Balancing ACs, LRMs, and energy weapons in 3025. Or, justifying the AC/5.

[FedComGirl]

Because ACs are poorly internally balanced.

Sorry. I'm not seeing it.

And before you try and point out specialty ammunition that for me is a non-starter because there are so few designs that mount a weapon that can use it and carry more than one ton of ammo, meaning you'd better be right about what kind of ammunition you brought and what your enemy brought to the fight.

Didn't say anything about specialty ammunition and while some units do have limited ammo others have more.

I will grant there are a couple niches that the AC-2 and AC-20 can occupy that cannot be done better by either Missile, Energy, or Gauss weapons but not many.

Sure, if you've got the weight to spare. If not...

[evilauthor]

Because ACs are poorly internally balanced.

And before you try and point out specialty ammunition that for me is a non-starter because there are so few designs that mount a weapon that can use it and carry more than one ton of ammo, meaning you'd better be right about what kind of ammunition you brought and what your enemy brought to the fight.

I will grant there are a couple niches that the AC-2 and AC-20 can occupy that cannot be done better by either Missile, Energy, or Gauss weapons but not many.

And the AC/5 seems to have no utility at all as you can replace it with its tonnage in... anything really and get better overall performance. Even in 3025.

An AC/5 + 1 ton ammo (20 shots) has a net cost of 9 tons and 1 heat.

An LRM-10 + 1 ton of ammo (12 shots) + 3 heat sinks has a net cost of 8 tons and 1 heat and will average 50% more damage per hit AND has a slightly longer range. And as an added benefit, you get three heat sinks other weapons can use when you aren't using the LRM-10. Worried about the minimum range? Throw in a Medium Laser and bracket fire (ie, don't use at the same time as the LRM-10), which costs you an additional 1 ton and no extra heat unless you alpha.

In a later era, a Light PPC + 5 SHS will net 8 tons total while having the same damage and range profile as the AC/5, no ammo issues, and generate a net ZERO heat. With DHS, you'd actually SAVE tonnage.

All this assumes of course that you've already maxed out your default heat sink capacity with other weaponry and equipment. If you haven't, the AC/5 looks even WORSE.

In short, low heat generation does NOT look good if it comes with a huge tonnage penalty.

[monbvol]

The AC-5 is certainly the biggest stinker in the AC family followed closely by the AC-10.  The AC-10 I will grant having some saving grace from non-Fusion and non-Fission powered designs but on everything else it can easily be replaced with another alternative.

Sorry. I'm not seeing it.

So if there was no BV limitation to worry over and you had the choice of putting either the basic Clint or the Denton in your last mech cubical you'd choose the basic Clint every time then?

Didn't say anything about specialty ammunition and while some units do have limited ammo others have more.

The statement was intended as a preventative measure.  For fun though go ahead and find five mechs that are still in use with the Federated Suns at the time of introduction of Precision Ammunition that use specialty ammo capable ACs that have more than one ton of ammo without that being an AC-20.

Sure, if you've got the weight to spare. If not...

It isn't that hard to find the tonnage if you're willing to get close enough capability instead of exact.

[FedComGirl]

And the AC/5 seems to have no utility at all as you can replace it with its tonnage in... anything really and get better overall performance. Even in 3025.

An AC/5 + 1 ton ammo (20 shots) has a net cost of 9 tons and 1 heat.

An LRM-10 + 1 ton of ammo (12 shots) + 3 heat sinks has a net cost of 8 tons and 1 heat and will average 50% more damage per hit AND has a slightly longer range. And as an added benefit, you get three heat sinks other weapons can use when you aren't using the LRM-10. Worried about the minimum range? Throw in a Medium Laser and bracket fire (ie, don't use at the same time as the LRM-10), which costs you an additional 1 ton and no extra heat unless you alpha.

In a later era, a Light PPC + 5 SHS will net 8 tons total while having the same damage and range profile as the AC/5, no ammo issues, and generate a net ZERO heat. With DHS, you'd actually SAVE tonnage.

All this assumes of course that you've already maxed out your default heat sink capacity with other weaponry and equipment. If you haven't, the AC/5 looks even WORSE.

In short, low heat generation does NOT look good if it comes with a huge tonnage penalty.

You're presuming your LRMs will land the average amount of missiles every shot. You could have only 2 hit every time. And in later era's you've got anti-missile systems reducing their effectiveness even more. If you're concerned about range, you'd be better off with an AC/2. Then you'd have zero heat and still have a ton left over for whatever.

The light PPC is a good replacement for the AC/5. Only it wasn't available in 3025.

The AC-5 is certainly the biggest stinker in the AC family followed closely by the AC-10.  The AC-10 I will grant having some saving grace from non-Fusion and non-Fission powered designs but on everything else it can easily be replaced with another alternative.

With what would you replace the AC/5 on units without combat Fusion or Fission engines? LRMs? no sure thing most will hit, or those that do won't be taken out by AMS. The Light PPC? Sure, if its available. Energy weapons? A couple medium lasers and heat sinks if you don't mind the loss in range.  8.8 cm Tank Cannon? Loss a couple points damage, double the amount of ammo carried and still have 2 tons left over. That one sounds good. 

So if there was no BV limitation to worry over and you had the choice of putting either the basic Clint or the Denton in your last mech cubical you'd choose the basic Clint every time then?

Not every time.

The statement was intended as a preventative measure.  For fun though go ahead and find five mechs that are still in use with the Federated Suns at the time of introduction of Precision Ammunition that use specialty ammo capable ACs that have more than one ton of ammo without that being an AC-20.

Which Davion mechs were in use at that time?

It isn't that hard to find the tonnage if you're willing to get close enough capability instead of exact.

If we're talking customizing then it'd be easy enough to find tonnage for extra ammo too.

[monbvol]

LRMs will have better or the same to hits as an AC-5 up until 6 hexes and closer so advantage for to hit numbers to LRMs.  An LRM-10 even in the face of AMS has a decent shot of getting a 5 point grouping(roll a 9+ on the cluster table without Artemis, a 7+ with) and even if that fails with Tournament level rules if the LRM hits at least three are certain to get through.  So over all I'd call the LRM-10 a better deal since it'll hit at least as often, if not more, and while there is gear that reduces damage it doesn't stack and under Total Warfare rules doesn't completely eliminate all the damage.  Especially since you can also slap in an SRM-4 and a ton of ammunition to help cover that six hex gap of minimum range for the same tonnage as an AC-5 and one ton of ammunition.  Of course I could get cheap and mount two LRM-5s and while I may not hit with both and have a lower minimum damage that will get through with Total Warfare AMS rules(2 points of damage for both and 1 if only one hits) there are few units that mount two AMSs I'd consider the saved ton for even more something else to be well worth it.

As far as being better off with an AC-2, yes that has better or the same to hit numbers at any range it weighs more than an LRM-5+Ammo+SRM-4+Ammo(six tons versus seven) and even in the face of AMS under Total Warfare those have a 100% chance to do 50% of the damage every time they hit and it only goes up from there.  Though I will grant an AC-2 as an AA weapon is hard to beat in 3025.  LB-2X can't be without Tactical Operations goodies.  UAC-2, well frankly I'd rather have the LB-2X with the 2 column of cluster hit table as at least that way I'll at least get the -1 or -3 to hit depending on target.

And why shouldn't we presume average?  The average is the average for a reason.  Some shots will land with fewer missiles, some with more.  In statistical analysis to provided a qualitative standard to measure such a situation by for a value assesment you take *gasp*, the average.  If you have a better number that we should use for such assumptions that is backed up by math I'd be willing to entertain it.

AC-10s can be replaced with Large Lasers or PPCs on Succession Wars era machines very easily without compromising the design and even making several better and I can find no design that is too strapped for criticals to not include heat sinks to sufficient number.  Hell there are a few swaps for AC-10s where I don't even need to slap in all that many heat sinks and the design will be better.  LB-10X does get a little harder since that is the age of Double Heat Sinks but I'm pretty sure if presented with specific designs and design goals I could find a way to replace them with something else and have the design fulfill it's intended role better.

While I probably could have done a better decision test for the Clint versus Denton variant Clint I'm still willing to bet even the staunchest supporters of ACs would take the Denton Clint more often by a noticeable margin than the standard Clint if there was no BV restriction to worry about and the supply stockpiles were sufficient to make either an equal choice thus the deciding factor was which one would be a better combat unit in more situations.  Same with the 6M vs 6R Wolverine.  Or the Medium Laser armed Mechbuster versus the AC-20 armed Mechbuster.  Or the Gauss armed Alacorn versus the AC-10 armed Alacorn.

I'd figure between being a FedCom fan and the MUL you'd be able to meet the challenge of finding five mechs in service with the FedSuns that can make use of specialty ammunition compatible ACs and have more than one ton of ammunition.

As someone who has done a fair amount of customization I'd have to say it has actually been easier for me to find a way to replace an AC, LB-X, or UAC with something else than to find a way to slap on more ammunition without compromising the design.

[FedComGirl]

LRMs will have better or the same to hits as an AC-5 up until 6 hexes and closer so advantage for to hit numbers to LRMs.  An LRM-10 even in the face of AMS has a decent shot of getting a 5 point grouping(roll a 9+ on the cluster table without Artemis, a 7+ with) and even if that fails with Tournament level rules if the LRM hits at least three are certain to get through.  So over all I'd call the LRM-10 a better deal since it'll hit at least as often, if not more, and while there is gear that reduces damage it doesn't stack and under Total Warfare rules doesn't completely eliminate all the damage.  Especially since you can also slap in an SRM-4 and a ton of ammunition to help cover that six hex gap of minimum range for the same tonnage as an AC-5 and one ton of ammunition.  Of course I could get cheap and mount two LRM-5s and while I may not hit with both and have a lower minimum damage that will get through with Total Warfare AMS rules(2 points of damage for both and 1 if only one hits) there are few units that mount two AMSs I'd consider the saved ton for even more something else to be well worth it.

That all depends on your luck at the dice though. If you hit with an AC/5 you're going to do 5 points of damage. With LRMs you may do as much damage or you may do less. It's not a sure thing unless you're using Thunderbolts. And where did the SRM-4 come in? I thought we were comparing an AC/5 with 1 ton of ammo and 1 heat sink to an LRM-10 with 1 ton of ammo and 4 heat sinks? You don't have weight for the SRM-4.

As far as being better off with an AC-2, yes that has better or the same to hit numbers at any range it weighs more than an LRM-5+Ammo+SRM-4+Ammo(six tons versus seven) and even in the face of AMS under Total Warfare those have a 100% chance to do 50% of the damage every time they hit and it only goes up from there.  Though I will grant an AC-2 as an AA weapon is hard to beat in 3025.  LB-2X can't be without Tactical Operations goodies.  UAC-2, well frankly I'd rather have the LB-2X with the 2 column of cluster hit table as at least that way I'll at least get the -1 or -3 to hit depending on target.

Again, I thought we were comparing AC/5s to LRM-10s. If you're concerned about range and role less than average with LRMs then a AC/2 would be a better choice. It weighs less, has more ammo, better range, and more consistent damage.

And why shouldn't we presume average?  The average is the average for a reason.  Some shots will land with fewer missiles, some with more.  In statistical analysis to provided a qualitative standard to measure such a situation by for a value assesment you take *gasp*, the average.  If you have a better number that we should use for such assumptions that is backed up by math I'd be willing to entertain it.

Not everyone is average and one shouldn't presume so. Some are more than. Some are less. To someone who's yet to appease the dice gods hoping for average damage over a sure amount doesn't make a lot of sense. Especially when hoping with less ammo.

AC-10s can be replaced with Large Lasers or PPCs on Succession Wars era machines very easily without compromising the design and even making several better and I can find no design that is too strapped for criticals to not include heat sinks to sufficient number.  Hell there are a few swaps for AC-10s where I don't even need to slap in all that many heat sinks and the design will be better.  LB-10X does get a little harder since that is the age of Double Heat Sinks but I'm pretty sure if presented with specific designs and design goals I could find a way to replace them with something else and have the design fulfill it's intended role better.

I can see sacrificing a little damage for ammo independence with the Large laser. It's weight is close enough. The PPC though is harder to do if you require heat sinks. If you don't then it isn't as much of a problem either. But that doesn't mean I'd want to get rid of all my AC/10s either.

While I probably could have done a better decision test for the Clint versus Denton variant Clint I'm still willing to bet even the staunchest supporters of ACs would take the Denton Clint more often by a noticeable margin than the standard Clint if there was no BV restriction to worry about and the supply stockpiles were sufficient to make either an equal choice thus the deciding factor was which one would be a better combat unit in more situations.  Same with the 6M vs 6R Wolverine.  Or the Medium Laser armed Mechbuster versus the AC-20 armed Mechbuster.  Or the Gauss armed Alacorn versus the AC-10 armed Alacorn.

I don't use BV so I'd probably still chose the standard Clint. Unless the mission required ammo independence. Then I'd chose the Denton variant. I'd go with the AC/20 Mechbuster. I'd go with the Gauss armed Alacorn as I like the extra range and damage. But if I didn't have a gauss rifle, I wouldn't complain about being able to use the left over tonnage for something else either.

I'd figure between being a FedCom fan and the MUL you'd be able to meet the challenge of finding five mechs in service with the FedSuns that can make use of specialty ammunition compatible ACs and have more than one ton of ammunition.

That'd be presuming I've memorized all the TROs, which I haven't.  It also presumes I have faith in the MUL, which I don't. I don't even know how to search for just FedCom units. I have found several that have multiple tons of ammo but most of those use LB-X or UACs. I suspect that's because the ammo is targeted more towards older units. There is one I can name off hand though but I'll keep looking.

As someone who has done a fair amount of customization I'd have to say it has actually been easier for me to find a way to replace an AC, LB-X, or UAC with something else than to find a way to slap on more ammunition without compromising the design.

There's a few though designs where I'd replace at least one UAC, if not both, with a standard AC and more ammo. If I could I'd replace standard AC/s with Improved ACs and more ammo and/or CASE. I don't think either of those swaps would compromise the design. They're also quick and easy. Replacing them with energy or missile weapons though takes more thought. I prefer to be heat neutral, unless using TSM, so I'd have to make sure I've got enough heat sinks. Or don't get too hot. I'd also be considering what missions I might be using missiles boats for to see if I'll want specialty ammo with them or just 1 ton of standard.

[monbvol]

That all depends on your luck at the dice though. If you hit with an AC/5 you're going to do 5 points of damage. With LRMs you may do as much damage or you may do less. It's not a sure thing unless you're using Thunderbolts. And where did the SRM-4 come in? I thought we were comparing an AC/5 with 1 ton of ammo and 1 heat sink to an LRM-10 with 1 ton of ammo and 4 heat sinks? You don't have weight for the SRM-4.

If something is Fusion or Fission powered I'm willing to bet it already has the heat dissipation available to make extra heat sinks unneeded for swapping from an AC-5 to an LRM-10.

Since both weapons rely on fickle dice to hit in the first place and more often the LRM-10 will have an easier time to hit than the AC-5 I'll take my chances with fickle dice on the cluster hit table.

The SRM-4 came in just to illustrate that with firing discipline the AC-5 is so heavy for what it does that the only advantage of being more accurate inside 6 hexes can be offset.  Maybe not perfectly but enough that if I were presented with the choice I'd go for something that removed the AC-5 for an LRM-10 and SRM-4 even despite the extra ton of ammunition that could go boom.

Again, I thought we were comparing AC/5s to LRM-10s. If you're concerned about range and role less than average with LRMs then a AC/2 would be a better choice. It weighs less, has more ammo, better range, and more consistent damage.

I probably should have done the broken quote but when responding to evilauthor you made this comment:

If you're concerned about range, you'd be better off with an AC/2.

So I decided to respond to that.

Not everyone is average and one shouldn't presume so. Some are more than. Some are less. To someone who's yet to appease the dice gods hoping for average damage over a sure amount doesn't make a lot of sense. Especially when hoping with less ammo.

People and statistical analysis are two different things.  If I always assume minimum then I'm undervaluing the LRMs when the cluster hit result gives me more than minimum results.  If I assume always maximum then I'm overvaluing the LRMs when they give less than maximum.  So it seems the only number I can use to derive a fair value is the average because it will be equally over valued and equally under valued in comparison to the extremes.

I can see sacrificing a little damage for ammo independence with the Large laser. It's weight is close enough. The PPC though is harder to do if you require heat sinks. If you don't then it isn't as much of a problem either. But that doesn't mean I'd want to get rid of all my AC/10s either.

What the heck to make things are in favor as possible for the AC-10 versus PPC by assuming that only the three heat is already covered and that there is no firing discipline, and even overheating by one point is seriously bad, or other heat sinks to spare.  To achieve exact heat parity that requires 14 tons versus 13 tons for an AC-10 and one ton of ammunition.  I will grant that always replacing an AC-10 with a PPC is not a good idea as that can compromise the design's intended role I'd certainly consider it for those mechs whose role does allow it.

I don't use BV so I'd probably still chose the standard Clint. Unless the mission required ammo independence. Then I'd chose the Denton variant. I'd go with the AC/20 Mechbuster. I'd go with the Gauss armed Alacorn as I like the extra range and damage. But if I didn't have a gauss rifle, I wouldn't complain about being able to use the left over tonnage for something else either.

Even though you don't know what you're enemy is bringing to the field and as such can't know if those 20 rounds of ammunition will be enough or which type of specialty ammunition will work best?

The Denton variant may not have the same maximum range but it'll be able to fight under more conditions and against more foes without being forced to withdraw unlike the base Clint.  The AC-20 Mechbuster can't strafe and only has one ton of ammunition and the same lift capacity for rocket pods, bombs, or whatever else you want to put underwing as the Medium Laser Mechbuster I'd take the Medium Laser Mechbuster as the only thing it can't do better or just as well is put 20 points of damage in one location and I'd take the volume of fire over the concentrated damage so that way if I do miss I still have more chances to hit with at least some of my guns.

That'd be presuming I've memorized all the TROs, which I haven't.  It also presumes I have faith in the MUL, which I don't. I don't even know how to search for just FedCom units. I have found several that have multiple tons of ammo but most of those use LB-X or UACs. I suspect that's because the ammo is targeted more towards older units. There is one I can name off hand though but I'll keep looking.

The MUL is accurate as of the Jihad so it is a bit past when most of the good specialty ammunitions for ACs were introduced.

But here's what I've managed to come up with using free resources on the internet and verified by my collection of similarly not memorized TROs and Record Sheets:

BJ-4 Blackjack
HCT-3F Hatchetman
CN9-A Centurian
CN9-AH Centurian
RFL-3Cr Rifleman

I could go on as I'm reasonably sure I could find more but there seems little point since it really doesn't change the fact that there are few mechs that can use specialty AC ammunition and even fewer that can carry two different types so if the battle doesn't happen exactly the way you planned you aren't screwed.

There's a few though designs where I'd replace at least one UAC, if not both, with a standard AC and more ammo. If I could I'd replace standard AC/s with Improved ACs and more ammo and/or CASE. I don't think either of those swaps would compromise the design. They're also quick and easy. Replacing them with energy or missile weapons though takes more thought. I prefer to be heat neutral, unless using TSM, so I'd have to make sure I've got enough heat sinks. Or don't get too hot. I'd also be considering what missions I might be using missiles boats for to see if I'll want specialty ammo with them or just 1 ton of standard.

I'll stew on that bolded part a bit.

[FedComGirl]

If something is Fusion or Fission powered I'm willing to bet it already has the heat dissipation available to make extra heat sinks unneeded for swapping from an AC-5 to an LRM-10.

Support engines  don't come with free heat sinks, not even support fusion engines.

Since both weapons rely on fickle dice to hit in the first place and more often the LRM-10 will have an easier time to hit than the AC-5 I'll take my chances with fickle dice on the cluster hit table.

No problem but the AC does have more chances to hit the target which is good with fickle dice. If you then want to hope they'll give you a good number of missile hits, I'll let ya. :)

The SRM-4 came in just to illustrate that with firing discipline the AC-5 is so heavy for what it does that the only advantage of being more accurate inside 6 hexes can be offset.  Maybe not perfectly but enough that if I were presented with the choice I'd go for something that removed the AC-5 for an LRM-10 and SRM-4 even despite the extra ton of ammunition that could go boom.

Um...AC/5 ammo heat sinks = 10 tons
LRM-10 ammo heat sinks = 10 tons.
Where'd the extra 6 tons for a SRM ammo and heat sinks come from? If heat sinks aren't a factor than the AC/5 can also have a SRM 4 as a back up.

I probably should have done the broken quote but when responding to evilauthor you made this comment:

So I decided to respond to that.

Oh. Okay.

People and statistical analysis are two different things.  If I always assume minimum then I'm undervaluing the LRMs when the cluster hit result gives me more than minimum results.  If I assume always maximum then I'm overvaluing the LRMs when they give less than maximum.  So it seems the only number I can use to derive a fair value is the average because it will be equally over valued and equally under valued in comparison to the extremes.

That's fine just as long as everyone realizes that average won't happen all the time. It all depends on the dice.

What the heck to make things are in favor as possible for the AC-10 versus PPC by assuming that only the three heat is already covered and that there is no firing discipline, and even overheating by one point is seriously bad, or other heat sinks to spare.  To achieve exact heat parity that requires 14 tons versus 13 tons for an AC-10 and one ton of ammunition.  I will grant that always replacing an AC-10 with a PPC is not a good idea as that can compromise the design's intended role I'd certainly consider it for those mechs whose role does allow it.

In some cases overheating isn't allowed. In others a little bit of heat can be okay. But overheating always has a risk. It can also change a a units mission profile.

Even though you don't know what you're enemy is bringing to the field and as such can't know if those 20 rounds of ammunition will be enough or which type of specialty ammunition will work best?

Sure. I'd probably use standard ammo since I don't know what's coming. Just like you wouldn't know the enemy isn't using reflective armor or not. If we knew, deciding would be easier. I'd just have to hope the added damage will keep me alive for 20 rounds. And if I need more that there's an ammo dump close by.
 

The Denton variant may not have the same maximum range but it'll be able to fight under more conditions and against more foes without being forced to withdraw unlike the base Clint.  The AC-20 Mechbuster can't strafe and only has one ton of ammunition and the same lift capacity for rocket pods, bombs, or whatever else you want to put underwing as the Medium Laser Mechbuster I'd take the Medium Laser Mechbuster as the only thing it can't do better or just as well is put 20 points of damage in one location and I'd take the volume of fire over the concentrated damage so that way if I do miss I still have more chances to hit with at least some of my guns.

Yes but it's effectiveness if cut in half by reflective armor. Not really available in 3025 I'll grant you but later? True the AC Mechbuster can't strafe but it'll really hurt and possibly kill whatever it hits. Besides, strafing doesn't help as much if the enemy ground units aren't lined up for you. If they're not you're still just attacking 1 target. And yes the ML Mechbuster can attack more but that also exposes it to more AA fire and it still wouldn't have had the big impact the AC/20 would.

The MUL is accurate as of the Jihad so it is a bit past when most of the good specialty ammunitions for ACs were introduced.

I don't see the Uni or its variants on it. And I know other units were excluded.

But here's what I've managed to come up with using free resources on the internet and verified by my collection of similarly not memorized TROs and Record Sheets:

BJ-4 Blackjack
HCT-3F Hatchetman
CN9-A Centurian
CN9-AH Centurian
RFL-3Cr Rifleman

Very cool.

I could go on as I'm reasonably sure I could find more but there seems little point since it really doesn't change the fact that there are few mechs that can use specialty AC ammunition and even fewer that can carry two different types so if the battle doesn't happen exactly the way you planned you aren't screwed.

So few that we know of. Most new units seem to need to have all the newest tech. You could easily retro tech a design and improve it just by pulling the UACs for standard ACs and adding more ammo, or armor or heat sinks. Imagine doing that to a Rifleman -5M or Jagermech -DD.

I'll stew on that bolded part a bit.

No problem. Of course if I could I might also use Proto AC/s. But IACs are an easy swap I think and wouldn't really change the feel of the design or its tactics.

[CloaknDagger]

Guys, the problem you're having is that you assume the AC5 is meant to be a good weapon on mechs. That's not neccessarly the case. Yes, you can always just say, missiles are better than ballistics on vee, so who's supposed to use ACs? But you miss the point that then everyone will just use reactive armor and AMS.

The AC5 has a useful niche in that it's absolutely dirt cheap. On top of that, it's a kickass AAA weapon. Paired with a TC or AES, and it gets an incredible -3 to hit with flak rounds, at a pretty great range of 18. Sure, the LAC5 is lighter, but you get slightly lower range. Is the LAC5 worth it? Almost always, but sometimes the AC5 is just better.

That being said; The improved autocannons the Clans had are really what should be made in the IS. Improved ACs give standards the small extra boost they need.

[monbvol]

Support engines  don't come with free heat sinks, not even support fusion engines.

So?  LRMs don't generate heat under the same circumstances as ACs don't generate heat.  Same for SRMs.

No problem but the AC does have more chances to hit the target which is good with fickle dice. If you then want to hope they'll give you a good number of missile hits, I'll let ya. :)

Avoiding circular argument here.

Um...AC/5 ammo heat sinks = 10 tons
LRM-10 ammo heat sinks = 10 tons.
Where'd the extra 6 tons for a SRM ammo and heat sinks come from? If heat sinks aren't a factor than the AC/5 can also have a SRM 4 as a back up.

Either I'm not going to need heat sinks because the conditions will allow the LRM-10 and SRM-4 to be swapped in without trouble or the design is already going to have enough heat sinks that some firing discipline will allow skipping of extra heat sinks.

Oh. Okay.

That's fine just as long as everyone realizes that average won't happen all the time. It all depends on the dice.

A quick search for the definition of average:

av·er·age 
/ˈav(ə)rij/
Noun

The result obtained by adding several quantities together and then dividing this total by the number of quantities; the mean.

Adjective

Constituting the result obtained by adding together several quantities and then dividing this total by the number of quantities.

Verb

Amount to or achieve as an average rate or amount over a period of time: "annual inflation averaged 2.4 percent".


Synonyms
noun.     mean - medium - mediocrity
adjective.     mean - ordinary - medium - middling - mediocre - middle

I don't know about you I see plenty to infer that average is not necessarily constant but for lack of a better value to use for such comparisons nothing else works any better.

In some cases overheating isn't allowed. In others a little bit of heat can be okay. But overheating always has a risk. It can also change a a units mission profile.

Warships can overheat.  Jumpships can overheat.  Dropships can overheat.  ASFs can overheat.

Only conventional combat vehicles and support vehicles cannot overheat and since combat vehicles do not generate heat from LRMs and SRMs and support vehicles are not intended to be primary combatants I'm still not really seeing any major hurdles.

Sure. I'd probably use standard ammo since I don't know what's coming. Just like you wouldn't know the enemy isn't using reflective armor or not. If we knew, deciding would be easier. I'd just have to hope the added damage will keep me alive for 20 rounds. And if I need more that there's an ammo dump close by.
 
Yes but it's effectiveness if cut in half by reflective armor. Not really available in 3025 I'll grant you but later? True the AC Mechbuster can't strafe but it'll really hurt and possibly kill whatever it hits. Besides, strafing doesn't help as much if the enemy ground units aren't lined up for you. If they're not you're still just attacking 1 target. And yes the ML Mechbuster can attack more but that also exposes it to more AA fire and it still wouldn't have had the big impact the AC/20 would.

Hey if someone wants to bring Laser Reflective more power to them.  I'm not an Lasers only guy in how I build my forces.  It's just that ACs are not good weapons and are something that frankly if given the choice I'd leave behind for most tasks.

I don't see the Uni or its variants on it. And I know other units were excluded.

I know units without a current legal record sheets are not included.  If the unit is still missing perhaps asking the writers why would be helpful?

Very cool.

So few that we know of. Most new units seem to need to have all the newest tech. You could easily retro tech a design and improve it just by pulling the UACs for standard ACs and adding more ammo, or armor or heat sinks. Imagine doing that to a Rifleman -5M or Jagermech -DD.

If I'm going that far I'm going to seriously consider why I'm doing it and what I can do instead of an AC.

No problem. Of course if I could I might also use Proto AC/s. But IACs are an easy swap I think and wouldn't really change the feel of the design or its tactics.

Guys, the problem you're having is that you assume the AC5 is meant to be a good weapon on mechs. That's not neccessarly the case. Yes, you can always just say, missiles are better than ballistics on vee, so who's supposed to use ACs? But you miss the point that then everyone will just use reactive armor and AMS.

The AC5 has a useful niche in that it's absolutely dirt cheap. On top of that, it's a kickass AAA weapon. Paired with a TC or AES, and it gets an incredible -3 to hit with flak rounds, at a pretty great range of 18. Sure, the LAC5 is lighter, but you get slightly lower range. Is the LAC5 worth it? Almost always, but sometimes the AC5 is just better.

That being said; The improved autocannons the Clans had are really what should be made in the IS. Improved ACs give standards the small extra boost they need.

I'd also add the AC-10 to bad choices for putting on Fusion and Fission powered units.

As far as AC-5 for AA, if I'm going for an AA weapon I'd rather take the AC-2 than the AC-5 since it is still only at Medium Range if a target is at Altitude 8 instead of Long with the AC-5 and any damage will force a control roll and I can get the same -3.  Or an LB-2X and get a -4 since if we're talking TCs and AES that's available too and even cheaper, lighter, and even more long ranged.

And go ahead and mount Reactive Armor and AMS.  I'm not just a Missiles guy when building my force.

Ultimately what I want is an AC that is actually good enough I might consider using it on a Fusion or Fission powered unit for more than a couple fairly narrow mission profiles and can also use the the specialty AC ammunitions.  I just don't feel like the stats are there to grant that.

[CloaknDagger]

Warships can overheat.  Jumpships can overheat.  Dropships can overheat. 

No. They aren't allowed to fire if they can't sink it.

I'd also add the AC-10 to bad choices for putting on Fusion and Fission powered units.

AC10 is also a great AAA weapon with flak. 10 point hits can hurt pretty bad to lighter or damaged aeros.

As far as AC-5 for AA, if I'm going for an AA weapon I'd rather take the AC-2 than the AC-5 since it is still only at Medium Range if a target is at Altitude 8 instead of Long with the AC-5 and any damage will force a control roll and I can get the same -3. 

True, but the AC5's 150% more damage is worth it a some times. Personally I think one or more of each is best for AAA.

Or an LB-2X and get a -4 since if we're talking TCs and AES that's available too and even cheaper, lighter, and even more long ranged.

I'll note that LBX can no longer use TCs for flak. And they just take up tons of space for AES. On top of that, the LBXs get the same -3 ACs do assuming both are hooked to an AES and both are in flak mode.

Unless... does the -1 for cluster hits stack with the -2 flak bonus?

I think that it's not necessarily the pure damage performance that makes ACs evenish to other weapons, it's the utility their alternate ammo gives them. Fighting at night? Now you have tracer round, which make them a lot better. Fighting infantry? Flechete. Light mechs? Precision.

Ultimately what I want is an AC that is actually good enough I might consider using it on a Fusion or Fission powered unit for more than a couple fairly narrow mission profiles and can also use the the specialty AC ammunitions.  I just don't feel like the stats are there to grant that.

Eye. That's why the Clan iAutocannons should become the standard. And while they're at it, give us protomech ACs for IS usage too.

[monbvol]

No. They aren't allowed to fire if they can't sink it.

I wish they'd make up their minds about that because that can really cripple ships like the Suffren and gets kind of sketchy for a couple other designs as well if they cannot overheat.

AC10 is also a great AAA weapon with flak. 10 point hits can hurt pretty bad to lighter or damaged aeros.

I've never had an ASF get within 15 hexes that wasn't already dead for AA fire.

True, but the AC5's 150% more damage is worth it a some times. Personally I think one or more of each is best for AAA.

The extra damage has never really been as big of a deal as forcing control rolls in my experience when it comes to AAA.

I'll note that LBX can no longer use TCs for flak. And they just take up tons of space for AES. On top of that, the LBXs get the same -3 ACs do assuming both are hooked to an AES and both are in flak mode.

Unless... does the -1 for cluster hits stack with the -2 flak bonus?

LB-X Cluster munitions do stack the -1 Cluster Hit bonus with the -2 Flak bonus just like the HAGs.

I think that it's not necessarily the pure damage performance that makes ACs evenish to other weapons, it's the utility their alternate ammo gives them. Fighting at night? Now you have tracer round, which make them a lot better. Fighting infantry? Flechete. Light mechs? Precision.

Illumination rounds for night fighting, Fragmentation rounds for missiles for Infantry, Thunder Active/Augmented/Semi-Guided/Mineclearing munitions for negating ground based target movement modifiers, and Pulse Lasers with their -2 for all sorts of general purpose fun.

Eye. That's why the Clan iAutocannons should become the standard. And while they're at it, give us protomech ACs for IS usage too.

*nod*

The biggest problem I have is that I can do almost everything an AC can for less weight by using something else and taking advantage of what is already on the design that isn't an AC.

I actually managed to make my weight and critical slot changes to an older version of Megamek and played the changes out and it was almost perfect in achieving something that is still slightly obsolete but still good enough I don't automatically rip it out for something else on a Fusion and Fission powered unit.  Now if I could just figure out how I've screwed up my pathing so I can compile the range changes and figure out where the ammunition counts are kept and I'm willing to bet it'll be perfect.

[FedComGirl]

Guys, the problem you're having is that you assume the AC5 is meant to be a good weapon on mechs. That's not neccessarly the case. Yes, you can always just say, missiles are better than ballistics on vee, so who's supposed to use ACs? But you miss the point that then everyone will just use reactive armor and AMS.

The AC5 has a useful niche in that it's absolutely dirt cheap. On top of that, it's a kickass AAA weapon. Paired with a TC or AES, and it gets an incredible -3 to hit with flak rounds, at a pretty great range of 18. Sure, the LAC5 is lighter, but you get slightly lower range. Is the LAC5 worth it? Almost always, but sometimes the AC5 is just better.

That being said; The improved autocannons the Clans had are really what should be made in the IS. Improved ACs give standards the small extra boost they need.

+1

So?  LRMs don't generate heat under the same circumstances as ACs don't generate heat.  Same for SRMs.

In which case you could have a LRM-10 and a SRM-4 and role the dice. You'd also have to hope the enemy isn't equipped with AMS defenses.

Either I'm not going to need heat sinks because the conditions will allow the LRM-10 and SRM-4 to be swapped in without trouble or the design is already going to have enough heat sinks that some firing discipline will allow skipping of extra heat sinks.

A low tech mech will need heat sinks.

A quick search for the definition of average:
snip

I don't know about you I see plenty to infer that average is not necessarily constant but for lack of a better value to use for such comparisons nothing else works any better.

When it comes to dice, I've seen average be consistently average. I've also seen consistently higher and consistently lower. Without the dice being loaded. So for lack of a better word, go a head and use average. Just be aware that average doesn't apply to everyone.


Warships can overheat.  Jumpships can overheat.  Dropships can overheat.  ASFs can overheat.

Only conventional combat vehicles and support vehicles cannot overheat and since combat vehicles do not generate heat from LRMs and SRMs and support vehicles are not intended to be primary combatants I'm still not really seeing any major hurdles.

Conventional and support vehicles require heat sinks for energy weapons. That eats up weight, unless you've mounting certain engines. And then it can vary. Really Low Tech Mechs can also overheat but seeing as ICE powered Battlemechs don't come with any free heat sinks and missile launcher do generate heat in them you're still going to be spending tonnage on heat sinks.

Hey if someone wants to bring Laser Reflective more power to them.  I'm not an Lasers only guy in how I build my forces.  It's just that ACs are not good weapons and are something that frankly if given the choice I'd leave behind for most tasks.

You also said you weren't a missile guy and don't like AC/s. There's not a lot left without bringing in artillery.

I know units without a current legal record sheets are not included.  If the unit is still missing perhaps asking the writers why would be helpful?

If units aren't included how can it be a "master" list? I have asked about why mechs with record sheets weren't included. I got in trouble.

If I'm going that far I'm going to seriously consider why I'm doing it and what I can do instead of an AC.

You mean just downgrading a unit by swapping standard AC/s and more ammo for their UACs? Sure you could swap in energy or missile systems but then you'll need to start adding heat sinks. And if you go with DHSs they take up crits fast.
 

I'd also add the AC-10 to bad choices for putting on Fusion and Fission powered units.

As far as AC-5 for AA, if I'm going for an AA weapon I'd rather take the AC-2 than the AC-5 since it is still only at Medium Range if a target is at Altitude 8 instead of Long with the AC-5 and any damage will force a control roll and I can get the same -3.  Or an LB-2X and get a -4 since if we're talking TCs and AES that's available too and even cheaper, lighter, and even more long ranged.

I'll have to reread the rules again. I thought the range for AA was determined by the distance to hex 0000 or if the unit in question was being attacked by the aircraft. Still the AC/2 does have better range, although the AC/5 has more punch.

And go ahead and mount Reactive Armor and AMS.  I'm not just a Missiles guy when building my force.

And you don't like AC/s. Like I asked above, what else is there?

Ultimately what I want is an AC that is actually good enough I might consider using it on a Fusion or Fission powered unit for more than a couple fairly narrow mission profiles and can also use the the specialty AC ammunitions.  I just don't feel like the stats are there to grant that.

Have you tried Protomech ACs?

snip

Eye. That's why the Clan iAutocannons should become the standard. And while they're at it, give us protomech ACs for IS usage too.

It does make me wonder why the IS Clans didn't start producing them again. Especially the Ghost Bears, Nova Cats, Ravens, and the Diamond Sharks. For the first three, they'd enhance the effectiveness of their militias/house troops. For the latter they could sell to the IS and rake in the C-bills. Even after the introduction of protomech AC/s there'd still be plenty of IS buyers for IACs. For any improved weapons really.

[monbvol]

I'm not sure where I said I do not like missiles to the point I will not use them but I'll use missiles.  Sure I'd like to see a few changes to them as well but they are not in near as much need of any help as ACs.  Gauss Rifles are wonderful weapons thanks to their low heat, so much so I think they actually do need to generate more heat for what they do and count like Plasma Rifles for non-Fusion and non-Fission powered vehicles(needing power amps and heat sinks).

It's only ACs that really seem to fall flat for me to a point where I'd remove probably around 80% of them for something else.

ProtoACs have the unfortunate effect of being Clan Tech and thus having to compete with stuff like the Clan Large Pulse Laser, Clan ER Large Laser, Clan LRMs, ATMs, and more.  They're a step in the right direction but still ultimately fall flat in the face of direct competition.

[CloaknDagger]

ProtoACs have the unfortunate effect of being Clan Tech and thus having to compete with stuff like the Clan Large Pulse Laser, Clan ER Large Laser, Clan LRMs, ATMs, and more.  They're a step in the right direction but still ultimately fall flat in the face of direct competition.

It's the same with all other Clan autocannons as well.

I'd like to see the IS universally upgrade to Clan tech ACs and such, because they're only minor improvements to the original systems. We could get pretty interesting mech designs then.

[monbvol]

*nod*

I did apply my alterations to the LB-X and UACs of both tech bases in that build of Megamek and while I still feel like the UACs are let down by the 2 column of the Cluster Hit chart the changes worked pretty well in my testing.  That build and the results I got from it is why I'm such a staunch supporter of the only way to improve the internal balance of ACs is to change their weight, criticals, and these days really looking at it even their ranges.

[FedComGirl]

I'm not sure where I said I do not like missiles to the point I will not use them but I'll use missiles.  Sure I'd like to see a few changes to them as well but they are not in near as much need of any help as ACs.  Gauss Rifles are wonderful weapons thanks to their low heat, so much so I think they actually do need to generate more heat for what they do and count like Plasma Rifles for non-Fusion and non-Fission powered vehicles(needing power amps and heat sinks).

You said you weren't a missile guy when building your force. I'll use missiles and put them on designs. Just because I don't have luck with them doesn't mean others don't. But I won't go ripping out every AC from my units either.

I'm not sure about Gauss Rifle's generating more heat but I can see them requiring a power amplifier. But I think that'd force to many erratas to happen.

It's only ACs that really seem to fall flat for me to a point where I'd remove probably around 80% of them for something else.

I don't remove weapons like that.

ProtoACs have the unfortunate effect of being Clan Tech and thus having to compete with stuff like the Clan Large Pulse Laser, Clan ER Large Laser, Clan LRMs, ATMs, and more.  They're a step in the right direction but still ultimately fall flat in the face of direct competition.

They may be competing but Clan energy weapons make up what they lose in weight by needing more heat sinks. Unless you're using improved standard weapons they all generate a lot more heat. You pretty much have to have fusion engines if you're going to use them, and DHS if you're going to use a lot.

[CloaknDagger]

They may be competing but Clan energy weapons make up what they lose in weight by needing more heat sinks. Unless you're using improved standard weapons they all generate a lot more heat. You pretty much have to have fusion engines if you're going to use them, and DHS if you're going to use a lot.

Clan Autocannons are in no way as good as the other weapons. Only the LBX and U/AC 20s are worth anything, and the much newer RACs.

[HazMeat]

Ultimately what I want is an AC that is actually good enough I might consider using it on a Fusion or Fission powered unit for more than a couple fairly narrow mission profiles and can also use the the specialty AC ammunitions.  I just don't feel like the stats are there to grant that.

+1 :(

For the most part I see the LRM-10 as a solid upgrade over the AC/5 unless anti-air is part of the unit's mission, and for tanks it's actually lighter than the AC/5, by enough that you can also throw in at least an SRM-4 unless it's managing to use up all of its item slots.  For 'mechs, at least without DHS, it's not always a no-brainer but most of the time I'd happily trade an AC/5 for a pair of LRM-5 launchers and a Medium Laser. 

Okay, what are the main reasons to choose AC over other weapons?  I see Flak bonus and in some cases uncommon range, some specialised Fedsuns ammo with unique capabilities, and the Ultras' and Rotaries' burst capability in exchange for jamming risk.  The Star League LB-X looks like the archetypical AC to me, and the most appealing, since it offers unique capabilities while Ultras and Rotaries aren't my cup of tea. 

There's such a wide variety of different AC weapons with different perks and flaws that I don't know where to buff them without messing with the nice diversity there, so I can get onboard with mostly buffing the range.  Also, IMO futuristic chemical-powered guns really ought to have IDF capability, and that works well with other reach upgrades. 

Another thing I saw suggested that I like is to add Ultra- or Rotary-style burst capability to other AC, and give UAC and RAC a bit more ammo per ton and remove the jam risk to reflect their specialisation in that capability.  I like that idea simply because it exaggerates the "flavour" of the Ultras, so I'd like to see similar exagerrations for all types.  For some half-baked examples off the top of my head, RAC could become variable autocannon similar to Bombast Laser, able to vary output (and ammo consumption) in many small increments.  LAC could be based on LB-X rather than standard, gaining even more flexibility through cluster munitions and retaining more range.  Since LB-types have option to trade some damage (via cluster roll) for a TN bonus, they could gain ability to also fire as a lower "rating," trading even more damage for better range bands. 

[monbvol]

You said you weren't a missile guy when building your force. I'll use missiles and put them on designs. Just because I don't have luck with them doesn't mean others don't. But I won't go ripping out every AC from my units either.

You mean this?

And go ahead and mount Reactive Armor and AMS.  I'm not just a Missiles guy when building my force.

I'm not sure how that can be construed to mean I don't like missiles and won't use them.  It just means I'm not a two dimensional force planner.

I'm not sure about Gauss Rifle's generating more heat but I can see them requiring a power amplifier. But I think that'd force to many erratas to happen.

The increased heat may make them seem less appealing versus energy weapons but considering only the ER Large Laser(either tech base), ERPPC(again either tech base), and PPCs can come close for range there is a lot of room for them to generate more heat and still be competitive.  I did implement 4/8/12 heat for Light/Standard/Heavy and remove minimum range in that build of Megamek as well but not needing power amps.  I never did find the correct setting for that in the source code.  It worked pretty well overall despite that.

I don't remove weapons like that.

Given the choice I do.

They may be competing but Clan energy weapons make up what they lose in weight by needing more heat sinks. Unless you're using improved standard weapons they all generate a lot more heat. You pretty much have to have fusion engines if you're going to use them, and DHS if you're going to use a lot.

Clans aren't exactly short on Fusion Engine designs.

So far I've only found the following non-Fusion non-Fission powered units in my TRO collection(not complete so there could be more):

Zorya Light Tank
Huitzilopochtli Assault Tank
Athena-XR

Everything else is Fusion powered.

Even so since I can get a Clan Tech ER Medium Laser, let's assume I'll need 5 Single Heat Sinks and a Power Amp for a total of 6.1 tons, one item slot on a vehicle, and 6 critical slots on a mech versus a PAC-8 and one ton of ammo for 6.5 tons, one item slot on a vehicle, and five critical slots on a mech I'll take the one less damage and one more critical for a 50% range boost.  Of course in the case of a Mech even if it is even worse as that suddenly shrinks down to 3 or 4 tons depending on if you want to overheat by one point or not and 5 critical slots, potentially less and is a complete non-starter for an ASF as the PAC-8 is Short Range while the ER Medium Laser is Medium and I'll take the extra range for nearly the same damage.  I'll admit there are cases where I'll accept drops in range but I want to feel like I'm getting something for that and the PAC-8 doesn't deliver.

PAC-4 almost but instead of an ER Medium Laser I'd be more inclined to replace it with a LRM-10 or even LRM-15.  Even if knocked down to a 2 on the cluster table by AMS either system is delivering comparable damage.

PAC-2 can use an LRM-10 and only if AMS is combined with Reactive Armor and minimum damage delivered will it do less damage.

Sure ammunition endurance isn't the same but since I can add more ammo in any of the above substitutions and have decent odds of doing the same or more damage even in the face of AMS and Reactive Armor combined I'll take my chances that I'll end the fight sooner from the greater damage.

I learned the game on 3025 designs so heat isn't that big of an issue to me.

And hazmeat here's a little something to chew on for AC-5s in 3025:

A Large Laser and 4 single heat sinks is 9 tons and 6 critical slots.  An AC-5 with one ton of ammo is 9 tons and 5 critical slots.  It's one of the situations where I'll trade range for extra capability.

Targets at altitude are 2 hexes farther away from hex 0909 or hex of the target of a level bombing/dive bombing/strike attack/strafe attack.  Since Liam's Ghost has hurt me a lot with level bombing runs from altitude 8 and that adds 16 hexes to range I've learned that AC-5s and AC-10s are not so great for AA work despite their damage while the sheer range of AC-2s mean I've actually got a chance at Medium Range shots instead of automatically Long Range.  Heck even if I still wind up at Long Range with AC-2s they have enough Long Range that I don't have to clump my mechs for self protection.

[FedComGirl]

Clan Autocannons are in no way as good as the other weapons. Only the LBX and U/AC 20s are worth anything, and the much newer RACs.

Like IS Autocanons, that depends on what they're mounted on.

You mean this?

I'm not sure how that can be construed to mean I don't like missiles and won't use them.  It just means I'm not a two dimensional force planner.

Yes between that and a previous statement it sounded like you preferred to use energy weapons.

The increased heat may make them seem less appealing versus energy weapons but considering only the ER Large Laser(either tech base), ERPPC(again either tech base), and PPCs can come close for range there is a lot of room for them to generate more heat and still be competitive.  I did implement 4/8/12 heat for Light/Standard/Heavy and remove minimum range in that build of Megamek as well but not needing power amps.  I never did find the correct setting for that in the source code.  It worked pretty well overall despite that.

I wouldn't have a problem if they generated a bit more heat. All that energy going to the capacitors should do something besides sling balls of metal down range.

Given the choice I do.

No problem.

Clans aren't exactly short on Fusion Engine designs.

True but there are some.

So far I've only found the following non-Fusion non-Fission powered units in my TRO collection(not complete so there could be more):

Zorya Light Tank
Huitzilopochtli Assault Tank
Athena-XR

Everything else is Fusion powered.

There's these from TRO:Prototypes. They have ICE and FC Engines
Sokar Urban Combat Unit
Nuberu AA Tank
Vidar Heavy Defense Tank

Even so since I can get a Clan Tech ER Medium Laser, let's assume I'll need 5 Single Heat Sinks and a Power Amp for a total of 6.1 tons, one item slot on a vehicle, and 6 critical slots on a mech versus a PAC-8 and one ton of ammo for 6.5 tons, one item slot on a vehicle, and five critical slots on a mech I'll take the one less damage and one more critical for a 50% range boost.  Of course in the case of a Mech even if it is even worse as that suddenly shrinks down to 3 or 4 tons depending on if you want to overheat by one point or not and 5 critical slots, potentially less and is a complete non-starter for an ASF as the PAC-8 is Short Range while the ER Medium Laser is Medium and I'll take the extra range for nearly the same damage.  I'll admit there are cases where I'll accept drops in range but I want to feel like I'm getting something for that and the PAC-8 doesn't deliver.

Yes the Medium Laser has more range than the PAC-8 and sometimes that's better but not all the time. I wouldn't swap them from the Sokar. It's main function is urban pacification and its main weapons are 2 PAC-8s. It also has an ICE and 2 tons of ammo for the PACs as well as other weapons geared towards anti-infantry. Yes, the medium lasers and heat sinks would fit but it completely changes the tanks mission profile.

PAC-4 almost but instead of an ER Medium Laser I'd be more inclined to replace it with a LRM-10 or even LRM-15.  Even if knocked down to a 2 on the cluster table by AMS either system is delivering comparable damage.

PAC-2 can use an LRM-10 and only if AMS is combined with Reactive Armor and minimum damage delivered will it do less damage.

How is 2 points of damage comparable to 4 points of damage?

So why use the LRM-10 then? The ranges are comparable and the PAC-2 has a lot more shots than the LRM does. Without adding more ammo.

Sure ammunition endurance isn't the same but since I can add more ammo in any of the above substitutions and have decent odds of doing the same or more damage even in the face of AMS and Reactive Armor combined I'll take my chances that I'll end the fight sooner from the greater damage.

What greater damage?

I learned the game on 3025 designs so heat isn't that big of an issue to me.

So did I and I prefer not to over heat so much that I can't get rid of it in a turn.

And hazmeat here's a little something to chew on for AC-5s in 3025:

A Large Laser and 4 single heat sinks is 9 tons and 6 critical slots.  An AC-5 with one ton of ammo is 9 tons and 5 critical slots.  It's one of the situations where I'll trade range for extra capability.

I know you're not talking to me but the number of heat sinks and critical slots depends on the unit and the engine. On an 160 ICE powered mech the AC/5 with ammo and heat sink would weigh 10 tons and take 5 critical slots. The Large Laser with power amplifier and heat sinks would take 13.5 tons and take 7 critical slots.

Targets at altitude are 2 hexes farther away from hex 0909 or hex of the target of a level bombing/dive bombing/strike attack/strafe attack.  Since Liam's Ghost has hurt me a lot with level bombing runs from altitude 8 and that adds 16 hexes to range I've learned that AC-5s and AC-10s are not so great for AA work despite their damage while the sheer range of AC-2s mean I've actually got a chance at Medium Range shots instead of automatically Long Range.  Heck even if I still wind up at Long Range with AC-2s they have enough Long Range that I don't have to clump my mechs for self protection.

mmm have to reread the rules again. At 16 hexes the AC/10's operating at extreme range so it'd be little wonder they're not as good at that range.

[CloaknDagger]

Yes the Medium Laser has more range than the PAC-8 and sometimes that's better but not all the time. I wouldn't swap them from the Sokar. It's main function is urban pacification and its main weapons are 2 PAC-8s. It also has an ICE and 2 tons of ammo for the PACs as well as other weapons geared towards anti-infantry. Yes, the medium lasers and heat sinks would fit but it completely changes the tanks mission profile.

When is -2 to hit except at point blank, and the ability to shoot farther away, and unlimited ammo, and not being explosive worth a single extra point of damage?

[monbvol]

Like IS Autocanons, that depends on what they're mounted on.

*shrug*  Clan tech base makes life even harder on the LB-X and UACs in a lot of ways.

Yes between that and a previous statement it sounded like you preferred to use energy weapons.

While I'll admit I'd probably use predominantly energy weapons I'm respectful enough of Gauss Rifles, LRMs, SRMs, and even MRMs I will not exclude them from my force selection completely.

I wouldn't have a problem if they generated a bit more heat. All that energy going to the capacitors should do something besides sling balls of metal down range.

No problem.

Seems nothing more needs said here.

True but there are some.

There's these from TRO:Prototypes. They have ICE and FC Engines
Sokar Urban Combat Unit
Nuberu AA Tank
Vidar Heavy Defense Tank

I figured I'd probably be missing a few examples since my TRO collection is not all that extensive these days.  Still the vast majority of designs of Clan Technology seem to be using a Fusion power source.

Yes the Medium Laser has more range than the PAC-8 and sometimes that's better but not all the time. I wouldn't swap them from the Sokar. It's main function is urban pacification and its main weapons are 2 PAC-8s. It also has an ICE and 2 tons of ammo for the PACs as well as other weapons geared towards anti-infantry. Yes, the medium lasers and heat sinks would fit but it completely changes the tanks mission profile.

Unless there is an errata I'm unaware of granting the PAC-8s Flechette ammunition the ER-Medium Lasers are just as good at killing infantry as the PAC-8s, perhaps better since they don't run out of ammunition.  They are one point of damage slower at knocking down buildings and fortifications I'll grant but when I can sit back at 15 hexes instead of 10 I'll take that extra buffer against return fire and other possible surprises.

How is 2 points of damage comparable to 4 points of damage?

So why use the LRM-10 then? The ranges are comparable and the PAC-2 has a lot more shots than the LRM does. Without adding more ammo.

What greater damage?

Rolling a 2 on the 10 column of the Cluster Chart results in 3 hits.  75% damage is close enough.  Since I'd only have to roll an 8+ to tie or better the 4 points of the PAC-4 if AMS is present.  6+ if I also tie in Artemis, which thinking about it I might do to off set any possible AMS+Reactive Armor combinations.

2 on the 15 Column results in 5 missiles hit.  125% damage and going to the same location sounds rather good to me.  Even if AMS and Reactive Armor are both present it would only take rolling 5+ to get the same or more damage.  Sure it might not be all to one location but every little bit helps.

So did I and I prefer not to over heat so much that I can't get rid of it in a turn.

Might be who I learned from.  There were a lot of fights where if I wasn't up around 10 on the heatscale on at least half my mechs for at least three or four rounds I would not have won the fight.

I know you're not talking to me but the number of heat sinks and critical slots depends on the unit and the engine. On an 160 ICE powered mech the AC/5 with ammo and heat sink would weigh 10 tons and take 5 critical slots. The Large Laser with power amplifier and heat sinks would take 13.5 tons and take 7 critical slots.

I know that armed Industrial Mechs are part of the setting in certain eras but they already have enough going against them that slapping an AC-5 on them almost seems adding insult to injury.

mmm have to reread the rules again. At 16 hexes the AC/10's operating at extreme range so it'd be little wonder they're not as good at that range.

I had to read the rules on AA and level bombing a few times myself when Total Warfare and TacOps came out just to make sure I knew what my options would be when Liam's Ghost started up his level bombing attacks from altitude 8.  With how scatter works from a level bombing it isn't that hard to actually correct for the +1 per altitude for the level bomber, especially using cluster bombs.  So yeah I appreciate the sheer range of the AC-2 and LB-2X.  Giving me Medium Range or Long Range shots instead of Extreme Range is something I'll grant the AC-2 and LB-2X that isn't easily matched by something else.  Heck they can get AA shots that can only be matched by Anti-Air Arrow IVs thanks to how Artillery as AA works in TacOps and with how much cheaper they are than those specialty Arrow IVs it's something I have to consider in building a force.

[FedComGirl]

When is -2 to hit except at point blank, and the ability to shoot farther away, and unlimited ammo, and not being explosive worth a single extra point of damage?

What -2 to hit? Medium Lasers aren't -2 to hit.

*shrug*  Clan tech base makes life even harder on the LB-X and UACs in a lot of ways.

Some.

While I'll admit I'd probably use predominantly energy weapons I'm respectful enough of Gauss Rifles, LRMs, SRMs, and even MRMs I will not exclude them from my force selection completely.

Cool.

I figured I'd probably be missing a few examples since my TRO collection is not all that extensive these days.  Still the vast majority of designs of Clan Technology seem to be using a Fusion power source.

No problem. I try to keep up with them as they're my favorite type of book. It seems that IS Clan start being more open to other power sources as they've had problems upgrading IS factories to clan spec.

Unless there is an errata I'm unaware of granting the PAC-8s Flechette ammunition the ER-Medium Lasers are just as good at killing infantry as the PAC-8s, perhaps better since they don't run out of ammunition.  They are one point of damage slower at knocking down buildings and fortifications I'll grant but when I can sit back at 15 hexes instead of 10 I'll take that extra buffer against return fire and other possible surprises.

Protomech ACs use the same rules as standard ACs.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,29574.msg682708.html#msg682708

Rolling a 2 on the 10 column of the Cluster Chart results in 3 hits.  75% damage is close enough.  Since I'd only have to roll an 8+ to tie or better the 4 points of the PAC-4 if AMS is present.  6+ if I also tie in Artemis, which thinking about it I might do to off set any possible AMS+Reactive Armor combinations.

2 on the 15 Column results in 5 missiles hit.  125% damage and going to the same location sounds rather good to me.  Even if AMS and Reactive Armor are both present it would only take rolling 5+ to get the same or more damage.  Sure it might not be all to one location but every little bit helps.

It sounds good but sounding good and getting good rolls are different things.

Sometimes having all that damage in 1 location is better.

Might be who I learned from.  There were a lot of fights where if I wasn't up around 10 on the heatscale on at least half my mechs for at least three or four rounds I would not have won the fight.

If absolutely necessary I can understand it. It always made things worse for me but I can understand it. You do what you have to do. But I'll still try to avoid it if possible.

I know that armed Industrial Mechs are part of the setting in certain eras but they already have enough going against them that slapping an AC-5 on them almost seems adding insult to injury.

True. But there's also low tech Battlemechs. There's also vehicles. While combat vehicles aren't constrained as much by space energy weapons are still going to be as heavy or heavier than ACs.

I had to read the rules on AA and level bombing a few times myself when Total Warfare and TacOps came out just to make sure I knew what my options would be when Liam's Ghost started up his level bombing attacks from altitude 8.  With how scatter works from a level bombing it isn't that hard to actually correct for the +1 per altitude for the level bomber, especially using cluster bombs.  So yeah I appreciate the sheer range of the AC-2 and LB-2X.  Giving me Medium Range or Long Range shots instead of Extreme Range is something I'll grant the AC-2 and LB-2X that isn't easily matched by something else.  Heck they can get AA shots that can only be matched by Anti-Air Arrow IVs thanks to how Artillery as AA works in TacOps and with how much cheaper they are than those specialty Arrow IVs it's something I have to consider in building a force.

Yeah. Rules have changed some. I have to keep checking them myself and even then I miss or forget things. Like now.  #P  AC/2s are nice for AA. Have you considered the HVAC/s? They have a nice long range and fill hexes with smoke to obscure targets.

[HazMeat]

I wasn't forgetting the Large Laser, and in fact it's one of the first upgrades I think of when I see an AC/5, at least for battlemechs.  I just left it out since it's different enough that some one could get on my case about how it's not a real replacement.  Hypothetically.  No one in particular.  O:-) filthy imperialist Fedrats 

I'm still more interested in the original topic, even if Shin Ji hasn't replied in weeks.  ...and I don't know what any one thinks of any of the several house rules ideas I've thrown out, good or bad.  ...and it seems like I'm the only one trying to participate in that recently. 

I've been thinking about allowing double-rate fire for all AC, but instead of jamming have it be limited by a really simple mechanic fluffed as being based on barrel cooling: 

Rotary AC can handle up to sextuple rate for one turn, but sustained firepower is only double rate.  Rules-wise, you track a "barrel heat" buffer that holds up to 6 points, each worth firing one ammo unit, and this constantly cools at two points per turn.  Heat for the 'mech, tank, or whatever is unaffected, for the sake of simplicity, and this barrel stress mechanic replaces the whole jamming thing- though I guess you can have the old way as an option in similar spirit to PPC Inhibitor Disengage rules.  Ultras have a smaller capacity, only enough for double-fire, but they have the same enhanced barrel cooling, so there's no added bookkeeping: they can simply fire at either single or double rate as long as ammo lasts.  All other AC types have Ultra-sized buffers but half the dissipation, so the only added thing to keep track of is whether it double-fired in the last turn. 

I'm also inclined to give a bit of to-hit bonus and/or cluster bonuse for ligher AC and a penalty to heavier ones, but can't decide on the details, other than that I want to split the four classes (2, 5, 10, 20) into "Light Autocannon" -er, make that "Small Autocannon" and "Large Autocannon" due to the tonnage jump, LAC and RAC, and the way MW2: Mercenaries had class-2 and class-5 behave one way while class-10 and class-20 behaved another way.   

[monbvol]

What -2 to hit? Medium Lasers aren't -2 to hit.

I'm guessing he means the effective lower to hit numbers at most distances due to the greater range of the ER-Medium Laser.  If so the wording could have been better.

Protomech ACs use the same rules as standard ACs.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,29574.msg682708.html#msg682708

That thread actually has nothing confirming that Protomech ACs use the same specialty munitions as their Inner Sphere standard and light counterparts and checking the Errata thread itself does not confirm any change to this either.  Checking the transcript of the Battlechat in question would make one think it is possible so I may have to give ground once that has been entered into Errata officially.

It sounds good but sounding good and getting good rolls are different things.

Sometimes having all that damage in 1 location is better.

Considering it takes two pieces of equipment, one of which is not supported by Total Warfare, to negate the damage advantage of one piece of equipment that is supported by Total Warfare over one piece of equipment that is not supported by Total Warfare and on top of that the armor from Tactical Operations will occassionally explode and remove all remaining armor from that section I think I'll take my chances with the LRM cluster table roll.

If absolutely necessary I can understand it. It always made things worse for me but I can understand it. You do what you have to do. But I'll still try to avoid it if possible.

It's more about knowing how and when to risk it.  Too conservative and I've had too man fights where the reduction in firepower spelled my defeat.  Too aggressive and you can cause other problems.

True. But there's also low tech Battlemechs. There's also vehicles. While combat vehicles aren't constrained as much by space energy weapons are still going to be as heavy or heavier than ACs.

Vehicles tend to be problematic.  A Scorpion tank can either replace it's AC-5 with an LRM-10 and SRM-4 and be more threatening than the AC-5 armed one or once the Light PPC rolls around it can mount one of those for no less mass,thanks to how turret mounting works, and have the exact same damage profile at the exact same ranges.  To make either one less effective you have to mount mutually exclusive armors.

AC-10s on combat vehicles are actually just good enough I can accept them until the LB-10X or Light Gauss Rifle rolls around but I'm still inclined to give the Large Laser a close look since that is 13.5 tons and most combat vehicles have more than one ton of ammunition for their AC-10 or mount them in a turret.

Yeah. Rules have changed some. I have to keep checking them myself and even then I miss or forget things. Like now.  #P  AC/2s are nice for AA. Have you considered the HVAC/s? They have a nice long range and fill hexes with smoke to obscure targets.

Way too heavy and without the specialty munitions the sheer reach isn't worth quite as much.

I wasn't forgetting the Large Laser, and in fact it's one of the first upgrades I think of when I see an AC/5, at least for battlemechs.  I just left it out since it's different enough that some one could get on my case about how it's not a real replacement.  Hypothetically.  No one in particular.  O:-) filthy imperialist Fedrats 

I'm still more interested in the original topic, even if Shin Ji hasn't replied in weeks.  ...and I don't know what any one thinks of any of the several house rules ideas I've thrown out, good or bad.  ...and it seems like I'm the only one trying to participate in that recently. 

I've been thinking about allowing double-rate fire for all AC, but instead of jamming have it be limited by a really simple mechanic fluffed as being based on barrel cooling: 

Rotary AC can handle up to sextuple rate for one turn, but sustained firepower is only double rate.  Rules-wise, you track a "barrel heat" buffer that holds up to 6 points, each worth firing one ammo unit, and this constantly cools at two points per turn.  Heat for the 'mech, tank, or whatever is unaffected, for the sake of simplicity, and this barrel stress mechanic replaces the whole jamming thing- though I guess you can have the old way as an option in similar spirit to PPC Inhibitor Disengage rules.  Ultras have a smaller capacity, only enough for double-fire, but they have the same enhanced barrel cooling, so there's no added bookkeeping: they can simply fire at either single or double rate as long as ammo lasts.  All other AC types have Ultra-sized buffers but half the dissipation, so the only added thing to keep track of is whether it double-fired in the last turn. 

I'm also inclined to give a bit of to-hit bonus and/or cluster bonuse for ligher AC and a penalty to heavier ones, but can't decide on the details, other than that I want to split the four classes (2, 5, 10, 20) into "Light Autocannon" -er, make that "Small Autocannon" and "Large Autocannon" due to the tonnage jump, LAC and RAC, and the way MW2: Mercenaries had class-2 and class-5 behave one way while class-10 and class-20 behaved another way.   

My main problem with rate of fire and damage alterations is that it does change the dynamic of the game more fundamentaly than simply changing the mass, critical slots, range, and ammunition counts.

If you let standards fire like Ultras without jamming than what do you do to make the Ultra an actual upgrade to the standard?  How will that impact the LB-Xs?  The RACs?  Does this work with all specialty munitions?

There are a lot more questions you have to ask yourself about any proposed upgrades.  The most important one is "How does this effect game balance?".

And that Rate of Fire suggestion of yours adds another element of tracking, so not going to win me over.

[HazMeat]

Rereading what I posted, I see that I was not clear enough, and I aplologise for that.  Rotaries would need to keep track of an integer from 0 through 6, for each gun, but I don't expect unanimity across all players as to whether that's a big deal.  Ultras would be able to double-fire, no restrictions or added risk, no need to keep track of anything, while others would only be able double-fire one turn in a row, and have to hold fire for one turn in order to double-fire again.  It seems to me like Ultras would still have a huge advantage there, since sustained firepower is still double, and for other types no more extra tracking than for PPC Capacitors. 

If that's too much hassle for you, then I accept that this idea is no good for you.  I understand that this is part of the reason for multiple rules levels.  I don't see how range is any more or less fundamental than burst output, but whatever.  I really like the idea of boosting AC by enhancing their reach, but I'm not sold on your changes because changing the mount costs doesn't work well for existing designs, so I'm still looking for something else. 

I have asked myself how it would affect the game, and I don't think I should trust my ability to accurately imagine all the consequences for any significant change, which is part of why I seek others' impressions.  Where I'm coming from is wanting to give AC something different from just more raw firepower and/or range for the tonnage, since to me it looks harder to use those basic values to make AC appealing without stepping on any other weapons' toes.  If everything just boiled down to range and damage/turn/ton, we would end up just optimising on those two dimensions, but things like Inferno and NARC are much harder to compare the value of.  We do have something of a model for the effect that added rapid-fire should have, besides the existing rapid-fire mechanics, though; I expect that most of us have noticed that Single Heat Sinks and Medium Lasers can be swapped, and I rather like the way that affects the both shallow cusomisations and purpose-built designs. 

Since I happen to not be fond of the jamming mechanics, (neither my idea of believable nor "cool") I sometimes wonder what less painful system might make a good replacement, upgrading AC along the way.  I have biases toward things that are easy to explain with fluff, and things that would let AC seem more distinguished from other weapons. 

[monbvol]

No real world military that I know of would pass/purchase a weapon that jams as often as the UACs and RACs do, even if the RACs can be unjammed.

[CloaknDagger]

No real world military that I know of would pass/purchase a weapon that jams as often as the UACs and RACs do, even if the RACs can be unjammed.

It's a 50mm+ gatling gun that fires for 10 seconds straight. It's very reasonable performance.

[monbvol]

I doubt UACs and RACs actually fire for a full 10 seceonds.