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

[Xotl]

This is an interesting problem because everyone approaches it from certain base ideas that lock in their possible approaches.  For example, a lot of people don't want to change the existing weapon weight and crits, so as not to invalidate existing designs.

I started out with the idea that "if it was 1984 and I was sitting down to make a set of weapons from the game from scratch, how would I do it?"  I didn't care at all about requiring a redesign of existing mechs (I rewrote all of TR 3025/3039 to accommodate the following).

Attached is what I use.  I decided that ballistic weapons simply kilo for kilo must be better than energy weapons, in all situations, since even if equal they would lose out due to ammo requirements and the risk of explosion.  So they are plain-old the better choice, if all you care about is damage-to-weight ratios.

Fixing the AC/5 meant that the AC/2 was impossible to make work without inventing wonky rules for it, and that was my personal no-go area.  So instead I added in a Light PPC to fill its ultra-long-range niche.  While I was at it, a Heavy PPC fit in as well.

The Medium Laser goes up to 2 crits, simply to help reduce the number you can spam (and to make the laser chart progress nicely in terms of crits).  I really tried for nice even progressions in terms of numbers - heat, crits, tonnage - for all weapons, with the idea of making things easy for a player to grasp and remember.

SRMs drop in ammo amounts in order to have the same payload as LRMs, and because I always felt SRMs had too much ammo, making it pointless to sweat over whether or not to take an extra ton with them like so many other weapons require.  However, they go up in range.  The missile chart I use also produces statistically higher damage for the "2" column than the rest of the results.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/t6ksbtwcpaf474jgictrk/Record-Sheet-Mech.docx?rlkey=n02xroecgxxzo4h9re0ujr7f2&dl=0

[FedComGirl]

Cool.

So what happened to units that used AC/2s in your rewrite?

[Xotl]

There was only like half a dozen canon units that used in, even taking into account variants.  I swapped them all for my Light PPCs.

[FedComGirl]

There was only like half a dozen canon units that used in, even taking into account variants.  I swapped them all for my Light PPCs.

That's cool but how did yo manage to do that on the Pike?  ???

[rocqueforte]

But the Rapid-Fire Mode from Tactical Operations jams on a to hit roll of 4 or under, and has a single round ammo explosion on a to hit roll of 2. Too high a failure rate for my liking

True but if there were no risk it's be standard operating procedure. And then there'd be no reason for Ultra Autocannons.

and

If you want to stick with fluff, and you're using my separate to hit roll for each shot suggestion, how about an Ultra only jams if the roll for both shots is a "2"? More consistent with fluff, but makes a jam *way* less likely :)

Maybe but some of the fluff was about how often Ultra's did jam.

Hmm, actually both of these are good points. Think I'll change my variant AC rules to "jams on a  'to-hit' roll of 4 or less for normal & LB-X ACs, and on a 'to-hit' roll of 2 for ultra ACs." Allowing all classes of AC to roll for unjamming as per rotary ACs stops jammed ACs from becoming just so much dead weight. Still would leave off the chance of a double tapping normal AC exploding the round it just fired on a 'to-hit' roll of 2 tho'.

{my integral ton of ammo per AC idea snipped}

Having more ammo is nice but I wouldn't go that way. The weapon's got to take at least one critical slot. Otherwise what's holding it on?  ??? I suppose I could see a free shot of ammo representing ammo in the feed mechanism between the AC and the ammo bin. Maybe another shot for what's already loaded in the gun. But only at the start of play. And there should be a way to detonate the ammo in the feed mechanism.

To answer your question, in the case of an AC/2 with 1 ton of integral ammo, the single critical slot it occupies is the whole box and dice - it's the gun, the ammo, the ammo feed etc etc. Hit that when the AC2 hasn't fired yet under the integral ammo rules, and your target better have CASE or they're going to have a really BAD day :).

That said, not a fan of integral ammo for ACs - I was just putting it out there as another idea for de-nerfing ACs.

Thanks for giving me some ideas to ponder FedComGirl - hoping to introduce #1 son to Battletech (3025 style of course!) later this year, and wanted to tweak the way ACs work to give him a bit more boom for the ClickyTech Swordsworn / House Davion forces he may end up fielding (going to be using "classic" Battletech rules and hex maps of course tho')

[Xotl]

That's cool but how did yo manage to do that on the Pike?  ???

Well, for vehicles, my AC/5 weighs less than the old AC/2, so it's a fairly simple swap.

[monbvol]

I have started thinking along similar lines about SRMs xotl.  I've really started thinking that all ammunition based weapons really should total the same 120 points of potential damage.  Except plasma rifles, they can stay at 10 shots per ton of ammo since they also generate heat on the target.  It may not be realistic but I think for game balance it is probably the way it should be.  Likewise I also thought a reasonable compromise would be to extend the range of SRMs because such a change would make banks of Medium Lasers more attractive then they already are in place of SRMs.

[FedComGirl]

Hmm, actually both of these are good points. Think I'll change my variant AC rules to "jams on a  'to-hit' roll of 4 or less for normal & LB-X ACs, and on a 'to-hit' roll of 2 for ultra ACs." Allowing all classes of AC to roll for unjamming as per rotary ACs stops jammed ACs from becoming just so much dead weight. Still would leave off the chance of a double tapping normal AC exploding the round it just fired on a 'to-hit' roll of 2 tho'.

Thanks. That sounds cool. Maybe still leave a chance of being stuck jammed until repaired? Otherwise why have why have rotaries?  Or you could go by the art and just give AC/s with multiple barrels a jam free quirk. That's something I've been toying with.

To answer your question, in the case of an AC/2 with 1 ton of integral ammo, the single critical slot it occupies is the whole box and dice - it's the gun, the ammo, the ammo feed etc etc. Hit that when the AC2 hasn't fired yet under the integral ammo rules, and your target better have CASE or they're going to have a really BAD day :).

Kind of like how small and medium scale weapons are handled in construction? Although I'm still not sure how they do ammo explosions. Is the weapon struck or the ammo?

That said, not a fan of integral ammo for ACs - I was just putting it out there as another idea for de-nerfing ACs.

That's cool.

Thanks for giving me some ideas to ponder FedComGirl - hoping to introduce #1 son to Battletech (3025 style of course!) later this year, and wanted to tweak the way ACs work to give him a bit more boom for the ClickyTech Swordsworn / House Davion forces he may end up fielding (going to be using "classic" Battletech rules and hex maps of course tho')

You're very welcome and I hope you and #1 son have a great time. :)

Well, for vehicles, my AC/5 weighs less than the old AC/2, so it's a fairly simple swap.

Oops! I missed that.  Silly me!

[FedComGirl]

monbvo,l Xotl you guys have lost me on the SRMs. They already have less ammo than LRMs.
LRMs have 120 missiles per ton.  SRMs 100 (SRM-6 being slightly nerfed). If SRMshad the same number of missiles as LRMs the amount of ammo for SRMs would go up. SRM-2 =60, SRM-4=30, SRM-6=20

The ammo per ton goes down if you go by 120 damage. SRM-2=30, SRM-4=15, SRM-6=10 but wouldn't that screw up fluff and infantry SRMs?

[evilauthor]

If I had to start over from 1984, I'd make the missiles big, heavy, one-shot weapons with no ability to reload. You could fire one missile from a rack, or everything at once. But once the missiles were used, that's it; no more missiles until you can get a reload from some external supply. This would give missile boats massive first strike capability, but no staying power unless the pilot was conservative with his ammo usage.

Energy weapons would still be hot running, be fairly long ranged but do anemic damage for their weight. This is to balance out that energy weapons need no ammo (and thus can keep shooting forever as long as you have a working engine) and don't explode when critted. The general idea is to have something you can shoot when you're otherwise out of ammo, but energy weapons won't be your main stay unless you're deliberately designing something that can function without ammo resupply.

Ballistic weapons would be the lightest, coolest running weapons but still do good damage (better than energy weapons) for their weight. These should be your default weapons when you have a ton or two left that needs to be used.

Mechs would come with CASE rules automatically, while the actual CASE when later introduced would use CASE II rules.

Alternatively, ballistic weapons weigh the same as their energy weapon counterparts. An AC/5 would weigh the same as a Light PPC, do the same damage, and use the same range brackets, but still generate 1 heat and use ammo. The mere fact that it uses limited and dangerously explosive ammo counterbalances the advantage of being so cool running in comparison.

[Xotl]

monbvol, Xotl you guys have lost me on the SRMs. They already have less ammo than LRMs.
LRMs have 120 missiles per ton.  SRMs 100 (SRM-6 being slightly nerfed). If SRMs had the same number of missiles as LRMs the amount of ammo for SRMs would go up. SRM-2 =60, SRM-4=30, SRM-6=20

The ammo per ton goes down if you go by 120 damage. SRM-2=30, SRM-4=15, SRM-6=10 but wouldn't that screw up fluff and infantry SRMs?

Sorry: I should have said damage per ton, not ammo per ton.  My changes bring both launcher types to 120 damage per ton of ammo.  SRMs also have too many shots per ton IMO, so adjusting the one adjusts both.

As for screwing up fluff and infantry, I simply didn't care.  The whole point of changes of this scale is that you understand that you're tossing certain things out the airlock.

[monbvol]

I know I said straight up damage per ton not missiles per ton.

Since Infantry use a different SRM(the only thing they share with their vehicular counterparts are the name and 10kg per missile aspects, everything else is quite clearly different) already and I have plenty of issues with how Infantry work in game I also have no trouble at all screwing up any fluff.

[FedComGirl]

If I had to start over from 1984, I'd make the missiles big, heavy, one-shot weapons with no ability to reload. You could fire one missile from a rack, or everything at once. But once the missiles were used, that's it; no more missiles until you can get a reload from some external supply. This would give missile boats massive first strike capability, but no staying power unless the pilot was conservative with his ammo usage.

snip

I'd do the same for missile, although there's some designs were I can see the possibility of a reload or two. I'd also have the missiles do a lot more damage.

CASE being automatic I'm kind of conflicted about. Maybe on a case by case basis.

Energy weapons would be the same but I think I'd have a greater degree of variation in them so there's more classes.

Sorry: I should have said damage per ton, not ammo per ton.  My changes bring both launcher types to 120 damage per ton of ammo.  SRMs also have too many shots per ton IMO, so adjusting the one adjusts both.

As for screwing up fluff and infantry, I simply didn't care.  The whole point of changes of this scale is that you understand that you're tossing certain things out the airlock.

No problem and that's cool.

I know I said straight up damage per ton not missiles per ton.

Since Infantry use a different SRM(the only thing they share with their vehicular counterparts are the name and 10kg per missile aspects, everything else is quite clearly different) already and I have plenty of issues with how Infantry work in game I also have no trouble at all screwing up any fluff.

When it comes to LRMs damage and missiles are per ton are the same.

There is text that says Infantry SRMs are exactly the same as Vehicle SRMs. And I agree infantry are screwed up.

[monbvol]

Reference?

[FedComGirl]

Mechwarrior 3rd Edition page 137.

[evilauthor]

Okay, so something I typed up for another post inspires this idea: rebalance all weapons with DHS in mind. Justify this using (insert in-universe handwave here).

Anyway, the original 3025 weapons were "balanced" by tonnage and damage, with lighter weapons (aka energy weapons) doing more damage for less tonnage using the greater number of heatsinks required to balance against heavier ballistic weapons that did the same damage.  For example, a PPC with all the heat sinks required to keep it heat neutral weighs 17 tons in total. The AC/10 which does the same damage as the PPC would also weigh 17 tons in total once heat sink tonnage (3 tons) and adequate ammo (2 tons) were factored in.

The proliferation of DHS changes all that. Almost every mech these days uses DHS. That means the PPC with required DHS is now 12 tons instead of 17, and the AC/10 is 15.5 tons. So in order to be properly balanced with the PPC again, the AC/20 needs to lose at least 3.5 tons somewhere. Or perhaps the PPC needs to be 3.5 tons heavier.

Note: Personally, I think the balance was broken even before the advent of DHS, simply because everything with a fusion engine came with 10 free heat sinks. DHS just made things WORSE. Anyway, back to the proposal...

So assuming no changes to actual performance characteristics (aka, damage, heat, range, and shots/ton-of-ammo), the rebalanced AC tonnages would be...

Lighter Ballistics
Weapon      Tonnage
AC/2           3
AC/5           4
AC/10          8.5
AC/20         12

Alternatively, instead of making the ACs lighter, you can make energy weapons HEAVIER. The following values are calculated simply by  adding half their heat values to their tonnage.

Heavier Energy Weapons
Weapon      Tonnage
Small Laser    1
Medium Laser   2.5
Large Laser    9
PPC           12 

Personally, I favor making lighter ACs as that can be justified in-universe by some revolutionary new technology. Justifying heavier energy weapons is more difficult; who in their right mind would use such things if the original, lighter weapons are still available?

[maxcarrion]

OK, I have posted this opinion before in another thread a while ago, but this post keeps coming up.

For this solution, I am assuming we do not want to massively change the rules or invalidate existing designs, we also can’t improve AC’s too much as this will in turn indirectly improve vehicles as they are more optimised for mounting ACs.  So, my aim, ensure there is always a reason to mount an AC (even if it is not the highest damage dealer) – as such my intent is to improve the versatility of ACs without just upping their damage
For this, I propose 3 changes
1 – ammo explosions do not transfer between locations, ever, anything mounting CASE receives no internal damage from ammo explosions (case funnels the explosion out through the armour and away from the structure), anything mounting CASE II does no pilot damage during ammo explosions – let’s stop ammo explosions being so destructive, there’s just no call for it :p
2 – special ammo, while energy weapons are causing more damage the ACs can now provide minor special effects – in a selectable way.  Ammo can now be selected by shot (e.g. a ton of AC20 could be 3 guided, 1 flak and 1 HE) and fired in any order.  All ACs can now fire any ammo type – except cluster which can only be fired by LBX
3 – change the ammo types, an LB20 firing precision at 5 shots a ton is a little overpowered just as an AC5 firing normal is underpowered – so – normal is now a training/militia round, not used by serious forces.  Serious forces use a mix of the below
-   Flak, remains the same
-   Caseless – double ammo per ton, -1 to jam probability, an AC that fires caseless only fires caseless (especially useful for ultra/RAC)
-   Guided -1 to hit at medium range, -2 at long range – can be tag guided or narc guided or can be movement tracking (cannot give bigger bonus to hit than TMM), no bonus against infantry or BA for any guidance – guidance type should be selected when loaded
-   “Wobblers” a round that interferes with Gyro’s & controls, anything (ASF, Mech, Vehicle) hit by a Wobbler has +1 to all PSRs until the start of the next shooting phase – additional wobblers do not stack (note, does not cause a PSR on its own)
-   HE – increased PSR damage (damage/2+1), +1 to confirm a crit (including mobility crit), half damage against armour, increased damage against buildings/woods
-   Cluster – as existing cluster except +2 on cluster role at medium range and +4 at short

I realise that, by these rules, if you can get LBX/Ultra they are now pretty straight upgrades to standard ACs but DHS are a pretty straight upgrade to SHS so meh.

[FedComGirl]

OK, I have posted this opinion before in another thread a while ago, but this post keeps coming up.

For this solution, I am assuming we do not want to massively change the rules or invalidate existing designs, we also can’t improve AC’s too much as this will in turn indirectly improve vehicles as they are more optimised for mounting ACs.  So, my aim, ensure there is always a reason to mount an AC (even if it is not the highest damage dealer) – as such my intent is to improve the versatility of ACs without just upping their damage
For this, I propose 3 changes
1 – ammo explosions do not transfer between locations, ever, anything mounting CASE receives no internal damage from ammo explosions (case funnels the explosion out through the armour and away from the structure), anything mounting CASE II does no pilot damage during ammo explosions – let’s stop ammo explosions being so destructive, there’s just no call for it :p

Makes sense.

2 – special ammo, while energy weapons are causing more damage the ACs can now provide minor special effects – in a selectable way.  Ammo can now be selected by shot (e.g. a ton of AC20 could be 3 guided, 1 flak and 1 HE) and fired in any order.  All ACs can now fire any ammo type – except cluster which can only be fired by LBX

There are rules for that but each type takes a critical slot. That way different rounds can be selected when you want them. Otherwise the order rounds are loaded is preset and can't change. It'd be like different rounds in a hand gun magically reordering themselves in the clip.

3 – change the ammo types, an LB20 firing precision at 5 shots a ton is a little overpowered just as an AC5 firing normal is underpowered – so – normal is now a training/militia round, not used by serious forces.  Serious forces use a mix of the below

Lost me there.

-   Flak, remains the same
-   Caseless – double ammo per ton, -1 to jam probability, an AC that fires caseless only fires caseless (especially useful for ultra/RAC)
-   Guided -1 to hit at medium range, -2 at long range – can be tag guided or narc guided or can be movement tracking (cannot give bigger bonus to hit than TMM), no bonus against infantry or BA for any guidance – guidance type should be selected when loaded
-   “Wobblers” a round that interferes with Gyro’s & controls, anything (ASF, Mech, Vehicle) hit by a Wobbler has +1 to all PSRs until the start of the next shooting phase – additional wobblers do not stack (note, does not cause a PSR on its own)
-   HE – increased PSR damage (damage/2+1), +1 to confirm a crit (including mobility crit), half damage against armour, increased damage against buildings/woods
-   Cluster – as existing cluster except +2 on cluster role at medium range and +4 at short

Um... ??? 

I realise that, by these rules, if you can get LBX/Ultra they are now pretty straight upgrades to standard ACs but DHS are a pretty straight upgrade to SHS so meh.

Ultras and LBX are already upgrades to standard Autocannons. They just focus on different aspects. One focuses on rapid firing and the other in a general overall improvement coupled with switchable ammo.

[maxcarrion]

The point really is to take the disadvantage away from speciality ammos so that it is viable to carry and use multiple ammo types for different situations - thereby increasing the tactical flexibility of the AC.  Problem is
1 - only standard and light AC can fire speciality rounds - this is where LBX 10 isn't a straight upgrade to an AC10, cause it can't fire precision rounds.
2 - ammo is in 1 ton lots, if you want to get a few flak rounds you either have to use an optional rule or dedicate a whole ton to it - if you have an AC2 you shouldn't need 3 tons of ammo to carry anti armour, anti air and anti infantry ammo - that's 135 rounds.  I wouldn't mind increasing the crit slots for multiple ammo types but that might take some retrofitting on canon models and I don't think it's worth the effort - easier to handwave and I don't think there's a noticable effect
3 - current ammo is balanced against either being comparative in power to standard (like flak or HE) or being an upgrade for post clan wars standard ACs (like precision ammo) - So I've aimed to restat different ammo somewhere between the 2 where the ammo is all an upgrade compared to standard but nothing is as overpowering as precision.  As the new "standard" is to fire the ideal choice of these ammo types this is a significant upgrade without increasing damage or reducing weight.

Just to be clear, precision is only overpowering being normal shots per ton fired from Ultra/LB ACs - in the current system the power of precision lets the standard and light AC compete without upgrading the more powerful AC.

Is that clearer?

[Orion]

If I had to start over from 1984, I'd make the missiles big, heavy, one-shot weapons with no ability to reload. You could fire one missile from a rack, or everything at once. But once the missiles were used, that's it; no more missiles until you can get a reload from some external supply. This would give missile boats massive first strike capability, but no staying power unless the pilot was conservative with his ammo usage.

My half-done rewrite assumes big missiles have always been the standard missile.  No reloading, and fire as many as the targeting system could handle, which varies a lot.  These are what are used in most mechs, tanks, and aerospace, while dropships and warships start at something closer to existing large land-to-air or cruise missiles and go up from there.  However, there are still a large number of small missiles out there.  They are primarily used against infantry and light vehicles, and are the basic RPG and bazooka type weapons.

Energy weapons would still be hot running, be fairly long ranged but do anemic damage for their weight. This is to balance out that energy weapons need no ammo (and thus can keep shooting forever as long as you have a working engine) and don't explode when critted. The general idea is to have something you can shoot when you're otherwise out of ammo, but energy weapons won't be your main stay unless you're deliberately designing something that can function without ammo resupply.

My lasers are light weight, use lots of power and therefore generate lots of heat, but don't do great damage.  However, I also rule that movement modifiers don't apply to them.  They are the premier AA weapon in my rewrite because of this.  They have no real max range, but damage does slowly degrade due to distance.  Anything with a fusion engine probably has a couple, and aerospace uses them in preference to anything else.

Energy Ballistic weapons would be the lightest, coolest running weapons but still do good damage (better than energy weapons) for their weight. These should be your default weapons when you have a ton or two left that needs to be used.

I've despised the idea that ballistic weapons cause heat from the moment it was first explained to me.  That all ballistic weapons now do zero heat was probably the first thing I changed.

[evilauthor]

My lasers are light weight, use lots of power and therefore generate lots of heat, but don't do great damage.  However, I also rule that movement modifiers don't apply to them.  They are the premier AA weapon in my rewrite because of this.  They have no real max range, but damage does slowly degrade due to distance.  Anything with a fusion engine probably has a couple, and aerospace uses them in preference to anything else.

OKay, the problem with making energy weapons lightweight AND hot running is that they become overpowered when improved cooling technology (aka DHS) gets introduced. It's what we see in canon BT; with the introduction of DHS, the lighter ACs went from "barely competitive" to "not competitive" at all. Because with DHS, the hot running energy weapon's effective tonnage goes down as you no longer require as many sinks (aka tonnage) to keep cool. And that's before you get into things like bracket fire set ups where weapons "share" heat sinks.

In canon BT, cool running weapons are balanced by being heavier. They behave as if part of their tonnage is dedicated heat sinks that only they can use. In actual mech design and play however, this cool running nature becomes a DISADVANTAGE because cool running weapons can't "share" their virtual heat sinks with other weapons like energy weapons can. This effectively wastes tonnage, a situation that's exacerbated by the free engine sinks that results in energy weapons not having to pay heat sink tonnage for the first 10 heat.

If given the choice between the canon AC/5 which generates 1 heat per shot, and "AC/5" which is 4 tons lighter but generates 5 heat per shot(think an ammo using LPPC), then the choice is a no brainer; take the 4 ton AC/5. Or better yet, take TWO of those 4 ton AC/5s. Heat Sinks are readily available for free and can be shared with other weapons.

So if you want to reboot things where ballistics remain competitive with energy weapons, you do NOT want to make the energy weapons very light and trust in heat alone to keep weapons balanced. Because experience shows that doesn't work. You need something else to properly balance energy weapons against everything else.

Oh, here's an idea I heard once: make all energy weapons explosive like Gauss Rifles. That alone would make for a huge balance shift away from energy weapons. One of the reasons flashbulb designs are so popular is because they have no components that can cause crippling or lethal explosions if they get hit. If energy weapons explode on being critted, that would no longer be true.

[FedComGirl]

The point really is to take the disadvantage away from speciality ammos so that it is viable to carry and use multiple ammo types for different situations - thereby increasing the tactical flexibility of the AC.  Problem is
1 - only standard and light AC can fire speciality rounds - this is where LBX 10 isn't a straight upgrade to an AC10, cause it can't fire precision rounds.

I think the Clan Improved Autocannons could use alternative ammos as well. I haven't read anything that says they couldn't and some alternative ammo would have been in use at that time.

2 - ammo is in 1 ton lots, if you want to get a few flak rounds you either have to use an optional rule or dedicate a whole ton to it - if you have an AC2 you shouldn't need 3 tons of ammo to carry anti armour, anti air and anti infantry ammo - that's 135 rounds.  I wouldn't mind increasing the crit slots for multiple ammo types but that might take some retrofitting on canon models and I don't think it's worth the effort - easier to handwave and I don't think there's a noticable effect

So instead of using an existing alternative rule and retrofitting older mechs you want to use various ammo types with you want a new rule that allows them to magically reload their magazines whenever the pilot/gunner wants to change ammos?  ???



3 - current ammo is balanced against either being comparative in power to standard (like flak or HE) or being an upgrade for post clan wars standard ACs (like precision ammo) - So I've aimed to restat different ammo somewhere between the 2 where the ammo is all an upgrade compared to standard but nothing is as overpowering as precision.  As the new "standard" is to fire the ideal choice of these ammo types this is a significant upgrade without increasing damage or reducing weight.

Your HE AC/2 Ammo doesn't change though. It'd still do 2 points of damage. The plus to Crits makes it seem like armor piercing not just a big boom.

Just to be clear, precision is only overpowering being normal shots per ton fired from Ultra/LB ACs - in the current system the power of precision lets the standard and light AC compete without upgrading the more powerful AC.

Is that clearer?

Ultras and LBX can't fire precision ammo so there wouldn't be an overpowering. It also doesn't allow autocannons to fire more rapidly safer or increase it's range. It becomes a choice. Accuracy, rate of fire, or range.

My half-done rewrite assumes big missiles have always been the standard missile.  No reloading, and fire as many as the targeting system could handle, which varies a lot.  These are what are used in most mechs, tanks, and aerospace, while dropships and warships start at something closer to existing large land-to-air or cruise missiles and go up from there.  However, there are still a large number of small missiles out there.  They are primarily used against infantry and light vehicles, and are the basic RPG and bazooka type weapons.

Does your rewrite allow mechs/vehicles to use infantry missiles?

My lasers are light weight, use lots of power and therefore generate lots of heat, but don't do great damage.  However, I also rule that movement modifiers don't apply to them.  They are the premier AA weapon in my rewrite because of this.  They have no real max range, but damage does slowly degrade due to distance.  Anything with a fusion engine probably has a couple, and aerospace uses them in preference to anything else.

So a small laser could fire a line of sight shot at a target 60 hexes away? How much damage would it do?

I've despised the idea that ballistic weapons cause heat from the moment it was first explained to me.  That all ballistic weapons now do zero heat was probably the first thing I changed.

When used heavily machine guns do need to have their barrels changed because the heat will effect them. That's why there were some water cooled machine guns. I've also read about cannons getting so hot in battle that they weren't safe to load. So I have no problem with ballistic weapons generating heat.

snip

Oh, here's an idea I heard once: make all energy weapons explosive like Gauss Rifles. That alone would make for a huge balance shift away from energy weapons. One of the reasons flashbulb designs are so popular is because they have no components that can cause crippling or lethal explosions if they get hit. If energy weapons explode on being critted, that would no longer be true.

That makes sense since they do have capacitors. You'd need to change how they work though because they don't store energy in canon.

An alternative could be that the lasers risk overheating and exploding/melting down when the mech/aerospace fighter is running hot. That or use coolant failures and possibly making them worse. Overloaded heat sinks blowing up would give the pilot a bad day.

[monbvol]

Mechwarrior 3rd Edition page 137.

Took me a while to track down a Mechwarrior 3ed to check the reference.  While the reference does indeed indicate it uses the same ammunition there are still four problems with it.

1.  It is Mechwarrior 3red.  It got a lot of things wrong frankly and it isn't terribly surprising to me that it makes such an obviously incorrect/contradictory with all other available information assertion.

2. Even in the days of the BMRr Infantry SRMs had less range and did less damage per missile then their vehicular counter parts.

3. Launchers(which are not talked about in the reference at all) are a totally separate piece of gear and can do a lot to explain the range differences in a BMRr or TW game but I'll admit I can't fathom how they'd change the damage.

4. New publications directly contradict the reference and since new beats old it is no longer the case.

Even Tech Manual's most damning entry talks about Infantry SRMs being so effective that it was a natural progression to put SRMs on Battlearmor and that both systems are the same in that you could describe a Ford Focus and a Ferrari 458 both as cars but both are clearly different cars with drastically different capabilities.

AToW Infantry SRMs have different ranges then their vehicular counterparts(converting to TW ranges if using that combat resolution method), do not do the same damage on a per missile basis(as an ordinance weapon you never get MoS/4 bonus damage so they will always calculate out to 1 TW/Tactical damage versus most TW units even with the best Armor Piercing warhead), and don't cost the same(non-infantry SRMs cost 270 cbills per missile while AToW indicates Infantry SRMs vary in cost depending on warhead with the most expensive being 400 cbills).

[FedComGirl]

Took me a while to track down a Mechwarrior 3ed to check the reference.  While the reference does indeed indicate it uses the same ammunition there are still four problems with it.

1.  It is Mechwarrior 3red.  It got a lot of things wrong frankly and it isn't terribly surprising to me that it makes such an obviously incorrect/contradictory with all other available information assertion.

I don't know about what might be wrong but as far as I can tell Mechwarrior 3red is the first appearance of that launcher. I also haven't read anything that contradicts that statement either.

2. Even in the days of the BMRr Infantry SRMs had less range and did less damage per missile then their vehicular counter parts.

True but there are more than one type of SRM.

3. Launchers(which are not talked about in the reference at all) are a totally separate piece of gear and can do a lot to explain the range differences in a BMRr or TW game but I'll admit I can't fathom how they'd change the damage.

From looking at the statement and the stats the missiles and the launcher each weigh 10kg for a total of 30kg. I also can't see why the launcher would effect the stats for the missile. Accuracy maybe but not total range or damage.

4. New publications directly contradict the reference and since new beats old it is no longer the case.

True but I don't remember reading anything that contradicts that reference either. From what I can tell though is that the most powerful ordnance in AToW would vary in damage from 5 points against BAR-2 to 1 point against BAR-10. But I will admit I might not be figuring it right. It also fails to explain the differences between the missiles.

I have also never been able to figure out why the much heavier Heavy SRM has the same range and damage in TW as the Light SRM which is 4 times smaller! And that's with the recent errata. It used to be less! One would think that the Light SRM would do the least damage, the SRM being in the middle and the Heavy SRM doing almost double that.   But even if that were do nothing explains why a 10 kg missile used by infantry is so different between 10kg missiles used by everything else.

Even Tech Manual's most damning entry talks about Infantry SRMs being so effective that it was a natural progression to put SRMs on Battlearmor and that both systems are the same in that you could describe a Ford Focus and a Ferrari 458 both as cars but both are clearly different cars with drastically different capabilities.

I think you're comparison is off a bit. You're looking at the total product and I'm looking at a part. A Ferrari would still be a Ferrari with a Ford Engine. There's many RPG weapon statements that say the only difference between Battle Armor and Infantry weapons are mounting brackets, cooling jackets, and ammo feed mechanisms. It's everything the battle armor needs to use the weapon on it's own is what makes it different.

AToW Infantry SRMs have different ranges then their vehicular counterparts(converting to TW ranges if using that combat resolution method), do not do the same damage on a per missile basis(as an ordinance weapon you never get MoS/4 bonus damage so they will always calculate out to 1 TW/Tactical damage versus most TW units even with the best Armor Piercing warhead), and don't cost the same(non-infantry SRMs cost 270 cbills per missile while AToW indicates Infantry SRMs vary in cost depending on warhead with the most expensive being 400 cbills).

Yes, but like I said above there's no explanation given for why the heaviest SRM doesn't out perform the SRM. Since the damage is the same the range should be nearly double that of the SRM. But it isn't.  Nor do I understand why the SRM isn't the same on every unit. They're all 10 kg in weight. Maybe if they were more primitive SRMs that'd make sense but then again, why wouldn't they be upgraded?

I understand they things between RPG and BG don't translate exactly and to me that just causes more problems. They're supposed to be the same universe but you can have drastically different results in combat do to the differences in damage. In one a single SRM would outright destroy a small vehicle. In the other a single missile might only damage it. I don't get that at all. I can understand differences in scale but the results should be the same. I also don't understand the MoS/4 bonus damage. Among a lot of other things in the RPG.

[monbvol]

I don't know about what might be wrong but as far as I can tell Mechwarrior 3red is the first appearance of that launcher. I also haven't read anything that contradicts that statement either.

BMRr may not have given the weight of the launcher or the ammo but it does pre-date MW3ed.

True but there are more than one type of SRM.

That's actually exactly my point.  There is more then one type of SRM even at BMRr/TW/Tech Manual scales with very notably different performances.

From looking at the statement and the stats the missiles and the launcher each weigh 10kg for a total of 30kg. I also can't see why the launcher would effect the stats for the missile. Accuracy maybe but not total range or damage.

True but I don't remember reading anything that contradicts that reference either. From what I can tell though is that the most powerful ordnance in AToW would vary in damage from 5 points against BAR-2 to 1 point against BAR-10. But I will admit I might not be figuring it right. It also fails to explain the differences between the missiles.

I have also never been able to figure out why the much heavier Heavy SRM has the same range and damage in TW as the Light SRM which is 4 times smaller! And that's with the recent errata. It used to be less! One would think that the Light SRM would do the least damage, the SRM being in the middle and the Heavy SRM doing almost double that.   But even if that were do nothing explains why a 10 kg missile used by infantry is so different between 10kg missiles used by everything else.



I think you're comparison is off a bit. You're looking at the total product and I'm looking at a part. A Ferrari would still be a Ferrari with a Ford Engine. There's many RPG weapon statements that say the only difference between Battle Armor and Infantry weapons are mounting brackets, cooling jackets, and ammo feed mechanisms. It's everything the battle armor needs to use the weapon on it's own is what makes it different.

Yes, but like I said above there's no explanation given for why the heaviest SRM doesn't out perform the SRM. Since the damage is the same the range should be nearly double that of the SRM. But it isn't.  Nor do I understand why the SRM isn't the same on every unit. They're all 10 kg in weight. Maybe if they were more primitive SRMs that'd make sense but then again, why wouldn't they be upgraded?

I understand they things between RPG and BG don't translate exactly and to me that just causes more problems. They're supposed to be the same universe but you can have drastically different results in combat do to the differences in damage. In one a single SRM would outright destroy a small vehicle. In the other a single missile might only damage it. I don't get that at all. I can understand differences in scale but the results should be the same. I also don't understand the MoS/4 bonus damage. Among a lot of other things in the RPG.

Since the days of BMRr Infantry SRMs have always done less damage and had less range then their vehicle scale counter parts.  This has been continued forward to TW/Tech Manual.  Infantry SRMs have always had 2/4/6 range and done damage in 1 point clusters since their introduction.  AToW even goes with this.

I will grant that I suspect the Heavy SRM Launcher for Infantry was supposed to get 2 missiles instead of the 1 it has now, the standard SRM ammo weight was supposed to be 18kg for 2 SRMs, and the Light was supposed to only have 1 instead of the two it has now.  So instead of the Heavy having an 18kg SRM it would have 2 9kg SRMs.  Standard instead of having 2 10kg SRMs would then have 2 9kg SRMs.  Then Light instead of having 2 4.5kg SRMs would have 1 9kg SRM.

Bottom line is there is plenty of evidence to say Infantry SRMs are related but use clearly different launchers and missiles in comparison to their vehicular counter parts and it has been that way since BMRr except for one mention in an RPG that isn't always reliable with the information it presents meshing up with the rest of the setting.

[FedComGirl]

BMRr may not have given the weight of the launcher or the ammo but it does pre-date MW3ed.

Could you give me a page reference please? I'm not finding it.

That's actually exactly my point.  There is more then one type of SRM even at BMRr/TW/Tech Manual scales with very notably different performances.

Yes but when an infantry SRM is said to be the same as a vehicle SRM it should be the same.

Since the days of BMRr Infantry SRMs have always done less damage and had less range then their vehicle scale counter parts.  This has been continued forward to TW/Tech Manual.  Infantry SRMs have always had 2/4/6 range and done damage in 1 point clusters since their introduction.  AToW even goes with this.

That would reflect the light SRM.

I will grant that I suspect the Heavy SRM Launcher for Infantry was supposed to get 2 missiles instead of the 1 it has now, the standard SRM ammo weight was supposed to be 18kg for 2 SRMs, and the Light was supposed to only have 1 instead of the two it has now.  So instead of the Heavy having an 18kg SRM it would have 2 9kg SRMs.  Standard instead of having 2 10kg SRMs would then have 2 9kg SRMs.  Then Light instead of having 2 4.5kg SRMs would have 1 9kg SRM.

That makes sense about the Heavy SRM but it also makes it identical to the Standard SRM. Why have a Standard SRM?

Bottom line is there is plenty of evidence to say Infantry SRMs are related but use clearly different launchers and missiles in comparison to their vehicular counter parts and it has been that way since BMRr except for one mention in an RPG that isn't always reliable with the information it presents meshing up with the rest of the setting.

True, there's lots to say there's differences in Infantry SRMs. But nothings been written to contradict MW3's statement that Standard SRMs are the same or to explain why a 10kg missile behaves differently depending on what fires it. All we have are game stats that don't make sense and two game rules (RPG + BG) that conflict with each other.

[monbvol]

Could you give me a page reference please? I'm not finding it.

Page 62 of BMRr shows that SRM Infantry have a range of 2/4/6 though it does seem I was wrong about it being 1 point Clusters in BMRr days it was 5 point clusters.  So like I said it doesn't show the weight of the launcher but it does show that the range is different.  I guess I've been playing Liam's Ghost too much who's been using 1 point damage clusters for Infantry because even TW has 2 point clusters.

Yes but when an infantry SRM is said to be the same as a vehicle SRM it should be the same.

But they are not the same, at least not anymore and it is possible to have something weight as much as something else that does a similar job but be either more or less efficient at it.

That would reflect the light SRM.

All Infantry SRMs(Light, Standard, and Heavy) have 2/4/6 range in Tech Manual/Total Warfare.  All do less damage in Tech Manual/Total Warfare.  Page 352 if you need a reference.

That makes sense about the Heavy SRM but it also makes it identical to the Standard SRM. Why have a Standard SRM?

I know the Heavy still needs some sort of adjusting beyond what I propose to distinguish it from the others but as it stands there is no reason to use the Heavy anyway at 0.57 damage per launcher using non-inferno rounds versus the Standard's 1.14 per launcher or the Light's 0.57 damage per launcher.

True, there's lots to say there's differences in Infantry SRMs. But nothings been written to contradict MW3's statement that Standard SRMs are the same or to explain why a 10kg missile behaves differently depending on what fires it. All we have are game stats that don't make sense and two game rules (RPG + BG) that conflict with each other.

When that statement in MW3ed was made there the best we had for construction rules was Citytech.  Mechwarrior 3rd Edition was first published in 1999 and the first usable Infantry construction rules we got were in Combat Operations in 2003.  Total Warfare and Tech Manual are obviously later then those.  So flat out Tech Manual and Total Warfare do say they have less range, less damage, and cost different.  To me that says that Infantry SRMs are different then vehicle SRMs.

[Orion]

Does your rewrite allow mechs/vehicles to use infantry missiles?

So a small laser could fire a line of sight shot at a target 60 hexes away? How much damage would it do?

When used heavily machine guns do need to have their barrels changed because the heat will effect them. That's why there were some water cooled machine guns. I've also read about cannons getting so hot in battle that they weren't safe to load. So I have no problem with ballistic weapons generating heat.

I don't really make a distinction between infantry, vehicular, and mech weapons.  An infantryman can lug around a .223 machine gun, it can be mounted on vehicle, or be put in a mech for anti-infantry work.  The base level of my rules would call it light MG, and all three get the same weight, range, and damage, and have few details.  The advanced rules could tweak it though, so maybe the mech version uses a longer barrel, uses a drum instead of belt-feed for ammo, or weighs a bit more to account for the mounting brackets and such.  And there would be 7 different models that differ a tiny bit, mostly just fluff.  They'd all use the same exact ammo though, and so the damage is the same.  So mechs could also have grenade launchers, or fire racks of rpgs, that are essentially the same as what the infantry use.  And the 88mm field gun, tank gun, and mech gun are all pretty much the same thing.  There would be good reasons why mechs use few weapons commonly used by infantry, but I wouldn't make that restriction within the rules.

As for the laser, I haven't gotten deep into the details on that yet.  The idea I'm currently going with is that the damage drops by one at certain ranges.  Probably something like every 1000m damage goes down one to model losing focus, but I haven't decided just how far I want that to be.  It may end up having no deterioration at mech scale ranges, just at aerospace range.  And I don't have s/m/l lasers, instead have them doing from 1-8 damage in the standard ones, and then much bigger in the ones mounted on dropships, warships, and planetary defense bunkers.  For advanced rules, maybe one deteriorates at 1050m because of slightly better focus, and another at 900m because of age or battle damage.  Others would differ by using +/- 5% power, or being 50kg lighter.

Cannon can get hot barrels, but I'd prefer a rule that a gave an increasing chance of problems happening for every round after the 5th (to pull a number out of the air) in a row it is fired.  After all, firing a field gun doesn't cause the temp in the immediate area to skyrocket like it is often described in the fiction.  And while it wouldn't surprise me to find out that a tank gets uncomfortable after firing 10 rounds quickly, it isn't going to make the crew fall unconscious or the ammo explode.  And if it doesn't work that way for a tank, I refuse to implement it that way for a mech.  The gun works the same, regardless of where it is at.  So they can provide heat, maybe even enough to warm the immediate surrounding, but I don't see them having a game effect.  That said, my rewrite would focus more on tracking power than heat, and the amount of power drawn from the engine is the primary determinant of heat.  It's not laser barrels getting hot or missile exhaust warming the exterior, but the fusion reactor working harder.

[idea weenie]

For SRMs, I'd like to see it where they are the same between infantry and Mech.  The difference is the launcher/launch platform.

On an infantryman, the ranges are 2/4/6
On Battlearmor, the ranges are 2/4/7
On ProtoMechs the ranges are 2/5/8
On a Battlemech (and larger platforms) the ranges are 3/6/9

For autocannons, I'd like to balance them using ammo, heat, and RoF.  This allows existing designers to still be used.  The bonus for cluster munitions (from LB-X) would be higher at short ranges, and go down at longer ranges.

Plus something like this.

[ialdabaoth]

(snipped tables)

I've received a few PMs requesting that I expand my earlier table to include Star League and Clan tech. Here's my whole vision (also, some errors corrected from the 3025 table):

Succession Wars
Weapon                    BTH Damage    Heat    RoF    S/ M/ L    Tons  Crits Ammo Tech
Flamer                     +0  2F+2H     3       1  (0)1/ 2/ 3    1.00   1    N/A  3025
Small Laser                +0  3         1       1  (1)2/ 4/ 6    0.50   1    N/A  3025
Medium Laser               +0  5         3       1  (1)3/ 6/ 9    1.00   1    N/A  3025
Large Laser                +0  8         6       1  (1)5/10/15    5.00   2    N/A  3025
PPC                        +0 10        10       1  (3)6/12/18    7.00   3    N/A  3025

Light Machine Gun          +0  1F        0       3  (0)3/ 6/ 9    0.50   1    250  3025
Machine Gun                +0  2F        0       2  (0)2/ 4/ 6    0.50   1    200  3025
Heavy Machine Gun          +0  3F        0       2  (0)3/ 6/ 9    1.00   1    150  3025

Light Autocannon           +0  5         1       1  (1)8/16/24    6.00   2     40  3025
Autocannon                 +0 10         3       1  (1)6/12/18    8.00   4     20  3025
Heavy Autocannon           +0 15         5       1  (1)5/10/15   12.00   6     10  3025
Assault Autocannon         +0 20         7       1  (1)4/ 8/12   14.00   8      5  3025

SRM-2                      +0 2/m        2       2m (1)3/ 6/ 9    1.00   1     48  3025
SRM-4                      +0 2/m        3       4m (1)3/ 6/ 9    2.00   1     24  3025
SRM-6                      +0 2/m        4       6m (1)3/ 6/ 9    3.00   2     16  3025
(Ammo Types: Napalm, Flechette)

LRM-5                      +0 1/m        3       5m (6)7/14/21    2.00   1     24  3025
LRM-10                     +0 1/m        4      10m (6)7/14/21    5.00   2     12  3025
LRM-15                     +0 1/m        5      15m (6)7/14/21    7.00   3      8  3025
LRM-20                     +0 1/m        6      20m (6)7/14/21   10.00   5      6  3025

Star League
Weapon                    BTH Damage    Heat    RoF    S/ M/ L    Tons  Crits Ammo Tech
Small Pulse Laser          -2  3         2       1  (0)2/ 4/ 6    1.00   1    N/A  2750
Medium Pulse Laser         -2  5         4       1  (1)3/ 6/ 9    2.00   1    N/A  2750
Large Pulse Laser          -2  8         7       1  (1)5/10/15    7.00   2    N/A  2750

ER Small Laser             +0  3         2       1  (1)3/ 6/ 9    0.50   1    N/A  3055
ER Medium Laser            +0  5         6       1  (1)5/10/15    1.00   1    N/A  3055
ER Large Laser             +0  8        12       1  (1)7/14/21    5.00   2    N/A  2750
ER PPC                     +0 10        20       1  (4)8/16/24    7.00   3    N/A  2750

Light PPC                  +0  5         5       1  (3)6/12/18    3.00   2    N/A  3055
Snub PPC                   +0 10        10       1  (1)5/10/15    6.00   2    N/A  2750
Heavy PPC                  +0 15        15       1  (3)6/12/18   10.00   4    N/A  3055

Light Ultra Autocannon     +0  5         2       2  (1)8/16/24    7.00   3     40  2750
Ultra Autocannon           +0 10         4       2  (1)6/12/18    9.00   5     20  2750
Heavy Ultra Autocannon     +0 15         6       2  (1)5/10/15   13.00   7     10  3055
Assault Ultra Autocannon   +0 20         8       2  (1)4/ 8/12   15.00   9      5  3055

Light Rotary Autocannon    +0  3         1       6  (1)6/12/18    8.00   3     60  3060
Rotary Autocannon          +0  5         2       6  (1)5/10/15   10.00   6     30  3060

Snub Light LB-X Cannon     +0  5         1       1  (1)6/12/18    4.00   1     40  3060
Snub LB-X Cannon           +0 10         2       1  (1)5/10/15    6.00   2     20  3060
(Ammo Types: Cluster, Precision, High Velocity, Armor Piercing, Flechette)

Light LB-X Cannon          +0  5         1       1  (1)8/16/24    5.00   2     40  3060
LB-X Cannon                +0 10         2       1  (1)6/12/18    7.00   4     20  2750
Heavy LB-X Cannon          +0 15         4       1  (1)5/10/15   11.00   6     10  2750
Assault LB-X Cannon        +0 20         6       1  (1)4/ 8/12   13.00   8      5  3060
(Ammo Types: Cluster, Precision, High Velocity, Armor Piercing, Flechette)

AP Gauss Rifle             +0  2F        1       1  (0)6/12/18    1.00   1     64  3060
Light Gauss Rifle          +0  8         5       1  (1)9/18/27   12.00   5     16  3055
Gauss Rifle                +0 16        10       1  (1)8/16/24   15.00   7      8  2075
Heavy Gauss Rifle          +0 24        15       1  (1)7/14/21   18.00   9      4  3060

Streak SRM-2               +0 2/m        2       2m (1)3/ 6/ 9    1.50   1     48  2750
Streak SRM-4               +0 2/m        3       4m (1)3/ 6/ 9    3.00   1     24  2750
Streak SRM-6               +0 2/m        4       6m (1)3/ 6/ 9    4.50   2     16  2750

RL-5                       +1 1/m        2       5m (3)5/10/15    0.50   1     OS  3055
RL-10                      +1 1/m        3       5m (3)5/10/15    1.00   1     OS  3055
RL-15                      +1 1/m        4       5m (3)5/10/15    1.50   2     OS  3055
RL-20                      +1 1/m        5       5m (3)5/10/15    2.00   2     OS  3055

Thunderbolt                +0 5/m        3       1m (4)6/12/18    3.00   2     12  3055
(Ammo Types: Beacon, Napalm, Armor Piercing, Area Saturation, ECM, Minefield)

Clan
Weapon                    BTH Damage    Heat    RoF    S/ M/ L    Tons  Crits Ammo Tech
Flamer                     +0  2F+2H     3       1  (0)1/ 2/ 3    0.50   1    N/A  3050C
ER Small Laser             +0  5         2       1  (1)3/ 6/ 9    0.50   1    N/A  3050C
ER Medium Laser            +0  7         6       1  (1)5/10/15    1.00   1    N/A  3050C
ER Large Laser             +0 10        12       1  (1)7/14/21    4.00   2    N/A  3050C
ER PPC                     +0 15        20       1  (4)8/16/24    6.00   3    N/A  3050C

Small Pulse Laser          -2  5         2       1  (0)2/ 4/ 6    1.00   1    N/A  3050C
Medium Pulse Laser         -2  7         4       1  (1)3/ 6/ 9    2.00   1    N/A  3050C
Large Pulse Laser          -2 10         7       1  (1)5/10/15    6.00   2    N/A  3050C

Heavy Small Laser          +0  6         3       1  (1)2/ 4/ 6    0.50   1    N/A  3060C
Heavy Medium Laser         +0 10         9       1  (1)3/ 6/ 9    1.00   2    N/A  3060C
Heavy Large Laser          +0 16        18       1  (1)5/10/15    4.00   3    N/A  3060C

Light Machine Gun          +0  1F        0       3  (0)3/ 6/ 9    0.25   1    250  3050C
Machine Gun                +0  2F        0       2  (0)2/ 4/ 6    0.25   1    200  3050C
Heavy Machine Gun          +0  3F        0       2  (0)3/ 6/ 9    0.50   1    150  3050C

Light Ultra Autocannon     +0  5         2       2  (1)8/16/24    5.00   3     40  3050C
Ultra Autocannon           +0 10         4       2  (1)6/12/18    7.00   5     20  3050C
Heavy Ultra Autocannon     +0 15         6       2  (1)5/10/15   10.00   7     10  3050C
Assault Ultra Autocannon   +0 20         8       2  (1)4/ 8/12   12.00   9      5  3050C

Light Rotary Autocannon    +0  3         1       6  (1)6/12/18    8.00   3     60  3060C
Rotary Autocannon          +0  5         2       6  (1)5/10/15   10.00   6     30  3060C

Snub Light LB-X Cannon     +0  5         1       1  (1)6/12/18    3.00   1     40  3060C
Snub LB-X Cannon           +0 10         2       1  (1)5/10/15    5.00   2     20  3060C
(Ammo Types: Cluster, Precision, High Velocity, Armor Piercing, Flechette)

Light LB-X Cannon          +0  5         1       1  (1)8/16/24    5.00   2     40  3050C
LB-X Cannon                +0 10         2       1  (1)6/12/18    7.00   4     20  3050C
Heavy LB-X Cannon          +0 15         4       1  (1)5/10/15   10.00   6     10  3050C
Assault LB-X Cannon        +0 20         6       1  (1)4/ 8/12   12.00   8      5  3050C
(Ammo Types: Cluster, Precision, High Velocity, Armor Piercing, Flechette)

Gauss Rifle                +0 16        10       1  (1)8/16/24   12.00   6      8  3050C

AP Railgun                 +0  3F        1       1  (0)6/12/18    1.00   1     40  3060C
Light Railgun              +0  5         2       4  (1)8/16/24    8.00   4     24  3060C
Railgun                    +0  5         2       6  (1)8/16/24   12.00   6     24  3060C
Heavy Railgun              +0  5         2       8  (1)8/16/24   16.00   8     24  3060C

SRM-2                      +0 2/m        2       2m (1)3/ 6/ 9    0.50   1     48  3050C
SRM-4                      +0 2/m        3       4m (1)3/ 6/ 9    1.00   1     24  3050C
SRM-6                      +0 2/m        4       6m (1)3/ 6/ 9    1.50   1     16  3050C
(Ammo Types: Napalm, Flechette)

LRM-5                      +0 1/m        3       5m (3)7/14/21    1.00   1     24  3050C
LRM-10                     +0 1/m        4      10m (3)7/14/21    2.00   2     12  3050C
LRM-15                     +0 1/m        5      15m (3)7/14/21    3.00   3      8  3050C
LRM-20                     +0 1/m        6      20m (3)7/14/21    4.00   4      6  3050C

Streak SRM-2               +0 2/m        2       2m (1)4/ 8/12    1.00   1     48  3050C
Streak SRM-4               +0 2/m        3       4m (1)4/ 8/12    2.00   1     24  3050C
Streak SRM-6               +0 2/m        4       6m (1)4/ 8/12    3.00   2     16  3050C

ATM-3                      +0 2/m        2       3m (1)5/10/15    2.00   1     24  3055C
ATM-6                      +0 2/m        3       6m (1)5/10/15    4.00   2     12  3055C
ATM-9                      +0 2/m        4       9m (1)5/10/15    6.00   3      8  3055C
ATM-12                     +0 2/m        5      12m (1)5/10/15    8.00   4      6  3055C
(Ammo Types: High Explosive, Extended Range, Armor Piercing, Area Saturation, Minefield)