AC/5 & AC/2 House Rule

[Claymore]

This option is directed at those who find the AC/5 and AC/2 in need of some help.

This house rule is far less invasive than most I have seen as it does not require serious modification to existing designs, such as changes to weight, space, or damage.  Simply allow AC/5's and AC/2's to use 2 shot rapid-fire.  The ultra variants could use 4 shot rapid-fire.  In my opinion it makes them a bit more competitive without over powering them.

If BV2 is used for balance you may want to bump the BV up for units equipping them.  Perhaps something like:

         +/AC  +/Ton Ammo
AC/2    19           2
AC/5    42           5
AC/2U  28           4
AC/5U  67          12

This has worked well for me so far, but of course YMMV.

[Demos]

Simply use the rapid-fire option from TacOps...  ;)

[A. Lurker]

Simply use the rapid-fire option from TacOps...  ;)

That's pretty much for all autocannons, though, and I think the idea here is to specifically fix the smaller ones.

It makes a certain degree of sense that smaller-caliber guns should be able to attain a higher rate of fire than their large-bore cousins, too. It's only how it works in real life as well, after all. The possible problem I'd see from a game balance perspective is that if you crank up the damage small autocannons can inflict (which is what this rule ultimately does, courtesy of the ablative hit point damage model used by the game), you risk simply making the larger ones progressively more useless in turn, given that their higher damage potential is pretty much all they have going for them in comparison.

[Fallen_Raven]

That's pretty much for all autocannons, though, and I think the idea here is to specifically fix the smaller ones.

It makes a certain degree of sense that smaller-caliber guns should be able to attain a higher rate of fire than their large-bore cousins, too. It's only how it works in real life as well, after all. The possible problem I'd see from a game balance perspective is that if you crank up the damage small autocannons can inflict (which is what this rule ultimately does, courtesy of the ablative hit point damage model used by the game), you risk simply making the larger ones progressively more useless in turn, given that their higher damage potential is pretty much all they have going for them in comparison.

Isn't that all that all the larger weapons have going for them? ??? I mean if you didn't want more damage, why would you bring a bigger gun? ;D

Yes I'm being a smart ass.

[Kiesel]

Simply use the rapid-fire option from TacOps...  ;)

http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,1737.msg71185.html#msg71185
If you go read my posts in the AC-5 retcon thread, you will see a page long table of statistics which rather conclusively shows that the tac-ops rapid-fire option is only worth doing when you expect to spend a very small number of turns turn of shooting.  If you expect to get to more turns of shooting, then the thread of blowing up and not getting any more shots outweighs the extra damage, leading to a single firing AC-5 averaging the same damage over 2 turns, and coming out ahead after 3 turns.

It also shows that while a standard UAC does x1.417 damage, the cumulative jam chance decreases the average down to 1.219 over the 10 turns that a single ammo bin would last

I also already calculated out the effect of doing what the OP has suggested

So instead lets look at the average damage if you let the AC-5 fire like a UAC-5 all the time, per my earlier suggestion. (now you know why I calculated the UAC as well on the jam table  :P)

2 AC-5 + 2 ammo + 4 heat sinks:
121.9 average damage over 10 turns, for 22 tons = .554 damage/ton (.569 if you shift the column)
1 PPC + 10 sinks:
100 average damage over 10 turns for 17 tons = .588 damage/ton=

With only 21.9% average extra damage for 1 extra heat, +42 BV on top of 70 is a bit excessive, and the ammo does not really change at all.  The number should probably be closer to an extra 20% BV, or 84 instead of 70, and nothing for the ammo.

Keep in mind that the AC-5 is supposed to have a BV advantage to compensate for the fact that it runs out of ammo, and cannot share as many heat sinks with a secondary weapon bracket fire.
1 PPC = 176 BV / 10 damage = 17.6BV / damage
1 AC (1 ammo)= 70 + 9 - 15 = 64 BV / 5 damage = 12.8 BV/ damage
If you allow the AC-5 to fire as an UAC-5, then changing the BV to 84 gives the same BV/damage ratio.
AKA the PPC is a better weapon in nearly every way, but the AC-5 gives you more bang for your buck both literally and figuratively.

[A. Lurker]

Isn't that all that all the larger weapons have going for them? ??? I mean if you didn't want more damage, why would you bring a bigger gun? ;D

Yes I'm being a smart ass.

Yes, you are. ;)

That's kind of my point, though -- if you crank up the damage of the smaller guns enough, you don't need to bring the big ones in the first place. At which point you simply end up with them as the newly "useless" members of the family...

[Sigma]

Another guy here just voting for the rapid fire rules from TacOps. Rapid fire on an autocannon should be a lot like disengaging the inhibitor on a PPC.  You do it tactically when you are shoved into a corner and you don't know if you'll even be around next turn.

[monbvol]

Probably the biggest thing that bugs me is actually that the AC-2 and AC-5 have a minimum range.  I just can't wrap my head around why they would have one.

[Claymore]

That's kind of my point, though -- if you crank up the damage of the smaller guns enough, you don't need to bring the big ones in the first place. At which point you simply end up with them as the newly "useless" members of the family...

I don't believe it makes the larger AC's useless, but rather narrows the effectiveness gap that existed between the larger and smaller guns.

Ideally the weight should probably have been less for the AC/2 and AC/5, but house ruling that forces changes to vast numbers of canon designs.  This house rule was just intended as a quick fix to try to make the lighter AC's closer to their big brothers in over all bang for buck.

[willydstyle]

I could see using it.  An AC/10 will still do 10 damage all day long until it's bins run dry.  An AC/5 will do 10 damage, in two 5 points clusters, roughly 40% of the time, but requires twice the ammo consumption to attempt.  An AC/2 becomes maybe kinda useful... sometimes.

It makes a certain degree of sense that smaller-caliber guns should be able to attain a higher rate of fire than their large-bore cousins, too. It's only how it works in real life as well, after all.

I think the GAU-8 would like to have a word with you :D

[Blackjack Jones]

That's pretty much for all autocannons, though, and I think the idea here is to specifically fix the smaller ones.

Well the Tac Ops rules do give a considerably greater risk to firing the large calibers.  If I was in a BJ-1 or JM6-S I'd be firing at the AC/2's at double fire until they break, and the 5's on the
the Jagermech if the hit numbers look good.  In a HBK-4G Hunchback? Oh heck no, unless I was about to loose the 'Mech anyways.  The possibility of loosing the AC/20, the right torso, the right arm, and one of the medium lasers, on a bad roll isn't worth it.

Not saying the Tac Ops rules are perfect, but they are at least something a lot of players can agree on being usable.

Probably the biggest thing that bugs me is actually that the AC-2 and AC-5 have a minimum range.  I just can't wrap my head around why they would have one.

Well I believe the intent was that they were meant for deep range, and not an all-purpose weapon gameplay wise, regardless of their other issues.  If you mean fluff, well it's one more on
the list that it's better to suspend your disbelief than worry about the realism (ie. combat ranges in game, almost any ranged weapon outside of artillery having a noticable minimum range, etc.).


As for AC house rules, one that we used to use before Tac Ops came out was to reduce all standard AC's by one heat point per shot (i.e. 2's and 5's had no heat gain).  It's not much, but most AC heavy canon designs were able to move and fire their entire load, or at least not fry from it so quickly.

[ssfsx17]

I think the GAU-8 would like to have a word with you :D

The GAU-8 takes up the equivalent of 70%+ of the critical slots on an aero frame.

[A. Lurker]

I think the GAU-8 would like to have a word with you :D

The GAU-8 certainly is Sufficiently Awesome, but it's still 'only' a 30 mm cannon. As artillery calibers go, that's peanuts. ;)

[ialdabaoth]

I've always felt like the damage (and heat) should just be increased across the board - the AC/2 should be an AC/5; the AC/5 should be an AC/10; the AC/10 should be an AC/15. Look at this progression:

Weapon                Damage  Heat     Range        Mass  Spaces  Ammo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Light Autocannon        5      1    (4)8/16/24      6.00    2      50
Autocannon             10      2    (3)6/12/18      8.00    4      25
Heavy Autocannon       15      3    (0)5/10/15     12.00    6      15
Assault Autocannon     20      7    (0)4/ 8/12     14.00    8      10

Light Ultra AC          5      1    (4)8/16/24      7.00    3      50
Ultra Autocannon       10      2    (3)6/12/18      9.00    5      25
Heavy Ultra AC         15      4    (2)5/10/15     13.00    7      15
Assault Ultra AC       20      8    (0)4/ 8/12     15.00    9      10

Light LB-X Cannon       5      1    (4)9/18/27      5.00    2      50
LB-X Cannon            10      1    (3)7/14/21      7.00    4      25
Heavy LB-X Cannon      15      2    (2)6/12/18     11.00    6      15
Assault LB-X Cannon    20      6    (0)5/10/15     13.00    8      10

Light Snub Cannon       5      1    (0)6/12/18      4.00    1      50
Snub Cannon            10      2    (0)5/10/15      5.00    2      25

Light Rotary Cannon     5      1    (0)6/12/18      8.00    3      50
Rotary Cannon          10      2    (0)5/10/15     10.00    6      25

(Also, for pete's sake allow Ultra AC to unjam like Rotary AC.)

[Demos]

*sarcasm on* [applause] *sarcasm off*
You just made a PPC or LL obsolescent and will initiate a movement of "make the energy weapons better"  ::)

E.g. your AC weight only two tons more than a ppc (with a large ammo load of 25 shots for a caliber 10 weapon!), but needs only 2 heat vs. 10.
Completely munchkin...

[willydstyle]

Totally breaks the 100 damage/ton ammunition bin that pretty much every ammo-using weapon has. That heavy AC pretty much just breaks the 3025 game, and probably most later eras as well.

[monbvol]

Well I believe the intent was that they were meant for deep range, and not an all-purpose weapon gameplay wise, regardless of their other issues.  If you mean fluff, well it's one more on
the list that it's better to suspend your disbelief than worry about the realism (ie. combat ranges in game, almost any ranged weapon outside of artillery having a noticable minimum range, etc.).

Balance or fluff wise it has never made sense.  Removing the minimum range is probably the easiest but biggest impact on the usefulness of the AC-2 and AC-5 without having to redesign so many canon units.

Personally I do believe that the basic ACs should probably have been designed to be two tons lighter and one crit smaller, except that the AC-2 would still take up one crit.  Such a change suddenly makes an AC-5 and ammo versus a Large Laser and Heat Sinks a much more interesting choice.  Unfortunately such things are unlikely to happen.

Totally breaks the 100 damage/ton ammunition bin that pretty much every ammo-using weapon has. That heavy AC pretty much just breaks the 3025 game, and probably most later eras as well.

Except for LRMs that do 120, SRMs that do 180/200, Machine Guns that do 200/300/400, HAGs that do 120, Gauss Rifles that do 40/80/100/120/128, ATMs that do 60/120/180, and MRMs that do 240.  Indeed it seems the weapons that do 100 points of maximum potential damage per ton of ammo seem to be in the minority.  That's not to say the 250 of those revised Autocannons is actually acceptable.

[willydstyle]

Let's look at the LRM 20.  On an averge cluster roll, it does 12 damage, so it actually comes in at an average damage of 72 for the whole bin.

Saying "every" ammunition-using weapon was probably a mistake, but at the same time most cluster weapons ammo counts still seem to be based around the same concept.

[House Davie Merc]

I'll stick with what I said about the AC/5 in the previous thread .

If it were 2 tons lighter it would be far more balanced to the
other weapons of the era .
In my games I use it as is ,but IMHO the autocannon chart
should have looked like this :

Autocannon type          tons       crits

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

Since we are decades past that point I just pick mech variants that
replace the AC/5 whenever possible .

If you have to make extensive alterations to a weapon to make it viable
then perhaps switching to another weapon would be a good idea .

[monbvol]

I'll stick with what I said about the AC/5 in the previous thread .

If it were 2 tons lighter it would be far more balanced to the
other weapons of the era .
In my games I use it as is ,but IMHO the autocannon chart
should have looked like this :

Autocannon type          tons       crits

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

Since we are decades past that point I just pick mech variants that
replace the AC/5 whenever possible .

If you have to make extensive alterations to a weapon to make it viable
then perhaps switching to another weapon would be a good idea .

I'd still be inclined to make the AC-10 and AC-20 two tons lighter each as well.  The AC-10 even one crit smaller is still too easily replaced by a PPC and Heat Sinks for a surprisingly small drop in point blank accuracy.

Let's look at the LRM 20.  On an averge cluster roll, it does 12 damage, so it actually comes in at an average damage of 72 for the whole bin.

Saying "every" ammunition-using weapon was probably a mistake, but at the same time most cluster weapons ammo counts still seem to be based around the same concept.

True enough.  Recently I have been thinking about how ammo works and sometimes there is a bit of a logical disconnect.  I'd love to shove the explosive they use for Machine Gun ammo into a Capital Missile just for some decent non-nuke damage and yet I always feel nervous having a full ton on a mech just because of how much of a bang that does make if it goes off.  Overall though I'm starting to become of the opinion that ACs and Machine Guns should have their shots per ton adjusted so that they all do a maximum potential of 120 damage.  It'd certainly make more things even more interesting.

[Blackjack Jones]

Well there's plenty of ways to skin this cat- got digging around and found an old list of house ruled AC's that the group I used to play with in the 90's tried out.
The physical characteristics stayed the same for the sake of compatibility, but damage/heat/ammo/range got adjusted accordingly.  Basic idea was the AC's were
alternatives to missiles instead of trying to compete with energy weapons (if I'm remembering it correctly). 

Item                    Heat    Damage    Range         Ammo              Wt         Crit
AC/3                       0              3       (3)9/18/27       32                  6           2
AC/6                       1              6       (2)7/14/21       16                  8           4
AC/9                       2              9       (1)6/12/18       12                12           7
AC/12                     3            12       (0)4/8/12           8                14         10

EDIT- fixed formatting.

[A. Lurker]

One house rule I'm considering from time to time is to expand the role of indirect fire by granting that ability to pretty much any old ballistic or missile weapon, not merely to LRMs. Might change the dynamic of the game quite a bit on account of cover suddenly no longer being such a sure thing if even one enemy unit can get LOS...but I'm not sure at this point whether that would be bug or feature.

This would, of course, be no dedicated "small-caliber autocannon fix". But I like to think that long-range, low-damage weapons like AC/2s and /5s would in fact benefit in a slightly roundabout fashion from no longer being limited to a purely direct-fire support role all the same...and it would certainly give them an ability that PPCs don't have. ;)

[Blackjack Jones]

One house rule I'm considering from time to time is to expand the role of indirect fire by granting that ability to pretty much any old ballistic or missile weapon, not merely to LRMs. Might change the dynamic of the game quite a bit on account of cover suddenly no longer being such a sure thing if even one enemy unit can get LOS...but I'm not sure at this point whether that would be bug or feature.

This would, of course, be no dedicated "small-caliber autocannon fix". But I like to think that long-range, low-damage weapons like AC/2s and /5s would in fact benefit in a slightly roundabout fashion from no longer being limited to a purely direct-fire support role all the same...and it would certainly give them an ability that PPCs don't have. ;)

I could see that- and with Flechette ammo, even the lighter AC's could become a poor man's anti-PBI artillery. 

[Fallen_Raven]

One house rule I'm considering from time to time is to expand the role of indirect fire by granting that ability to pretty much any old ballistic or missile weapon, not merely to LRMs. Might change the dynamic of the game quite a bit on account of cover suddenly no longer being such a sure thing if even one enemy unit can get LOS...but I'm not sure at this point whether that would be bug or feature.

This would, of course, be no dedicated "small-caliber autocannon fix". But I like to think that long-range, low-damage weapons like AC/2s and /5s would in fact benefit in a slightly roundabout fashion from no longer being limited to a purely direct-fire support role all the same...and it would certainly give them an ability that PPCs don't have. ;)

Choose between heavy indirect fire capable weapons with explosive ammo or light direct fire weapons that cause major heat issues? That is a decision that could be fun.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

It makes a certain degree of sense that smaller-caliber guns should be able to attain a higher rate of fire than their large-bore cousins, too.

The problem is that bore size isn't an indication of damage- the AC rating refers to what percentage of a ton of ammo they expend per shot.  The AC 5 ranges from 30mm (Rifleman, Wolverine) to 120mm (Marauder).

[Akalabeth]

Simply use the rapid-fire option from TacOps...  ;)

Or the Solaris VII rules

[Cannon_Fodder]

Our group's fix to AC/2s and Ac/5s

AC2:   AC2’s can each fire up to a total of three shots per round.  The second shot is at +1 to-hit and the third +2 to-hit. 
AC5:   AC5 rules are the same as AC2 but AC5’s get only 2 shots.    ANY roll of 2 jambs the weapon.  Roll for critical, any criticals cause the round to explode and check for chained ammo explosion.
Ultra AC’s on a roll of two automatically explode both rounds and check for chained explosion.

Chained ammo explosion: Roll for crit, any crits cause all remaining ammo in the bin to explode. Resolve using normal ammo explosion rules.

[willydstyle]

Why would you make Ultra ACs considerably worse?

[Sabelkatten]

Personally I prefer a very simple change to standard ACs:

+1 damage to all
No minimum range
Ammo/ton 40/20/10/6

AC/2 and AC/5 are still a little weak, but no longer terrible. But the removed minimum range give them an advantage over PPCs and LRMs. AC/10s are actually a bit better tonnage-wise than PPCs, but still risk ammo explosions. AC/20s get +1 damage just for symmetry.

[Blackjack Jones]

A.Lurker's idea of a change in role (artillery) got me thinking this morning- what about anti-infantry work for the lighter AC's?

Given the common typical image of the lighter AC's is throwing a lot of light shells, there could be an argument for them being on
the burst-fire table vs. PBI's instead of damage/10. AC/10s and 20s continue on as normal.

Something like:

Normal Ammo:
AC/2 : 1d6
AC/5:  1d6/2 (rounding up)

Flechette Ammo:
AC/2: 2d6
AC/5: 1d6

The idea being that the AC/2 is more effective at blasting grunts since it uses smaller shells at a higher fire rate
(in some fluff anyhow) than the AC/5, but not as effective as a MG without resorting to Flechette.  Given the
common complaint of the AC/2 being an oversized machine gun, there's some poetic justice here.

As for Ultra/LB-X/Rotary:

Ultra: Given the Lighter Ultra's tend to have stigma to them as well, can't see the harm in them taking advantage of this rule
in single shot mode.  Ultra mode should probably be treated as normal, akin to how Rotary AC's are handled below.
LB-X: Similar deal to the Ultras.  Can use the rules using normal slugs, cluster behaves normally (assume cluster isn't sufficient to
saturate a 30 meter hex in a burst, basically).
Rotary: No change, fluff it as putting a lot of shells in a small area in a short burst vs. being able to spread the fire out in a longer burst.

I'd imagine some combined arms players might flinch at such a change, but plasma weapons still tend to beat out
the AC's under this rule for infantry slaughter.


EDIT- Just occured to me, that the Vulcan VL-2T being an anti-infantry 'Mech and the Blackjack BJ-1 was fluffed being designed "to destroy
non-'Mech insurgent forces", and both are of course armed with AC/2's.  So there's a weak link to the fluff there at least.