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

[A. Lurker]

No real world military that I know of would pass/purchase a weapon that jams as often as the UACs and RACs do, even if the RACs can be unjammed.

And yet quite a few automatic weapons actually used on the battlefields of the real life 20th century were less than stellar examples of reliability themselves, especially under less-than-optimal actual field conditions. (Early versions of the US Army's own M16 rifle come to mind.) So yes, it has happened. Usually these would eventually have their faults addressed or, failing that, be replaced by something better soon enough; but that's exactly the sort of gradual technological advancement that the BattleTech universe pays at best lip service to and usually just pretends doesn't happen, so that's where the analogy necessarily breaks down.

[monbvol]

I wish there were confirmable numbers for how bad the early M16s were but somehow I doubt they were as bad as 1 in 36 firings resulting in a jam bad.

[CloaknDagger]

I wish there were confirmable numbers for how bad the early M16s were but somehow I doubt they were as bad as 1 in 36 firings resulting in a jam bad.

IIRC: They skipped expensive barrel lining for something that turned out to be corrosive. 1 in 36 wouldn't be surprising. And, again, U/ACs aren't 1 in 36, they're 1 in 36 every 10 seconds at firing double the rate.

Fire an M16 at 1600 RPM, and I guarantee you'll see higher problem rates than a 50% chance of jam after 180 seconds of firing.

[Wolflord]

IIRC: They skipped expensive barrel lining for something that turned out to be corrosive. 1 in 36 wouldn't be surprising. And, again, U/ACs aren't 1 in 36, they're 1 in 36 every 10 seconds at firing double the rate.

Fire an M16 at 1600 RPM, and I guarantee you'll see higher problem rates than a 50% chance of jam after 180 seconds of firing.

Iirc they changed the powder to a cheaper style.

Cut corners and things stop working right, what a surprise.

[FedComGirl]

I'm guessing he means the effective lower to hit numbers at most distances due to the greater range of the ER-Medium Laser.  If so the wording could have been better.

Ah. Okay.

That thread actually has nothing confirming that Protomech ACs use the same specialty munitions as their Inner Sphere standard and light counterparts and checking the Errata thread itself does not confirm any change to this either.  Checking the transcript of the Battlechat in question would make one think it is possible so I may have to give ground once that has been entered into Errata officially.

The rules for Protomech ACs say they follow the same as Standard ACs. Standard AC/s can use alternative ammo. Since Protomech AC/s follow the same rules they can also. Herb also confirms that in that battlechat quote.

Considering it takes two pieces of equipment, one of which is not supported by Total Warfare, to negate the damage advantage of one piece of equipment that is supported by Total Warfare over one piece of equipment that is not supported by Total Warfare and on top of that the armor from Tactical Operations will occassionally explode and remove all remaining armor from that section I think I'll take my chances with the LRM cluster table roll.

Okay had to re-read that a few times. Even with out AMS and Reactive Armor and all the missiles hitting the odds are their damage will be spread out. An AC/s is going to be in on location. Sometimes its better to have one big hit than several smaller ones. Sometimes the reverse is also true but its harder to seek crits when the armor is still in place.

It's more about knowing how and when to risk it.  Too conservative and I've had too man fights where the reduction in firepower spelled my defeat.  Too aggressive and you can cause other problems.

Yep. It's a careful balancing act.

Vehicles tend to be problematic.  A Scorpion tank can either replace it's AC-5 with an LRM-10 and SRM-4 and be more threatening than the AC-5 armed one or once the Light PPC rolls around it can mount one of those for no less mass,thanks to how turret mounting works, and have the exact same damage profile at the exact same ranges.  To make either one less effective you have to mount mutually exclusive armors.

Missiles can be more threatening but only because you don't know how many will hit. It's still very possible that even with firing both launchers you'd still do less damage than the AC/5. The Light PPC though I can see being a good replacement for the AC/5. Of course you run a risk with Blue Shield and Reflective Armor but not having to worry about ammo helps.

AC-10s on combat vehicles are actually just good enough I can accept them until the LB-10X or Light Gauss Rifle rolls around but I'm still inclined to give the Large Laser a close look since that is 13.5 tons and most combat vehicles have more than one ton of ammunition for their AC-10 or mount them in a turret.

I'd be more inclined to use special ammo than swap to the large laser.

Way too heavy and without the specialty munitions the sheer reach isn't worth quite as much.

True but installations don't worry about weight so much. Neither do infantry.  And the range is nice if you can afford the weight.

[monbvol]

The rules for Protomech ACs say they follow the same as Standard ACs. Standard AC/s can use alternative ammo. Since Protomech AC/s follow the same rules they can also. Herb also confirms that in that battlechat quote.

I'll grant this one readily enough once the wording is cleared up.

Okay had to re-read that a few times. Even with out AMS and Reactive Armor and all the missiles hitting the odds are their damage will be spread out. An AC/s is going to be in on location. Sometimes its better to have one big hit than several smaller ones. Sometimes the reverse is also true but its harder to seek crits when the armor is still in place.

Missiles can be more threatening but only because you don't know how many will hit. It's still very possible that even with firing both launchers you'd still do less damage than the AC/5. The Light PPC though I can see being a good replacement for the AC/5. Of course you run a risk with Blue Shield and Reflective Armor but not having to worry about ammo helps.

Since LRMs deliver damage in clusters of 5 I feel pretty confident I can get the same damage grouping from an LRM-10 as I can from an AC-5 and while it is not a certainty that I'll get that much there is a chance I'll get that much or even more.  Sure it might be spread to all of two locations but that's a chance I'm willing to take.  AMS+Reactive Armor and Blue Shield+Reflective Armor are fine combinations and are why I do try to balance my force selection and approach for replacing ACs.

I'd be more inclined to use special ammo than swap to the large laser.

Okay I'll grant the AC-10 on non-Fusion and non-Fission powered units is not as much of an automatic replaced weapon if given the choice but there are still some considerations to be made about what I'm hoping to achieve and what era we're talking.

True but installations don't worry about weight so much. Neither do infantry.  And the range is nice if you can afford the weight.

Field Guns are a definite niche for ACs that I will admit I respect to a certain degree.  I've done evil things to my players with hidden Battle Armor.  Now imagine what I could do with a hidden AC-20 field gun.

Fixed positions I find artillery more useful by that point even with it's flight times.

[FedComGirl]

Since LRMs deliver damage in clusters of 5 I feel pretty confident I can get the same damage grouping from an LRM-10 as I can from an AC-5 and while it is not a certainty that I'll get that much there is a chance I'll get that much or even more.  Sure it might be spread to all of two locations but that's a chance I'm willing to take.  AMS+Reactive Armor and Blue Shield+Reflective Armor are fine combinations and are why I do try to balance my force selection and approach for replacing ACs.

That depends on if you get at least 5 missiles to hit. Sure you might get more or you could always get less. And then there's AMS and Reactive Armor. It's good you take them and Blue Shield and Reflective armor into account when building your force. Thing is AC's don't have to worry about them.

Okay I'll grant the AC-10 on non-Fusion and non-Fission powered units is not as much of an automatic replaced weapon if given the choice but there are still some considerations to be made about what I'm hoping to achieve and what era we're talking.

Sure. Ammo independence is always nice. But it isn't everything.

Field Guns are a definite niche for ACs that I will admit I respect to a certain degree.  I've done evil things to my players with hidden Battle Armor.  Now imagine what I could do with a hidden AC-20 field gun.

Fixed positions I find artillery more useful by that point even with it's flight times.

Yeah. Field guns can be a nasty surprise. :)

Artillery is nice.

[monbvol]

That depends on if you get at least 5 missiles to hit. Sure you might get more or you could always get less. And then there's AMS and Reactive Armor. It's good you take them and Blue Shield and Reflective armor into account when building your force. Thing is AC's don't have to worry about them.

ACs just have to worry instead about bringing the right types of ammo.

Sure. Ammo independence is always nice. But it isn't everything.

Being close enough in damage to be competitive against several unit types helps too without having to switch ammunition.

Yeah. Field guns can be a nasty surprise. :)

The more I think about it the more it makes sense this is where ACs are meant to be.  Sure the rules say one ton of ammo and done but that can still be a pretty nasty surprise.

Artillery is nice.

Indeed it is.  When I was in practice with it I managed to predict Liam's Ghost's movements well enough artillery was a darn fine tool.  These days it has been so long I'm certain I'd be a horrible failure with it but damn if it isn't still a fun thought.

[Gustav Kuriga]

And yet quite a few automatic weapons actually used on the battlefields of the real life 20th century were less than stellar examples of reliability themselves, especially under less-than-optimal actual field conditions. (Early versions of the US Army's own M16 rifle come to mind.) So yes, it has happened. Usually these would eventually have their faults addressed or, failing that, be replaced by something better soon enough; but that's exactly the sort of gradual technological advancement that the BattleTech universe pays at best lip service to and usually just pretends doesn't happen, so that's where the analogy necessarily breaks down.

<.< Look at the jamming rate of an M61 Vulcan in comparison to the m-16... honestly the RAC should be more reliable, not less.

[A. Lurker]

<.< Look at the jamming rate of an M61 Vulcan in comparison to the m-16... honestly the RAC should be more reliable, not less.

The RAC is perfectly reliable...in single shot mode, which in and of itself by all autocannon fluff already represents a rapid-fire burst. It's only when you push it beyond that that a chance to jam even pops up by the game rules.

Now granted, virtually nobody packs an RAC just to fire it one shot at a time all the time, but that's not inherently the weapon's fault, now is it? ;)

Sure, if BattleTech was real life, I'd expect the current breed of RACs to simply be the "first generation" to be eventually superseded by newer models that have their kinks worked out; but as I already said in my last post, that's just not how this universe works in general. Once a piece of gear has Official Game Stats (TM), that's what it's stuck with forevermore.

[HazMeat]

Realism be damned, I just think a special feature that randomly turns the weapon into a paperweight for the rest of the fight looks like the opposite of fun for me.  If I get the choice I'll just yank the AC for a big beam and/or some missiles, depending mostly on whether it's a 'mech or tank, but if for some reason I'm ever compelled to keep it an AC armament, at least the RAC offer pleasantly straitforward swaps; RAC/5 for dual LAC/5, and RAC/2 for AC/5.  If multiple bins are present, maybe special ammo can make some use of that.  All of the Ultras are at least as heavy as LB-X counterparts with similar range, the difference in bulk is not terribly likely to be a problem, and the UAC/20 can also swap out for a Gauss Rifle, if I'm allowed to stretch "Autocannon" juuust a wee bit.

For those who care about realism, what "facts" are specified in canon which might help in guessing what the round counts might look like?  Is one turn's fire an abstraction of deliberate fire, (maybe even a single attack) or full auto for the whole 10 seconds, or somewhere in between?  IF that's even specified rather than left abstracted, what sort of cyclic rate is typical for a BT autocannon?  How much does that vary from one model of, say, AC/5 to another model?  (I'm dimly aware that fluffed bore diameters vary dramatically, but bore diameter doesn't correlate closely at all with overall munition size and power unless design converges much, much more tightly than widely varying bore sizes imply.) 

[evilauthor]

IIRC: They skipped expensive barrel lining for something that turned out to be corrosive. 1 in 36 wouldn't be surprising. And, again, U/ACs aren't 1 in 36, they're 1 in 36 every 10 seconds at firing double the rate.

Fire an M16 at 1600 RPM, and I guarantee you'll see higher problem rates than a 50% chance of jam after 180 seconds of firing.

Given a standard infantry loadout of 210 rounds, an infantryman firing an M-16 at that rate will be out of ammo in 7.9 seconds. And that's BEFORE you factor in changing out the 30 round magazines as they empty.

Now, for the 50 cal Ma Deuce and other machine guns which are actually designed to support constant fire, you don't want to fire constantly because a) you're probably wasting ammo, and b) you're going to melt the barrel if you fire it too much. THIS would be the logical explanation for Ultra AC jams: you just melted the barrel into uselessness from firing too much too fast. Of course, infantry machine gunners are issued a spare barrel just so they can change them out when one starts getting too hot; mechs don't have that luxury.

Gatlings (which Rotary ACs are based on) get around the barrel overheating issue by using their multiple barrels one at a time. And even then you shouldn't be firing them non-stop.

For those who care about realism, what "facts" are specified in canon which might help in guessing what the round counts might look like?  Is one turn's fire an abstraction of deliberate fire, (maybe even a single attack) or full auto for the whole 10 seconds, or somewhere in between?  IF that's even specified rather than left abstracted, what sort of cyclic rate is typical for a BT autocannon?  How much does that vary from one model of, say, AC/5 to another model?  (I'm dimly aware that fluffed bore diameters vary dramatically, but bore diameter doesn't correlate closely at all with overall munition size and power unless design converges much, much more tightly than widely varying bore sizes imply.) 

Most depictions of AC fire aren't full auto for 10 seconds straight. ACs are depicted as firing in short, controlled bursts, especially in games that attempt to visually model mech combat.

[FedComGirl]

ACs just have to worry instead about bringing the right types of ammo.

Except they'll still do full damage even with standard ammo against those kinds of armors.

Being close enough in damage to be competitive against several unit types helps too without having to switch ammunition.

True. But it isn't just damage. There's also range, and heat to consider.

The more I think about it the more it makes sense this is where ACs are meant to be.  Sure the rules say one ton of ammo and done but that can still be a pretty nasty surprise.

 >:D I like field gun infantry.

Indeed it is.  When I was in practice with it I managed to predict Liam's Ghost's movements well enough artillery was a darn fine tool.  These days it has been so long I'm certain I'd be a horrible failure with it but damn if it isn't still a fun thought.

That's cool.  Yes it is.  >:D

snip

Sure, if BattleTech was real life, I'd expect the current breed of RACs to simply be the "first generation" to be eventually superseded by newer models that have their kinks worked out; but as I already said in my last post, that's just not how this universe works in general. Once a piece of gear has Official Game Stats (TM), that's what it's stuck with forevermore.

I wouldn't say that. Much of the equipment from Tactical Handbook has been changed and the rest is in legal limbo. So stats and rules can be changed.

Given a standard infantry loadout of 210 rounds, an infantryman firing an M-16 at that rate will be out of ammo in 7.9 seconds. And that's BEFORE you factor in changing out the 30 round magazines as they empty.

Now, for the 50 cal Ma Deuce and other machine guns which are actually designed to support constant fire, you don't want to fire constantly because a) you're probably wasting ammo, and b) you're going to melt the barrel if you fire it too much. THIS would be the logical explanation for Ultra AC jams: you just melted the barrel into uselessness from firing too much too fast. Of course, infantry machine gunners are issued a spare barrel just so they can change them out when one starts getting too hot; mechs don't have that luxury.

Gatlings (which Rotary ACs are based on) get around the barrel overheating issue by using their multiple barrels one at a time. And even then you shouldn't be firing them non-stop.

Most depictions of AC fire aren't full auto for 10 seconds straight. ACs are depicted as firing in short, controlled bursts, especially in games that attempt to visually model mech combat.

That's kind of what I thinking. Rapid Fire isn't so much as firing twice as fast but twice as long. I suppose some could be firing twice as fast but I'm not really sure how you'd force twice as much ammo through the gun. Then again I do remember an episode of Mythbusters where they tried to get an old revolver to rapid fire and eventually broke it. So I guess it'd depend on the individual gun and its loading system. Some melt the barrels and others jam the loading mechanism, or the recoil mechanism. Or whatever. But for the run of the mill AC it's just firing longer than it was meant to.  Even with the extra built in strength of the ultras and rotaries they could always fire faster than they could load and jam up the works or something.

[A. Lurker]

I wouldn't say that. Much of the equipment from Tactical Handbook has been changed and the rest is in legal limbo. So stats and rules can be changed.

That's functionally just errata, though. Not the same thing as actual in-universe development at all. For instance, TacOps tandem-charge SRMs work quite differently from their Tactical Handbook incarnation, but that doesn't give us two separate ammo types for the setting. Just the one whose rules interpretation has changed over time.

[FedComGirl]

That's functionally just errata, though. Not the same thing as actual in-universe development at all. For instance, TacOps tandem-charge SRMs work quite differently from their Tactical Handbook incarnation, but that doesn't give us two separate ammo types for the setting. Just the one whose rules interpretation has changed over time.

True but it does mean that the stats do change. I'll have to look at the Tandem-charge missiles again. I keep using the items from TacHandbook because they show a progression. Some are even supported by the fluff in TacOps as prototypes.

[Col Toda]

AC /5 in 3025 is just fine it uses less heat than a laser has large laser range and marries well with it . Has more shot per ton than a LRM and before the reintroduction of double HS you can fire a Large Laser an AC/5 and Run with very few extra heat sinks with weapons that have the same range brackets . Later they developed a Light AC /5 with the removal of a minimum range and the advent of special ammo types ; targeting computers ; Standard and light AC have a big niche.

[RebelRunner]

For me, ACs over energy is more of a cool-factor thing (heat management as well)- I despise energy weapons thematically, and far prefer mounting gigantic 75mm automatic cannons on my fusion-powered walking tanks.

[Bismarck]

in Dueling Rules, ACs can be fired frequently...

if you let ACs fire several times per turn, the ROF would start to stack damage done

furthermore, logically, recoil realistically would likely limit ACs to semi-auto-fire...

can you seriously imagine, a howitzer cannon, firing 600 RPM ?

if ACs were treated as semi-auto-cannons, then (from TRO 1945)

AC5 <----> light rifle <----> 75mm
AC10 <----> medium rifle <----> 100mm
AC20 <----> heavy rifle <----> 125mm

and ACs would get more ammo per ton, since they wouldn't be bursting, but firing single slug shots

modern MBTs w/ 120mm cannons get ~40 rounds per ton



if an AC/5 could be fired 4x per turn, then the weapon would be well worth while, for the higher effective ROF... chipping off 5points of armor, several times per turn, would be a worthy weapon

[ialdabaoth]

Try this then:

Light Machine Gun: RoF 3 (total damage: 3) - damage/ton: 6.00; ammo/ton: 300
Machine Gun: RoF 6 (total damage: 6) - damage/ton: 12.00; ammo/ton: 200
Heavy Machine Gun: RoF 6 (total damage: 12) - damage/ton 12.00; ammo/ton: 100

Light AC/2: RoF 4 (total damage: 8) - damage/ton: 2.00; ammo/ton: 100 - can only fire standard rounds
Light AC/5: RoF 3 (total damage: 15) - damage/ton: 3.00; ammo/ton: 40 - can only fire standard rounds

AC/2 - RoF 5 (total damage: 10) - damage/ton: 1.67; ammo/ton: 100 - can only fire standard rounds
AC/5 - RoF 4 (total damage: 20) - damage/ton: 2.50; ammo/ton: 40 - can only fire standard rounds
AC/10 - RoF 3 (total damage: 30) - damage/ton: 2.50; ammo/ton: 20 - can only fire standard rounds
AC/20 - RoF 2 (total damage: 40) - damage/ton: 2.85; ammo/ton: 10 - can only fire standard rounds

LB-2X - RoF 4 (total damage: 8) - damage/ton: 1.33; ammo/ton: 100 - can fire slug, cluster, AP, or Precision rounds
LB-5X - RoF 3 (total damage: 15) - damage/ton: 1.87; ammo/ton: 40 - can fire slug, cluster, AP, or Precision rounds
LB-10X: RoF 2 (total damage: 20) - damage/ton: 1.82; ammo/ton: 20 - can fire slug, cluster, AP, or Precision rounds
LB-20X: RoF 1 (total damage: 20) - damage/ton: 1.43; ammo/ton: 10 - can fire slug, cluster, AP, or Precision rounds

Ultra AC/2: RoF 8 (total damage: 16) - damage/ton: 2.28; ammo/ton: 100 - can only fire standard rounds
Ultra AC/5: RoF 6 (total damage: 30) - damage/ton: 3.33; ammo/ton: 40 - can only fire standard rounds
Ultra AC/10: RoF 4 (total damage: 40) - damage/ton: 3.08; ammo/ton: 20 - can only fire standard rounds
Ultra AC/20: RoF 3 (total damage: 60) - damage/ton: 4.00; ammo/ton: 10 - can only fire standard rounds

Rotary AC/2: RoF 12 (total damage: 24) - damage/ton: 3.00; ammo/ton: 100 - can only fire standard rounds
Rotary AC/5: RoF 8 (total damage: 40) - damage/ton: 4.00; ammo/ton: 40 - can only fire standard rounds

Compared to:
PPC - RoF 1 (total damage: 10) - damage/ton: 1.42
LLaser - RoF 1 (total damage: 8) - damage/ton: 1.60
MLaser - RoF 1 (total damage: 5) - damage/ton: 5.00
SLaser - RoF 1 (total damage: 3) - damage/ton: 6.00

If you go this route, it might be a good idea to adjust heat:

AC/2 - 0 heat
AC/5 - 1 heat
AC/10 - 3 heat
AC/20 - 6 heat

Ultra AC/2 - 1 heat
Ultra AC/5 - 2 heat
Ultra AC/10 - 4 heat
Ultra AC/20 - 8 heat

Rotary AC/2 - 1 heat
Rotary AC/5 - 2 heat

LB-2X - 0 heat
LB-5X - 1 heat
LB-10X - 2 heat
LB-20X - 4 heat

PPC - 10 heat
LLaser - 6 heat
MLaser - 3 heat
SLaser - 1 heat

[monbvol]

And how does this make the standard Clint better?  Or the 3R Marauder?  Or the Rifleman?

A big part of why I don't like rate of fire solutions for fixing ACs is it does nothing to address the limited ammunition issue that plagues most of the AC/LB-X/UAC carrying mechs and by the time you do address it sufficiently it goes too far the other way.

[FedComGirl]

And how does this make the standard Clint better?  Or the 3R Marauder?  Or the Rifleman?

A big part of why I don't like rate of fire solutions for fixing ACs is it does nothing to address the limited ammunition issue that plagues most of the AC/LB-X/UAC carrying mechs and by the time you do address it sufficiently it goes too far the other way.

I don't think you can really eliminate the ammo problems some units have. Not without removing something to add more ammo. That's the advantage energy weapons have at the cost of heat. Although, I suppose that since the vast majority of AC/s fire bursts there could be a setting for single shots to extend the ammo supply. Like an opposite to the Rapid Fire Rules. But the damage would be half that the AC normally does. For simplicity AC's firing 2 round bursts. If the burst rate is known though then the damage should be divided accordingly.

Alternatively, there could be ammos that reduce propellant or the round to double the number of shots available. One type reduces propellant and range and range by half but keeps the damage the same. The other reduces the round itself and damage by half but keeps the range.

[monbvol]

There is already caseless which increases the ammunition count per ton but with the woeful damage to tonnage ratio of ACs as they are now I can't say I'd be a fan of reducing it even further.

On the base Clint what can you really give up?  One of it's selling points to me is it has a 6/9/6 movement profile.  Give up armor?  It is already a little thin.  One or both of the medium lasers?  That will leave it desperately short on secondary fire power for when the ammo still runs dry or the AC-5 takes a critical hit.

The MAD-3R Marauder likewise is considered a little thin on armor for it's weight.  You could take out a heat sink but considering how hot it already runs I cannot say I'm a fan of that idea either.  It has no jump jets to give up.  One or both medium lasers again would leave it short on secondary and much needed close in firepower.  Going down to 3/5 is technically an option but not one I'd be a fan of.

The Rifleman is a lot easier.  I'd certainly trade one of the large lasers for more ammo, armor, and maybe some heat dissipation.

Ultimately though this just reinforces my belief that the only way to fix ACs is to alter their weight, critical slots, and range.

[FedComGirl]

There is already caseless which increases the ammunition count per ton but with the woeful damage to tonnage ratio of ACs as they are now I can't say I'd be a fan of reducing it even further.

Caseless doesn't reduce the damage though. It also changes the feed system so the AC can't use other ammo types.

On the base Clint what can you really give up?  One of it's selling points to me is it has a 6/9/6 movement profile.  Give up armor?  It is already a little thin.  One or both of the medium lasers?  That will leave it desperately short on secondary fire power for when the ammo still runs dry or the AC-5 takes a critical hit.

The MAD-3R Marauder likewise is considered a little thin on armor for it's weight.  You could take out a heat sink but considering how hot it already runs I cannot say I'm a fan of that idea either.  It has no jump jets to give up.  One or both medium lasers again would leave it short on secondary and much needed close in firepower.  Going down to 3/5 is technically an option but not one I'd be a fan of.

The Rifleman is a lot easier.  I'd certainly trade one of the large lasers for more ammo, armor, and maybe some heat dissipation.

I'd go with reduced speed in favor of more armor and ammo. There's ways to increase speed again if you really need it.

Ultimately though this just reinforces my belief that the only way to fix ACs is to alter their weight, critical slots, and range.

I'm still not convinced they need to be fixed. If you make them the same as everything else there there's no reason to use anything else. Doing so also means that lasers haven't improved any from when they were chemical powered. As they are they're good low tech weapons. Their draw back is that they require ammo. That's something you can't get around.

[guardiandashi]

re caseless doesn't it increase the ammo load by ~50%?

also I personally don't see why you couldn't allow caseless to stack with other ammo types
IE caseless std, caseless ap, caseless flack etc

[Bismarck]

from the previously published Solaris-Seven duel rules, i'd offer:

ROF:
-----
SmLsr = 4
MdLsr = 2
LgLsr = 1

PPCs (all) = 1

MGs (all) = 10... damage applied like LRMs, e.g. medium MG fired for full turn = 20damage, demanding roll on "20" column of missile hits, damage distributed in 5pt clusters


3025 weapons seem to quite closely obey the rubric or rule:  (Damage x Range) / (tons [+ammo] + Heat) ~= 10
accordingly, upping the range of the SmLsr to a "long 5" = 1-2/3-4/5, or straight six = 1-2/3-4/5-6...
and downing the heat of the LgLsr to 7 (7H,8D)...
would move them more onto comparable par w/ other weapons

something similar for MGs, upping ranges...

realistically, bigger guns would fire farther... AC20s > AC10s > AC5s > AC2s >> HMGs > MMGs > LMGs...


as a thought, seems the game makes 'Mechs somewhat slow to wield weapons massing more than ten tons...
if an AC/20 (AC/10) had a range of 18, but suffered some sort of "slow to turn" to-hit penalty of +2 (+1)...
then the effective range would be somewhat similar to a range of 9 (15)...

otherwise, an AC/20 w/ a range of 30 would be unbalancing-but-rather-realistic...
so maybe 'Mechs are made to be "unbalanced" when wielding the weapon, so as to keep the game balanced


hypothetically, you could claim all AC's had the same game ranges = 18, and all MGs = 6, which would be both balanced and realistic, at least a little

[Bismarck]

a (second) thought:
------------------------

for MGs fired on full-auto...

you roll to-hit normally, accounting any margin-of-failure (MoF) or margin-of-success (MoS)...

and you apply that MoF/S to the missile-to-hits table, appropriate to the ROF / rounds fired

e.g. MMG on full-auto = 10 ROF  ----> (LRM-)10 table

to-hit = need 9s, roll 7 = -2
missiles = roll 7... -2 = effective roll of 7-2=5
5 on (LRM-)10 table = 6 rounds hit

[FedComGirl]

re caseless doesn't it increase the ammo load by ~50%?

also I personally don't see why you couldn't allow caseless to stack with other ammo types
IE caseless std, caseless ap, caseless flack etc

Caseless doubles the amount of ammo.

You probably could if you wanted to develop them but the cost per ton would be a bunch. Caseless is 1.5 times as expensive as standard ammo. Flak is another 1.5 times increase in cost on top of that. Other ammos would also be more expensive.

 

snip

something similar for MGs, upping ranges...

realistically, bigger guns would fire farther... AC20s > AC10s > AC5s > AC2s >> HMGs > MMGs > LMGs...


as a thought, seems the game makes 'Mechs somewhat slow to wield weapons massing more than ten tons...
if an AC/20 (AC/10) had a range of 18, but suffered some sort of "slow to turn" to-hit penalty of +2 (+1)...
then the effective range would be somewhat similar to a range of 9 (15)...

otherwise, an AC/20 w/ a range of 30 would be unbalancing-but-rather-realistic...
so maybe 'Mechs are made to be "unbalanced" when wielding the weapon, so as to keep the game balanced


hypothetically, you could claim all AC's had the same game ranges = 18, and all MGs = 6, which would be both balanced and realistic, at least a little

The thing with AC's is that they're carrying and firing a lot more rounds per shot than similar size/class rifle cannons. To do that, somethings got to give. Yes, propellant has improved, but I don't believe its enough to send the same sized round just as far as a rifle cannon. If it does have the same range the round would have to be lighter, and/or firing fewer rounds, doing less damage.

[evilauthor]

3025 weapons seem to quite closely obey the rubric or rule:  (Damage x Range) / (tons [+ammo] + Heat) ~= 10

Sigh... the problem with this formula is many fold.

1) Some new tech don't appear to adhere to this formula (LB-10X anyone) and some should radically effect it. DHS era gear SHOULD take that Heat variable and cut it in half. Or double it. Hrm..

2) Speaking of heat sinks, the formula assumes a mech or other platform would be alpha striking constantly. However, a bracket fire set up saves tonnage by having a unit carry too distinct sets of weapons and sharing the heat sinks between them. One bracket is only fired continuously depending on range to target with alpha striking being used only rarely, which means you only need to carry enough sinks for one bracket. Low heat weapons are highly undesirable for bracket fire set ups because they eat up alot of tonnage without "sharing" much of it in the form of heat sinks. And of course mechs come with 10 free sinks...

3) It doesn't properly account for the limitations of ammo, namely you only have a limited number of shots and that it EXPLODES which can kill/cripple a mech. In contrast, overheating is a strictly temporary and recoverable phenomenon... unless said heat sets off the ammo.

4) The value of Range isn't strictly linear. Witness how many people say the MPL is bad because of its truncated range compared to the standard Medium Laser. And would anyone even carry MGs and and Small Pulse Lasers with their 1/2/3 range if they didn't get bonuses against infantry?

5) The same could be said for damage in that there seems to be certain "thresholds" that provide quantum leaps in usefulness. For example, 12 damage is the minimum needed to headcap in one shot and any extra damage is just gravy. Likewise, the AC/2 and AC/5 are considered to be weak precisely because due to their long range, they're grossly overweight for the damage they do. Too many enemies can't just charge through the fire of those light ACs and get close, in which case you'd have been better off with the AC's weight in lighter, shorter ranged weapons that collectively do much more damage.

[monbvol]

Then there is the combat vehicle ability of ignoring heat from ACs and missile weapons.

I'd love for there to be a reason to take an AC-5 in the perfect scenario but I can't find one.  The AC-2 I'll grant some grudging respect to for the range and how useful that has been for AA work but I still would love for it to go on a diet.  The AC-10 I can almost accept on ICE tanks but likewise needs a diet.  AC-20 also a bit too heavy for the damage but I admit I give this one the biggest break simply because until the new generation of high damage weapons comes along it does something no other weapon can.  LB-Xs, except the LB-2X since it is an even better AA weapon than the AC-2 with Flak ammo, and UACs actually get even more shafted by having to compete with Gauss weapons and DHS.  The RACs and LACs are a step in the right direction but take two back for every one forward in the bargain.

The perfect scenario:

I've got any unit with an AC.

I've got an obscene stack of c-bills so money is not an issue.

I've got a major favor you cashed in for time with the best mech techs and engineers available so there is as close to a zero chance of a refit failing as possible.

Since the only objective measure we have of how weapons perform are the table top rules and the data associated with them in Tech Manual I use that as my yardstick.

Battlevalue is an artificial metric designed to balance fights.  While I don't mind balanced fights I also do not believe in fair fights and no the two are not the same.  Also a higher battlevalue in theory means the mech is more likely to survive the fight and in better shape.  So achieving a lower battlevalue is not a desirable objective by my standards.

[CloaknDagger]

Then there is the combat vehicle ability of ignoring heat from ACs and missile weapons.

I'd love for there to be a reason to take an AC-5 in the perfect scenario but I can't find one.  The AC-2 I'll grant some grudging respect to for the range and how useful that has been for AA work but I still would love for it to go on a diet.  The AC-10 I can almost accept on ICE tanks but likewise needs a diet.  AC-20 also a bit too heavy for the damage but I admit I give this one the biggest break simply because until the new generation of high damage weapons comes along it does something no other weapon can.  LB-Xs, except the LB-2X since it is an even better AA weapon than the AC-2 with Flak ammo, and UACs actually get even more shafted by having to compete with Gauss weapons and DHS.  The RACs and LACs are a step in the right direction but take two back for every one forward in the bargain.

I said it before, and I'll say it again, the AC-5 is decent with alternate ammo types.

What other IS weapon hits to 18 range with only +2 to hit? While at the same time being able to do the same in the  AAA role?

And then can switch to doing 10 damage to infantry from 18 range?

And then can crit the crap out of anything with reflective armor?

And then just plain gets -1 to hit at night.

Does the AC5 do something other things can't do, and better? No. But what it does do is all of those things decently, an any idiot techs can install, repair, and rearm an AC5.

The same goes for the other ACs.