage by just plain melting armor off the target without significant impact effects (as, I'll admit, quite a bit of the fiction does like to describe it) is, as far as I'm concerned, about on the level of Jules Verne's idea of shooting men to the moon out of a giant cannon -- plausible enough in a "common sense" way, just overlooking a few minor technical issues. :)

[faraday77]

CAV had this mechanic, I believe.

From memory: power was the heat equivalent of CAV1, with the difference that there was no additional heat scale. If you used up all the available power on a turn, you couldn't fire any more weapons. Damage to the firing unit also influenced the available power points.

[willydstyle]

Emphasis mine. Yes, it takes a huge amount of energy to spontaneously convert a solid into gas. And BT energy weapons clearly can provide that energy -- even at the target point, after all the losses and inefficiencies involved in getting it there and properly absorbed by said target. Which to me suggests that you may still be underestimating just how powerful they 'really' are.

The notion that energy weapons do most of their damage by just plain melting armor off the target without significant impact effects (as, I'll admit, quite a bit of the fiction does like to describe it) is, as far as I'm concerned, about on the level of Jules Verne's idea of shooting men to the moon out of a giant cannon -- plausible enough in a "common sense" way, just overlooking a few minor technical issues. :)

Yes, and what I'm saying is that with the huge amount of energy required to break the chemical bonds that hold the material together, very little energy is going to be left over to give the resultant explosion much kinetic force at all.

To simplify: projectile weapons will transfer damage almost purely kinetically, thus when you start looking at "equal and opposite" reactions, it's going to create a lot more kinetic energy in the target, where if you look at a laser vaporizing armor, so much of the energy is going to be consumed by the phase transitions that you're going to have little energy left over that is kinetic, and thus the resultant explosion will simply not cause the target to recoil as hard as the projectile weapon will.

[deathfrombeyond]

So, I was coming up with other means that might nerf energy weapons, with a minimum of changes to existing game stats and game designs.

How about reducing the amount of "free" heat sinks with a fusion engine from 10 to 5?

[Peter Smith]

How about reducing the amount of "free" heat sinks with a fusion engine from 10 to 5?

The problem with that is you have a fusion reactor that can run away on you after enough damage. The ten free sinks means you can take two hits to the shielding and, assuming no other source of heat to deal with, not increase heat. But cut that down to five? Either change the overheat penalty for a damaged engine or watch as your heat continues to rise.

Pray you're not trapped in a 'Mech with ammo.

[deathfrombeyond]

The problem with that is you have a fusion reactor that can run away on you after enough damage. The ten free sinks means you can take two hits to the shielding and, assuming no other source of heat to deal with, not increase heat. But cut that down to five? Either change the overheat penalty for a damaged engine or watch as your heat continues to rise.

Anything that shortens the already too long lifespan of Introductory level 'Mechs is a okay in my book.

[Dread Moores]

No idea how it would work, but another possibility is to force the vehicle rules on energy weapons. You must have enough heat sinks to cover every energy weapon, ammo weapons produce no heat.

[Kiesel]

The PSR modifier change is unworkable from a physics standpoint.

There are real world examples of the precursors of all battletech weaponry, with the sole exception of PPCs and other plasma weapons.
Not a single one of them relies on direct transfer of kinetic energy spread over the exterior of the target. (shoving the target around)
(the sole exception being nuclear weapons but they are not mounted on mechs)

In the case of kinetic energy penetrators, either the projectile directly deforms a small area of the target, or the conversion of kinetic energy into heat from the impact melts or sets components on fire.
In the case of explosive penetrators, the explosion either directly deforms a small area of the target at a much lower efficiency than a kinetic penetrator, or creates a secondary kinetic energy penetrator via a shaped charge & metal liner or through spalling effects.
In the case of Lasers, the laser heats a small area of the target until it melts or ignites. The only kinetic energy transfer is from a small amount of vapor created that works on the same principle as a rocket.  (this vapor is behind on of the more feasible asteroid defense concepts.)

In fact, every single weapon type tries as hard as possible to avoid transferring kinetic energy to the vehicle as a whole.
The ideal kinetic energy weapon transfers all its kinetic energy only into the target component, which then converts the kinetic energy completely into heat as it deforms.  Any kinetic energy not used to deform the target component is effectively wasted.
The goal of an explosive device is the same.
A laser has an even bigger problem with kinetic energy since the jet of expanding vapor directly interferes with the process of melting the target. (which is what pulse lasers fix.)


@ willydstyle
The energy from the laser goes into the molecules of the target, where it is converted from heat directly into kinetic energy, which then tears the molecules apart.  If the laser does this slowly then melting occurs, if quickly then the vaporization occurs.  If the vaporization is faster than the speed of sound, then this is called an explosion.
Vaporizing slow enough to not explode would result in the target melting long before it was vaporized.
Thus, for a weapon, vaporization = explosion, and the kinetic force of the explosion is inherently equal to the amount of energy input by the laser.

@ evilauthor
In respect to the question about why the capacitor explosion would only occur when charged, despite the gauss rifle always exploding.
I was treating the built in capacitor in the same manner as the existing PPC capacitor which only explodes when charged, and not on the same turn it was fired.
Although presumably the gauss rifle could be powered by 2 capacitor banks and only one is kept charged at any one time.
If you take that route for the lasers you could make a case for the lasers exploding all the time.

[Onisuzume]

And then there's the gauss rifle (coilgun or railgun).
Which, afaik, relies on the transference of kinetic energy because, well, its projectile don't really have much else.
In BT, at least, the projectile is a solid chunk of ferromagnetic material.
Since its solid (and doesn't explode when the ammo crit is hit), what could it possibly do other than relying on kinetic energy transfer?

[Kiesel]

And then there's the gauss rifle (coilgun or railgun).
Which, afaik, relies on the transference of kinetic energy because, well, its projectile don't really have much else.
In BT, at least, the projectile is a solid chunk of ferromagnetic material.
Since its solid (and doesn't explode when the ammo crit is hit), what could it possibly do other than relying on kinetic energy transfer?

It relies on kinetic energy transfer to as small an area of the target as possible.
Which in an ideal weapon would then use all of that kinetic energy to deform that small area of the target, converting the energy into deformation heat, and spend NONE of the energy moving the target itself.
Once again, any kinetic energy which shoves the entire vehicle is WASTED energy that did not cause damage to the target.

Plus with a straightforward coilgun, the kinetic energy that hits the target will always be limited to smaller than the amount that is experienced as recoil.
(due to the kinetic energy of the shot being split between forcing air out of the way, and the target itself)
So realistically, the ONLY gauss rifle that that could ever cause a PSR from sheer kinetic impact alone would be the heavy gauss rifle, since it is the only one which causes a PSR in the firing unit.


Effectively, any leftover energy which shoves the target, is energy which did not cause damage to the target.

[evilauthor]

@ evilauthor
In respect to the question about why the capacitor explosion would only occur when charged, despite the gauss rifle always exploding.
I was treating the built in capacitor in the same manner as the existing PPC capacitor which only explodes when charged, and not on the same turn it was fired.
Although presumably the gauss rifle could be powered by 2 capacitor banks and only one is kept charged at any one time.
If you take that route for the lasers you could make a case for the lasers exploding all the time.

Exactly. If you fluff that lasers ALWAYS explode when hit, AND their game usage has them able to fire every round like a Gauss Rifle, then they can't be treated like a PPC Capacitor because you can only use a PPC Capacitor every other round. Remember, the OP is looking for ways to nerf energy weapons. Having them explode when they're hit without changing their game performance in any other way demands Gauss like behavior, not PPC Capacitor behavior.

[willydstyle]

@Kiesel: there is an energy that must be applied to molecular bonds to break them that does *not* transfer into the kinetic energy of the molecule. This is why ice that is melting remains 32 degrees until the entire sample is melted, because energy that is being absorbed is being used to break bonds rather than increase temperature (which is really a way to measure average molecular kinetic energy). Similarly, a substance that is being turned into a gas has to have enough energy put in, that is *not* transferred to molecular kinetic energy, to break the weaker intermolecular forces of a liquid.

Also, BT armor *has to* absorb all of the kinetic energy of a projectile, because it is, in most cases, not penetrated by the first hit.

[Fear Factory]

I still like the exploding heat sink rule the best.   A critical hit to a double heat sink causes it to malfunction and cause double the heat it normally dissipates (so a DHS hit makes it cause 4 heat instead of dissipate 2).  Simple.  }:)

Lays the smack down on this overpowered piece of equipment and overpowered designs that use them.

[A. Lurker]

I still like the exploding heat sink rule the best.   A critical hit to a double heat sink causes it to malfunction and cause double the heat it normally dissipates (so a DHS hit makes it cause 4 heat instead of dissipate 2).  Simple.  }:)

Lays the smack down on this overpowered piece of equipment and overpowered designs that use them.

With regard to double heat sinks, my main concern are actually those hiding in the engine which can't be individually hit by definition.

Hmmm...have DHS-equipped engines put out twice the heat of their SHS-equipped equivalents if damaged, perhaps? (Which is to say, 10 per hit rather than 5?) That might actually go a long way right there...

But, let's not forget that the OP was talking about the single heat sink era. If energy weapons are unbalanced in that context already (and despite the prevalence of the medium laser I'm not sure they are as an entire category), they need to be addressed as such.

[deathfrombeyond]

I still like the exploding heat sink rule the best.   A critical hit to a double heat sink causes it to malfunction and cause double the heat it normally dissipates (so a DHS hit makes it cause 4 heat instead of dissipate 2).  Simple.  }:)

Lays the smack down on this overpowered piece of equipment and overpowered designs that use them.

There is one bit of bookkeeping that I overlooked...what happens to double heat sinks that are severed from the engine, like a critically hit double heat sink on an arm location that is later destroyed? What about an undamaged double heat sink on a location that is completely destroyed, like the aforementioned arm location?

:: shrugs ::

But, let's not forget that the OP was talking about the single heat sink era. If energy weapons are unbalanced in that context already (and despite the prevalence of the medium laser I'm not sure they are as an entire category), they need to be addressed as such.

Well, I suppose the exploding double heat sink house rule could be adapted for critically hit single heat sinks. Of course, the side effects wouldn't be nearly as directed against energy weapons as exploding double heat sinks, but still...

[Wanderer]

Exploding heat sink anything is turning internal damage into a death sentence.

Keep it simple, if you REALLY want to house rule it.

Double heat sinks use chemicals that react poorly to being exposed to open air and heated. The first critical hit to a DHS inflicts two points of damage to that location, resulting in an additional roll for additional critical hits if internal structure is damaged. Multiple critical hits to an already damaged double heat sink do not cause additional damage beyond the first.

Voila. No earthshaking changes needed to the sheets or sudden massive loss of durability, but a DHS is no longer a simple damage sink- since each one hit forces additional chances for criticals while inflicting minor extra damage on the 'Mech.

[Fear Factory]

Exploding heat sink anything is turning internal damage into a death sentence.

Keep it simple, if you REALLY want to house rule it.

Double heat sinks use chemicals that react poorly to being exposed to open air and heated. The first critical hit to a DHS inflicts two points of damage to that location, resulting in an additional roll for additional critical hits if internal structure is damaged. Multiple critical hits to an already damaged double heat sink do not cause additional damage beyond the first.

Voila. No earthshaking changes needed to the sheets or sudden massive loss of durability, but a DHS is no longer a simple damage sink- since each one hit forces additional chances for criticals while inflicting minor extra damage on the 'Mech.

I like the idea.  I would prefer a hit to the DHS destroying it and causing two points of damage, forcing a critical hit.  However, it should have a -1 modifier to avoid 3 criticals or a limb becoming blown off.

[Onisuzume]

It relies on kinetic energy transfer to as small an area of the target as possible.
Which in an ideal weapon would then use all of that kinetic energy to deform that small area of the target, converting the energy into deformation heat, and spend NONE of the energy moving the target itself.
Once again, any kinetic energy which shoves the entire vehicle is WASTED energy that did not cause damage to the target.

And that risks making the projectile to small, causing it to pass through the target without causing any real damage.

Plus with a straightforward coilgun, the kinetic energy that hits the target will always be limited to smaller than the amount that is experienced as recoil.
(due to the kinetic energy of the shot being split between forcing air out of the way, and the target itself)
So realistically, the ONLY gauss rifle that that could ever cause a PSR from sheer kinetic impact alone would be the heavy gauss rifle, since it is the only one which causes a PSR in the firing unit.

And you just explained why PSR checks are made at 20 damage recieved and not 15 damage.  ::)

But really though, do lasers really need to be nerfed that much?

[evilauthor]

But really though, do lasers really need to be nerfed that much?

In 3025 where they have to rely on SHS? Probably not. In the post 3025 era of DHS? Again, it's not that energy weapons are so good, it's that heat sinking has gotten so good as to amerliorate energy weapon's primary disadvantage: heat. And even then, missiles benefit almost as much from DHS as energy weapons do and provide a service that they do better than energy weapons: crit seeking.. The real losers of the DHS revolution are the ballistic weapons, because their primary disadvantages is their sheer TONNAGE while providing no function that isn't already done by energy weapons. I'm not sure there's anyway to mitigate the ballistic weapons' disadvantage without resorting to making new weapons or inventing setting-breaking technologies (antigravity?).

[deathfrombeyond]

Exploding heat sink anything is turning internal damage into a death sentence.

Keep it simple, if you REALLY want to house rule it.

Double heat sinks use chemicals that react poorly to being exposed to open air and heated. The first critical hit to a DHS inflicts two points of damage to that location, resulting in an additional roll for additional critical hits if internal structure is damaged. Multiple critical hits to an already damaged double heat sink do not cause additional damage beyond the first.

When trying to restore balance to something like double heat sinks that are horribly imbalanced in favor of a very specific type of weapon, I'm not a huge fan of detriment that only lasts a single turn.

I mean turning a critically hit DHS into a one time two point ammunition bin, with (presumably) no damage to the pilot? That's still not very much of a deterrent against using a flashbulb heavily dependent on DHS, because presumably, there'd also be some kind of BV bonus for using DHS (because they explode for negligible damage) compared to single heat sinks (which don't explode at all).

A persistent six point increase in heat per turn per damaged double heat sink? That's a pretty strong downside to relying on high heat weaponry, right?

:: shrugs :: To each their own.

[Fear Factory]

In 3025 where they have to rely on SHS? Probably not. In the post 3025 era of DHS? Again, it's not that energy weapons are so good, it's that heat sinking has gotten so good as to amerliorate energy weapon's primary disadvantage: heat. And even then, missiles benefit almost as much from DHS as energy weapons do and provide a service that they do better than energy weapons: crit seeking.. The real losers of the DHS revolution are the ballistic weapons, because their primary disadvantages is their sheer TONNAGE while providing no function that isn't already done by energy weapons. I'm not sure there's anyway to mitigate the ballistic weapons' disadvantage without resorting to making new weapons or inventing setting-breaking technologies (antigravity?).

This.

Honestly.  There should be a downfall to using Double Heat Sinks other than their size.  They have been the primary game changer for years... even with the introduction of all new weapons.

When trying to restore balance to something like double heat sinks that are horribly imbalanced in favor of a very specific type of weapon, I'm not a huge fan of detriment that only lasts a single turn.

Very good point.

[evilauthor]

Retcon ho!

Double heat sinks are no longer 1 ton and 3 crits each. They are now 2 tons and 2 crits each. You still get 10 free heat sinks per engine, but after that? The benefits of DHS quickly dwindle away.

Hmm... still doesn't help Ballistics though...

The Hyperspace Box.
This marvel of KF engineering warps space time inside a mech in such a way that everything placed inside it gets its effective mass reduced in half. However, heat sinks cannot be placed inside the Hyperspace Box and still be effective. In fact, due to the enclosed nature of the Hyperspace Box, it cannot itself dump heat so coolant plumbing must be run inside through the connection portal, an inefficient process that causes everything inside it to effectively generate twice the heat they normally do.

Rules:
1) The Hyperspace box weighs half the tonnage of whatever is put inside it. Items put inside the Hyperspace Box, are themselves treated as having no mass.
2) The Hyperspace box occupies one crit for every 5 tons round up that the Box holds. These crits represent the "access portal" by which everything in the Box may be accessed.
3) Weapons may be placed in the Hyperspace Box, with their muzzles pointing out through the access portal. Weapons inside the Box generate double the heat they normally do.
4) Ammo does not require crits unless weapons that use that ammo are not in the same hyperspace box as the ammo. In the latter case, each different ammo type that's used outside of its hyperspace box needs its own access portal crit.
5) Certain equipment cannot be placed inside the Hyperspace Box and still function correctly. The list of such equipment includes engines, heat sinks, electronics such as Probes and ECM, gyros, sensors, actuators, structure, and armor.
6) If a Hyperspace Box is critically hit, the access portal will be destroyed and everything in that box will effectively cease to exist as far as the rest of the universe is concerned. lost in the depths of hyperspace. What happens to the contents are effectively unknown and the subject of much speculation.
7) Hyperspace boxes can me mounted in any section, can by multiply mounted on a single platform, and more than one hyperspace box can mounted in a single section.

Okay, yes, this is setting-breaking technology, but it's not GAME breaking. Effectively, the Hyperspace Box reduces all weapons inside them down to half their standard weight and 1 crit for every 5 tons they weigh. Those same weapons also generate double the heat they normally do when inside the Box. Obviously, ballistic weapons gain the most benefit from using hyperspace boxes while energy weapons with their heavy heat burden see minimal benefit and are in fact worst off than they were before. Hyperspace Boxes also render the carrying unit near invulnerable to ammo explosions.

[A. Lurker]

I don't think anybody's going to argue that double heat sinks are not horribly broken compared to singles. :) I mean, they really have all of one balancing factor -- size --, and the construction rules promptly conspire to take that right out of the picture again in all but some corner cases. I've run the numbers once and found that for a base heat capacity of 20, double heat sinks are actually more compact than the equivalent number of singles all the way down to an engine rating of 150; they only really eat up more slots at 120 and less. All that while being ten tons lighter. And that's only for 'Mechs -- most other units that can mount either single or double heat sinks don't care about the latter's supposed increased bulk at all, so DHSs are essentially a free lunch.

But retroactively changing the construction rules for them isn't really in the cards without also throwing out a huge number of established designs. So if we're trying to balance them, it kind of has to be with rules changes that apply in play, not during construction.

For me, doubling the extra heat buildup caused by engine hits would still be the main starting point. It's not that DHS-equipped engines run inherently hotter, of course; it's just that the engine has more spare capacity because its cooling mechanisms are individually more effective, not because of added redundant parts, so the same damage should result in the loss of proportionately more of it. That doesn't necessarily fix everything that's wrong with doubles, of course...but I'd consider it a decent start.

As to energy weapons vs. others in general...I do have to admit that I'm more in favor of tweaking the latter to improve them as needed than of nerfing the former so that everything can suck equally. ;) I need to get going for now, though, so maybe more ideas on that later.

[deathfrombeyond]

For me, doubling the extra heat buildup caused by engine hits would still be the main starting point. It's not that DHS-equipped engines run inherently hotter, of course; it's just that the engine has more spare capacity because its cooling mechanisms are individually more effective, not because of added redundant parts, so the same damage should result in the loss of proportionately more of it. That doesn't necessarily fix everything that's wrong with doubles, of course...but I'd consider it a decent start.

I don't remember hearing this idea from you before. This intrigues me.

Would the extra heat buildup from engine damage only apply to double heat sink designs, or would it apply unilaterally to ALL fusion engines? I'm assuming it's just the double heat sink engines, because a unilateral penalty would be kind of pointless: double heat sink engines would still be way overpowered compared to single heat sink engines.

[evilauthor]

I don't remember hearing this idea from you before. This intrigues me.

Would the extra heat buildup from engine damage only apply to double heat sink designs, or would it apply unilaterally to ALL fusion engines? I'm assuming it's just the double heat sink engines, because a unilateral penalty would be kind of pointless: double heat sink engines would still be way overpowered compared to single heat sink engines.

Presumably, doubling heat only applies to engines that hide DHS inside them. But I don't think that really works, because who the hell designs their mechs on the assumption that their engine will be critted right from the start?

How about a construction rule change? Woops! All the previous rules were wrong! You CAN mix SHS and DHS, but engines can no longer hide 10 free DHS inside them. What the engines come with is 10 free heat sink CRITS. That is to say, they come with 10 free crits' worth of heat sinks. As long as your specified heat sinks load only takes up 10 crits total, they don't take up tonnage and if the engine rating is high enough, hide inside the engine. The engine rating itself is that you can hide 1 heat sink crit inside the engine for every 25 rating.

[A. Lurker]

I don't remember hearing this idea from you before. This intrigues me.

Would the extra heat buildup from engine damage only apply to double heat sink designs, or would it apply unilaterally to ALL fusion engines? I'm assuming it's just the double heat sink engines, because a unilateral penalty would be kind of pointless: double heat sink engines would still be way overpowered compared to single heat sink engines.

That would apply only to DHS-equipped engines, correct. Essentially, it maps to "first hit, extra heat equal to five sinks' worth of dissipation; second hit, ten sinks' worth (exactly what you got for free with your engine in the first place); third hit, you're out".

@evilauthor: "Who the hell designs their 'Mechs on the assumption that their engine will be critted right from the start?" Well, with double heat sinks as they work now allowing people to basically ignore engine hits before that fatal third as a minor inconvenience, who indeed? Making engine hits matter a little more again is actually part of what I'm trying to achieve here.

As for changing the construction rules, I've already said my piece about that. :) I'd honestly prefer to just change the rules for actual play, and there preferably by just tweaking the ones already there rather than trying to patch them by inserting completely new ones on top of everything else. But, people's mileage will vary.

[deathfrombeyond]

That would apply only to DHS-equipped engines, correct. Essentially, it maps to "first hit, extra heat equal to five sinks' worth of dissipation; second hit, ten sinks' worth (exactly what you got for free with your engine in the first place); third hit, you're out".

Wow. I really, really like that wording. It emphasizes how little this house rule would change existing designs, and it's relatively tame on the increased amount of bookwork.

[Paul]

One of the baseline issues with 3025 play is the power of energy weapons against everything else.

I have a suggestion for one rule change that would fix almost everything.

When a heat tracking unit overheats, in the subsequent turn, any energy weapon that doesn't use ammo or is designated as "small" or "micro" generates an additional +1 heat when used. This effect persists as long as the unit has overheated in the previous turn.

How about reducing the damage of every energy weapon by 1 point? 2 even?

Paul

[Wanderer]

I like the idea.  I would prefer a hit to the DHS destroying it and causing two points of damage, forcing a critical hit.  However, it should have a -1 modifier to avoid 3 criticals or a limb becoming blown off.

I have no problem with acidic chemicals managing to do it. After all, an AC/2, machine gun or even a single point of damage can cause 3 crits or sever a limb. Why not this?

[Wanderer]

When trying to restore balance to something like double heat sinks that are horribly imbalanced in favor of a very specific type of weapon, I'm not a huge fan of detriment that only lasts a single turn.

I mean turning a critically hit DHS into a one time two point ammunition bin, with (presumably) no damage to the pilot? That's still not very much of a deterrent against using a flashbulb heavily dependent on DHS, because presumably, there'd also be some kind of BV bonus for using DHS (because they explode for negligible damage) compared to single heat sinks (which don't explode at all).

A persistent six point increase in heat per turn per damaged double heat sink? That's a pretty strong downside to relying on high heat weaponry, right?

That makes any DHS use insane, actually- when a single damaged heat sink is more punishing that an engine hit.  To the point of rendering them a combat liability, in truth. Four blown sinks would actually manage to overwhelm a "freebie" 10 DHS- and honestly, a lost sink shouldn't result in massive heat buildup. They're not cooling the things with Inferno gel!

My solution actually comes from the experimental "compact" double heat sinks the NAIS developed- the ones produced in the 3030's weren't considered perfect due to the fact that the chemicals involved were quite corrosive.  Well, say that coolant was what all DHS use-and you made them safer with more containment...which results in the "standard" 3-crit DHS, but they still required the corrosive coolant to function properly. This way, DHS are still a dangerous thing- in side torsos, they're potentially able to dissolve LFE or XLFE shielding, and anywhere end up being a potential chain reaction of crits to wreck internal structure, with one crit to a DHS being another chance for a crit, multiple crits, or even potentially ruining an arm (or on a Clan Mech, CT or leg damage). It's non-explosive, so it gets no BV bonus for being a "boom" part.

You want to curb the power of energy weapons, not eliminate them because someone managed to hit a single heat sink and rendered firing a main gun impossible without crippling overheat levels.

[Wanderer]

Presumably, doubling heat only applies to engines that hide DHS inside them. But I don't think that really works, because who the hell designs their mechs on the assumption that their engine will be critted right from the start?

How about a construction rule change? Woops! All the previous rules were wrong! You CAN mix SHS and DHS, but engines can no longer hide 10 free DHS inside them. What the engines come with is 10 free heat sink CRITS. That is to say, they come with 10 free crits' worth of heat sinks. As long as your specified heat sinks load only takes up 10 crits total, they don't take up tonnage and if the engine rating is high enough, hide inside the engine. The engine rating itself is that you can hide 1 heat sink crit inside the engine for every 25 rating.

Promptly renders many crit-stuffed designs impossible to duplicate, requiring rewriting multiple TROs from 2750 on up. Bad Idea.

Now, doubling engine heat from damaged machines that use a DHS cooling system? I like this, especially since it works well with the common LFE/XLFE machines.

[Paul]

One way to apply the "no engines DHS possible" is to just add 10 heat every turn, effectively neutralizing the double effect. DHS beyond the first 10 still produce at double.
No redesigns of recordsheets necessary, but tons of designs dont just suffer, they become useless. Which seems too extreme compared to the intended result.

Paul

[deathfrombeyond]

That makes any DHS use insane, actually- when a single damaged heat sink is more punishing that an engine hit.  To the point of rendering them a combat liability, in truth. Four blown sinks would actually manage to overwhelm a "freebie" 10 DHS- and honestly, a lost sink shouldn't result in massive heat buildup. They're not cooling the things with Inferno gel!

:: shrugs ::

The core of my exploding double heat sink house rule is the persistent heat penalty for a critically damaged double heat sink, not the precise amount of the heat penalty.

Instead of generating +4 heat for a critically damaged double heat sink, there's nothing that says that +1 or +2 heat wouldn't be a fairer balancing mechanism. Persistent heat (of any kind) is a huge downside to weapons with lots of waste heat, like energy weapons. I just thought that +4 was a nice number (while steep) because I found it to be roughly equivalent of the similarly steep -2 TN modifier exclusive to pulse lasers.

Also, I don't find the argument of persistent heat from exploded heat sinks overwhelming "free" sinks to be a particularly convincing one because the only designs that should have serious issues with persistent heat overwhelming free heat sinks are light designs with low engine ratings that don't have the spare tonnage to mount additional double heat sinks. Heavier designs will usually be able to hide enough of the crits in the engine AND have additional spare tonnage to mount additional double heat sinks beyond the freebies.

Even then, I don't see that as a tremendous change from the present dynamic, because post 3025 light designs that take crits due to combat damage probably have a lot more things to worry about than persistent heat.

For example, let's assume the SGT-3R has every single one of its external DHS critically damaged, and let's assume that the persistent heat is 2/turn/damaged sink rather than 4, which would still allow a net heat sink/turn of 10. The SGT-3R overheats if it fires the PPC or the large pulses (assuming those aren't already damaged), and it could fire a couple of the smaller pulses without overheating. I won't deny that this outcome cripples the SGT-3R...kind of like how an ammunition explosion on almost any 'Mech will cripple it.

I will concede that persistent heat with critically hit DHS also has an adverse effect on chassis that are heavily dependent on missiles, like the Naginata. Even then, the Naginata would still be able to fire two of its LRM racks without overheating.

[idea weenie]

Use the old rules for Infernos.  Most custom energy boats are designed to make the most of their heat sinks.  They don't have any to spare.  So you hit a guy with an (old rules) Inferno SRM 2, and he's got an extra 6 heat for 3 rounds (or 6 rounds, if both hit).  The next turn, he'll take an additional 2 because he moved through a fire hex (presuming he moves out of it).

I'd want to make infernos do fire damage based on the target Mech's coolant capacity.  I.e. infernos would do an amount of heat equal to half (FRD) the Mech's heat dissipation rate.  Subsequent shots deliver half the remaining amount of heat (FRD).  So a Mech with 38 pts of heat dissipation gets hit with infernos, and receives effectively 19 pts of heat.  A second volley arrives, and it takes 9 pts of heat (19/2, FRD).

Since you are dumping hot fuel all over a Mech's heat sinks, this means the more heat sinks there are, the more will be affected and 'blocked'.  I'm still working on ways to do this for SRM-2-6, or flamers.  SRMs might be longer duration, while flamers would be instant effects.


For heat sinks in an engine, one option in the last board was to give a Mech's engine the ability to dissipate 10 pts of heat, rather than saying it has 10 heat sinks.

[evilauthor]

Okay, here's a couple of ideas for rule changes. Use one or any combination of them you like:

1) Attacks by ACs get an auto crit chance because they fire kinetic slugs. Basically treat standard ammo as if they were AP, and give improved TAC chances to actual AP ammo.

2) Energy weapons do variable damage, like missile weapons. Their listed damage is only their MAX damage with the minimum being one. The damage does not cluster however, so no improved crit chances. This variable damage is because energy weapons don't impart all their energy onto a target all at once like ballistic weapons do, but must hold the beam on target for a noticeable amount of time.

3) Energy weapons do their full damage, but ARE subject to clustering because their beam is being dragged across multiple sections. Roll one die to see how many clusters your damage gets divided into. Damage per cluster is max damage divided by the number of clusters round DOWN.

[Fear Factory]

No.

Just nerf Double Heat Sinks.  They are simply too useful and they have become a necessity.

[A. Lurker]

Okay, here are some things I think I would do. I won't pretend they necessarily fix everything already, mind.

• Have damaged DHS-equipped engines put out double heat as discussed earlier upthread.
• Get rid of neurofeedback damage. The fluff excuse for it is dubious (since pilots never seem to suffer bad feedback effects from anything else, but somehow do so with utter reliability as soon as even the slightest quantity of ammunition cooks off or that wrist-mounted Magshot blows up), and it really just serves as added insult to compound an ammo explosion's already quite sufficient injury.
  
• Allow ballistic weapons to fire in a proper arc -- that is, indirectly, basically swiping the relevant LRM rules wholesale. I've been sitting on the fence a bit whether or not to allow Gauss weapons in particular to do this (autocannons and MGs should be a-ok in my book) since they really just fire inert metal at ridiculous speeds that lend themselves better to flat trajectories...but, eh, we're used to ridiculously short weapon ranges in BT already, and at least some Gauss guns out there today are definitely fluffed as firing actual bursts rather than just a single solid slug. So, I'd probably just let them in on the fun.

Speaking strictly for myself, I'll admit that I also mightn't mind simply banning double heat sinks from the notional table outright...but that would mean eliminating the vast majority of canon designs from play as well. Which just isn't practical for most groups.

[willydstyle]

No.

Just nerf Double Heat Sinks.  They are simply too useful and they have become a necessity.

As long as you're doing DHS mechs vs. DHS mechs they are fine.

[NightmareSteel]

So the matter at hand isn't curbing the power of energy weapons, but rather curbing the power of double heat sinks, which allow energy weapons to be so powerful?

Well.  Just don't play with DHS.  Problem solved.

[evilauthor]

So the matter at hand isn't curbing the power of energy weapons, but rather curbing the power of double heat sinks, which allow energy weapons to be so powerful?

Well.  Just don't play with DHS.  Problem solved.

I think it's far far too late for that unless you want to junk 90% of continuity.

Which is basically the Clan Invasion and everything published after it. Or hell, may have to go earlier than that.

[NightmareSteel]

Then rewrite the heat table so that ammo explosion read ammoexplode/overheat, and any energy weapon must check for overheat.  Overheat means that the weapon produces an additional 25% of standard heat, round up.  A 1 heat weapon produces an extra 1, a 5 heat weapon produces an extra 2, a 15 heat ERPPC produces an extra 4 heat.  If enough weapons overheat, you get a cascading casualty that cripples the mech. Now oversinking is useful, and energy weapons are more risky.

[deathfrombeyond]

Okay, here's a couple of ideas for rule changes. Use one or any combination of them you like:

1) Attacks by ACs get an auto crit chance because they fire kinetic slugs. Basically treat standard ammo as if they were AP, and give improved TAC chances to actual AP ammo.

I like this one the best.

It actually gives ballistic weapons a capability that isn't duplicated elsewhere, without completely invalidating missiles and lasers.

[A. Lurker]

I like this one the best.

It actually gives ballistic weapons a capability that isn't duplicated elsewhere, without completely invalidating missiles and lasers.

Yes, well, I wasn't going to pick that one up myself because to me it has similar issues as the "ballistic weapons knock target 'Mechs down more easily" idea earlier upthread; essentially, somewhat uncritically assuming that Kinetic Weapons Are Just Better. (Not that that's not a popular trope, mind, and in other contexts I've been known to fully agree with it. I just don't think I do so here.)

Besides, there are alternate ammo types to consider. Would you give that same auto-crit chance to an autocannon firing LB-X cluster or flechettes? :)

What I might do along the general lines of this idea is simply allow suitable autocannons to use plain old AP ammo and delete that pesky +1 to-hit penalty. I mean, tandem-charge SRMs live fine without it and even get a better TAC chance than AC/2s and 5s in the bargain, so it's clearly not needed...come to think of it, I suppose streamlining things and just giving APAC ammo the same flat TAC chance at -2 to the roll that TCSRMs (and infernos vs. vehicles, for that matter) already enjoy regardless of caliber wouldn't be too out of line. That would actually reduce an AC/20's chance of inflicting one a bit, but the AC/20 is both the least efficient of the bunch when it actually comes to 'half' ammo types and the most likely to just go through the armor the old-fashioned way to begin with, so it's not that huge a loss in my book -- and the smaller autocannons would be grateful. :)

[Tslammer]

Just wow energy weapons are a problem in a 3025 game wow. The only reasons I can think of why this might be an issue is custom ML boats on small map sheets.

I assume your not complaining about PPC's as energy weapons. Rather than changing the game I think more time at the table exploring some tactical options with LRM's might help. They can be  fired indirect.

[willydstyle]

I posited the idea that ballistic (and missile) weapons can knock mechs down easier not because I think they are "better" but because it allows a rebalance without having to do a complete overhaul of the construction rules. As it is, especially without access to specialty ammo, in most eras energy weapons *are* just better, so giving lasers a slight penalty and ballistic weapons a slight advantage is because of that.  Personally, I don't think they need to be rebalanced all that badly, but the OP asked for ideas, and I gave him one.

[evilauthor]

Frankly, I think the real issue is not that energy weapons are overpowered, it's that the lighter end ballistic weapons are UNDERpowered for their tonnage. There's simply no easy way to fix that without resorting to inventing SoD breaking technology.

[Paul]

Just change the damage values of energy weapons. No redesigns needed.

SL does 2 damage, ML does 3 damage, LL does 6 damage. PPC does 8 damage.
Keep adjusting that to taste.

Paul

[Sockmonkey]

Or just get rid of DHS. I do agree that the lighter ACs are too heavy for their damage compared to LRMs though.