BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
BattleTech Player Boards => Fan Articles => Topic started by: Stinger on 01 December 2013, 18:33:34
-
Okay, so looking at the heavy rifle, I see a cheaper, longer range, lighter AC-10 that can't use special munitions.
Given that this was available for a long time, for the cost of 1 damage I get the same range as a PPC or LB-10X AC and at only 8 tons. Drawback being only 6 shots per ton, but the tonnage saved compared to an AC-10 (4 tons) out weighs this drastically.
Am I missing something? Or in time periods before special munitions, is this a better choice?
-
The thing is that the Rifle (Cannons)s are so archaic that they’re not designed to deal with later, tougher forms of armour: when dealing with units (not counting BA) whose armour has BAR7 or higher (which includes Primitive ’Mech armour and all more advanced forms), each gun deals 3 points less of damage. The much-maligned AC/5 masses the same as the Heavy Rifle, hits almost as hard, doesn’t suffer the same damage-penalty, and has far better ammunition endurance for every ton of ammo it carries.
That’s not to say that Heavy Rifles are completely useless: like all Rifle (Cannon)s, they’re cheap, easy to make and supply, they do deal damage the enemy, and a solid hit from one will get the attention of most BA suits (which don’t enjoy the -3 damage-modifier that heavier units get). It’s just a niche weapon that typically speaks to the user lacking a tech-base advanced enough to deploy anything more potent.
Of course, if you want to play a campaign in a Tech Level C (or even TL-B) environment where Primitive ’Mechs are fighting it out with, say, units from TRO:1945, the Heavy Rifle starts to look awfully powerful as a main-armament.... }:) ;)
-
The thing is that the Rifle (Cannons)s are so archaic that they’re not designed to deal with later, tougher forms of armour: when dealing with units (not counting BA) whose armour has BAR7 or higher (which includes Primitive ’Mech armour and all more advanced forms), each gun deals 3 points less of damage. The much-maligned AC/5 masses the same as the Heavy Rifle, hits almost as hard, doesn’t suffer the same damage-penalty, and has far better ammunition endurance for every ton of ammo it carries.
That’s not to say that Heavy Rifles are completely useless: like all Rifle (Cannon)s, they’re cheap, easy to make and supply, they do deal damage the enemy, and a solid hit from one will get the attention of most BA suits (which don’t enjoy the -3 damage-modifier that heavier units get). It’s just a niche weapon that typically speaks to the user lacking a tech-base advanced enough to deploy anything more potent.
Of course, if you want to play a campaign in a Tech Level C (or even TL-B) environment where Primitive ’Mechs are fighting it out with, say, units from TRO:1945, the Heavy Rifle starts to look awfully powerful as a main-armament.... }:) ;)
Okay, that makes a lot more sense now. I haven't read into it completely, given I just got TacOps in the recent sale, but I thought it was too good to be true.
Thanks for the info!
-
granted all these things make it a great weapon for defensive works
blows trucks, infantry and BA all over the place
and 3-4 of them will get a mechs attention
-
It also doesn't help that the heavy rifle generates 6 heat per shot instead of the AC/5s 1, which combined with it's low ammo endurance stymies it on some units. The Arbiter for instance, fires a round and it's 5 heat up the scale- assuming it doesn't move.
-
I'm actually surprised that there aren't any alternate ordiance for these weapons. They should have at least Flak and Flechette type ammo types for these weapons. It seems to be bit too restrictive...
-
It's not meant to be competitive with "modern" weapons. Like low BAR armour and other primitive equipment, it's there to allow construction of ye olde war machines which aren't as good as the best new stuff. It also allows lower-tech planets some capacity to build low-grade equipment themselves.
-
It's not meant to be competitive with "modern" weapons. Like low BAR armour and other primitive equipment, it's there to allow construction of ye olde war machines which aren't as good as the best new stuff. It also allows lower-tech planets some capacity to build low-grade equipment themselves.
Well, only reason why i mention the flak was because of XTRO:1945. They were certainly using flak during the Second World War, or they would been heck of alot less planes being shot down from the ground!
-
OTOH, and barring the US-only proximity fuses, all WW2 flak was based on timed fuses. So not necessarily the same thing.
(And yes, I do know the hazards of bringing logic and real-world physics into a BT argument :D )
-
Best thing I can think to do with it?
Field Gun for infantry.
-
Best thing I can think to do with it?
Field Gun for infantry.
I'd prefer to use Medium Rifles for this, but in either case, a platoon lugging a bunch of these will do HORRIBLE things to enemy battlesuits. >:D
-
I'd prefer to use Medium Rifles for this, but in either case, a platoon lugging a bunch of these will do HORRIBLE things to enemy battlesuits. >:D
They do have some limitations against larger targets which could be problematic and the ammo could be a bit tight, but they are very easy to justify. After all, what military wants to splurge on those silly PBI? Give them the crummy old rifles and tell them to make do. >:D
-
Now I need to make some infantry stands with breech-loading cannon ... (Yes, I know it's totally wrong representation, but ...)
-
Now I need to make some infantry stands with breech-loading cannon ... (Yes, I know it's totally wrong representation, but ...)
Depending on the cannons you are using, it may not be too far off. Something that looks like a field gun from WW1 or later is probably about right given TRO 1945.
-
Now I need to make some infantry stands with breech-loading cannon ... (Yes, I know it's totally wrong representation, but ...)
Bah. I'll use Napoleonic muzzle loaders. They'll match the cavalry stands I'm planning. [brew]
-
OTOH, and barring the US-only proximity fuses, all WW2 flak was based on timed fuses. So not necessarily the same thing.
(And yes, I do know the hazards of bringing logic and real-world physics into a BT argument :D )
Did you know the VT fuse was invented in Britain and used in British AAA too?
-
Depending on the cannons you are using, it may not be too far off. Something that looks like a field gun from WW1 or later is probably about right given TRO 1945.
GHQ has a nice variety of towed guns you could use.. i have to say the M1 8" towed gun from their WW2 american line would work well, though you'd have to buy the prime movers seperately. toss a 1 1/2 ton truck, one of the guns, and a few infantry on a hex base and you have a wonderful mechanized field gun platoon representation.
-
Bah. I'll use Napoleonic muzzle loaders. They'll match the cavalry stands I'm planning. [brew]
Along with your hunters in pith helmets armed with elephant guns mounted on Branths, right?
-
Damn straight. 8)
-
If you carry enough ammo OR the unit isn't designed to last too long the ammo thing isn't an issue.
One unit it would really help is the Dragon, something I realized when 1945 came out, in the classic fluff 20th century tech is the norm through out the IS, and 20th century tech is limited to BAR 5, and the Dragon isn't able to generate a cluster higher then that but if you swap out the AC/5 for a Heavy Rifle that problem goes away
-
yeah, but they went way overboard making these things "teh suck" really. They carry crap ammo, run massively hit, and suffer a penalty to damage most common combat units. Really, better ammo endurance should have been part and parcel on these things. I might even have added in the whole HVAC smoke effect too, just for funsies, but as it is, the Arbiter is a waste of space on a battlefield if you don't convert it over to at least an AC/5 tout suite.
I sort of like the idea of the gun carriage infantry though, and I really like the idea of mounting these things in bunkers an atop walls with crenelations too!
-
yeah, but they went way overboard making these things "teh suck" really. They carry crap ammo, run massively hit, and suffer a penalty to damage most common combat units. Really, better ammo endurance should have been part and parcel on these things. I might even have added in the whole HVAC smoke effect too, just for funsies, but as it is, the Arbiter is a waste of space on a battlefield if you don't convert it over to at least an AC/5 tout suite.
I sort of like the idea of the gun carriage infantry though, and I really like the idea of mounting these things in bunkers an atop walls with crenelations too!
Given some of the questionable weapons we have seen in regular service over the years, I think they really did have to make the rifles suck this badly to explain why they were abandoned.
-
I personally believe this is a plot to make the AC-5 look not just tolerable, but superior in capacity! :))
-
I personally believe this is a plot to make the AC-5 look not just tolerable, but superior in capacity! :))
I wasn't part of any rules development when TacOps was first done up, but this is probably literally the case. The AC/5 is known to be a popular main weapon from the Mackie's time onward, so it obviously must be superior to what came before it. The developers probably worked very hard to craft a weapon powerful enough to make battles in that time period interesting, yet inferior enough to make every AC/5-toting unit in Battletech make some sense.
-
No, just imagine if someone figures out how to stamp rifle ammo with "made after 3020" .......
Honestly, the rifles are useful... and would be a great place to use applied engineering and learning to make a better ballistic weapon for future improvements.
Also, if you go over the GHQ Heavy Weapons sets, there are ones with infantry and small mortar guns on wheels.... yes, assembling those itty bitty canons are a pain, but they work very well to simulate infantry with mini artillery.
http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/us94.html
Nahuris
-
or of course the old pack 75mm
http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/us61.html
-
No, just imagine if someone figures out how to stamp rifle ammo with "made after 3020" .......
Honestly, the rifles are useful... and would be a great place to use applied engineering and learning to make a better ballistic weapon for future improvements.
Are you aware of how broken that would be? The 8.8cm Cannon in TRO:1945 is a 4-ton, 40 ammo per ton, and you can double mount it, getting a sort of unjammable Ultra, and that's a Tech Level B weapon, and not a very advanced one at that, how bad do you think an upgraded Heavy Rifle would be? I've come up with some conservative stats for such and weapon and they're nasty enough
-
No, just imagine if someone figures out how to stamp rifle ammo with "made after 3020" .......
Honestly, the rifles are useful... and would be a great place to use applied engineering and learning to make a better ballistic weapon for future improvements.
Right, because there are obviously no construction differences between the old rifles and the more modern autocannons like barrel pressure which would prevent the old guns from matching the performance of more modern weapons. ::)
-
Right, because there are obviously no construction differences between the old rifles and the more modern autocannons like barrel pressure which would prevent the old guns from matching the performance of more modern weapons. ::)
And there's nothing saying that that same AC tech can't be used to upgrade the Rifles? At the very least it should be able to help the ammo, at least if Rifles and/or AC's use exploding shot
-
And there's nothing saying that that same AC tech can't be used to upgrade the Rifles? At the very least it should be able to help the ammo, at least if Rifles and/or AC's use exploding shot
That would produce various classes of autocannons. Remember, the ACs are the direct successors to the Rifles and they are both fairly conventional firearms, so an upgrade with the new AC technology would turn the Rifle in question into an autocannon.
-
Ladies and gentlemen, this is about the Heavy Rifle Cannon, not some non-canon derivative of the same. Take that to the Fan Designs and Rules board as the forum rules direct you to.
-
or of course the old pack 75mm
http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/us61.html
That's the one I was looking for --- I have a set of those, they come with quite a few of those little itty bitty guns... in multiple pieces......
They are a PAIN to put together, but on a small base with a few infantry, look absolutely awesome.
Nahuris
-
So I see the thread is over 90 days old (over 9 years), but it was close to what wanted to ask about.
I just a week ago bought a nice new battle tech tech manual on construction (grey cover) and was surprised that it didn't have any rifle stats. I get some of the newer techs not included, but I wanted to try out making old time units. Are heavy rifles even "official" tech for building?
-
Their still used in the periphery.
The Rifle Cannons are found in Tactical Operations, they considered to be experimental technology.
-
So I see the thread is over 90 days old (over 9 years), but it was close to what wanted to ask about.
I just a week ago bought a nice new battle tech tech manual on construction (grey cover) and was surprised that it didn't have any rifle stats. I get some of the newer techs not included, but I wanted to try out making old time units. Are heavy rifles even "official" tech for building?
Even more so, they are complicated to use from a rules perspective. I think that is why they are "experimental" more than anything. BMM covered most of the simpler to use Tech.
-
BattleMech Manual also focuses on mech-to-mech rules and much of the rifle cannon rules focus around non-mech units.
-
Considering Rifles only exist to show how more advanced BTUs Auto Cannons are to the 20th Century counterparts, don't feel like it's a must need for everyone. I personally can only think of deploying a Heavy Rifle unit as a joke in a double blind game; player rounds a corner and a mech has 'em dead to rights. The enemy mech fires and... Does nothing, it's a Arbiter dressed up to look like a Urbie.
-
Even more so, they are complicated to use from a rules perspective. I think that is why they are "experimental" more than anything. BMM covered most of the simpler to use Tech.
Sarna lists Rifles (Cannon) as being on the table of contents for BattleMech Manual. BMM has EVERYTHING that can be mounted by a BattleMech, Tech Manual restricts itself to only stuff that is tournament legal at the time of it's printing, but covers BattleMech units as well. And Rifle aren't complicated from a rules perspective, they're just so old they're not worth including (They should be too bad to take normally, but do OK against BattleArmor)
-
I've said it before - Rifle canons are mook guns and hysterical oddities. They are perfect for those roles.
-
About the only real use is on units facing Infantry and Light Vehicles. I have used them on units designed to hunt down "rebel" forces.
example Striking Cobra Light Attack and Recon Aircraft (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,68749.msg1594664.html#msg1594664) at no point should this craft in a gunship mode or any other be put against modern forces if you want them to come home.
-
I was thinking that there would be some kind of version of the MechBuster in some form armed with a Heavy Rifle(s) or large aircraft with pair for Age of War setting.
It would be nice
-
The thing with the Rifle Cannon is weight. It's hard to convince me the technology is actually "better" if the AC-10 is 4 tons heavier.
"Our new and improved AC10, fires the latest ammunition from a high-tech super reinforced barrel!"
"Why does it weigh so much?"
"Ummm...."
"Did you just quadruple barrel and breach thickness without changing anything?"
"Sir that information is classified! Trade secret!"
"Uh huh."
-
During the depths of the succession wars you might have a point - except they never lose bar 10 armor, so the gun does 6 damage to things that matter.
Move into the tech revival era and the performance of the 3 ton (5.5 with DHS) light PPC does 80%against the majority of things you're going to shoot at (ba infantry and buildings being exceptions)
It's a Mook gun.
-
The Heavy Rifle also gets only 6 shots per ton vs the AC 10's 10 shots.
-
I personally like MW5's version. The guns have a slow reload but not the damage reduction
-
During the depths of the succession wars you might have a point - except they never lose bar 10 armor, so the gun does 6 damage to things that matter.
Move into the tech revival era and the performance of the 3 ton (5.5 with DHS) light PPC does 80%against the majority of things you're going to shoot at (ba infantry and buildings being exceptions)
It's a Mook gun.
Yes, quadrupling the barrel's thickness does let you fire higher quality shells.
Innovation!
-
I personally like MW5's version. The guns have a slow reload but not the damage reduction
I honestly have issues with the way PGI depicted the Heavy Rifle and the Chemical Laser, they just made the another variety of Auto-Canon and Laser to hunt down with the Heavy Rifle now a light weight AC/20. The TT doesn't do rate of fire well, a simulator on the other hand; an AC/20 that's nearly half the weight, just a little more wait between shots, Clan tech is almost a side grade now. I understand PGI needed to sell their DLCs but that depiction of Rifles felt more like a fan mod akin to MekTek's RAC 20s.
Yes, quadrupling the barrel's thickness does let you fire higher quality shells.
Innovation!
Keep in mind that in real life; the AC/5 came first, followed by the AC/2, AC/10 and AC/20, then Ultra AC/5 and LB-10X, ect. If anything, your complaint is that CGL should have made the Heavy Rifle suck *more* when they created Primitive tech for the Time of War setting.
-
Keep in mind that in real life; the AC/5 came first, followed by the AC/2, AC/10 and AC/20, then Ultra AC/5 and LB-10X, ect. If anything, your complaint is that CGL should have made the Heavy Rifle suck *more* when they created Primitive tech for the Time of War setting.
Yes; or rather made auto cannons suck less. I was looking at the Icarus II yesterday and considered what a customization might look like...
Swapping the AC/10 for a PPC nets you 7 free tons between armor and heatsinks; this lets you put in 6 more heat sinks (if you want to stay heat neutral firing the Medium Lasers) and still a ton more armor...
You get a longer range, and while you have a shorter range gap (with only 2 MLas and Slas to cover it) you have the Improved Targeting (Short) quirk to compensate...
-
I am a fan of PPCs in general, (so dakka boyz of the ac)5 nafia hate me on principle) but a weapon system for another topic.
-
Until everyone's using standard armor the Heavy Rifle has the advantage over the AC/5 on a per turn basis.