Let's have a discussion: The Autocannon 5

[Orin J.]

fanboy, comparing weapon choices in battletech to card selection in M:tg is something of a logical fallacy. a mediocre 'mech that's used well is much more effective than a poorly-constructed deck that's given to a good player because you gain more of an advantage from positioning than construction in battletech.

is it making an ideal weight-damage equation? nope. is it forcing you into a limited range or speed profile to utilize it? also no. it's not a good weapon, but it's also not a limited one. the problem isn't that it's not effective, it's that it's not the best on paper. that the gun is effective is reason enough to use it in my opinion.

[A. Lurker]

Really, the issues the AC/5 has are purely related to its construction stats. Looking at any given unit sporting it as an integrated whole, that "AC/5" data point first and foremost means a weapon that does modest but still appreciable damage over a reasonable range for low heat so long as the ammunition holds out (which at 20 shots minimum isn't usually a huge immediate concern). There's really no reason to complain about it at all on this level, especially once using it also gives you access to a few interesting alternative ammo types.

It's only when people enter "design mode", look up the AC/5, and go all "eight tons plus at least one more of ammo? Do you realize what all else I could have for that?!?" that things go pear-shaped.

[LordChaos]

Want a good secondary weapon to go with your PPC?  LRMs steal the show by critseeking and doing more damage for equal or lesser tonnage and less ammo bomb

Not quite.  Comparing LRM to AC5, once heat is factored in, you get more damage for greater weight (15 & 20) or roughly equal damage and weight for less endurance (10). 

Is the ac5 a good weapon?  Not really.   Is it somewhat balanced for its time?  Somewhat.

[Fireangel]

Not quite.  Comparing LRM to AC5, once heat is factored in, you get more damage for greater weight (15 & 20) or roughly equal damage and weight for less endurance (10). 

Is the ac5 a good weapon?  Not really.   Is it somewhat balanced for its time?  Somewhat.

I think one of the issues with the AC5 is that it used to be THE Autocannon, period, full stop. There were no other low-heat ballistic weapons to compete against for range or damage. Instead it provided reasonable damage for the heat compared to the other available weapons, and the only way to put "dakka" on a mech besides MGs. The AC has been fighting tech creep since Citytech came out.

This.

The AC/5 is meant as a supporting gun to the PPC, in an era where that weapon took up your base 10 heat sinks.  It's not a main weapon by any chance, and people need t stop acting like it ever was.

Back in the day when there were no other autocannon, the "AC/5" was the only other "big gun" besides the PPC. Only LRMs outranged it, but they had ammo and variable damage issues. The AC/5 was most certainly a main weapon.

Heat was a BIG issue back then; the PPC was a monster (no other weapon was capable of consistently delivering 10 points in one whack), but the 10 heat was a major problem. The LL was still hot-running and had a shorter range than the AC.

The AC had range, standard damage, 20 shots per ton (better than all LRMs except the 5-rack) and a heat of only one; this meant that it could be fired every turn without much issue or multiple ACs could be fed without much worry over ammo.

Look at one of the archetypical designs of the era; the plain-vanilla Rifleman RFL-3N; with just 10 SHS, the Large Lasers were secondary weapons to the twin AC's, which had greater range and could fire every turn. With the Wolverine WVR-6R's 12 SHS, it can jump its max range and alpha for a net heat gain of 1, which was fantastic back then.

Conversely, the WHM-6R Warhammer needed to pack 8 extra SHS in order to fire its twin PPCs, risking all sorts of problems if it walked and fired anything else.

[Fear Factory]

All you kids are too spoiled with Double Heat Sinks.   :D

[Scotty]

This.

Back in the day when there were no other autocannon, the "AC/5" was the only other "big gun" besides the PPC. Only LRMs outranged it, but they had ammo and variable damage issues. The AC/5 was most certainly a main weapon.

Heat was a BIG issue back then; the PPC was a monster (no other weapon was capable of consistently delivering 10 points in one whack), but the 10 heat was a major problem. The LL was still hot-running and had a shorter range than the AC.

The AC had range, standard damage, 20 shots per ton (better than all LRMs except the 5-rack) and a heat of only one; this meant that it could be fired every turn without much issue or multiple ACs could be fed without much worry over ammo.

Look at one of the archetypical designs of the era; the plain-vanilla Rifleman RFL-3N; with just 10 SHS, the Large Lasers were secondary weapons to the twin AC's, which had greater range and could fire every turn. With the Wolverine WVR-6R's 12 SHS, it can jump its max range and alpha for a net heat gain of 1, which was fantastic back then.

Conversely, the WHM-6R Warhammer needed to pack 8 extra SHS in order to fire its twin PPCs, risking all sorts of problems if it walked and fired anything else.

This is all well and good, but the fact that the AC/2, AC/10, and AC/20 have existed independently of the AC/5 for over 20 years and it hasn't once been re-evaluated doesn't excuse it.  It was the only other big gun a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away, but now it just sucks compared to anything else you can mount.

[A. Lurker]

All you kids are too spoiled with Double Heat Sinks.   :D

No argument from me, although those really would make a good topic for their own discussion thread...

...well, if there was anything to discuss and players didn't just all agree they're godlike from the word go, anyway. ;)

[Zombyra]

An even better (canonical) example that rebuts the idea is the Zeus - the -6S mounts an AC/5, LRM-15, and Large Laser. The (better) -6T version mounts a PPC instead, along with two more heat sinks. The 6T can consistently force PSRs at long range as long as it hits, whereas the 6S HAS to get lucky with its LRMs to force a PSR. Plus, once the LRMs empty and it closes, the 6T has no ammo to brew up, whereas the 6S will consistently have 6-10 rounds left by the time its armor is pierced - enough to gut it on an unlucky shot.

Wow, that's just . . . that obviously bears some examination.

You pay a little more for the PPC in BV.  And you end up volley firing your long range arsenal, because the additional 2 heat sinks aren't enough to keep up with the added heat burden.  Especially if you're moving.

And what is this "consistently" you're talking about?  If you hit with all 3 long range weapons you only need a 5 for cluster hits on the -6S.  If you only hit with the 15 and the long stick--which must be what you meant--the -6T still needs to "get lucky" with it's LRM's to make the PSR.  Combined with the actual chance to hit, that's about a 8% advantage if nobody moves.  In actual, you know, moving combat that "advantage" at long range is going to be like 3%?  And that's without calculating the odds on hitting with both weapons, which shrinks that advantage again.  I wouldn't count on getting a PSR with either mech at longer ranges until you can get the LL to hit, and the difference at that point and in any case between the two mechs is really tiny.

6 rounds doesn't gut the Zeus.  And the autocannon ammo is well padded at 1 in 8.

Of course, the BIG advantage the Zeus-6T has over the -6S is that the LRM torso bomb goes away.  I'd expect the 6T to win given that advantage alone, no matter the difference in BV.

And just talking ammo tactics for a minute, if you close before you have a chance to empty those LRM bins, the -6S can keep cooking them off; you might even hit something with them, until the bins are empty.  If the -6T gets caught with 3 or 4 rounds left in the magazine, you need to dump the ammo or volley some of your big guns that you don't have the heat sinks to fire.

No, the -6S isn't quite the match, the BV tells you that.  But in this case, (except for the inexplicable ammo bomb) it's pretty accurate in marking the differences between the two.  If you get some extra good, you pay for what you get.

[faraday77]

All you kids are too spoiled with Double Heat Sinks.   :D

Y'know, I wish people would stop saying THAT. 8)

Blame TPTW/TPTB for not creating and keeping a niche for autocannons in general and specifically the AC/5 in more than 20 years of real time game development, besides coming up with a ****** patch in form of alternate ammunitions. We wouldn't have needed at least the LB-X and Ultra models, if the designers didn't drop the ball then and now.

[Taurevanime]

Yes. It has become obsolete with the LPPC. Allow tech to progress rather than try to make every weapon remain viable until the heat-death of the universe.

When I hear 'fix it' I understand it as changing the stats of the weapon, rather than leaving it as is.

[Fear Factory]

Blame TPTW/TPTB for not creating and keeping a niche for autocannons in general and specifically the AC/5 in more than 20 years of real time game development, besides coming up with a ****** patch in form of alternate ammunitions. We wouldn't have needed at least the LB-X and Ultra models, if the designers didn't drop the ball then and now.

The niche is there.  They were common weapons due to being easy to repair, low in heat (due to the prevalence of single heat sinks in the era), and somewhat reliable in range and damage.  They can work as a main gun or a secondary gun.  Their niche is beyond a 1 on 1 brawl.  It is a niche that is prevalent while running a campaign.  A niche that, I think it is safe to say, that most people overlook simply because they don't play the game that way.  It's not the wrong way to play, I'm not saying that, but I am saying that the 'popular way' or 'this way' should not be a reason to overlook what is actually there.  Autocannons don't need to change.  They are fine the way they are.  A jack of all trades master of none.

Mind you, there are some quirky rules like the stupid chip on the ultra AC that goes bad that should be changed, but I'll save that for another thread.

[Scotty]

The chip no longer burns out in fluff, the shell casing welds itself into the barrel.  It's not any prettier as a game mechanic, but at least it avoids the "WTF?" factor of having it be a single chip. :P

[Istal_Devalis]

If there was a change I'd make, it'd be something I'd take from MWO.
Get rid of the minimum ranges on ACs.

[Neufeld]

When I hear 'fix it' I understand it as changing the stats of the weapon, rather than leaving it as is.

Yes, that was what I meant when I said:

I just which that people would accept the AC/5 as it is, and stop trying to 'fix' it all the time.

[Fear Factory]

I think it is safe to say that the Autocannon 5 is not a great weapon on today's era or any era outside of the Succession Wars if you are not planning on using specialty ammo or using it on a cheap vehicle.

However, in intro tech play, it can be advantageous to use:

- Very low heat allowing for constant fire
- Average damage (5 damage is our trusty medium laser, after all)
- Great reach (18 hexes is nothing to sneeze at)

Campaign play:

- Low cost
- Easy to maintain (repair, resupply, etc)
- Easy to come by

A lot of your choices in a campaign game really depends on what is available and what era you play.  With its availability rating it is one of the easier weapons to have and to hold.  With its stats, you can count on using it almost all the time with no issues, as in no matter what situation you put it in (high heat planet, combating an enemy with infernos, long range battles, ambushes, etc) you will be using it.  If you don't know what your enemy is going to do, but you know the kind of battlefield it is going to be, the Autocannon 5 can be a nice choice as it can do close to average in just about any situation.  This is probably why it was used on so many designs... may it be a primary weapon or secondary weapon.  Not the best choice, but it's there, and it was always going to be there.

[Fireangel]

This is all well and good, but the fact that the AC/2, AC/10, and AC/20 have existed independently of the AC/5 for over 20 years and it hasn't once been re-evaluated doesn't excuse it.  It was the only other big gun a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away, but now it just sucks compared to anything else you can mount.

It's not the most efficient weapon out there, but let's compare it to the other alternatives for ‘mechs of the era (I’ll deal with vees below):

The AC/5 weighs 8 tons and takes up 4 crits for 5 damage and 1 heat with a range of 18. One ton of ammo has 20 shots, adding 1 ton and 1 crit to the equation. I don't add it directly to the weight of the AC/5 since multiple AC/5s can draw from the same bin (let’s keep an absolute minimum of 10 shots per gun in this discussion).

The PPC weighs 7 tons and takes up 3 crits for 10 damage and 10 heat with a range of 18. In a SHS unit, this is much more of a strain than the AC/5. Adding one SHS puts the tonnage and crits at the same point as the AC/5 and a second SHS matches the weight and crits of the AC/5 with a ton of ammo. Sure, it does an extra 5 points of damage, but if it is running, it can’t fire anything else and remain heat neutral, while the running AC/5 still has a heat credit of 7.

So what? You may ask; let’s add a second AC/5 to the AC ‘mech; we don’t have to add more ammo (still have 10 shots per gun); 17 tons and 9 crits (including ammo). Same 10 SHS while running give us a 6 point heat credit. We can run and fire two medium lasers and still remain heat neutral.

Now a second PPC; 14 tons and 6 crits (bargain!)… but without extra SHS we have a 10-point heat deficit just standing still! To compare with the AC/5 ‘mech, we run and fire two MLs; to remain heat neutral, we need to add 18 SHS, so the twin PPCs effectively take up 32 tons and 24 crits (not quite a bargain for the extra damage).

So how about the Large Laser? 5 tons, 2 crits, 8 damage, 8 heat, but a maximum range of 15. The ‘mech with a single LL can run and fire while remaining heat neutral. A second LL ups the equation to 10 tons and 4 crits, but heat goes up to 16; in order to remain heat neutral running while firing twin MLs (heat 24), we need to add 14 SHS, for a total of 24 tons and 18 crits. That’s 7 tons and 9 crits more for 6 extra points at a shorter range.

Or the AC/10, which is consistently cited in these discussions; 12 tons, 7 crits, 10 damage, 3 heat at the same range as the LL. Adding a ton of ammo (12 shots) ups the equation to 13 tons and 8 crits. For the single-AC/10 ‘mech to run and fire 2 MLs while remaining heat neutral we need to add 1 SHS, for a total equation of 14 tons and 9 crits. Compare to a 1xPPC + 2xML heat-neutral running alpha of 15 tons and 11 crits; 3 tons and two crits buys 3 extra hexes of range. If we add a second AC/10 to that running alpha, we are talking about 2x12 tons = 24 tons plus 2 tons of ammo (10 minimum, remember? We need to add a second ton to cover the difference) is 26 tons and 16 crits plus 4 SHS, for a total of 30 tons and 20 crits.

AC/2’s have a completely different purpose than these 4 “big guns” and the AC/20 fits a completely different role. Neither is comparable to the AC/5, AC/10, LL or PPC in role.

So there you have it; all else being equal (heat neutral SHS ‘mech doing a running alpha along with 1 or 2 primaries and a pair of MLs), we can compare these weapons objectively.

In damage; PPC and AC/10 are equals (10/20), followed by the LL (8/16) and then the AC/5 (5/10)

In range; PPC and AC/5 both have the same 6/12/18 band with 3-hex minimum range, while the AC/10 and LL both have 5/10/15 range bands and no minimum range.

Aw, heck; let’s put it in a table:

Heat-neutral running alpha with 2xML (10 shots/gun min.):

Table A; Tonnage/Range:
        Dmg. Tons Crit Heat   Range
1xAC/5    5    9    5    9  3/6/12/18
2xAC/5   10   17    9   10  3/6/12/18
1xPPC    10   15   11   18  3/6/12/18
2xPPC    20   32   24   28  3/6/12/18

1xLL      8    5    2   10  0/5/10/15
1xAC/10  10   14    9   11  0/5/10/15
2xLL     16   24   18   24  0/5/10/15
2xAC/10  20   30   20   14  0/5/10/15

Table B; Damage/Range
        Dmg. Tons Crit Heat   Range
2xPPC    20   32   24   28  3/6/12/18
1xPPC    10   15   11   18  3/6/12/18
2xAC/5   10   17    9   10  3/6/12/18
1xAC/5    5    9    5    9  3/6/12/18

2xAC/10  20   30   20   14  0/5/10/15
2xLL     16   24   18   24  0/5/10/15
1xAC/10  10   14    9   11  0/5/10/15
1xLL      8    5    2   10  0/5/10/15

Table C; Damage/Range/Tonnage
        Dmg. Tons Crit Heat   Range
2xPPC    20   32   24   28  3/6/12/18
2xAC/10  20   30   20   14  0/5/10/15
2xLL     16   24   18   24  0/5/10/15
1xPPC    10   15   11   18  3/6/12/18
2xAC/5   10   17    9   10  3/6/12/18
1xAC/10  10   14    9   11  0/5/10/15
1xAC/5    5    9    5    9  3/6/12/18
1xLL      8    5    2   10  0/5/10/15

Table D; Damage/Tonnage
        Dmg. Tons Crit Heat   Range
2xAC/10  20   30   20   14  0/5/10/15
2xPPC    20   32   24   28  3/6/12/18
2xLL     16   24   18   24  0/5/10/15
1xAC/10  10   14    9   11  0/5/10/15
1xPPC    10   15   11   18  3/6/12/18
2xAC/5   10   17    9   10  3/6/12/18
1xLL      8    5    2   10  0/5/10/15
1xAC/5    5    9    5    9  3/6/12/18

Table E; Heat
        Dmg. Tons Crit Heat   Range
1xAC/5    5    9    5    9  3/6/12/18
2xAC/5   10   17    9   10  3/6/12/18
1xLL      8    5    2   10  0/5/10/15
1xAC/10  10   14    9   11  0/5/10/15
2xAC/10  20   30   20   14  0/5/10/15
1xPPC    10   15   11   18  3/6/12/18
2xLL     16   24   18   24  0/5/10/15
2xPPC    20   32   24   28  3/6/12/18


Yes, I know; it does not take into account ammo explosions (Which are an issue with any AC, missiles or MG in the non-CASE eras) nor does it take into account multiple to hit rolls due to multiple guns.

The main thing that can be seen from these tables is that if looked at in isolation, based solely on damage v. tonnage, the AC/5 is not terribly efficient (Table D), but when looked at in other contexts and as part of a larger system, it is certainly competitive with the other systems discussed.



Edit: corrected math errors in AC/10
 

[iamfanboy]

I will, actually, say one good thing about the AC/5:

If I want a mook 'Mech or vehicle that I expect my players to kill without much problem, I'll automatically reach for ones equipped with an AC/5.


But other than that, yes, I've honestly accepted the AC/5 as a part of the universe. I dislike it, I always reach for alternates when available, but despite my protests it really is too late to do anything dramatic to the AC/5.

Using the tech argument is a bit of a laugh though, because one of the other easy choices for replacing an AC/5 (a Large Laser) is the same tech rating. I'm as much a fan of retconning as anyone else to help explain the holes in the universe, but just the fact that in-universe so many canon variants start with "Replace the AC/5 with..." kinda shows that in-universe it isn't a highly regarded weapon either. Only two variants add an AC/5 to a 'Mech's weaponry, a Hunchback and a Trebuchet, and neither of them are worth writing home about.

As far as the Zeus goes, fair call on the AC/5 ammo explosion not gutting the 'Mech, I'd forgotten it was in the left arm and not the left torso (sensible ammo placement? On a 3025 'Mech? INSANITY!) but it isn't very well shielded; on the record sheet if you roll on the second block you've got a 1/2 chance of detonating it, which has a decent chance of taking the arm and the torso off (with at least 6 rounds remaining), and that leaves you with... a medium laser an an LRM-15.

[Fireangel]

I think it is safe to say that the Autocannon 5 is not a great weapon on today's era or any era outside of the Succession Wars if you are not planning on using specialty ammo or using it on a cheap vehicle.

However, in intro tech play, it can be advantageous to use:

- Very low heat allowing for constant fire
- Average damage (5 damage is our trusty medium laser, after all)
- Great reach (18 hexes is nothing to sneeze at)

Campaign play:

- Low cost
- Easy to maintain (repair, resupply, etc)
- Easy to come by

A lot of your choices in a campaign game really depends on what is available and what era you play.  With its availability rating it is one of the easier weapons to have and to hold.  With its stats, you can count on using it almost all the time with no issues, as in no matter what situation you put it in (high heat planet, combating an enemy with infernos, long range battles, ambushes, etc) you will be using it.  If you don't know what your enemy is going to do, but you know the kind of battlefield it is going to be, the Autocannon 5 can be a nice choice as it can do close to average in just about any situation.  This is probably why it was used on so many designs... may it be a primary weapon or secondary weapon.  Not the best choice, but it's there, and it was always going to be there.

This.

With the introduction of DHS, the usefulness of the AC/5 dropped except for the crit efficiency and the introduction of the LPPC was the nail in the coffin if not for specialty ammo.

But still, availability and ease of maintenance keep it reasonably useful, if only in fluff; and their use in non-fusion-powered vehicles is far superior to either the PPC, LL (both of which require large numbers of SHS [DHS are not available for vees]) or AC/10 (lesser range and fewer shots per ton).

[iamfanboy]

Uhm. Fireangel. Not to be nitpicky, but the AC/10 weighs 12 tons. I'll take your post apart more thoroughly in a bit, but jeez.

The main problem with the post (as you've outlined it) is that most 'Mechs which mount AC/5s don't HAVE secondary weapons to fire which will take advantage of the heat credit AC/5s give at the range AC/5s have. Sure, you can toss MLs out there as extra damage, but that's more a credit to the sheer efficiency of the ML than the AC/5's ability to only generate 1 point of heat.

Let's compare the Grand Dragon to the Dragon - there's a reason I ran it as my battle scenario for the AC/5's crippling disadvantage, because it perfectly demonstrates the difference as a main gun.

The Grand Dragon, at long range while walking, generates 15 points of heat and dissipates 12 - a 3 point overage. It can fire 3 rounds in a row before having to 'back off' and dissipate heat for a single round - one round of only firing the LRM-10 will get you back to near-neutral. It generates an average of 16 points of damage if both weapons hit.

The regular Dragon generates 6 points of heat and dissipates 10 - a 4 point deficit. It has almost no ability to strain its heatsinks, which is actually not good in 3025-terms. It generates 11 points of damage, and while it can do that until its ammo runs out (in 20 turns), the concentrated 10-point hits of the Grand Dragon's PPC will threaten the health of potential targets long before the AC/5's piddly 5-point slaps.

[Fireangel]

Uhm. Fireangel. Not to be nitpicky, but the AC/10 weighs 12 tons. I'll take your post apart more thoroughly in a bit, but jeez.

You are correct; I must've looked at the clan table by mistake; an AC/10 weighs 12 tons and has 7 crits. + ammo = 12 tons / 8 crits

1xAC/10 in a running alpha is 11 heat: adding the SHS we are talking about 13 tons / 9 crits.
2xAC/10 in a running alpha is 15 heat: adding 5 SHS we are talking about 18 tons / 13 crits.

The main problem with the post (as you've outlined it) is that most 'Mechs which mount AC/5s don't HAVE secondary weapons to fire which will take advantage of the heat credit AC/5s give at the range AC/5s have.

Neither to PPC-armed units... except for those armed with dual PPCs... and the weapon of choice in those is the AC/5 (Marauder).

The RFL-3N packs twin LLs. Try pairing 2xLL with 2xPPC in a SHS 'mech.  8)

Sure, you can toss MLs out there as extra damage, but that's more a credit to the sheer efficiency of the ML than the AC/5's ability to only generate 1 point of heat.

I used the twin MLs as generic placeholders; most 3025 era 'mechs pack multiples of those. The point was to include other weapons in the equation so as to not look at the AC5/10/LL/PPCs in isolation.

And don't forget that the ML has only half the range of the AC/5; while the ML is extremely efficient, it can't deliver damage across 18 hexes. The AC/5 delivers the same damage as the ML at twice the range for one third the heat.

Let's compare the Grand Dragon to the Dragon - there's a reason I ran it as my battle scenario for the AC/5's crippling disadvantage, because it perfectly demonstrates the difference as a main gun.

The Grand Dragon, at long range while walking, generates 15 points of heat and dissipates 12 - a 3 point overage. It can fire 3 rounds in a row before having to 'back off' and dissipate heat for a single round - one round of only firing the LRM-10 will get you back to near-neutral. It generates an average of 16 points of damage if both weapons hit.

The regular Dragon generates 6 points of heat and dissipates 10 - a 4 point deficit. It has almost no ability to strain its heatsinks, which is actually not good in 3025-terms. It generates 11 points of damage, and while it can do that until its ammo runs out (in 20 turns), the concentrated 10-point hits of the Grand Dragon's PPC will threaten the health of potential targets long before the AC/5's piddly 5-point slaps.

I realize that you are discussing long ranges exclusively, but that is not a good way of comparing weapons in a more generic system. That's why I added the MLs; 'mechs don't fight in a vacuum (well... y'know...  ::)); most of the time, 'mechs fight at medium ranges; if we are comparing a weapon's overall performance, we cannot simply look at its outliers.

The Dragon packs two MLs ( ::)) and the GD three; the extra three HS cover the third ML's heat, so we essentially have two 'mechs with 2xML and 10 SHS; one with an AC/5 and the other with a PPC:

Running Dragon's AC/5 + 2 MLs generates 13 heat.
Running Grand Dragon's PPC + MLs generates 18 heat.

Dragon can afford to fire its LRM-10 and still maintain a 1 heat credit.

Or the Grand Dragon can stagger its ML fire to remain cooler longer.

[faraday77]

The niche is there. They were common weapons due to being easy to repair, low in heat (due to the prevalence of single heat sinks in the era), and somewhat reliable in range and damage.  They can work as a main gun or a secondary gun.  Their niche is beyond a 1 on 1 brawl.

The amusing thing is that you could also be talking about LRM5/10 racks here, especially if you look at the TR and availability codes. The missile racks general drawbacks (higher heat, shallower ammunition stores and higher ammo costs) are there and have to be mitigated by smart play(ers), but that's not really a challenge. And they don't need additional rules to be effective.

It is a niche that is prevalent while running a campaign.  A niche that, I think it is safe to say, that most people overlook simply because they don't play the game that way.  It's not the wrong way to play, I'm not saying that, but I am saying that the 'popular way' or 'this way' should not be a reason to overlook what is actually there.

That's a fallacy or rather a simple case of equipment preferences. We played quite a few long 3025 campaigns and still we usually replaced AC/2s and AC/5s with missile weapons given the chance.

Autocannons don't need to change. They are fine the way they are.  A jack of all trades master of none.

We agree to disagree here, but that's cool.  :) [For the record: I like the different ACs. I just think they're not very well done in BT.]

Mind you, there are some quirky rules like the stupid chip on the ultra AC that goes bad that should be changed, but I'll save that for another thread.

I hear you. That's on my same list like the weight of the non-RL one-shot launchers...  :-X

[Zombyra]

Well, I can't argue with this:

The AC/5 wouldn't stick in my craw so badly if it weren't jammed willy-nilly on so many designs.

This is also fairly insightful:

I think misuse on canon designs has done more damage to the AC 5's reputation than its stats justify.

Which are precisely what I meant by saying this:

I don't think the Clint, the Wolverine, or the Shadow Hawk really take advantage of what the AC5 has to offer, though.  The principal problem--in it's simplest crude form--is that those mechs don't have enough guns.  It's easy to blame the AC5, but really, it's the build of the mech under the gun that makes them feel weak like that.

It is the build of the original mechs that makes the reputation, torso bombs and all.  You come up a little short with the AC5, probably a ton-and-a-half off the pace for my money; but the bad design decisions really seal the deal.  Some of the canon mechs easily leave 4 or 5 tons on the table, compounding what would otherwise be a negligible problem.

- - -

As a secondary weapon, (after you've allocated your initial 10 HS), you can't just throw junk on there however you want.

At 9 tons, the AC5 builds up 1 heat a turn.

At 9 tons, the PPC builds up 8 heat a turn.  You can't even volley fire that effectively.  If all you've got is another 9 tons, a PPC doesn't even work.

At 9 tons, the Large Laser builds up 4 heat a turn.  Good for volley fire, and at least you could fire consecutively and live through it, but now you're doing less damage than the AC5. 

(Some discussion would seem to indicate these weapons are supposed to be universally better in all situations, no matter what the build of the mech?)

At 9 tons, the LRM 15 builds up 4 heat a turn.  Which is, albeit, more front loaded damage, but you won't even burn through your paltry 8 rounds before you have to stop to cool down from that one.  And, you can't even fire those at short range.

You have to go all the way down to the lowly LRM 10 to hit some kind of equivalence.  Itself largely a secondary weapon, at 9 tons you get 12 rounds of fire with slightly more damage and builds only 1 heat.

I think someone else has said something like this; you can't just mindlessly design by sticking a PPC everywhere you see a 7 ton hole.  Mech design requires balance and forethought, no matter what weapon you want to use.
- - -

Of all the original canon mechs, (Excluding the aaa designs as flavor) only the Zeus really makes an honest go at it.  (I kind of like the MAD-3L as a variant, though) Suffice to say there are few weapons that can't be used to design badly.  Most of the canon mechs that carry an AC5 don't capitalize on it.  Yea, it gets torn out of mechs that don't support it as a simpleminded and easy fix, but most of those mechs weren't properly designed to begin with.

- - -

As for the Dragon, man, that mech's has gots problems.

• No proper main weapon-tries to carry 2 secondaries instead
• Oversinked at 10! (meaning underutilized--carrying comparatively dead weight)
• No proper short range arsenal-1 medium laser?
• Over-ammo'ed-more wasted tonnage
• Torso Bomb!

Using a mech that specifically addresses all of those problems, I'm surprised you even needed 4 Grand Dragons to do the job.  BUT, if you had ripped out the LRM10 for a LL and fixed the rest of the problems, I think you'd easily be just as well off.  The AC5 isn't the functional problem.

Also,

on the record sheet if you roll on the second block you've got a 1/2 chance of detonating it

That's not how critical chances work.

[Scotty]

Well, I can't argue with this:
This is also fairly insightful:
Which are precisely what I meant by saying this:
It is the build of the original mechs that makes the reputation, torso bombs and all.  You come up a little short with the AC5, probably a ton-and-a-half off the pace for my money; but the bad design decisions really seal the deal.  Some of the canon mechs easily leave 4 or 5 tons on the table, compounding what would otherwise be a negligible problem.

- - -

As a secondary weapon, (after you've allocated your initial 10 HS), you can't just throw junk on there however you want.

At 9 tons, the AC5 builds up 1 heat a turn.

At 9 tons, the PPC builds up 8 heat a turn.  You can't even volley fire that effectively.  If all you've got is another 9 tons, a PPC doesn't even work.

At 9 tons, the Large Laser builds up 4 heat a turn.  Good for volley fire, and at least you could fire consecutively and live through it, but now you're doing less damage than the AC5. 

(Some discussion would seem to indicate these weapons are supposed to be universally better in all situations, no matter what the build of the mech?)

At 9 tons, the LRM 15 builds up 4 heat a turn.  Which is, albeit, more front loaded damage, but you won't even burn through your paltry 8 rounds before you have to stop to cool down from that one.  And, you can't even fire those at short range.

You have to go all the way down to the lowly LRM 10 to hit some kind of equivalence.  Itself largely a secondary weapon, at 9 tons you get 12 rounds of fire with slightly more damage and builds only 1 heat.

Even if you mount less than the bare minimum ten heatsinks somehow, the PPC is still more effective.  Do you know why?  Because it deals double the damage, and it does it in double sized chunks.  Go ahead and mount a single PPC, and it'll still outperform *two* AC/5s while remaining ammo-independent.  17 tons of weapon + heatsinks to run completely heat neutral outperforms 19 tons of weapon + heatsinks + ammo to accomplish the same thing for 10 turns.

[Zombyra]

Even if you mount less than the bare minimum ten heatsinks somehow, the PPC is still more effective.  Do you know why?  Because it deals double the damage, and it does it in double sized chunks.  Go ahead and mount a single PPC, and it'll still outperform *two* AC/5s while remaining ammo-independent.  17 tons of weapon + heatsinks to run completely heat neutral outperforms 19 tons of weapon + heatsinks + ammo to accomplish the same thing for 10 turns.

I have no idea what in my post you are responding to.

In my description, after you fire a PPC on turn 2, you are at +16 on the heat scale.  How is that "outperforms?"

I probably shouldn't even ask.

So why do you ask why?  The answer doesn't have anything to do with the question.  Very Zen.

Maybe this:  If I had 17 tons of secondary armament, I wouldn't mount 2 AC5's unless it was an anti-aircraft design.  Then my flak ammo would be putting down VTOL's while the PPC was still winking hopefully at the sky.

That aside, I find your comparison specious.  If I had 17 tons of secondary armament (maybe I haven't made that distinction clearly enough?), I could mount 1 AC5, and and 8 tons of other secondary armament with which to kick butt.  Altogether, that would in many incarnations be better than a single PPC.  It really, and I mean very much depends on the build of the mech.  Just these two weapons themselves floating out in hammer space doesn't tell you everything you need to know about secondary armament for a mech.

[iamfanboy]

What he's saying is simple:

A single PPC deals 10 damage for 7 tons and 3 critical hits, for an infinite number of turns.

Two AC/5s deal 10 damage for 17 tons and 9 crits, for 10 turns.

The fact that the two AC/5s cause 2 heat versus the PPC's 10 is a non-factor for 'Mechs, because 'Mechs have 10 free heat sinks.

You can think of NOTHING that could go on a 'Mech that mounted a PPC instead of two AC/5s to take advantage of that 10 ton weight gain? Armor? Jumpjets? A bigger engine? Secondary weapons with heat sinks?

Imagine if the Panther mounted an AC/5 instead of its PPC. Would it be a 'Mech capable of fighting way above its weight class?


But of course, I see your point regarding multiple AC/5s. I mean, aren't the Rifleman and Jagermech two of the most highly-regarded 'Mechs around? Don't you feel glad when you roll a JM-6 on a random roll, or don't you curse the Davion player's luck for having them in his RAT?

Wait. It's the exact opposite of that. The only decent Jagermech mounts LRM-15s instead of its AC/5s, and using the Rifleman focuses on its Large Lasers and cycling the AC/5s to reduce its heat burden... which is more a case of mounting AC/5s instead of a decent heatsink system and good armor.

[Zombyra]

The fact that the two AC/5s cause 2 heat versus the PPC's 10 is a non-factor for 'Mechs, because 'Mechs have 10 free heat sinks.

Ah, so what you're saying is the part that neither of you read is this?

As a secondary weapon, (after you've allocated your initial 10 HS)

See, I should have just been more clear.  So many words, so little time.

[Scotty]

If I have 17 tons left after I've already used my base ten heatsinks, I'd much rather mount an AC/10 with two tons of ammo for double the damage and less than twice the tonnage, and then another trio of heatsinks to make it run cool.  Or even completely ignore the heatsinks and mount a trio of medium lasers and take advantage of bracket firing and the ability to ride the heat scale. 

Or another PPC and only five or six extra heat sinks to make a running PPC volley a +4, so I can do a 2-1-2-1 pattern with no penalties.  The other four tons I can use on a battery of medium lasers for short range pain or an SRM-6 with a ton of ammo for close-in critseeking.

Being heat-neutral in 3025 isn't necessarily a good thing, as it means you're almost universally undergunned.  The AC/5, while being fairly heat neutral, is one of the worst offenders in the undergunned department.

[Zombyra]

If I have 17 tons left after I've already used my base ten heatsinks, I'd much rather mount an AC/10 with two tons of ammo for double the damage and less than twice the tonnage, and then another trio of heatsinks to make it run cool.  Or even completely ignore the heatsinks and mount a trio of medium lasers and take advantage of bracket firing and the ability to ride the heat scale. 

Or another PPC and only five or six extra heat sinks to make a running PPC volley a +4, so I can do a 2-1-2-1 pattern with no penalties.  The other four tons I can use on a battery of medium lasers for short range pain or an SRM-6 with a ton of ammo for close-in critseeking.

Being heat-neutral in 3025 isn't necessarily a good thing, as it means you're almost universally undergunned.  The AC/5, while being fairly heat neutral, is one of the worst offenders in the undergunned department.

See, now that's interesting.

So, if you wanted some additional reach out and touch someone, what would you mount if you only had 9 tons to spare?

[iamfanboy]

Depends on the needs of the design. If it's a fast skirmisher, I'd take an SRM-6 with one ton of ammo, two medium lasers, and 3 more heatsinks; that way I can run and be heat neutral firing the PPC and/or my short range armament, be at +8 on a walking alpha (not making me in danger of detonating my ammo), and giving me a good, solid selection of weaponry at decent range.

If I'm making a trooper design, I would definitely go with the LRM-10/15. I'd prefer the LRM-15, because +5 heat on a combined shot isn't terrible (and the design probably would mount at least a FEW more heatsinks if it's of sufficient size). Maybe even go LRM-10 and SRM-4 together, with a ton of ammo each, to make it viable at all ranges.

[Scotty]

See, now that's interesting.

So, if you wanted some additional reach out and touch someone, what would you mount if you only had 9 tons to spare?

An LRM-15 and two tons of ammo.  Or if I'm being particularly cheeky, three LRM-5s, two tons of ammo, and a heatsinks.