Even if you factor in heat sinks and necessary ammunition then at least for mechs energy weapons usually turn out to be no heavier than the equivalent ACs. For instance in 3025-play if you compare an AC10 with two tons of ammunition with a standard PPC you'll see that together with enough heat sinks to keep them heat neutral at the bottom line both weigh 17 tons. Even if we say that the higher range of the PPC is offset by the ACs lack of minimum range you still have to deal with the fact that the AC needs ammo that can a) run out and b) blow up. Furthermore the 10 SHS needed for the PPC have the flexibility to be used for other weapons (bracketing fire!) whereas the AC10 only contributes 3 SHS. The same also applies in later eras for instance with the LPPC vers. both the LAC5 and AC5, the UAC5 against he ERLL and so on. Throw in the free heat sinks from the engine and it gets even worse. As a consequence only few types really shine on their own (mostly class 20 ones and the LBX-AC10).
To use bracketing fire /you have to spend tonnage/crits on more weapons. That makes the energy weapons heavier and usable only part of the time. The AC/10 though keeps firing. The big advantage is that the PPC gets 10 tons free. The AC/10 only gets 3 tons. That's 7 tons is what allows you to be able to bracket fire.
The only area where ACs seem to have a tangible advantage are combat vehicles because these need no heat sinks for ballistic and missile weapons.
AC/s really shine on combat vehicle, and even more so on support vehicles. There are no free heat sinks on support engines so energy weapons really end up using up a lot of weight.
With the exception of special munitions all these rules are pure optional. And the reason they were introduced in Maximum Tech in the first place was because people wouldn't stop complaining about how inferior ACs were under standard rules. So hardly a convincing argument for ACs. Still I agree that some of the special munitions are kinda neat especially flak and precision ammo.
I don't see AC/s as inferior so while it's true the rules are optional, their existence does balance out some of energy weapons advantages, if they're used.
Considering the cost issue ACs aren't cheaper either. An AC10 costs 200,000 c-bills as does a PPC. A LBX10 vs. a ERPPC is 400,000 vs. 300,000. Factor in the cost for ammunition and the logistical tail and it becomes really ugly. Heat sinks with their costs of 2,000 (SHS) / 6,000 (SHS) arent that much of an issue either either. And lets not forget that a single unlucky crit into an ammo bin may cost you your entire mech.
It's still a factor. The PPC heat sinks cost 14,000-24,000 times as much as an AC/10 and a ton of ammo. While the costs of additional ammo will eventually cancel out that difference you don't have to pay that right away. True, ammo explosions are a bad thing but so is having your mech shut down do to heat. and unless your mech has a big engine, each heat sink hit will increase the chances of that happening.
As for the effect on infantry the issue of what they should to is irrelevant as long as the rules say otherwise. Unless of course if you implement house rules which is cool by me.
True. That's why I said they didn't have that advantage. :)
As i mentioned above if you are really cash strapped it is better to avoid ammunition carrying mechs. Even if AC2-ammo might be comparatively cheap replacing half your mech because of an ammo crit is not.
That's presuming you can afford all those extra heat sinks. That also presumes that you're going to lose your ammo to a critical hit. You can still lose your mech because it over heated do to lost heat sinks. Granted it'd take longer but it can still happen.
If you really want good AC's my advice is to break out the Rifle(Cannon)'s and ignore the reduced damage rule
O0
For ACs I always house ruled the damage up to 5, 5 up to 10 and 10 up to 15. Balance didn't seem to be a problem.
Interesting.