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

[Shin Ji]

So, as the Rules currently work, energy is pretty much the king of the battlefield.  At least, it is for Mechs and Vees with fusion engines.

Look at the traditional AC/20 Hunchback vs the all ML variant for an example.  Who would not trade 20 points of damage for 30?  And that's not factoring in the very real threat of an ammunition explosion, or the need to carefully manage ammuniton both tactically and strategically.

The AC/5 is an even more egregious issue.  Who in their right mind would take such a weapon?  On the base rules, it has literally nothing to offer.  Yet we see them on basically every other 3025 design.

I understand that BT is a game of take what you can get and make it work (or don't), and that this is even more prevelant in 3025 Mad Max era.  But I'm thinking there was a reason beyond corruption, ineffecincy, and stupidity that all those AC/5s got produced in the first place.

So I'm trying to put together a set of house rules that make the AC, LRM, and energy weapons more or less on a par with each other.  This allows us to run basically whatever canon mech you want without feeling gimped by the layout.  SRMs are unfortunately, unsalvagable as a mech weapon as far as I can tell, critseeking aside.  Infernos are a nice way to kill PBI at range, I suppose.

I'm using Megamek, so I begin by looking at the options to gimp energy at bit.  Ah!  -1 damage at long range, with a +1 at one hex range?  Sounds tasty.  Now for the powerups.

For LRMs, I allow indirect fire without spotters.  Now, this could be far too good in a lot of situations, so I'd still require a friendly unit in LOS to my target, but the lowered to hit numbers seem tasty.

For ACs, they get to act as Ultras with a +1 to hit, jamming only on a 2.  Maybe a bit much?  i'd say the risk of ammo explosions and the jams are more than enough to balance it out.  Now both Hunchbacks are totally viable options.  I also add a point of damage to the AC/2 and the AC/5, which makes the AC/5 compare nicely with the LRM 20.  Both are sending 12 points of damage downrange on average.  That reminds me, one final change is to make the Ultra ACs (and they're all Ultra now) roll twice to hit, rather thann treating them like an SRM 2.

I'm not at all sure how this will all hold up as tech improves over time, and particurlarly with the Clans, but the numbers look good for now.  What do y'all think?  Am I crazy?

[Death by Zeus]

I am not so sure about the whole AC doubletap thing, to have a weapon jam permanently on the battlefield totally negates any positives.  Rather it is the small ACs that are the problem, not the big boys.   So, have the AC2 and AC5 adhere to the LAC construction rules and the standard AC combat stats.  Let me make this clear;

The low heat for small ACs does......not......in...... any......way compensate for their weight. No CliffNotes needed.

As for your laser solution.  Minimal and unobtrusive. Perhaps better, -2 at long range and -1 at medium, full up damage at short range. 

I do not agree that SRMs are useless at all, leave them alone.  The only way to make SRMs obsolete is to make LRMs with no minimum range (  ::) looking at you Clan LRM 8) ). 

[mutantmagnet]

You're not crazy but your solutions aren't the ones I would consider.

[evilauthor]

The best solution that I've ever seen (ie, doesn't invalidate existing designs) is to take a Solaris 7 Rate of Fire rules and try to transpose them into the BT standard game. The lighter ACs get a higher rate of fire than their energy weapon counterparts, which ups their damage and makes them competitive.

Seriously, the AC/2 would be able to fire FOUR times in one BT turn, making it if not scary, at least useful for its tonnage. The AC/5 would be able to fire twice per turn compared to the PPC's once, making the two weapons directly comparable in terms of capability.

In vanilla play, missiles remain competitive with energy weapons precisely because of their crit seeking ability; they're simply better at it than their weight in energy weapons. LRMs also throw indirect fire capability in on top of that. The lighter ACs of course remained gimped, being far too heavy for the damage they do.

Okay, now I'm wondering what would have happened if instead of creating the LB-10X, the people at FASA had simply decided that Cluster ammo could be used by standard ACs. Would we still be poo-pooing the lighter standard ACs then?

[Shin Ji]

So far, there seems to be agreement that the higher barrel ACs are OK as is.

This is clearly false. 

An AC/20 is 14 tons.  With 3 tons of ammo, you're looking at 17 tons total.  And that plus movement just about uses up your initial 10 SHS you get for free with a fusion engine in 3025.

What else could you do with that tonnage? 

17 tons will get you 7 Medium lasers and 10 SHS.  For the small price of going slightly over on the heat scale you've nearly doubled your damage and you've eliminated any worries of ammo explosions.  You can operate deep behind enemy lines more or less indefinitely as long as you have the basic spares needed, and you can take every shot that presents itself every time.  12s to hit?  Why not?  Nothing to lose but heat.

Crits don't matter in 3025, so we'll ignore them.

All the AC 20 has to offer by comparison is the ability to concentrate all that damage in one spot.  But over the course of many fights, that just doesn't matter.  If the 20 points does not end your enemy's ability to make war upon you, it doesn't matter.

Also, if that AC/20 gets critted?  You're useless.  Might as well go home.  Same applies if you lose the location where you mounted it.

So yea, the AC/20 is a trap.  The math proves it.  I can't find the quote now, but i recall finding something in one of the Merc books saying that a savvy commander wouldn't sacrifice the punch provided by ammo-dependent weapons for the ease of use that energy weapons have.

So where's the punch?

I am not so sure about the whole AC doubletap thing, to have a weapon jam permanently on the battlefield totally negates any positives. 

The low heat for small ACs does......not......in...... any......way compensate for their weight. No CliffNotes needed.

As for your laser solution.  Minimal and unobtrusive. Perhaps better, -2 at long range and -1 at medium, full up damage at short range. 

I do not agree that SRMs are useless at all, leave them alone.  The only way to make SRMs obsolete is to make LRMs with no minimum range (  ::) looking at you Clan LRM 8) ). 

I agree that the lighter ACs present more of a problem, and that the heat doesn't even pretend to balance things.

I also agree that nerfing energy weapons further would be a good idea.

But I don't get why you like SRMs.  What can you do with them (in 3025) that a few Medium Lasers can't do better?  A SRM 2 is 2 tons with the ammo, and does 2 points of damage to one location on average for 2 heat.  Why?  A SRM 6 is 4 tons with ammo, and does 8 points to 4 locations on average, for the cost of 4 heat.  2 ML with 2 SHS give you 10 damage to two locations for the same overall heat.

In vanilla play, missiles remain competitive with energy weapons precisely because of their crit seeking ability; they're simply better at it than their weight in energy weapons. LRMs also throw indirect fire capability in on top of that.

You think so?  Let's compare.  3025 doesn't really have long range energy to speak of - only the PPC comes close.  1 LRM 20 is 10 tons plus 3 tons of ammo, so 13 total.  It generates 6 heat.  So you could mount two of them for 25 tons (one of the ammo bins can be shared and you'll still get 15 shots each) plus 2 tons of SHS.  27 tons total.

That will get you 2 PPCs, 10 SHS, and some leftovers.  Hrm.  You have a point.  LRMs are competitive in both total damage and critseeking.  Interesting!

[Death by Zeus]

SRMs are used because of the shotgun effect, hitting those four locations on average with a chance of threading that needle and getting a critical rather than just two locations.  SRMs are not about raw damage, if it is about raw damage then yes two ML and two HS would take precedence. For me this is the only reason to take SRMs.

[Wolflord]

Okay, now I'm wondering what would have happened if instead of creating the LB-10X, the people at FASA had simply decided that Cluster ammo could be used by standard ACs. Would we still be poo-pooing the lighter standard ACs then?

Probably not

If I was buying into the ACs need to be fixed agenda I would propose the following.
(1) why not consider cluster ammo to be just another special ammo type, (2) why not allow special ammo in UACs and RACs.

But to be honest I've always (from my first introduction to BTECH over 20 years ago) viewed non energy weapons in general and ACs in particular as either
(1) fills a niche capability - SRM crit seeking, AC20 big hits, LRMs range, MGs anti infantry;
or (2) inferior tech that the ravages of the succession wars have forced us to put on our mechs because we can't produce enough of the better energy weapons and even if we could we can't produce the double heat sinks to truly take advantage of the energy weapons { followed by - oh look here is the Helm Core - and - oh crap here are the clans}

[A. Lurker]

The primary advantage of highly concentrated damage is twofold. First, it can punch through armor more quickly than scattershot smaller clusters trying to get through everywhere at once -- granted, armor failure is likely to be more obviously catastrophic once the latter get there, but it'll also take them that much longer to open that first hole.

And second, it has a much better chance of actually taking out the location it hits with any given single shot. Which is a bonus because as fun as critseeking may be, it's ultimately dependent on the whim of the dice actually deciding to hand you some critical hits in the first place even if you're already nibbling on exposed structure -- but simply destroying a location outright is guaranteed to knock out whatever your target had there, no ifs, ands, or buts.

As far as "fixing" autocannons goes, if I really thought they badly needed it, my first go-to idea would likely still be to allow them to be fired indirectly, LRM fashion, simply using their own respective range bands. We call them "ballistic" weapons for a reason, right?

[Sabelkatten]

My solution.

It works, it's simple, it doesn't change any existing designs (other than a few getting oversinked).

[Wolflord]

As far as "fixing" autocannons goes, if I really thought they badly needed it, my first go-to idea would likely still be to allow them to be fired indirectly, LRM fashion, simply using their own respective range bands. We call them "ballistic" weapons for a reason, right?

I like this   O0

[majesticmoose]

I like this   O0

But isn't that what artillery cannons and mech mortars are? So to "fix" one class of weapon you invalidate another? (Directed more at A. Lurker). I'm not accusing the idea of being bad, just that it seems to have further consequences.

[Wolflord]

But isn't that what artillery cannons and mech mortars are? So to "fix" one class of weapon you invalidate another? (Directed more at A. Lurker). I'm not accusing the idea of being bad, just that it seems to have further consequences.

The ballistic arc for a mortar is quite different from that of a AC. For a given range the mortar should be able to clear a much higher obstacle/terrain than the AC.

[majesticmoose]

The ballistic arc for a mortar is quite different from that of a AC. For a given range the mortar should be able to clear a much higher obstacle/terrain than the AC.

that's not quite what I meant...

I mean there already are indirect fire ballistic weapons (Artillery cannons) and what I consider a indirect fire ballistic weapons (mech mortar).  so if you allow ACs to fire indirectly, they quickly outstrip those two classes of weapons based on range, and to a lesser extent versatility.  So to improve two weapons 6-7 are invalidated.  seems like a sloppy solution.  Not a bad one, but a cut your nose to spite your face kinda deal.

[A. Lurker]

But isn't that what artillery cannons and mech mortars are? So to "fix" one class of weapon you invalidate another? (Directed more at A. Lurker). I'm not accusing the idea of being bad, just that it seems to have further consequences.

I'm not invalidating either. Artillery cannons are area-effect weapons and 'Mech mortars have quite a different selection of ammo types from autocannons. So, they've both got more going for them than just indirect fire.

Even if the worst did happen, I'd rather have a working fix for the "standard" weapon first and then worry about any fallout towards strictly optional gear later.

[Wolflord]

Personally Artillery Cannon = snub nosed field artillery = idea that needs invalidating.

[majesticmoose]

Personally Artillery Cannon = snub nosed field artillery = idea that needs invalidating.

In your opinion. 

alternatively, Artillery cannon= alternative to LRM spam= Artillery concept more practically usable in a standard game then standard artillery.  Fewer complications.

[CloaknDagger]

Personally Artillery Cannon = snub nosed field artillery = idea that needs invalidating.

Why, what's wrong with it?

[evilauthor]

Artillery cannons do AOE damage out to conventional long range. That makes them the prime weapon for taking out infantry and lightly armored units. Or it would if they were Tournament Legal and weren't saddled with several play disadvantages.

Edit: Against heavily armored mechs, artillery cannons are little more than overweight LRMs unless the other side is stupid enough to cluster several units together in neighboring hexes.

[CloaknDagger]

Artillery cannons do AOE damage out to conventional long range. That makes them the prime weapon for taking out infantry and lightly armored units. Or it would if they were Tournament Legal and weren't saddled with several play disadvantages.

Edit: Against heavily armored mechs, artillery cannons are little more than overweight LRMs unless the other side is stupid enough to cluster several units together in neighboring hexes.

It could be interesting if combined with FASCAM or Thunder LRMs though. A hex of mines, seperated by 3 hexes until the next hex of mines.

Point cannon towards the middle of said groupings.

[Prince of Darkness]

It could be interesting if combined with FASCAM or Thunder LRMs though. A hex of mines, seperated by 3 hexes until the next hex of mines.

Point cannon towards the middle of said groupings.

I think that's actually another use for them.

Otherwise, this thread is the daily "Autocannons are underpowered!!!!" thread that pops up like clockwork that solves nothing about them, with few remembering what timeframe they were made in and for.

Besides, there is a certain Interstellar Operations PDF file that talked of "Improved" ACs along with the rules to tripod superheavies...

[CloaknDagger]

Besides, there is a certain Interstellar Operations PDF file that talked of "Improved" ACs along with the rules to tripod superheavies...

Where?

[evilauthor]

Here's an idea:

Take ancient, "antiquated" Rifles. Load them with cluster ammo which IIRC, do damage via explosive submunitions instead of via direct kinetic transfer. End result is that the -3 damage vs BAR-10 armor no longer applies, and the damage is now applied in 1 point clusters. Oh, and a -1 TN bonus to boot!

[mutantmagnet]

The primary advantage of highly concentrated damage is twofold. First, it can punch through armor more quickly than scattershot smaller clusters trying to get through everywhere at once -- granted, armor failure is likely to be more obviously catastrophic once the latter get there, but it'll also take them that much longer to open that first hole.

Concentrated damage isn't all it is cracked up to be. The swayback version of the hunchback vastly outperforms any mech with a single AC 20. The fitting efficiency of medium lasers is unparallelled. Sadly enough even SRM spam can outperform AC 20 firepower. The gap between the two is closer when ignoring the impact of infernos (otherwise it's just a blow out with single heatsink tech and back to being close with double sinks) but a gap still exists.

[CloaknDagger]

Concentrated damage isn't all it is cracked up to be. The swayback version of the hunchback vastly outperforms any mech with a single AC 20. The fitting efficiency of medium lasers is unparallelled. Sadly enough even SRM spam can outperform AC 20 firepower. The gap between the two is closer when ignoring the impact of infernos (otherwise it's just a blow out with single heatsink tech and back to being close with double sinks) but a gap still exists.

And then your opponent mixes the ML spam huchie with the AC20 spam hunchie and tears your force that can't punch to pieces.

[Shin Ji]

I think that's actually another use for them.

Otherwise, this thread is the daily "Autocannons are underpowered!!!!" thread that pops up like clockwork that solves nothing about them, with few remembering what timeframe they were made in and for.

Besides, there is a certain Interstellar Operations PDF file that talked of "Improved" ACs along with the rules to tripod superheavies...

Now who's not taking timeframe into account?  I'm talking about 3025 Level 1 tech here.  And why doesn't what I'm talking about solve anything?  Letting ACs double tap (only jamming on a 2) makes them somewhat better than an equivalent weight of energy weapons and their associated SHS.

AC/10s are 12 tons.  You'll want three tons of ammo if you're double tapping each round, so 15 tons total, generating 6 heat.

PPCs are 7 tons.  So two PPCs are 14 tons plus 10 tons of SHS = 24 tons total.  The PPCs have a longer range, though.

Large Lasers are 5 tons.  Two of them, plus the SHS would be 16 tons.  Somewhat less damage, but no worries about jamming or ammo explosions.

Look at the Blackjack.  Compare the AC/2 version with the Large Laser version.  Under the basic rules, only a fool would pick the AC/2 one, and that's even reflected in the fluff.  But under my system, they actually balance out rather nicely.  Either would be worth taking.

[CloaknDagger]

Now who's not taking timeframe into account?  I'm talking about 3025 Level 1 tech here.  And why doesn't what I'm talking about solve anything?  Letting ACs double tap (only jamming on a 2) makes them somewhat better than an equivalent weight of energy weapons and their associated SHS.

Autocannons already can double tap.

[majesticmoose]

Autocannons already can double tap.

Yep. Above the OP suggested treating AC double tapping as if they were ultras though. Only jamming on a 2 and such.

[Wolflord]

In your opinion. 

alternatively, Artillery cannon= alternative to LRM spam= Artillery concept more practically usable in a standard game then standard artillery.  Fewer complications.

Correct. In my opinion short ranged artillery is an oxymoron.

[monbvol]

And only solves the problem on custom designs and not that many existing designs.

Problem 1:  Unless you're suggesting a Streak effect there is over a 50% chance only one of the two shots land anyway leaving you in the same boat you were in before except now you're using up ammo faster.

Problem 2:  Unless also suggesting changing the number of shots per ton of ammo this still leaves existing designs such as the Clint, Enforcer, Urbanmech, Hermes II, Blackjack, Shadow Hawk, Wolverine, Rifleman, Jagermech, Cataphract, Marauder, Zeus, Banshee, and King Crab all with their single ton or sharing one ton of ammo between multiple guns dangerously short on ammunition.

[ialdabaoth]

Dead-simple solution:

Code: [Select]

Weapon Damage Heat Range Mass Size
Light Autocannon 5 2 (0-2) 3-8 / 9-16 / 17-24 6.00 2
Autocannon 10 3 (0-1) 2-6 / 7-12 / 13-18 8.00 4
Heavy Autocannon 15 5 (0-1) 2-6 / 7-12 / 13-18 12.00 6
Assault Autocannon 20 7 (0)   1-5 / 6-10 / 11-15 14.00 8