Project Phoenix Mechs!

[rlbell]

Because the UAC is not a "jam" in the same way a RAC jam is.  In the UAC,  the specialized arming/firing mechanism in the weapon that allows the UAC to fire at the double rate seizes up and locks up the gun.  It's not a matter of a shell getting stuck than can be made to become unstuck.

That is why I steal a page from history and quote the problem experienced by the Bofors 40mm cannon (before the redesign).  The early version cycled so fast that the extractor/rammer would fail under the mechanical stress.  The UAC gets the same shots per ton of the comparable AC, but fires at twice the rate, so the UAC's extractor/rammer must cover the same distance in half of the time; therefore, it needs four times the acceleration as a standard AC extractor/rammer, so it experiences four times the force.  In bench test firings, the extractor/rammers last for hundreds of thousands of rounds, but, just as wheel bearing will last for a century on a lab bench and fail on a vehicle in a year, field conditions, particularly diffident maintenance, rapidly accelerate the failure of the part.

I believe that a lot of the grumbling about UAC's would not have happened if it was described as a mechanical problem.

[MadCapellan]

I believe that a lot of the grumbling about UAC's would not have happened if it was described as a mechanical problem.

No, I'm fairly certain most people's problem with the Ultra ACs is that the Ultra AC/5 deals more than 5 damage less than half the time, takes up more tonnage than a PPC, and is utterly unreliable.  In an era of double-heat sinks, it's a virtually unjustifiable weapon unless you allow that failure to be recovered in the field, and even then it's rather sub-optimal.

[bakija]

No, I'm fairly certain most people's problem with the Ultra ACs is that the Ultra AC/5 deals more than 5 damage less than half the time, takes up more tonnage than a PPC, and is utterly unreliable.  In an era of double-heat sinks, it's a virtually unjustifiable weapon unless you allow that failure to be recovered in the field, and even then it's rather sub-optimal.

A ) Yeah, what he said.

B ) I suspect that while the UAC5 is pretty much horrible for what it is, I can see an argument that the UAC20, say, is kind of absurdly powerful when it hits twice, such that the break down is not a completely unreasonable balancing factor. I mean, *I* don't think it is worth the risk (I'd much rather have the all around just better LBX AC20 and not have to risk the breakdown to make it worth using), but I can see, at least in a design sense, why the UAC10 and UAC20 are viewed as worth the breakdown. The problem, however, is that the UAC2 and UAC5 simply aren't powerful enough to justify the cost and risk. As noted, if they could be cleared like an RAC? They'd at least be reasonable. As it is, they just are not that good.

[ehlijen]

The UAC5 is fine compared to the AC5: it's got better range brackets and the option to try and deal double hits for still virtually no heat and it costs just 1 ton more to mount.

The problem, as noted, is that thanks to double heatsinks, any energy weapon will outclass any ballistic weapon any day of the week. I find that a rather unfortunate state of affairs as it simply makes choices for which weapon to pick less interesting.

LBX weapons get a pass because of the flak and crit seeking advantage. 20s and Gauss are not efficient, but people will take them because they can headcap or dismember lighter mechs in one shot. Even standard ACs at least have special ammo.

But Ultra ACs only exist because of vehicles. An UAC5 is a great gun on a tank that'd have to pay for more heatsinks (or possibly amplifiers) for PPCs. A tank can mount one PPC at normal weight if it has a fusion engine. An ERPPC costs 5 tons extra. A UAC5 has better ranges than a PPC and weighs far less than an ERPPC+5 heatsinks, while still possibly doing as much damage.

On a mech, the UACs below the 20 class don't do anything energy weapons can't do. So there is no incentive to take them if DHS are available. Energy weapons are just that good.

[MadCapellan]

I wouldn't go that far.  The Ultra AC/10 can be pretty sweet, and I generally prefer it on brawlers to the LB-10X.  The trouble with the UAC/5 and UAC/2 is that any benefit of using them is negated by the fear of losing the weapon from jamming.  10-20 damage is actually potentially worth the risk of losing the weapon for the rest of the game, albeit a small risk.  Not so an additional 2-5 damage.  The Ultra AC/5 would only be a good weapon if it never jammed.  As such, it actually makes a great field gun for infantry!  If you could clear it, it'd be a passable weapon.  As is, it's pretty terrible.

[Jim1701]

The problem with explanation is that too many people insist that it should be fixable in-game

Because there are so many experts in the field repair of 12 meter bipedal robots?   ???   :P

[Scotty]

I wouldn't go that far.  The Ultra AC/10 can be pretty sweet, and I generally prefer it on brawlers to the LB-10X.  The trouble with the UAC/5 and UAC/2 is that any benefit of using them is negated by the fear of losing the weapon from jamming.  10-20 damage is actually potentially worth the risk of losing the weapon for the rest of the game, albeit a small risk.  Not so an additional 2-5 damage.  The Ultra AC/5 would only be a good weapon if it never jammed.  As such, it actually makes a great field gun for infantry!  If you could clear it, it'd be a passable weapon.  As is, it's pretty terrible.

Well, honestly, the UAC/10 runs into the "Two PPCs does the exact same thing, but better" trap, especially in a world with double heatsinks.

What UACs do is generally make standard ACs even less competetive.  A UAC/5 is head and shoulders better than an AC/5.  More range, double the damage, double the (nonexistent) heat, for only one ton more?  And yet it's still an underpowered weapon!  It's more of a problem with the AC/5 being so completely and totally outclassed by everything than it is the UAC/5 actually being competetive that the increase in capability is so large.

[SCC]

Ultra's aren't made usable in Vees. -2's and -5's are still pretty much outperformed by LRM's in the damage per ton department, the -2's got some range but it isn't likely to effect things.
The -10 is ok, LRM's can't match it's two 10-point clusters, but they outrage it and get better damage per ton, but not by much

The -20 really shines, 40 points of damage for 15-tons, that's better then LRM's get, and the clustering is better and it's longer ranged then SRM's

[bakija]

The -20 really shines, 40 points of damage for 15-tons, that's better then LRM's get

The big flaws with the Ultras as a whole is that they are lumped together as a single weapon system, when the Ultra 2/5s and the Ultra 10/20s are vastly different weapons. If the Ultra 2 and Ultra 5 automatically hit with 2 shots every time they fired *and* had zero chance of ever jamming, they'd *still* only be sort of good. The Ultra 10 and Ultra 20, if they hit twice, are kind of devastating (especially the Ultra 20 which can kill a mech outright in a single double hit shot in a lot of instances), and the jam chance is a reasonable risk most of the time, especially given how often you fire the big ones relative to the small ones:

-An Ultra 20 with 4 tons of ammo (20 rounds), if you fire on double every time, isn't particularly likely to jam (1/36 of 10 shots).

-An Ultra 10 with 4 tons of ammo (40 rounds) gets closer to jamming, but still isn't certain with 20 shots.

-An Ultra 5 with 4 tons of ammo (80 rounds) will likely jam on 40 shots.

-An Ultra 2 with 4 tons of ammo (180 rounds?) will jam multiple times on 90 shots.

I mean, yeah, these numbers aren't particularly realistic for the 2 and the 5 (in terms of total ammo and number of shots), but where the big guns that are worth the risk of jamming (due to the strong payout if you hit twice), they also fire a lot less often due to shorter ranges and less need to fire them often--you fire an Ultra 20 on double shot 3 or 4 times? You are probably done firing. You fire an Ultra 10 on double multiple times? The game is probably done before the thing jams. The Ultra 2 and 5 need to fire a lot to be worth having, and the more you fire them, the more likely they are to break down. And given that their advantage is range and deep ammo bins, they are going to see them fire a lot at longer ranges in an attempt to maximize their use. So the ones that least need the break down rule to balance them out are the most likely to break down and the big ones, where the break down rule makes sense, balance wise, are a lot less likely to break down.

[Charlie Tango]

 [copper]

I think we should move back toward the topic.  We've drifted badly

[Rorke]

I think TRO PP is possibly one of the best TROs we've ever had for good design.

Asides the aesthetics of the new Marauder, and some of it's variants loadouts.  Though
that is just my opinion.

But the vast bulk of the book brings us some interesting and very viable designs, the
Warhammer 8 and 9D are firm personal favourites.  Both the Davion Riflemen also work
out well, even if one is sort of running contrary to CASE on everything preference.  Oh so
there's some pandering to the Zeitgeist a little.  But considering the era of publication, most
of that makes sense. 

[bakija]

So can anyone point to a non-PDF (i.e. an actual paper book) source of record sheets for the actual, base Project Phoenix mechs? I recently picked up the 3085 record sheets recently, but all the Project Phoenix mechs in there are weird variant versions, and not the ones in the Project Phoenix book. Do they exist in paper record sheet form anywhere?

Thanks!

[Martius]

Perhaps record Sheets 3039 has them? I know they are in the unabridged PDF.

[ThatPirateGuy]

I love the Rifleman 8D.

I play Kurita and this mech is my biggest out of faction cheat.

If I am hitting on an 8 or better I always fire 6 shots per gun as I can live with jamming on 4's as a 16.66% isn't too scary.

No guts, No Galaxy.

[MarauderD]

I'm a major fan of the Warhammer 8D as a heavy line mech. Also, I may fall into the minority but I love the Marauder 5R and 7D, both the aesthetics and the design. Lots of long range firepower.

I'll admit, when TRO 3145:FS came out, I was hoping to hear fluff that the Marauder was back in production at GM Kathil. A Marauder 5R with a Clan Sea Fox engine, is that too much to ask?!

[Youngblood]

So can anyone point to a non-PDF (i.e. an actual paper book) source of record sheets for the actual, base Project Phoenix mechs? I recently picked up the 3085 record sheets recently, but all the Project Phoenix mechs in there are weird variant versions, and not the ones in the Project Phoenix book. Do they exist in paper record sheet form anywhere?

Thanks!

The book you are referring to was a FanPro product, and the record sheet book you would be looking for is Record Sheets: 3067, which is not sold by Catalyst/BattleShop. Not the Catalyst PDF product called "Record Sheets: 3067 Unabridged", which doesn't have Project Phoenix 'Mechs in it at all. It has a Templar on the cover.  Good luck!

...

You actually want to pick up TRO 3085 to get the actual Project Phoenix "book" section that goes with the PDF you just got.  It's going to have different fiction though, almost like an eighteen-year "update" to the FanPro product.

[bakija]

You actually want to pick up TRO 3085 to get the actual Project Phoenix "book" section that goes with the PDF you just got.  It's going to have different fiction though, almost like an eighteen-year "update" to the FanPro product.

Ok. So the original Project Phoenix book is no longer in print, and the mechs that were in there have been absorbed into the 3085 TRO. But not necessarily the ones that were in the Project Phoenix book?

I picked up the 3085 record sheet (not-PDF) book thinking it had the Project Phoenix (older, apparently out of print FanPro? book) mechs. And it has later era variants of them (they all have nothing but MMLs and snub nose PPCs, basically).

[Youngblood]

Okay, did you just want the record sheets with only old-timey Star League/3025/space-robot-cripple-fights-with-two-Medium-Lasers technology, or were you okay with a few FASA Field Manual weapons like Rotary Autocannons and Heavy Gauss Rifles here or there?  I promise you, no MMLs or Plasma Rifles.  Even though they're awesome weapons that you should take the time to learn to use in Total Warfare.

[MarauderD]

Looked at my Pp PDF again this morning, those mechs continue to grow on me after all these years!

[bakija]

Okay, did you just want the record sheets with only old-timey Star League/3025/space-robot-cripple-fights-with-two-Medium-Lasers technology, or were you okay with a few FASA Field Manual weapons like Rotary Autocannons and Heavy Gauss Rifles here or there?  I promise you, no MMLs or Plasma Rifles.  Even though they're awesome weapons that you should take the time to learn to use in Total Warfare.

No, no. There is a book. It is called Project Phoenix. It is copyright 2003. It says Fanpro/Wizkids on the back. Inside of it, there are all the cool new versions of the old, unseen standards (Locust, Wasp, Griffin, etc.). The fluff is dated as 3067. The mechs presented within (see: the start of this thread) are excellent versions of these mechs that have the advantage of seeming like they were designed by people who play the game and were trying to design good versions of mechs, as opposed to seeming like they were designed by people who were pretending that they were futuristic mech designers building mechs with arbitrary constraints that aren't seen in the game (see: a whole lot of mechs during the history of the game, but I digress...).

In any case, the mechs in that book are all, for my money, very pleasing. The version of the Griffin, say, is the 6S, which has an ER PPC, LRM15+Artemis IV, 2xERML. And so on. What I'm looking for are the record sheets of these particular versions of these mechs (i.e. the ones in the Project Phoenix book), preferably not in PDF format. It is possible that the older, out of print (and surprisingly expensive) 3067 record sheet book has them. But if currently they are only available in PDF (maybe in the 3085 Unabridged record sheet PDF?), that's where I would have to get them.

(I realize that I could just make my own, but I'm curious. And I like having hard copy record sheet books).

[bakija]

And...I answered my own question by realizing I could probably dig around in the battletech wiki for answers.

Ok, so the original record sheets for the original Project Phoenix mechs were printed in hard copy in the (now out of print) Record Sheets: 3067 (as mentioned above).

Currently, they only seem to be available in PDF, but in numerous places (3085 unabridged Project Phoenix which has, like, 10 versions of each mech seems to be the main one). The only versions that seem to be in print on paper in a book are the versions in the 3085 record sheet book, but those are all different versions than are in the Project Phoenix original book.

[DarkISI]

The original TRO Project Phoenix variants are all included in the RS 3085 Unabridged Project Phoenix PDF. While there are the modern variants, the olds ones from the original TRO Project Phoenex are there, too. The TRO 3025 unseen versions are included in RS 3039 Unabridged, because they belong to that era.

The print version of RS 3085 has a lot less Record Sheets. It only includes the base variants from the TRO for the units, because making it any thicker, would mean that it had to get so expensive, nobody would/could buy it or that CGL would lose money on them by making them cheaper. That's simply not feasible, so the modern print versions are all relatively short, but the PDFs make more than up for that.

[bakija]

The original TRO Project Phoenix variants are all included in the RS 3085 Unabridged Project Phoenix PDF.

Yeah, the Unabridged Project Phoenix PDF turned out to be the plan. I mean, 'ya know, 'cause I'm a cranky old man, I vastly prefer a book to a PDF file, but better than nothing.

The print version of RS 3085 has a lot less Record Sheets. It only includes the base variants from the TRO for the units, because making it any thicker, would mean that it had to get so expensive, nobody would/could buy it or that CGL would lose money on them by making them cheaper. That's simply not feasible, so the modern print versions are all relatively short, but the PDFs make more than up for that.

Oh, sure. But I wonder why in the new 3085 TRO they went with the later era versions of the Project Phoenix mechs (i.e. the Griffin with the SNPPC and MML) as the "base variants", rather than the ones originally printed in the Project Phoenix book. But in any case, thanks for everyone helping me figure this out.

[Youngblood]

Yeah, the Unabridged Project Phoenix PDF turned out to be the plan. I mean, 'ya know, 'cause I'm a cranky old man, I vastly prefer a book to a PDF file, but better than nothing.

Oh, sure. But I wonder why in the new 3085 TRO they went with the later era versions of the Project Phoenix mechs (i.e. the Griffin with the SNPPC and MML) as the "base variants", rather than the ones originally printed in the Project Phoenix book. But in any case, thanks for everyone helping me figure this out.

Welshman had either a forum post or a blog post about why he did it that way, but I don't remember where it was.

[DarkISI]

Oh, sure. But I wonder why in the new 3085 TRO they went with the later era versions of the Project Phoenix mechs (i.e. the Griffin with the SNPPC and MML) as the "base variants", rather than the ones originally printed in the Project Phoenix book. But in any case, thanks for everyone helping me figure this out.

Simple answer: TRO 3085 is set in 3085, so the "base" variants of the TRO are current ones. :)

[bakija]

Simple answer: TRO 3085 is set in 3085, so the "base" variants of the TRO are current ones. :)

Oh, heh. Yeah, that makes sense. Fair enough.

[MarauderD]

After the Rifleman and the Shadow Hawk 5D, the 3085 variants packing the LAC seem like a serious step down to me. Maybe chalk that up to destroyed infrastructure and a limited supply of RACs?

[MadCapellan]

I'm pretty sure that was the intent.

[A. Lurker]

Rotary and light autocannons are weapons with wholly different mission profiles. RACs are a way to throw a lot of ammo at once at your enemy and hope enough damage sticks before the BFG jams and has to be cleared...again. LACs are (by autocannon standards) lightweight special ammo delivery systems.

Basically, one's a chainsaw, the other an épée. ;)

[MarauderD]

Not to get into the whole LAC discussion, but you can kill a man with a sharp Epee. You can't kill a barn unless its made out of cotton with a LAC.  :(